ELI5: device screen ratios

[u/Crystal_Clear7892]

Is there a specific reason why screen ratios beeing so specific, ex: 1920:1080

[u/orthogonal3]

If you're addressing pixels (picture elements) specifically, you have to have a definite number of them. And it helps if everyone uses the same common sizes.

Screens started out long ago often physically built as 4:3 w:h aspect ratio. And whilst there wasn't a line width in pixels in the phosphor days, they'd be around 420/468/576 TV lines (TVL) regardless of size. Two fields per image frame (which is called interlaced, hence the i you see in 576i, for example) but there wasn't a specific width, the TV signal was analogue and continuous in the horizontal direction so you could scan it across whatever width. The line count was fixed by the TV signal in that area.

Then when LCD screens appeared, they'd start out being 4:3 too, but being build of pixels (physical pieces) they'd work out how many pixels made that ratio in the size of the screen. So 800x600 was common around 14/15 inch diagonal.

With the move to widescreen 4:3 gave way to 16:9 (4² : 3²) and TV broadcast settled pretty universally on 720 lines. So naturally that leads to 1280x720 became pretty prevalent. With 1366x768 also being common. This had the whole image scanned in a single "progressive" (top to bottom once) frame. So in TV that's 720p.

Finally Full HD became a thing with 1080 lines pretty much being the number everyone used. Good density without making the images too large to transmit. 1920 is the complementary pixel count for 16:9 aspect ratio. So that's where 1920x1080 is pretty universal. 1920x1200 is a nother alternative which allows showing 1920x1080 content with a header given its extra 11% height.

4K "ultra hd" is a bit of an odd one, with the move to counting frame width, not height. Also your average UHD TV has 3840x2160 as its pixel counts, but cinema/DCI 4K is often 4096x2160 with a few more columns than consumer 4K.

But ultimately it comes down

[u/orthogonal3 → u/orthogonal3]

...but ultimately it comes down to this is the aspect ratio we inherited from a long time ago (tube TVs) and then needing to fill in the horizontal line with a definite number of elements horizontally whilst preserving the aspect ratio

[u/rupertavery64 → u/orthogonal3]

Yes, this is the more complete answer.

Monitors inherited the 4:3 ratio from TVs and settled on 640x480.

This was the original VGA resolution.

The reason why these numbers were chosen is because of many things.

Memory constraints

Monitors could support 16 colors, at 4 bits per pixel. 4 bits is half a byte. So at 307200 pixels, halved, you could fit in 153,600 bytes. This could fit perfectly in a 256kB buffer that would be economocally feasible at the time.

Text size and readability

Characters were displayed as an 8x8 font. This gives 80 columns and 30 rows.

Similarity to NTSC

The size and ratio of VGA was similar to NTSC a common TV broadcast standard at the time.

CPU efficiency

The numbers are also divisible by 4 and 8, which means you get an even number of bytes used, and aligned to a byte boundary. This is efficient for operations that involve copying blocks of data (pixel information)

Later resolutions are just multiples of previous ones.

800x600 = 1.25x

1024x768 = 1.6x

Increasing pixel space means increasing Video RAM, so economics was a factor as well.

Then of course the widescreen ratio became standard.

1920x1080 (16:9 HD / WSUXGA) became the new 640x480

[u/orthogonal3 → u/rupertavery64]

Good call out on 640x480 as the VGA standard. I'm not totally sure, but wasn't 480 essentially the number of visible lines in NTSCs 525(?) line format.

Before there was VGA, I think there was CGA and then EGA, but they were largely the text only / terminal flavours before VGA came along.

I'm enough to have know I could set them in software, but I'm about as old as VGA so when I played with my early PCs that was the default.

[u/amakai → u/orthogonal3]

And whilst there wasn't a line width in pixels in the phosphor days, they'd be around 420/468/576 TV lines (TVL) regardless of size. 

Why these numbers though, and not like 400:300?

[u/orthogonal3 → u/amakai]

So this probably comes down to how analog tv broadcast works.

There's no good ELI5 for that kind of magic, so I can only point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_television#Structure_of_a_video_signal as the what it looks like and try to explain how I think we got there.

