Talk:2K resolution

1440p as 2k
I've seen a lot of references to 1440p as being "2K" which is nonsense. Maybe this article should make it more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.17.224 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Both Newegg and Amazon decribe 1440p and 2560x1080 ultrawide as 2K resolution. So this will be added back in for clafication as it was before. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Due to the generic terminology and vendors such as newegg and amazon referring to 2560x1080 and 2560x1440 as 2K, these resolutions should be maintained in the table as the fall under the generic definition. The is no reliable reference that separates them from the generic definition. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that claim that 1440p is "2K" before readding. Otherwise it seems clear that despite some consumer confusion, 2K refers to neither 1080p or 1440p but a set of specific DCI specifications. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

1080p
According to the first line of the article, 1080p is techinally a 2K resolution, since 1920 is in the same order as 2000. With 1080p being the most common resolution in the world, I think we should clear up whether it is or is not a 2K resolution in the intro. Please explain why this is incorrect. Lonaowna (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the references that we're used for the comparison article. All 6 of the do not reference at 1080P as major 2K resolution, It's actually a broadcast resolution and is too far below the 2000 pixel width ratio. The references include a DCI container format that shows 1080p usable in a 2K container, which defines them further as different. Also if you check Vendors such as newegg, when you click the 2K display section you will not see any 1080p displays, but you will see larger formats that are 2000 pixels or greater including the new ultrawides that show a 2560x1080 resolution. A resolution I haven't yet put into the table.

1080P is a digital broadcast standard resolution, check the technology table below.

Also if you check on the 4K wikipedia page, it includes a small section about how users/consumers shouldn't call 4K and UHDTV the same either. UDHTV should As the section for comparison notes denotes, these are incorrect consumer assumptions. Vendors and companies associated with display products continue to define 2K, 1080p, 4K, and 2160p as all different resolutions.

All references, and non cited vendors do not include 1080p in the 2K resolution definition. 2K resolution is 2000 pixels or wider, The only sub 2000 pixel resolution is the DCI flat projection which is 1998 pixels wide, But this is the only sub 2000 that can be considered 2K because it is directly referenced by the DCI itself, the creators of the definition and technology for 2K resolutions.

People continue to add 1080p, because of their opinion, and assumption, which is inherently incorrect. That was the reason the comparison section was created in the first place to clarify the issue. 1080p is independent of 2K, and 2K resolutions are 2000 pixels or wider.

It's also noted that 2K is measured by pixels wide, while 1080p is measured by pixels vertical. The definition of 1080p is specfically 1920x1080, 16:9 aspect ratio. It's specific to its spec design, where 2K is generalized to include formats of 2000 pixels wide. On example as stated before the ultrawide 2560x1080, would be a 2K resolution, but not a 1080p resolution.

Since wikipedia is based on references, and the references themselves do not refer to 1080p as 2K resolution and continue to define them differently, it is not correct by wikipedia standards to include 1080p, but a comparison section is accurate. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We cannot add to wikipedia based on technicalities or assumptions, nor opinions unless it is proven to be notable or significant. Assuming 1080p is a 2K resolution under a technicality is an opinion basis, and isn't verifiable, there for it should not be added to wikipedia. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you say the first reference is wrong? Because 1920, although it is indeed smaller than 2000, it still in the same order. Just like 3840 ("UHD") is in the order of 4K.
 * I completely agree that 1920x1080 (you're right, we shouldn't call it "1080p") is never called a 2K resolution, but according to the first line of the page, it technically is. So that's why I want to clear it up immediately in the intro. I don't see why you don't agree with my edit ("Although it technically satiesfies the requirements, 1080p is usually not recognized to be a 2K resolution.") It emphasised that it is not considered a 2K resolution. Lonaowna (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No this technicality is your opinion, that's issue. You're also wrong in assuming that 1080p is an order of 2000, which is it is not. It's 1920 pixels wide, 80pixels below. Assuming it satifies the requirement is false. On the order of refers to the setting of 2000 pixels or greater, not less.

Please check Reference 3, as it shows graphic frame comparisons of 2K resolution versus 1080p, and smaller formats. It utilizes 1998 pixels wide as the base comparison. And remember that the reference is an official DCI reference material given to the general public, and this reference shows that 1080p is usable in the 2K container, but is used as a comparsion to 2K, not as an inclusion into 2K. The official reference material actually denotes that 1080p is a 1.6% loss from reference, and is being based on 35mm film scans. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are confusing two things. "2K" and "DCI 2K". Once again, the first sentence of the page states "2K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 2,000 pixels." A generic term means that it is not about a single standard. DCI 2K is a very strict set of resolutions, which 1920x1080 is clearly not one of. But neither are "21:9 Ultrawide", "QHD" and "WQXGA".
 * UHD (3840 x 2160), is also in the order of 4K, and is often referred to 4K, whether DCI says so or not. By the same logic, 1920 x 1080 is also in the order of 2K. You cannot seriously claim that the 1920 (which is 96% of 2000), is not in the same order. Once again, I do not claim 1920x1080 is known as 2K, but it's horizontal resolution is in the same order as 2000 pixels.
 * Lonaowna (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. That is your opinion, and opinions do not have any place on wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on verifiable references, not opinions. Even if you are right, it is still not within wikipedia standards to include it. In my opinion and due to the references included, as well as technology vendors, all of these things agree that 1920 is not big enough to be an order of 2000 pixels. On the order if means 2000 pixels or greater, and/or within the range of 2000 pixels to >3000 pixels. That is how that definition should be worded and expressed. It is not the same order, and technology vendors also agree that it is not 2K as well. Check an example such as newegg.com here:

Less than 2K resolution listings include 1080p monitors http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600557193%20600557183%20600557192%20600557176%20600557212%20600557177%20600557180%20600557214%20600557186%20600557188%20600557216%20600557181%20600557210%20600557194%20&IsNodeId=1

2k classification listings do not include 1080p monitors: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617%20600012694%20600012665%20600338145%20600414455%20600012686%20600012679%20600557225

It is reasonable to assume that technology vendors set a better example to reference outside of assumptions.

Generic terminology should be referenced to the basic idea, and it's only reasonable to say that 1920 pixels is not 2K because it is still notably less than 2000 pixels. 80 pixels is large enough to fit icons below standard Windows XP icons, which were 64x64. 80 Pixels is quite significant considering the amount resolution loss it really is, as compared to 1998 pixels for the flat projection of the container for 2K.

I just want to remind you that wikipedia is not about personal opinions or assumptions, only verifiable content based on sources that can be considered reliable. In reality, 2K resolution might even be worth being merged to the 4K resolution page instead of a stub, but it is being used more significantly now by technology vendors.

Just be aware that I wasn't editing this page based on my own opinion by any means, only by the references that could be found. Meaning if someone could produce a significant reliable source that says that 1080p is a 2K resolution, then we should include it, but the references continue to divide the two apart by definitions. So this page is only being maintained the way it is with the wording it is because it keeps it neutral, and based on verifiable sources. Even if it were true "1080p satisfies 2K" it still remains an opinion and not verifiable, which is why it shouldn't be there. That's why it shouldn't be there and we should agree on keeping it out.

