WEBVTT - Does TV Resolution Matter?

0:00:02.040 --> 0:00:07.120
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works. Hey, brain Stuff,

0:00:07.160 --> 0:00:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Christian Sager. Here, when we're talking about TV, we're talking

0:00:11.119 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>about one big thing. Resolution, sharper images, crisper action, immaculate

0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:22.560
<v Speaker 1>detail in everything from sports to documentaries to video games.

0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:25.279
<v Speaker 1>In just a few years, we've seen the race move

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>from seven twenty to ten ADP, to four K and beyond.

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>And this brings us to today's question, does TV resolution matter?

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Spoiler alert? The answer is yes, absolutely, or maybe a

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:42.360
<v Speaker 1>better way to say it is yes absolutely, but with

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>a footnote. Before we get to all the weird stuff

0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:50.080
<v Speaker 1>that footnote represents, we need to understand resolution itself. Resolution

0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>starts with the pixel. A pixel is the smallest possible

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:57.960
<v Speaker 1>unit of a digital image, a single point of light.

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:02.600
<v Speaker 1>When you hear manufacturers talk talking about resolution, they're describing

0:01:02.600 --> 0:01:05.400
<v Speaker 1>the number of pixels on a given screen. So an

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:09.679
<v Speaker 1>old school cathode ray TV would display the equivalent of

0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:13.640
<v Speaker 1>three hundred thousand pixels on a screen, while an HDTV

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 1>could pack more than two million pixels into a screen.

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:21.760
<v Speaker 1>The standard way for TV makers to classify resolution is

0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:25.440
<v Speaker 1>with numbers followed by a letter. The numbers indicate the

0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:29.160
<v Speaker 1>rows of horizontal pixels, So think four A D I,

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>ten A D P and so on. The bigger the number,

0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:36.160
<v Speaker 1>the more pixels on the screen. The letters at the

0:01:36.280 --> 0:01:39.680
<v Speaker 1>end of the numbers stand for I is interlaced and

0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:45.400
<v Speaker 1>P for progressive scan. The differences are important, but fairly complicated,

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:48.400
<v Speaker 1>so let's save that one for another day. Using more

0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:52.200
<v Speaker 1>pixels to create an image creates a smoother, less blocky,

0:01:52.440 --> 0:01:55.640
<v Speaker 1>or pixelated image. So at first glance, it sounds as

0:01:55.640 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>if more pixels equal a better experience. Right, Not so fast, slick.

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:05.120
<v Speaker 1>Here's where our footnote comes in. Pixel density itself is

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>not the only factor in the race toward a better

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:12.040
<v Speaker 1>sharper image. If we're looking at resolution as the ability

0:02:12.080 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>to discern fine details, several other factors come into play.

0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:20.000
<v Speaker 1>For instance, what's the source of the image, what roll

0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 1>does color play, how close or far are you from

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the screen, and how big is the screen. For example,

0:02:27.760 --> 0:02:31.320
<v Speaker 1>if you're watching a small enough screen, say inches from

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>ten or more feet away, your I won't be able

0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:36.760
<v Speaker 1>to tell the difference between anything from four eighty to

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:39.880
<v Speaker 1>four K. The farther you are away from the image source,

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.160
<v Speaker 1>the smoother the picture appears. As for the size of

0:02:43.160 --> 0:02:46.239
<v Speaker 1>the screen, well, sure, you could have a twenty inch

0:02:46.320 --> 0:02:48.959
<v Speaker 1>TV with ten e D line resolution and it would

0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:52.000
<v Speaker 1>still have the same number of pixels as a fifty

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 1>five inch TV with otherwise identical specs, but the pixels

0:02:56.639 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 1>would be physically smaller. So in this context, size definitely matters.

0:03:02.120 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 1>If you put a h D t V with seven

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:09.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty line resolution next to another h D t V

0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:11.360
<v Speaker 1>with ten e D, you may not be able to

0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 1>tell the difference between the two. These are just a

0:03:14.639 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 1>few of the pertinent factors in the overall equation. There's

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.840
<v Speaker 1>another big question here too. Does the human eye have

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:25.880
<v Speaker 1>a resolution limit? How many individual pixels can the human

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:30.040
<v Speaker 1>eye perceive? And that's a tricky question to our eyes

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 1>are not cameras. Instead, they're an initial step to an

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:38.680
<v Speaker 1>intricate process involving loads of unconscious estimation and guesswork in

0:03:38.680 --> 0:03:41.680
<v Speaker 1>our brains. It is true that after a certain point,

0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 1>the human eye is unable to differentiate or appreciate the

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 1>differences between some pixel densities. With the right source, material, equipment,

0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>and viewing distance, four K really can make a difference.

0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:56.880
<v Speaker 1>For example, if you're sitting a few feet from a

0:03:56.920 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>sixty inch four K television with an ultra high definition

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 1>video feed, you'll be able to tell if it suddenly

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:08.480
<v Speaker 1>switches to regular HD or brace yourself standard definition. The

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:12.480
<v Speaker 1>limits of HD TV aren't a failure of technology. There

0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:15.200
<v Speaker 1>a limit of our biology. If we can't tell the

0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 1>difference between a lower resolution in TV and an HD version,

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 1>then there's not much incentive to buy the latest ultra

0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>high definition TV set. But this isn't the end of

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the story. The race for higher resolution continues. Cameras that

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 1>shooting four K have already become the norm, and each

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:40.040
<v Speaker 1>year bring new innovations. These ultra high definition technologies may

0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:42.840
<v Speaker 1>not make for a better picture on a home television,

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 1>but in a movie theater it makes a big difference,

0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:48.599
<v Speaker 1>and in the future we might not care as much

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:53.280
<v Speaker 1>about resolution. It's possible that other technologies like high dynamic

0:04:53.440 --> 0:05:02.120
<v Speaker 1>range may become the next big thing. Check out the

0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:04.440
<v Speaker 1>brainsaff channel on YouTube, and for more on this and

0:05:04.520 --> 0:05:20.800
<v Speaker 1>thousands of other topics, visit how stuff works dot com.