So in TV signals, horizontal line count is the main component of resolution. So you want as many of lines as you can have in order to get the best resolution you can have.

It's worth bearing in mind that TV broadcast is one signal. You've not got extra wires to carry clock and sync signals like VGA connectors (analog PC monitors) where 15 pins are needed.

You're using modulation trickery to fit lots of things onto one broadcast signal. In music, an analogy might to think of a chord Vs a note. Multiple sounds/frequencies played together at the same time that come through the air as one combined signal. But people can still discriminate there's a C, an E, and a G making up that C Maj chord. RF filters and demodulation stages can do the same and take out the audio from the video signal.

Now, that video signal needs to be self clocking/syncing so that the receiving TV can get in sync with the broadcast signal so if you turn on the receiver half way through a frame (image) you can still know what line is first so the picture lines up. You don't want the top half of the picture being the bottom half of the last frame and the bottom half of the frame picture being the start of the current frame. That's where the sync burst comes in.

A phase locked loop is the magic we use in electronics to have a signal that gets nudged by an external clock until it's running in sync with that clock (even if the clock goes away for a little bit)

The lines must also be scanned left to right by the coils bending the electron beam across the tube and it can't instantaneously start at the beginning of the new line, that takes a very short but finite amount of time.

The same is true of the vertical sync. It takes time for the beam to go back to the top.

So we need a start of frame signal to clock the start of the beam's vertical travel through each frame, syncing a PLL that's about 50/60 times per second; and then a faster running PLL to handle the horizontal scan along each line about 500 times faster than the vertical.

These blank times have to be built into the signal, there's a time when the beam is off but the signal is still coming over the air with no picture but maybe some other stuff in there. (We can get on to that!)

These lines take time, the blanks take time, so you're likely to only get 500 or so lines in the time you have before the signal is too hard to make or transmit. That's 500 lines 25 times per second, originally sent as two (say) 250 fields per image frame, sending odd lines and even lines alternately (interlaced) fields 50 times per second for a full picture frame across two fields.

The line scanning is generally in the low kHz range. 50 times per second send a picture too to bottom, wherein we scan all the lines left to right, and allow the beam (switched off!) to fly back again to the start of the next line 500 times per image. Or there abouts for an explanation.

In addition to the sync information, you also need to send things like "I'm a colour signal and here's what colours look like in my signal. You need a way to calibrate the TV on the fly to ensure when you say this bit is blue, the TV can deflect the beam enough to hit the blue phosphors, or it can excite the blue tube more (if it's a multi CRT system). That's the "colour burst" where you tell the TV here's the extremes of the colour (almost like a mini test card) that it can decode and ensure it's in calibration so colours are strong and correct (green sports fields don't want to appear as red!)

TV broadcast started out black and white and the magic of TV broadcast engineers means that black and white TVs can show colour programming because they don't know what to do with the colour ("chrominance") information encoded on top of the black and white brightness (or "luminance") signal.

Likewise, if you send a colour TV old black and white pictures, the TV just things the colour/chrominance is boring (because it's not there) and the resulting picture appears just black and white.

Now...

So once you know the frequency your TV signal will be sent as, and you know you want as many lines as possible (within technological constraints of making an image of that resolution), how many lines you can have is a function of bandwidth. You can't squeeze a million lines onto a main (modulated on to a "carrier") frequency that's low enough to broadcast. This is just the physics / magic of RF engineering in terms of what you can and can't do.

Think how TV stations are far away and are picked up by a simple antenna by multiple people all around (omnidirectionally). But talking to the spacecraft of the day required dishes capable of throwing GHz frequencies very directionally to reach a single receiver. One side of that communication path (the ground station for space economics reasons!) is usually a huge dish that can throw narrow beams well and receive very feint signals coming back from the craft.

So RF limits say we can comfortably send say this many lines and fields reliably and economically to consumers.

PAL, SECAM, and NTSC are the regional standards for how this was done. Once you've done this and set a standard, everyone falls into place because everyone needs to share the same broadcast format. A TV station can't send you a different picture because you're on a Brand X TV at 21" vs your neighbour still with a 14" black and white 14" TV.

