通用非即插即用監視器解析度

Stare at a list of monitor resolutions long enough and you might notice a pattern: many of the vertical resolutions, especially those of gaming or multimedia displays, are multiples of 360 (720, 1080, 1440, etc.) But why exactly is this the case? Is it arbitrary or is there something more at work?

凝視監視器解析度足夠長的列表，您可能會注意到一種模式：許多垂直解析度，尤其是遊戲或多媒體顯示器的垂直解析度都是360(720、1080、1440等)的倍數。案件？ 它是任意的還是有更多工作要做？

Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites.

今天的“問答”環節由SuperUser提供，它是Stack Exchange的一個分支，該社群是由社群驅動的Q＆A網站分組。

問題 (The Question)

SuperUser reader Trojandestroy recently noticed something about his display interface and needs answers:

超級使用者閱讀器Trojandestroy最近注意到了有關他的顯示介面的一些問題，需要回答：

YouTube recently added 1440p functionality, and for the first time I realized that all (most?) vertical resolutions are multiples of 360.

YouTube最近添加了1440p功能，並且我第一次意識到所有(大多數？)垂直解析度都是360的倍數。

Is this just because the smallest common resolution is 480×360, and it’s convenient to use multiples? (Not doubting that multiples are convenient.) And/or was that the first viewable/conveniently sized resolution, so hardware (TVs, monitors, etc) grew with 360 in mind?

這僅僅是因為最小的通用解析度是480×360，並且使用倍數很方便嗎？ (毫無疑問，倍數是方便的。)並且/或者是第一個可視/方便大小的解析度，因此硬體(電視，顯示器等)在考慮360時就增長了嗎？

Taking it further, why not have a square resolution? Or something else unusual? (Assuming it’s usual enough that it’s viewable). Is it merely a pleasing-the-eye situation?

更進一步，為什麼沒有平方解析度呢？ 還是其他異常？ (假設它足夠通常，因此可見)。 這僅僅是令人賞心悅目的情況嗎？

So why have the display be a multiple of 360?

那麼，為什麼顯示為360的倍數？

答案 (The Answer)

SuperUser contributor User26129 offers us not just an answer as to why the numerical pattern exists but a history of screen design in the process:

SuperUser提供者User26129不僅為我們提供了關於為什麼存在數字模式的答案，而且還為我們提供了過程中螢幕設計的歷史記錄：

Alright, there are a couple of questions and a lot of factors here. Resolutions are a really interesting field of psychooptics meeting marketing.

好了，這裡有幾個問題和很多因素。 解決方案是心理醫學會議營銷中一個非常有趣的領域。

First of all, why are the vertical resolutions on youtube multiples of 360. This is of course just arbitrary, there is no real reason this is the case. The reason is that resolution here is not the limiting factor for Youtube videos – bandwidth is. Youtube has to re-encode every video that is uploaded a couple of times, and tries to use as little re-encoding formats/bitrates/resolutions as possible to cover all the different use cases. For low-res mobile devices they have 360×240, for higher res mobile there’s 480p, and for the computer crowd there is 360p for 2xISDN/multiuser landlines, 720p for DSL and 1080p for higher speed internet. For a while there were some other codecs than h.264, but these are slowly being phased out with h.264 having essentially ‘won’ the format war and all computers being outfitted with hardware codecs for this.

首先，為什麼YouTube的360垂直解析度是360的倍數。這當然是任意的，沒有真正的原因。 原因是這裡的解析度不是YouTube視訊的限制因素，而是頻寬。 YouTube必須重新編碼幾次上傳的每個視訊，並嘗試使用盡可能少的重新編碼格式/位元率/解析度來覆蓋所有不同的用例。 對於低解析度的移動裝置，它們的解析度為360×240，對於高解析度的移動裝置，解析度為480p，對於計算機人群，對於2xISDN /多使用者固定電話，解析度為360p；對於DSL，則為720p；對於高速網際網路，則為1080p。 一段時間以來，除了h.264之外，還有其他一些編解碼器，但是隨著h.264本質上“贏得”了格式戰爭，並且所有計算機都為此配備了硬體編解碼器，它們正在逐步被淘汰。

Now, there is some interesting psychooptics going on as well. As I said: resolution isn’t everything. 720p with really strong compression can and will look worse than 240p at a very high bitrate. But on the other side of the spectrum: throwing more bits at a certain resolution doesn’t magically make it better beyond some point. There is an optimum here, which of course depends on both resolution and codec. In general: the optimal bitrate is actually proportional to the resolution.

