Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
It's not an argument. It is a statement of fact. 1024×768 is a HD resolution, according to the CEA. You simply can't change that fact, no matter how many times you attempt to dispute it.
Amazon does much more for much less campaign
- Thread starter JS3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not an argument. It is a statement of fact. 1024×768 is a HD resolution, according to the CEA. You simply can't change that fact, no matter how many times you attempt to dispute it.
Repeating half of a definition doesn't make the other half go away.
By continually repeating yourself without recognizing that you're offering incomplete facts, you are, in fact, presenting an argument and not a statement of fact.
There are no displays with square pixels capable of displaying HD content with fewer than 1280 columns. It is mathematically impossible, even from the CEA's point of view.
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
Sorry, but you are wrong. Period. End of story. 1024x768 is considered high-definition.
Hey look, we've been joined by an official member of the grammar squad! I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the use of 'criteria' (in the context in which it was quoted) is perfectly acceptable in informal settings such as... uhhhh... a message board. Welcome to 2012. Nice try though.
And Apple didn't do the same thing when they compared the mini to the Nexus 7 at the launch...needlessly I might add and they omitted any fact that wasn't beneficial to Apple. It's called marketing folks, an attempt to make your product as interesting to as wide a buying public as possible. There is nothing wrong or desperate about what Amazon did. In fact it is smart, they are educating consumers in their favor.
As for all you ecosystem junkies, you just do not get it do you? People who buy the Kindle Fire are generally not into the ecosystem, the apps they buy are largely games (direct from Amazons presentation) and they want a media consuming device, something they can read books on, watch TV and Movies, see magazines and shop..in the case of the Kindle Fire from Amazon. In that sense, the Kindle Fire with Amazon Prime blows the mini out of the water on all fronts.
Amazon knows the target market for their products, and they are marketing to them brilliantly. Apple owners are NOT the target, it is Apple wanna be owners who do not know really any better and think Apple is the only thing on the market that will do what they want.
Only in your twisted, little head. You've not once posted any citation to this supposed fact of yours.
The official CEA definition is 720 lines of video in a 16:9 aspect ratio.
1024x768 with square pixels does not qualify. Period. The only 1024x768 hardware that is compliant in the CEA (i.e., manufacturer's association) is for the rectangular cells used in plasma televisions, which were addressed in an XGA grid but physically fit a 16:9 display. With the correct aspect ratio and an adequate number of lines, they qualify. A computer monitor at 1024x768 or a tablet at 1024x768 never has and never will qualify as an HD display. Even the manufacturers don't think you're right.
Here's the formal, technical standard, ITU BT.709. Says you're wrong.
Here's the ATSC broadcast standard used in North America. Says you're wrong.
Then of course there's simple math. If the purpose of an HD display is to show 720p content or better without any downscaling at all, then you need at least 1280 pixels across and 720 pixels down. The iPad mini can't do that.
Then there's your definition, which comes from...*crickets*
Oh joy. More fabricated facts to cover sloppiness!
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video
"High-definition video is video of higher resolution than is standard. While there is no specific meaning for high-definition, generally any video image with more than 480 vertical lines (North America) or 570 lines (Europe) is considered high-definition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television
High-definition display resolutions
"1024x768 - 4:3 aspect ratio"
Any questions?
----------
Your post has been reported. I hope you enjoyed your time here.
See ya later, bud!
----------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criterion
"The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century. <let me now return to the third criteria R. M. Nixon> <that really is the criteria Bert Lance>. Many of our examples, like the two foregoing, are taken from speech. But singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda."
Only thing worse than correcting grammar on a message board is trying to correct grammar and failing miserably.
Wikipedia is not a citation to anything. Or are you under the impression that Wikipedia and all of its editors speak for CEA, on top of everything else? You keep harping on the "CEA definition" but haven't, it seems, bothered to look any actual definition up.
You can keep moving the goalposts as long as you like, and (incompletely!) quoting Wikipedia as much as you like. The iPad mini isn't 720p as you originally claimed, and it's not HD by any actual definition, much less CEA's, despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.