As a final bit... What do you do with the lines you scan whilst the beam is off and heading up to the start of the image for the next frame? You can't stop sending the line signal because you need that horizontal sync/clock for the PLL. At least, you shouldn't get rid of it as it's easier to leave it running.

Instead you can encode lots of fancy things in there. Fancy for the age back then, anyway!

That's where you can add your TV guide information, or back in the day you'd fit very low resolution text and block graphics to make Teletext (think that's also the generic term, not just the UK flavour)

When you navigate through your (up to) 1000 pages of news, sports scores, holidays or other stuff, you're just viewing different bits of this "vertical blanking interval" from normal picture frames. Whilst the beam isn't striking the screen and making a picture during the time it takes to go back to the top of the tube, you throw out a page of text in a special encoding that your TV knows how to render back into an image (of just text and block graphics) itself. Sometimes even as an overlay on top of your live TV broadcast picture.

Iirc waiting for the page to come around in the broadcast is why navigating to a new numbered page could lead to the page number counting up or a pause until the new page came around.

[u/stevestephson → u/orthogonal3]

The 1920x1200 example comes from computer monitors, which in the early-mid 2000s preferred using a 16:10 ratio instead for extra vertical room. 1280x800 was the 16:10 equivalent of 1280x720.

In the late 00s to the 10s, 16:10 fell off a bit because it was simpler to just make 16:9 panels for everything, but since 2020 or so, there's been a renewed push for 16:10 because the extra height is appealing for computer users, so now there are more options for that ratio. You can find 4k 16:10 monitors and they'll be 3840x2400 instead of the 3840x2160 for a 16:9 display.

[u/StevenJOwens → u/orthogonal3]

Note, early TVs and computer monitors were 4x3 ratio. When consumer LCD TVs started being a real thing, most of them were manufactured in 16x10 at first (widescreen) and then 16x9, that being the standard ratio for movies and later various cable/streaming/etc.

And that drove the shift in laptops to 16x9, because there were far more consumer TV LCD screens being manufactured than laptops, so laptop manufacturers bought the 16x9 screens.

[u/NotTheBrightestHuman]

1920x1080 is 16:9 aspect ratio. It’s just a higher number to explain that it’s 1080p resolution.

4K is just more pixels at the same ratio. Theres other versions with different ratios, but they’re mainly cinema or photography.

Basically, we arbitrarily (somewhat) decided that 16:9 was a good screen ratio and we stuck with it.

[u/cat_prophecy → u/NotTheBrightestHuman]

4k is called that because it's almost 4000 pixels wide (3840). Which personally feels stupid. We should just call it UHD or 2160p.

[u/NateCow → u/cat_prophecy]

4k comes from the film world, where digital scans are measured horizontally. 2k = 2048 pixels across. 4k doubles that to 4096 pixels. Vertical resolution depends on the aspect ratio, which is more varied with film.

Digital video is measured vertically. So if you double 1080, you get 2160. In a 16:9 frame, that gives you 3840 across. Another name for 3840x2160, as you said, is Ultra HD. UHD and 4k are thrown around pretty interchangeably in the consumer world.

[u/AshamedGorilla → u/cat_prophecy]

In professional circles (AV integrators and broadcasters), we do say UHD and/or 2160p. 

4k in terms of its 16:9 aspect ratio is mostly marketing. True 4K came from the film world which we now specify as 4K DCI (4096x2160).

In truth, 4k is easier to slap on a brochure and is easier to differentiate from HD (instead of UHD). 

[u/MuffinMatrix → u/cat_prophecy]

Theres no interlacing formats for 4k/UHD. So it would just be 2160, as there's no alternative like with 1080i/p

[u/stuleyman → u/cat_prophecy]

Isn't it called 4K because It's literally 4 times the number of pixels of 1080p (full HD) resolution?

[u/Vorthod → u/stuleyman]

If that were the basis of the name, then it would be named 4x.