It's about keeping the page neutral and free of opinions and based on notable information, not to include extra definitions by assumptions. So for the sake of clarification and accuracy and dispelling confusing, and with you also agreeing that 1080p is not 2K, we should by method keep 1080p out of association and keep the comparison section as neutral as possible. It's in the best interest of wikipedia and users whom might visit the page for clarification. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree that everything should be referenced, but I cannot find a source which says 1920 is (not) in the order of 2000. Please look up the meaning of on the order of, it does NOT mean "approximately but larger". I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but I don't see what the big problem is with just saying "1920 is approximately 2000". I think everyone would agree to that and it would not require a reference. Lonaowna (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the two of you are arguing at cross purposes. Lonaowna isn't arguing that 1920 is part of the 2K specification—as Franbunnyffxii correctly points out specifications must be sourced—but rather the terminology in the lead. It is misleading to say that the 2K resolution pertains to resolutions of the "order of 2000 pixels"; 1920 is of the order of 2000, at least in terms of how orders of magnitude are defined mathematically, regardless of whether 1920 is part of the 2K spec or not. I have looked at the source and it does not actually use the term "of the order", so this should be adjusted to say "greater than 2000 pixels" or something to that effect, if indeed 1920 is not part of the spec. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The first reference indeed does not say anything to back up the first sentence, it is quite useless alltogether. However, "Digital Intermediates", says: "(...) making it a 2k image (i.e., having approximately 2000 pixels along the width)". It looks like a pretty good source.
 * So now my question: do you recognize Digital Intermediates as a good source? Because if we do, then we also must recognize that 1920x1080 is technically a 2k resolution, according to Digital Intermediates.
 * Lonaowna (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with user Betty Logan, that the definition should be properly reworded to show that it means 2000 Pixels or greater. No reference actually says "On the order of" but it is clear that vendors and the definition should require at least 1998 pixels or wider for the standard formats of 2K resolution. And then Generically speaking as a term
 * 2K is obviously referring to 2000, and the Roman numberal K refers to magnitudes of 1000. So really the definition should reflect this sentiment.
 * As an after thought, it should be noted when refering to 4K resolution, that the page itself for 4K does clarify for users that they shouldn't be calling 3840x2160p "4K" either, and essentially this is our effort here as well, except that the trend is different for 2K because 1080p was already developed as a standard digital broadcast and was never referred to as 2K until very recently by uninformed users/consumers. Meanwhile people and vendors are referring to 4K and UHDTV(2160p).


 * "DCI 4K should not be confused with ultra-high-definition television (UHDTV) AKA "UHD-1", which has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 (16:9, or approximately a 1.78:1 aspect ratio). Many manufacturers may advertise their products as UHD 4K, or simply 4K, when the term 4K is traditionally reserved for the cinematic, DCI resolution.[3][4] This often causes great confusion among consumers.[5]"


 * I think it is worth altering the definition for 2K, and 3K resolutions to reflect the meaning that "this means 2000 pixels or greater, (unless you mean DCI Flat 2K container 1998x1080, in which this is the grouped definition.)"


 * Again we shouldn't be including anything based on an assumption of a technicality. That brings it up to a matter of opinion, creates confusion in the article and also keeps the article from being neutral.


 * We all agree that 1080p is not 2K, so we shouldn't include it in any part of the page as being related to 2K resolution. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lonaowna, The recent edits you have made and references you have removed are based on your opinions. You cannot and should not be editing the page based on your opinions. Removing an original archived reference because you think it is "rubbish" doesn't validate the removal of said source when it does describe common formats and was considered notable in the past during previous edit war content disputes. Again you should not be editing the page based on opinions, which is what you are doing right now with several passages of wording that have been altered. You shouldn't be making these edits until a dispute is resolved as well. "Approximately 2000 pixels" is also incorrect as the field requirement and resolutions included are 2000 pixels and greater. The definition should reflect this sentiment. "Athought it satisifies" is also an opinion, and is not neutral. It can only be made as an assumption. It is not to wikipedia standard to include opinions or assumptions into pages nor make the page non neutral in anyway. I suggest you revise your edits to be neutral and less assuming, or let another wikipedia editor assist with creating a more neutral wording to the page's content. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, and I will stop making edits until we have an agreement. However, the source I removed did not back up anything in the sentence it followed. It just lists the DCI 2K resolution, which is also given in the original DCI specification, which is in my opinion a much better source. The source I removed said nothing about "2K resolution has in the order of 2000 pixels" or "2K resolution has more than 2000 horizontal pixels" or anything like that. It just listed the DCI 2K specification, among other formats.
 * The reference I have replaced it with, which was already later down in the article, however clearly says something about it: "having approximately 2000 pixels along the width".
 * If you do not agree with this, you should provide a better source which claims something else. The source I removed did not say anything about it.
 * Lonaowna (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your source looks credible to me, but you have to bear in mind "that approximately 2000 pixels in width" may or may not exclude 1920 pixels; the approximation depends on the specification. I know very little about resolutions, but this is what a google brought up for me:
 * "2K" is the term used to describe images that have approximately 2K vertical lines. In digital cinema, a 2K image with a 2.39:1 ("scope") aspect ratio is delivered having 2048 x 858 pixels. A 2K image with a 1.85:1 ("flat") aspect ratio is delivered having 1998 x 1080 pixels. (http://mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs/tech_faqs.php)
 * According to this both 1998 pixels and 2048 pixels would qualify as 2K; both of these are "approximately" 2000 pixels, but notably 1920 is not mentioned.
 * If 1080p has 1080 lines of vertical resolution, one would think that the 2K displays have 2,000 lines of vertical resolution, right? Not so fast: 2K is an incremental bump above 1080p. In fact, 2K doesn't even change the vertical resolution, leaving it at 1080 lines, and only increases the horizontal resolution to a 2048 pixel width ... Run the math and you'll find that the increase from 1920 horizontal pixels to 2048 horizontal pixels is a whopping 3.43 per cent increase. Hardly worth chucking the 1080p "True HD" monitor for a 2K one. (http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-is-2K-and-4K-Video-88297.aspx)
 * This source seems to be arguing that 2K is actually the specification above 1920x1080, which would imply that 1920 is not a 2K resolution. To be fair, the article needs overhauling. There is a chart of resolutions included but is unsourced. If a source existed for each resolution then this debate would not exist. The three DCI ones can be sourced via the two sources I have provided, so if sources could be found for the remaining 2560 resolutions then this issue would be resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right, "approximately" is a very vague term. That's why I would like to say something like:
 * "Although 1920 pixels could be considered to be approximately 2000 pixels, professional literature does not classify 1920x1080 as a 2K resolution."
 * The second quote is again mentioning the 2048px DCI 2K resolution, not the generic 2K term.
 * I agree that the remaining resolutions in the table should also be sourced. I'll look around if I can find anything useful.
 * Lonaowna (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have looked around, but I couldn't find any good sources which list 2K resolutions, or which name any of the resolutions in the table as 2K (or 2.5K) resolutions. I'm not sure what to do about them in the table.
 * Besides the table, what do you think of the rest of the article? I have made one more edit, which hopefully emphasises that it is an opinion to say that 1920 is approximately 2000, and not necessarily true or false. I hope you agree with that edit. Besides that, I'm personally quite happy with what we have right now (although it isn't much, and could surely use some expansion).
 * Lonaowna (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize about disappearing, some personal matters came up and this page fell to a back burner. The page now is at what I would agree is appropriate according to wiki standards, and the neutrality of the page is where it should be. There could be a small minor edit to the wording of the page to make it more article like, but I don't think it is necessary outside of maintaining consistency with the expectations of Wikipedia articles. But again in my opinion this isn't needed. The article is in a good state and there's not much more to improve upon.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality on term definition and usage
It's been a while since this discussion has been had, but IMO this page needs some significant rewording to remove some of the bias that results from misconceptions about this terminology.

Although the opening statement states it's a generic term referring to ≈2000 pixel width formats, the rest of the article reads as if it was written by someone under the impression that "2K" is an official term referring exclusively to the DCI standard, and that formats outside the DCI standard are "not real 2K". This is implied in statements such as: "Although 1080p has the same vertical resolution as DCI 2K resolutions (1080 pixels), it has a smaller horizontal resolution below the range of 2K resolution formats."