Uh, yeah, okay.
Sigh. Definitions aren't your strong suit. Note the caveat that the usage example is taken from speech (i.e., ad hoc language use where ungrammatical phrases regularly occur) and the final conclusion that indicates that your usage is not currently accepted as grammatical.
It's the last I'll say on it because it's really neither here nor there, except as an illustration that you keep harping on this definition that you seem to think exists--only it doesn't. You started trying to correct a technical definition with a half-baked truth. At least you're consistent.
You conveniently left out the next line.
Also from your very same Wikipedia article:
High definition video (prerecorded and broadcast) is defined threefold, by:
The number of lines in the vertical display resolution. High-definition television (HDTV) resolution is 1,080 or 720 lines. In contrast, regular digital television (DTV) is 480 lines (upon which NTSC is based, 480 visible scanlines out of 525) or 576 lines (upon which PAL/SECAM are based, 576 visible scanlines out of 625).
HD is very clearly shown to be ONLY 1280x720 and 1920x1080.
BTW you still haven't acknowledged that this post is incorrect:
The iPad mini cannot display 720p, thus it does not display HD media - according to your own "sources."
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
Google is your friend. Look up the word "generally". Go ahead and do that, then get back to us. And you might want to actually read what you quoted. It supports what I've been saying.
"The number of lines in the vertical display resolution. High-definition television (HDTV) resolution is 1,080 or 720 lines."
The mini has 768 vertical lines, which is greater than 720. Get it yet?
----------
Apparently, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Read the following sentences again:
"Many of our examples, like the two foregoing, are taken from speech. But singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing."
Read them over and over, as many times as you need to in order to fully understand. I'll be patient with you.
And it's only the "last you'll say on it" because you know you are wrong. You tried to be be a grammar goon, but failed miserably. You are too embarrassed to reply further. You have been boxed in and have nowhere to go.
----------
You've already been supplied with links. I suggest you review them.
1024x768( with a 4:3 aspect ratio) listed as HD display resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television)
Any video image with greater than 720 lines of vertical resolution considered HD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video)
Any questions?
Last edited:
It does not.
You've been given two technical standards that refute your flatly wrong argument. The Wikipedia articles you post and selectively quote from mention multiple times EACH that content must be 16:9.
There has never been a product with square pixels at 1024x768 that any manufacturer would even be so stupid as to market as high definition. 1024x768 at 4:3 is not HD. You've posted no less than seven times now and yet have never once provided a shred of evidence. There's nothing for you to gain from arguing this point. There's only one inescapable conclusion at this point as to your behavior.
Bait all you like. I'm not biting.
Where's the link to this mythical CEA definition? *Crickets*
Where's the link to an official source of any kind claiming a regular old XGA laptop is HD? *Crickets*
Where's the link to any primary source? *Crickets*
Here's the full quote that we are talking about. The statements are clearly vague and contradictory, yet you went through the trouble to selectively quote in support of your own argument.
---------------------------------
Your own source(!) is telling you that 720p is 1280x720, which is physically impossible to play 1:1 on the iPad mini.
Are you deliberately being obtuse, do you genuinely not read your own sources, or is it something else? Is there some mythical 1024x720 video standard that is also known as "720p" that I've been missing out on all this time?
Clearly.
Editing your post to recycle old Wiki links still isn't supporting your mad position.
You are providing terms that are necessary but not sufficient. No one is arguing that 768 is less than 720. The issue is that HD video content is all 16:9 or wider. You cannot rent, buy, or stream any "HD" content from Amazon, YouTube, iTunes, broadcast television, cable, Hulu, Blu-ray, Vimeo, or anywhere else that does not conform to the ITU and/or ATSC standards for HD video. Those standards specify that HD video is 720 lines or more, 16:9 or wider, 24fps or higher. That content cannot be played in high definition on the iPad mini, because its lowest resolution of 1280x720 scales to 576 lines on the iPad mini. 576 is less than 720. It cannot natively display any HD content without either cropping or scaling.