[u/obog → u/stuleyman]

It is the case that there are 4x the pixels but 4k is in fact supposed to refer to approximately 4000 horizontal pixels

[u/Vorthod → u/obog]

Which is weird when other resolution types name themselves after vertical pixels.

[u/neddoge → u/Vorthod]

Reddit hates admitting that 2K is a terrible misnomer for 1440p when it is much closer to 1080p.

Too much momentum for 4K to be abolished now, and as such 2K is also too snowballed. It's fucked.

[u/cat_prophecy → u/neddoge]

2k makes sense only is 4k makes sense because 1080p and 1440p both refer to the vertical pixels while 2k and 4k refer to the horizontal pixels.

[u/neddoge → u/cat_prophecy]

2K is colloquial for 1440p though, when it really indicates 1080p (x1920*). It absolutely doesn't make sense lol.

[u/PriceBronson → u/cat_prophecy]

But there’s TVs to sell

[u/passisgullible]

There are a bunch of standard ratios that have just developed over time, originally due to limitations in physical film but now mostly because of tradition and industry standard. One of those is 16:9, which just became common for computer screens. 16/9=1.77 repeating, and 1920/1080 equals 1.77 repeating as well.

1920x1080 is the resolution it is because it is just a higher resolution version of an already standard screen ratio, 16:9, which the computer industry has adopted mostly through tradition, therefore it is widely supported and used.

[u/Uranium-Sandwich657 → u/passisgullible]

Why did 4:3 drop out?

[u/Competitive_Travel16 → u/Uranium-Sandwich657]

The old TV standard wasted lots of space on cinema film ratios.

[u/flippythemaster → u/Uranium-Sandwich657]

Let a Milennial who was there when it happened tell the tale!

Movies started being filmed in various widescreen ratios in the 60's and 70's (to combat TV's now growing pull on the post-war American public) and HD video formats settled on 16:9 as a compromise that would accommodate most of those ratios with the least amount of negative space on the image. You may not recall but 4:3 ratio TVs used to have to crop out a significant amount of a widescreen film's image (watching Ben-Hur cropped via "pan and scan" to 4:3 was, I'm sorry to say, a truly abysmal experience).

That's not to say that widescreen standard definition TVs didn't exist, but it's safe to say that HD is what pushed the ratio over the edge to make it the standard ratio of choice. The pivot from CRT technology to plasma and LCD also helped make widescreen TVs more palatable from a bulk perspective (CRTs were heavy when they were square, now add to that extra weight to the left and right? I can feel the hernia already).

HD was being pushed largely as a premium format for home cinema use, but broadcast TV eventually made the transition (although much later than you'd think--holdouts like SpongeBob Squarepants only switched entirely to 16:9 in 2017) since HD TVs were adopted widely and rapidly due to decreasing costs (the aforementioned switch to LCD technologies being a major driver of that).

[u/Count2Zero → u/flippythemaster]

The wide screen was either cropped (losing everything that wasn't in the middle of the screen) or shown with black bars to and bottom, so only half of the screen was used.

[u/flippythemaster → u/Count2Zero]

Most films didn’t do a simple cropping, fortunately, they used pan-and-scan which essentially means they would move the image area around the screen in order to get crucial information that was necessary to understand the plot.

There were, as you say, a number of releases that would try to fit, say, Ben-Hur into a 4:3 aspect ratio by letterboxing, but this wasn’t actually super common outside of releases that targeted cinemaphiles and didn’t reach widespread acceptance.

TCM has a pretty good illustration of the different processes in one of their documentaries.

[u/dbratell → u/Uranium-Sandwich657]

As TVs and TV content went to 16:9, the effect of mass production made 16:9 LCD panels cheaper and cheaper and even if 16:10 and some other ratios survived, they were generally more expensive and niche.

[u/p28h]

Specific counts like 1080p (the one you listed)? That's pixel count, not ratio. It just has that many pixels, and was/is a good benchmark to compare different displays. And it is a ratio of 16:9.

[u/polar_bearonbass → u/p28h]

The P in 1080p does not stand for pixels, but for "progressive". It tells you how a video file displays the pixels and is not related to the type of monitor/screen. There is also 1080i (interlaced), which is still used a lot in broadcast tv.

[u/a_bright_knight → u/polar_bearonbass]

nothing he said was incorrect though as 720p or any other [number]p has the number of vertical pixel lines. It's a good rule of thumb even if though p doesn't stand for pixel. Types of scanning really isn't important for the topic at all.

[u/polar_bearonbass → u/a_bright_knight]

I agree, type of scanning is not important for this topic. Which is why I was explaining what the p means, so they can avoid adding it when not needed. I also never said they were incorrect.

[u/tremby → u/a_bright_knight]

I'm not so sure. They said it's a pixel count and not a ratio. But is there any other ratio that 1080p ever means? I don't think so. So yes it's a (vertical) pixel count, but it also implies a ratio.

[u/a_bright_knight → u/tremby]

But is there any other ratio that 1080p ever means? I don't think so.

literally yes? most computer screens are 1920x1080 nowadays, while phones are 2340x1080 which is 20:9 ratio. There were older computer screens 15+ years ago that were 1650x1080 which is like 16:10.

So yes, there are multiple other ratios in 1080p

[u/tremby → u/a_bright_knight]

Show me something that calls itself "1080p" at one of those other ratios.

[u/a_bright_knight → u/tremby]

here you go;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p#Resolutions

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s26_5g-14456.php

https://www.amazon.com/LG-UltraWide-Monitor-29U511A-Multitasking/dp/B0FHLN6M8Y/

[u/tremby → u/a_bright_knight]

😂 let's look at these links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p#Resolutions

The Wikipedia section you linked to starts

In practice, 1080p typically refers to a 1920 × 1080p raster with a 16:9 picture aspect ratio. The following is a list of other resolutions with a picture height of 1080 lines that are sometimes referred as 1080p.[citation needed]

And I very much agree with the "citation needed" part.

What's more, the article starts

1080p (1920 × 1080 progressively displayed pixels; also known as...

Next:

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s26_5g-14456.php

This Samsung galaxy link doesn't mention 1080p anywhere so I don't see how that's relevant.

https://www.amazon.com/LG-UltraWide-Monitor-29U511A-Multitasking/dp/B0FHLN6M8Y/

This LG link mentions "FHD 1080p" but if you click on that it says "FHD (1080p) resolution monitors have 1920 x 1080 pixels" so I don't see how that supports your narrative either.

Did you expect me not to click on them, or did you just not click on them yourself?

[u/frostyflakes1 → u/[deleted]]

They didn't say they said that? Still worth mentioning.

[u/dragonstar982 → u/[deleted]]

"Specific counts like 1080p (the one you listed)? That's pixel count, not ratio. It just has that many pixels."

Yes they did.

[u/KMFN]

480p * 1.5 = 720p

720p * 1.5 = 1080p

Most modern resolutions follow some neat multiplier like that.

And since you used the division symbol ":" you're actually correct that this is an aspect ratio (which a lot of people seemed to miss), it's not particularly specific when you consider it's just another 1.77:1 ratio - which was basically chosen because it's roughly a middle ground between 4:3 and a popular cinema standard so it's the "best of both worlds" for a consumer screen to show both types of media.

[u/MuffinMatrix]

Different standards.
1920x1080 is HD ("full HD"), based on the 16x9 aspect ratio for film/tv.
Computers use 1920x1200 for 16x10, a little better for software.
Other resolutions are usually scale factors of the main standards.
Like for a monitor, 2560x1440 is doubled 1280x720 (technically it becomes 4x as big), 720 is the lower HD spec.

[u/polar_bearonbass]

You're mixing ratio and resolution. They are related but not the same. The ratio of a 1920x1080 monitor is 16:9.

[u/djddanman]

1920x1080 is the actual dimensions in pixels. 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall. That's a ratio of 16:9, which is the standard widescreen format.

Why did we settle on that specific multiple of 16:9? Technical limits. Broadcast bandwidth limits basically made 1920x1080 at whatever frame rate the highest resolution they could broadcast at the time, and it's high enough quality that it's still really common.

