Posted by Jukka Aho on 10/25/06 22:20

Bryan Heit wrote:


>>> As Bill already mentioned, DVD is recorded at 480 lines of
>>> resolution.

>> (Psst! The number of active scanlines and "lines of resolution" are
>> not the same thing. See
>> <http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.4.1>.)

> I was referring to the digital resolution of the system,

Yes, that was obvious (to me), but "lines of resolution" is not the best
way to put it as that phrase usually refers to a method of measuring the
_horizontal_ resolution, as described behind the above link.

> not the resolution of the display device.

"Lines of resolution" figures are commonly quoted (or at least _were_
commonly quoted, back in the analog days) for all imaginable parts of a
video production system: 1) cameras, 2) storage media / recording
format, and 3) display devices. The measurement is not reserved for
display devices only.

> The article you refer to has more to do with how the signal is
> converted to analog, and how resolution is measured on the display
> device. Neither is relevant in this case

Thats precisely why I wanted to point out that "lines of resolution" is
not the best choice of words when discussing the vertical resolution
(the vertical pixel count) of a DVD frame. The phrase "lines of
resolution" is already reserved - and commonly used - for measurements
that concern the _horizontal_ resolution of a camera, storage format, or
display device, so using it for vertical resolution goes against the
normal practice.

See <http://google.com/search?q=%22lines+of+resolution%22> for some
examples of how the term "lines of resolution" is commonly used and
defined.

--
znark

[Back to original message]