現在，還有一些有趣的心理光學正在發生。 就像我說的那樣：解析度不是全部。 在非常高的位元率下，具有真正強大壓縮能力的720p可能會比240p差。 但另一方面，以一定的解析度丟擲更多的位元並不能使它變得更好。 這裡有一個最佳選擇，當然這取決於解析度和編解碼器。 通常，最佳位元率實際上與解析度成正比。

So the next question is: what kind of resolution steps make sense? Apparently, people need about a 2x increase in resolution to really see (and prefer) a marked difference. Anything less than that and many people will simply not bother with the higher bitrates, they’d rather use their bandwidth for other stuff. This has been researched quite a long time ago and is the big reason why we went from 720×576 (415kpix) to 1280×720 (922kpix), and then again from 1280×720 to 1920×1080 (2MP). Stuff in between is not a viable optimization target. And again, 1440P is about 3.7MP, another ~2x increase over HD. You will see a difference there. 4K is the next step after that.

因此，下一個問題是：什麼樣的解決步驟有意義？ 顯然，人們需要將解析度提高大約2倍才能真正看到(並喜歡)明顯的差異。 少於此的東西，很多人根本不會為更高的位元率而煩惱，他們寧願將自己的頻寬用於其他東西。 對此進行了很長時間的研究，這是為什麼我們從720×576(415kpix)變為1280×720(922kpix)，然後又從1280×720變為1920×1080(2MP)的重要原因。 兩者之間的填充不是可行的優化目標。 同樣，1440P約為3.7MP，比HD高出約2倍。 您會在那看到不同。 4K是此後的下一步。

Next up is that magical number of 360 vertical pixels. Actually, the magic number is 120 or 128. All resolutions are some kind of multiple of 120 pixels nowadays, back in the day they used to be multiples of 128. This is something that just grew out of LCD panel industry. LCD panels use what are called line drivers, little chips that sit on the sides of your LCD screen that control how bright each subpixel is. Because historically, for reasons I don’t really know for sure, probably memory constraints, these multiple-of-128 or multiple-of-120 resolutions already existed, the industry standard line drivers became drivers with 360 line outputs (1 per subpixel). If you would tear down your 1920×1080 screen, I would be putting money on there being 16 line drivers on the top/bottom and 9 on one of the sides. Oh hey, that’s 16:9. Guess how obvious that resolution choice was back when 16:9 was ‘invented’.

接下來是360垂直畫素的神奇數量。 實際上，魔術數是120或128。如今，所有解析度都是120畫素的某種倍數，而在過去，它們曾經是128的倍數。這是LCD面板行業剛剛發展起來的。 LCD面板使用所謂的線路驅動器，即位於LCD螢幕側面的小晶片，用於控制每個子畫素的亮度。 因為歷史上，由於我不確定的原因(可能是記憶體限制)，可能已經存在這些128或120的解析度，因此行業標準的行驅動器成為具有360行輸出(每個子畫素1個)的驅動器。 如果您要拆除1920×1080的螢幕，那我會把錢花在頂部/底部有16個線路驅動器，而側面之一有9個線路驅動器。 噢，那是16：9。 猜想當“發明” 16：9時，解析度選擇又有多明顯。

Then there’s the issue of aspect ratio. This is really a completely different field of psychology, but it boils down to: historically, people have believed and measured that we have a sort of wide-screen view of the world. Naturally, people believed that the most natural representation of data on a screen would be in a wide-screen view, and this is where the great anamorphic revolution of the ’60s came from when films were shot in ever wider aspect ratios.

然後是長寬比的問題。 這確實是一個完全不同的心理學領域，但是可以歸結為：從歷史上看，人們已經相信並衡量了我們對世界的某種寬屏檢視。 人們自然地認為，螢幕上最自然的資料表示是在寬屏檢視中進行的，這就是60年代以更大的縱橫比拍攝電影時發生的巨大變形。

Since then, this kind of knowledge has been refined and mostly debunked. Yes, we do have a wide-angle view, but the area where we can actually see sharply – the center of our vision – is fairly round. Slightly elliptical and squashed, but not really more than about 4:3 or 3:2. So for detailed viewing, for instance for reading text on a screen, you can utilize most of your detail vision by employing an almost-square screen, a bit like the screens up to the mid-2000s.