Note the comment in your own source about rectangular pixels for 1024x768, or the repeated mentions of the 16:9 format agreed upon by all vendors. iPad 3/4, no problem. MacBooks, no problem. 1024x768 plasma or LCD 16:9 widescreen televisions, no problem. XGA laptop from 1998, not HD. iPhone 5 and iPad 2/mini...not HD. Period.
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
So now we've entered fantasy land. Nice cop out. The links clearly and indisputably prove 1024x768 is HD resolution and that the mini is capable of playing HD content. End of discussion.
Of course you won't bite (again)... because I've already pulled out all your teeth. You were proven wrong, so you decided to back off. Smart move, to be honest. Oh wait, let me guess... merriam-webster is incorrect? Is that your next argument?
Like I said, acting like the grammar police on a message board is bad enough. It's so much worse when your attempt gets thoroughly rejected and proven wrong. Must sting pretty bad, huh? Hopefully it will be a lesson to you and you don't resort to such juvenile behavior in the future.
----------
Nice blatant lie.
That is not the "full quote". You included 1 more (irrelevant) sentence, yet omitted the remainder of the paragraph.
And I must say that I find it quite odd that you and your chum post at the exact same time, only seconds apart. What a "coincidence".
It's also quite the coincidence that most of my posts have several up votes, yet neither of yours (assuming you are two different posters, which I'm starting to doubt) have a single up vote.
Let me know when you find those primary sources.
Lynn Belvedere
macrumors regular
1024x768( with a 4:3 aspect ratio) listed as HD display resolution
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television)
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never never said anything in regards to 1024x768 being a HD display resolution. Everything I have said in this thread relates to 720p as a media format.
The bottom line is that 720p is 1280x720 (which is supported by your own sources) and that a 1024x768 screen cannot display 720p without scaling or cropping.
------------
You can't see how that one line, which directly contradicts the line that precedes it is relevant to the conversation? I'm not even saying that either line is correct or incorrect by itself, just that you shouldn't be using that line to draw your support from. How do you know which one is more trustworthy? You don't.
The other lines in that paragraph have nothing to do with pixel resolution, and hence I cut them out due to laziness.
Last edited by a moderator:
cg399
macrumors member
In summary: 720p video always needs to be down-scaled on the iPad mini. It does not need to be down-scaled on the Kindle Fire HD.
Advantage: Kindle Fire HD.
8a22a
macrumors 6502a
HD videos are almost always 1080p now so they'll both have to down-scale anyway.
720p is an obsolete HD standard.
720p is definitely still offered though. Nice option to have when you're up against storage limits.
ZBoater
macrumors G3
Well, this discussion has been enlightening (not). So we landed at the iPad mini having a high definition display (bwahahahaha can't keep a straight face typing that) that cannot display HD broadcast content without downscaling.
Ok.
That and $5 gets me a coffee at Starbucks.
Someone please alert Apple marketing that they've been under representing their iPad 2 and Mini and should immediately add HD to the end of their product names.
And please try to contain your laughter...
Ok.
That and $5 gets me a coffee at Starbucks.
Someone please alert Apple marketing that they've been under representing their iPad 2 and Mini and should immediately add HD to the end of their product names.
And please try to contain your laughter...
It's not an HD anything standard.
The only HD display standards are video standards, and 1024x768 without anamorphic pixels flat out is not high definition. There is literally no source that says so. A table on Wikipedia with a grand total of zero references does not change anything, particularly when that very table references non-square pixels of entry-level HDTVs. The fact that the table doesn't clearly articulate the need for anamorphic pixels at that resolution doesn't lower the bar.
An "HD" display that can't natively display HD content is meaningless. Seriously, no one with a source is claiming that 1024x768 is HD just by virtue of its resolution. Monitor manufacturers have never made that claim. Industry workgroups have never made that claim. I'm not sure what the difficulty is in grasping that 720 lines is necessary but not sufficient.
Edit: put another way, what about a phone with a resolution of 480x720? That's got 720 lines, but there is zero chance of anyone claiming that it's HD. Is an 800x600 SVGA monitor from 1993 suddenly HD if you turn it on its side? No.
Last edited:
