Why is the 17'' MBP, HD?

superspiffy

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 6, 2007
736
0
This is a noob question but how is the new 17'' MBP "HD"? How does a display get to be "HD" status? Does it have to be a certain resolution?
 

66217

Guest
Jan 30, 2006
1,608
0
If I get it correct, is that the High Resolution (no HD) just displays more pixels.
 

66217

Guest
Jan 30, 2006
1,608
0
It refers to the screen resolution being at least 1920X1080. Although, technically, 1280X720 can also be considered HD, 1920X1080 is considered "full" HD.
Basically any display with a resolution of 1920x1080 or higher is considered HD.
So the MBP display is just the same as a HDTV?

Why isn't Apple calling it High Definition then? High Resolution sounds quite uncool for me. At least compared with HD.:)
 

timmillwood

macrumors 6502a
Apr 7, 2006
957
1
to be honest the marking HD or High Definition is meaning less because there is no set standard.

In the UK we have "HD Ready" for TVs which is a set standard.

A display device has to cover the following requirements to be awarded the label “HD ready”:

1. Display, display engine

a. The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or display engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio.

2. Video Interfaces

a. The display device accepts HD input via:
i. Analog YPbPr “HD ready” displays support analog YPbPr as a HD input format to allow full compatibility with today's HD video sources in the market. Support of the YPbPr signal should be through common industry standard connectors directly on the HD ready display or through an adaptor easily accessible to the consumer; and:

b. DVI or HDMI HD capable inputs accept the following HD video formats:
i. 1280x720 @ 50 and 60Hz progressive (“720p”)
ii. 1920x1080 @ 50 and 60Hz interlaced (“1080i”)

c. The DVI or HDMI input supports copy protection (HDCP)
But for HD, anyone can use it for anything. E,g "This new phone a High Definition screen" is basically means the screen has a higher resolution than other.

In the Case of the MBP I would say they are talking about the 1920x1200 resolution option.
 

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Jun 27, 2006
6,596
2
Seattle, WA
So the MBP display is just the same as a HDTV?

Why isn't Apple calling it High Definition then? High Resolution sounds quite uncool for me. At least compared with HD.:)
Well it isn't quite the same as an HDTV, as the MacBook Pro uses the aspect ratio of 16:10 while an HDTV uses an aspect ratio of 16:9, hence the difference in resolution between them.
 

Adokimus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 2, 2007
841
3
Boston, MA
I think a lot of people already answered this well, so I'll hold back from my long-winded response, but I'd like to also add a reference to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

Apple is wise not to market their products "HD" because it doesn't really mean anything except that it's "720p or better," which is basically every laptop out there. Don't fall for gimmicks, find out the pixel count and look up the info yourself before you trust any sticker on a laptop or TV.
 

superspiffy

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 6, 2007
736
0
Is the 1080 or 720 requirement for non-widescreens too? Because I have a 17'' 1280X1024 external display and I'm wondering if that's HD too.
 

Adokimus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 2, 2007
841
3
Boston, MA
Is the 1080 or 720 requirement for non-widescreens too? Because I have a 17'' 1280X1024 external display and I'm wondering if that's HD too.
It's only applied to widescreen, as that's becoming the new standard, though there are different aspect ratios depending on the type of screen. Your screen would be HD though, because an HD format fits within it's limits (that of 1280 x 720). Though for a standard TV aspect ratio (4:3 ratio, non-widescreen), 480p is kind of considered HD (more specifically EDTV), but it is lower quality than "full HD."



...more wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
It's only applied to widescreen, as that's becoming the new standard, though there are different aspect ratios depending on the type of screen. For a standard TV aspect ratio (4:3 ratio, non-widescreen), 480i is considered HD, but it is lower quality than "full HD."



...more wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen
Sorry, 480i is SD. 480p is ED and anything over 720p is HD.
 

klymr

macrumors 65816
May 16, 2007
1,447
98
Utah
Is the 1080 or 720 requirement for non-widescreens too? Because I have a 17'' 1280X1024 external display and I'm wondering if that's HD too.
No, it doesn't matter what the aspect ratio is. Yours is still HD. The first number is the amount of pixels across the screen. The second number is the number of lines of resolution. Standard picture is 480 lines. High def. is anything 720 or above. Then you have progressive and interlaced scanning. Progressive is better, but you really won't see a difference in picture quality between p and i.
 

aliquis-

macrumors 6502a
May 20, 2007
680
0
Of course they mean that you can watch and create 1920x1080 video on it.

1280x720 is lame.
 

Adokimus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 2, 2007
841
3
Boston, MA
Of course they mean that you can watch and create 1920x1080 video on it.

1280x720 is lame.
Indeed. You wouldn't really say that you have an HD monitor unless you were able to watch/edit a preferred HDTV format within it. In terms of best clarity, you're mostly concerned with pixel pitch, which is determined by the number of pixels and the size of the screen, but that won't tell you if it's "HD".


p.s. - Progressive ROCKS Interlaced
 

rclAlaric

macrumors newbie
Jun 27, 2007
13
0
1280x720 is lame.
I find this statement hilarious.

When we are talking about "HD," usually we are talking about the television standards 1280 x 720 progressively scanned (720p) or 1920 x 1080 interlaced (1080i); these are the formats that all of our current TV stations use to output their HD material.

Most of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080i television if we were to do a side-by-side A-B comparison (I realize that there are many different factors involved and I don't want to bore you with those).

If 720p is lame than tell that to FOX, ABC, and ESPNHD, for that is the format that they chose to output their content on. Why? Because fast motion material (mainly sports), look much better when they are progressively scanned. Just look at an NFL game on FOX and then watch one on CBS (1080i). There are many more artifacts on the 1080i output. Until the broadcasting companies decide to output in true 1080p (probably won't happen for a very long time since it would mean an upgrade to cameras, etc.), some of us think that 720p is superior in quality at this time.

As for computer monitors, technically CRT monitors have been able to output HD content for a long, long time. HD is simply a resolution issue, not really much more.

Sorry, I didn't want to go off like that, but statements like "1280 x 720 is lame" are not very wisely said.

Rant over...