A better wording would be "below the range of the DCI 2K formats" or something like that. Saying "below the range of 2K resolution formats" implicitly includes the premise that 1080p is not included in "2K resolution formats", which is circular since the sentence is trying to justify why 1080p isn't included. Basically, the statement is only true if you exclude 1080p from the group to begin with. So this is not a satisfactory reason for excluding it. If the sentence is meant to mean "it's less than 2,000 pixels, which is the definition of 2K", this needs to be clarified, since it is not consistent with the first sentence of the article (which states the definition is approximately 2000 pixels, not 2000 or above), it's also not consistent with other terms such as 4K, and also since 19981080 is included, that definition is clearly not correct when strictly applied, but rather is just approximate. Clearly, exceptions are sometimes made for lower resolutions, so it needs to be clearly shown that 19201080 is not another such exception. Noting that most industry sources do not refer to 1080p as 2K would probably be a better justification to have here.

The next line is also problematic. "According to official reference material, DCI and industry standards do not officially recognize 1080p as a 2K resolution in literature concerning 2K and 4K resolution."


 * This sentence seems to be designed to imply that DCI is the definitive authority on the definition of 2K, and therefore if 1080p isn't part of the DCI 2K standard, then it's not 2K. However, 2K is a generic term, not defined by DCI.
 * The statement DCI and industry standards do not officially recognize 1080p as a 2K resolution needs to be reworded. DCI doesn't govern the definition of the term "2K". It would be correct (and more neutral) to simply state "According to official reference material, 1080p is not part of the DCI 2K standard". But to say "it's not a 2K resolution because it's not in the DCI standard" is based on the premise that the DCI standard is the definition of 2K, which it isn't.
 * This statement has four sources at the end, but none of them directly state that 1080p isn't a 2K format.
 * The first source is the DCI specification. This supports the statement "1080p is not part of the DCI specification", but nothing beyond that.
 * The second source clearly shows there is a difference between 1080p HD and the 2K DCDM container (i.e. the specific 2K format defined by the DCI standard). Again, this definitely supports the statement "1080p is not part of the DCI specification", but makes no commentary on whether 1080p is included in the general usage of the term 2K. However, it does discuss the origin of the term "2K" with regards to scanning film, so it also helps demonstrate that DCI is not "the" definition of 2K.
 * The third source states that "2K" generally refers to 20481556 or similar, the resolution used for scanning 35mm film. It uses the term "HD" when referring to 19201080. This does help demonstrate an example of an industry source making a distinction between "2K" and "HD". 1080p doesn't seem to be considered 2K here.
 * The fourth source is an article which states "As such, the DCI termed the 2048 x 1080 resolution as 2K, and the name stuck even when it came to consumer applications." Although this is up to interpretation, this website seems to be under the same misconception that DCI came up with the term "2K" and that the DCI standard is the official definition of what 2K is. This is incorrect, and this website doesn't appear to be a very reliable source to me.

Just for clarity, the DCI standard defines a standardized 2K resolution, but it's not the definition of 2K resolution. It's just as if I wrote a new standard saying:
 * "This document defines two standardized formats: a 16:9 format and a 21:9 format. The 16:9 format shall have a resolution of 1600x900, and the 21:9 format shall have a resolution of 2100x900..."

It would be a bit ridiculous for people to read that standard and then go around saying "1920x1080? That's not 16:9! 16:9 means 1600x900! See, it's a standard, it defines the 16:9 format right here!". But in reality the term is being used as a descriptor in the standard, not as an official name for the format.

Usage of the terms "2K" and "4K" in the cinematography industry as generic terms predates the initial 2005 release of the DCI standard v1.0: In addition, there are industry examples that use the term 2K (and others) generically:
 * 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20181222175652/https://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/Defining_2K_and_4K.htm
 * 2003: https://web.archive.org/web/20181222175833/http://forums.cgsociety.org/t/2k-film-resolution/694549
 * 2002: https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/forums/post.php?forumid=19&postid=182104&univpostid=182104&pview=t&archive=T
 * (Page 109): https://web.archive.org/web/20180528193817/http://docs.red.com.s3.amazonaws.com/955-0138_v7.0/REV-G/955-0138_v7.0%20Rev-G%20%20%20RED%20PS%2C%20WEAPON-EPIC-W%20Operation%20Guide.pdf

I would also caution editors to be very careful when searching for sources on this. I'm sure that many articles can be found which state the same information, that 2K is an official DCI format, etc. etc. This Wikipedia page has been in the same state for nearly 5 years, and I think it's highly likely that many articles are simply repeating what is stated on this page. Hence we should avoid generic "help" articles that are just giving definitions, like glossary pages (even from companies like Dell or Lenovo) to avoid self-reference. We should stick to finding sources from industry professionals or companies that speak from their own expertise and experience, and are unlikely to be referencing this WP page for their definitions.