從那時起，這種知識就得到了完善，並且幾乎被揭穿了。 是的，我們確實有一個廣角檢視，但實際上可以清晰看到的區域-我們的視覺中心-相當圓。 略呈橢圓形並被壓扁，但實際上不超過4：3或3：2。 因此，對於詳細檢視，例如在螢幕上閱讀文字，您可以通過使用幾乎方形的螢幕來利用大部分的詳細視覺效果，該螢幕有點像直到2000年代中期的螢幕。

However, again this is not how marketing took it. Computers in ye olden days were used mostly for productivity and detailed work, but as they commoditized and as the computer as media consumption device evolved, people didn’t necessarily use their computer for work most of the time. They used it to watch media content: movies, television series and photos. And for that kind of viewing, you get the most ‘immersion factor’ if the screen fills as much of your vision (including your peripheral vision) as possible. Which means widescreen.

但是，這又不是行銷的方式。 過去的計算機主要用於生產力和詳細的工作，但是隨著它們的商品化以及隨著媒體消費裝置的發展，人們不一定會在大多數時間使用計算機來工作。 他們用它來觀看媒體內容：電影，電視連續劇和照片。 對於這種觀看方式，如果螢幕儘可能多地覆蓋您的視力(包括周圍的視力)，您將獲得最大的“沉浸因子”。 這意味著寬屏。

But there’s more marketing still. When detail work was still an important factor, people cared about resolution. As many pixels as possible on the screen. SGI was selling almost-4K CRTs! The most optimal way to get the maximum amount of pixels out of a glass substrate is to cut it as square as possible. 1:1 or 4:3 screens have the most pixels per diagonal inch. But with displays becoming more consumery, inch-size became more important, not amount of pixels. And this is a completely different optimization target. To get the most diagonal inches out of a substrate, you want to make the screen as wide as possible. First we got 16:10, then 16:9 and there have been moderately successful panel manufacturers making 22:9 and 2:1 screens (like Philips). Even though pixel density and absolute resolution went down for a couple of years, inch-sizes went up and that’s what sold. Why buy a 19″ 1280×1024 when you can buy a 21″ 1366×768? Eh…

但是還有更多的營銷。 當細節工作仍然是重要因素時，人們會關心解析度。 螢幕上儘可能多的畫素。 SGI賣了將近4K的CRT！ 從玻璃基板中獲取最大畫素量的最佳方法是將其儘可能地切成正方形。 1：1或4：3的螢幕每對角英寸畫素最多。 但是隨著顯示器的日益消費化，英寸尺寸變得越來越重要，而不是畫素數量。 這是一個完全不同的優化目標。 為了使基板的對角線長度最大，您需要使螢幕儘可能寬。 首先我們得到了16:10，然後是16：9，並且已經有相當成功的面板製造商製造了22：9和2：1的螢幕(例如Philips)。 儘管畫素密度和絕對解析度下降了幾年，但英寸尺寸卻上升了，這就是銷量。 當您可以購買21英寸1366×768的顯示器時，為什麼還要購買19英寸1280×1024的顯示器呢？ 嗯

I think that about covers all the major aspects here. There’s more of course; bandwidth limits of HDMI, DVI, DP and of course VGA played a role, and if you go back to the pre-2000s, graphics memory, in-computer bandwdith and simply the limits of commercially available RAMDACs played an important role. But for today’s considerations, this is about all you need to know.

我認為這裡涵蓋了所有主要方面。 當然還有更多； HDMI，DVI，DP以及VGA的頻寬限制起了重要作用，如果回到2000年代以前，圖形記憶體，計算機內頻寬以及市售RAMDAC的限制就起了重要作用。 但是出於今天的考慮，這就是您需要了解的所有內容。

Have something to add to the explanation? Sound off in the the comments. Want to read more answers from other tech-savvy Stack Exchange users?Check out the full discussion thread here.

有什麼補充說明嗎？ 在評論中聽起來不對。 是否想從其他精通Stack Exchange的使用者那裡獲得更多答案？ 在此處檢視完整的討論執行緒。

翻譯自: https://www.howtogeek.com/174309/why-is-vertical-resolution-monitor-resolution-so-often-a-multiple-of-360/

通用非即插即用監視器解析度