I also observe that most industry sources, when referring to 1920×1080, use the term "1080p" or "HD" (for example here: HD workflows where the 1920×1080 container of HDCAM-SR tape is standard should be changed to 2K workflows for digital cinema work.). There are many such examples of 1080p being referred to as distinct from 2K.

In any case, this is the current state of things in my view:
 * There are ample sources demonstrating that "2K" is a generic term which predates the DCI standard. The formats defined in the DCI standard are not the exclusive definition of what "2K" is, they are just examples of some standardized 2K formats.
 * Sources agree that 1920×1080 is not part of the DCI standard.
 * There are many examples of industry sources which clearly make a distinction between 1920×1080 (using the term 1080p or HD) and 2K, which implies (though I haven't found any direct statements) that 1080p is not a 2K format.
 * There are also examples of industry sources which do include 1080p as a 2K format as part of the generic usage of the term, but this seems to be the minority.

As a result, I think the page needs some rewording to obtain a more neutral point of view, stating that some industry sources use the terms one way and some use it the other way, instead of the current wording which is heavily biased toward recognizing the DCI standard formats as the definitive use of the term.

GlenwingKyros (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This constitutes an unnecessary edit, that also represents original work and non-neutral stand point. Prevoius version is neutral and constitutes no orginal work. Just because a page has had a long standing accepted edit, does not mean it should be re-written or revised. The topic is static and defined already. Many of the edits that lead to the final version of this page were due to debates and the prevention of those who would come to vandalize the page and the utilize edits to prove others wrong. The neutral state and section wording of each part of the page was discussed and agreed upon previously. Changing it is unnecessary. Further attempts to change or update the page with original work and opinions does not constitute value to wikipedia articles.

The page has also not been roughly in the same state for 5 years either. This page was cleaned up and verified by Ferret in April 2017. The page's acceptable and neutural version was effectively a final and cleaned up cited, and supported version with sources that are high quality and verified.

If you wish to change or update this page's content, I would contact Ferret for advisory in which to do so with the page, as the current edits being made are not as neutral and verified. Franbunnyffxii (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the original version of the page is more neutral than my last edit. The reasons why I believe the current page is not neutral, the exact problematic statements, and how they could be improved, are explained in detail above. I also don't agree that all the current sources are high quality. I point out exactly which sources I think are problematic above. You also claim that my edit [|here] is "unverified by references". I provided ample references for pretty much everything. It would be nice if you could clarify exactly which part isn't supported by the references supplied. It would be helpful in general if you could be specific about which statements are problematic and why, otherwise I won't be able to improve things in the future. I still believe the page has many issues as it currently stands. If you don't like my edits, I'm happy to work together with you to improve them, or until I can be convinced that the page doesn't have any problems after all. GlenwingKyros (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The current state of the age was written and verified as to deal with the vandalism that this page attracted, and extra inclusions of resolutions were removed to solve this issue as well. See the section above. It's state was to be as neutral as possible giving weight to both sides of the debate, and keeping non verifiable resolutions out as to keep the page neutral. The edits you provided invite people to interject their opinions again, and include unverifiable resolutions and attempt to cite sources that are unreliable. This page has had a long standing history of vandalism concerning the issue. That most expressly about the inclusion of 1080p, which is not a 2K resolution. See the discussion above. The page was then cleaned and verified by an Administrator. Changes of this page need to not include references to standard 1080p with in the group or other resolutions that would be unable to be verifiable. This conclusion was reached previously which is why I urged you to refer to the talk page before making any drastic edits. We used the DCI standard for this determination and reached this conclusion that resulted in the sections and information on the page. The neutral state of the page was done with the objective stand point in mind to mitigate the inclusion of 1080p by page vandalism and edit warrning. While your edit is in good faith, it invites back the debate that was decided on years ago, which invites vandalism and editing based on opinions, which was the problem with this page to begin with.

Franbunnyffxii (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

DCI 2K and consumer 2K (1080p) are both 2K resolutions
I think the wikipedia article currently uses a false equivalency comparison in attempt to "prove" that; Because 1920x1080 isn't a 2K resolution recognized by DCI, therefore it doesn't belong in the 2K resolution family at all.

You could (and should for consistency) make a section in the "4K resolution" article aswell, which states that: "DCI doesn't recognize 3840x2160 as a 4K resolution". Or better yet; remove this part from the 2K resolution page, as DCI isn't a sole governing authority that rules which resolution is or isn't included under the umbrella term "2K" or "4K". DCI only specifies what is included in their own definition of "DCI #K" (NOT what is or isn't included in the whole general term "#K").

I don't find the "comparison to 1080p"-section neutral at all, it has just sources of cinematographers talking about "DCI 2K" (which 1920x1080 isn't part of), and Lenovo mistaking "DCI #K" to the whole general term "#K". On top of that Lenovo makes a weird comparison of pixel count under "2K vs 1080p"-section that says: "Thus, 1080p (or Full HD) is roughly six percent smaller than 2K in total area – 2,073,600 total pixels compared to 2,211,840 total pixels." I understood is as an attempt to explain why 1080p isn't a 2K resolution, which doesn't make any sense considering that 1920x1080 has 18% more pixels than "DCI 2K (Cinemascope cropped)" which is considered a "2K" resolution by them, or 3 times the difference as between 1920x1080 and the biggest DCI 2K resolution (which has only 6% difference). So in my opinion, this site shouldn't be considered as a reliable source.

1920x1080 just like 3840x2160 are 16:9 aspect ratio, or consumer media derivatives of the slightly bigger DCI resolutions.

Even ITU-R (International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication-Sector), who came up with the non-DCI, consumer media definitions of 4K (3840x2160) and 8K (7680×4320), '''are referring 1920x1080 as "2K" in their official documents. '''https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2245-6-2019-PDF-E.pdf

RED as well recognizes 1920x1080 as "2K 16:9" resolution, which again makes perfect sense, 16:9 derivative of DCI 2K, just like they call 3840x2160 "4K 16:9". http://docs.red.com.s3.amazonaws.com/955-0127/REV_W/HTML/955-0127_v6.3%20REV-W%20%20%20RED%20PS,%20RED%20RAVEN%20Operation%20Guide/Content/5_Advanced_Menus/1_Settings/Project/Format.htm

It makes 100% logical sense to refer 1920x1080 as a 2K resolution (and as we saw, even ITU-R and RED recognizes it as one), if we call 3840x2160 a 4K resolution. This change should be added asap in the 2K resolution article, in order to combat the extremely widespread misconception that 2K = 2560x1440.

2560x1440 would be logically called "2.5K" (although I'm yet to see any documentation calling it as one), as it has half of pixel count on each axis when compared to 5K "5120x2880" (same relation as between 2K and 4K).

Ikep (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, for the reasons explained here and in the previous discussion above this one. GlenwingKyros (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories, who initially proposed the consumer media 16:9 4K resolution as 3840x2160 and 8K as 7680×4320 (and was involved in the defining of 1920x1080 along with ITU-R), also appears to refer 1920x1080 as 2K.

Having these two companies NHK STRL and ITU-R, which both were involved in the inception of consumer space 2K, 4K, 8K, etc, referring 1920x1080 as "2K", pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of this long-lasting debate in my opinion.

Ikep (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Eufy 2K: 2560x1920
Security camera company Eufy uses "2K resolution" to mean: 2560x1920. - W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)