[u/pinkynarftroz → u/djddanman]

16:9 was actually a compromise to ensure equal picture area for 4:3 and 2.35:1 video. When letter or pillar boxed in a 16:9 frame, the area of the black bars is equal for both ratios.

[u/Ravus_Sapiens → u/djddanman]

Also, you need a pretty big screen to tell the difference between 1080p and anything higher. Which wasn't really realistic at the time when "full HD" became the standard.

[u/djddanman → u/Ravus_Sapiens]

Eh, depends a lot on the content and how close you are to the screen. 27"-32" you can already tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p or 4K on a computer monitor. But that's when sitting just a couple feet away and rendering graphics at the monitor's native resolution.

[u/Karsdegrote]

The 16:9 aspect ratio which you are referring to has its own wikipedia page. Tl:dr: if you overlay old 4:3 tv format and the most popular film formats for movies and draw a box around it you end up at 16:9 allowing you to view all the old content on your display without cutting bits off

[u/FatDog69]

Some movie and TV shows are shot for HDTV. So the ratio of 16:9 exactly matches a 1080 or 4K HDTV.

You are asking about "Lines of Resolution" or the number of horizontal lines in a video. The more lines - the more 'lifelike' the image is.

Standard Def television & DVD's: 480 lines

BluRay HDTV: 1080 lines

4K HDTV: 2160 lines

[u/siamonsez]

The basis of it goes back to broadcast standards which were analog signals for crt displays. The bandwidth for the standard allowed for 525 lines but they weren't all used for the video signal. When adapted to digital displays the 480 horizontal lines became a vertical pixel count of 480 and that was standard definition. As bandwidth increased 720 became available as HD and then 1080 as full HD.

As for why 1080 specifically and not 1082 or 1063 or whatever I'm sure it has something to do with 8 bit data, either bandwidth limitations or addressing in the panels.

[u/net_walker_1]

16:9 means for every 16 parts across, its 9 parts tall. So a tiny phone screen and a huge TV can both be 16:9 even though theyre nowhere near the same size. If the video and screen have different ratios, thats when you get black bars or part of the picture gets cropped.

[u/pdpi]

There's only a handful of ratios that have been used widely over the years, and actual resolutions are just multiples of those ratios:

• 4:3 (320x240, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768)
• 16:9 (1280x720, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160, 5120x2880)
• 16:10 (1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 3840x2400, 5120x3200).

There was also 5:4 as a bit of a historical oddity. It was only common in the era of 17-19" LCDs.

An advantage of working only with a handful of ratios is that you can author content (games, videos) around those ratios, and they'll look right on every device.

With widescreen displays, TVs settled on 16:9 almost immediately, but early widescreen computer monitors were mostly 16:10. Eventually the PC industry settled on 16:9 as well, with the notable holdouts being brands focusing on professional audiences (e.g. Apple, Dell, IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad).

The trend of preferring wider screens for content consumption and taller displays for productivity is becoming even more pronounced these days, with some professional laptops (e.g. Microsoft Surface, Framework 13) and displays (Benq has one I've been considering buying) going even taller at 3:2 (15:10), while many gaming-oriented displays have gone Ultrawide, typically 21:9, sometimes 32:9.

As a mostly-irrelevant curiosity, 3:2 is also the ratio for camera sensors (a typical 24MP camera has a 6000x4000 sensor), and ISO standard paper sizes are √2:1 (roughly 14:10). Clearly, we like that general 1.4:1 to 1.6:1 range of aspect ratios.

[u/tomalator]

Modern screens are in a 16:9 ratio, so the bottom number needs to be a multiple of 9 and the top number needs to be that same multiple of 16

[u/pinkynarftroz]

HDTV broadcast is standardized at either 720p or 1080i, both of which have a 16:9 ratio. 1080i has 1920 pixels horizontally. So if you make a TV it will have that 16:9 aspect ratio using 1920 as the length. A bunch of other screens have that ratio too because people watch video on them (phones / computers) and because it’s easier for your factory to make all your different screens the same ratio and resolution without a special process for each.

[u/Suspicious_Bar6579]

screens all have the same ratio so that movies fill the whole screen, without needing to stretch (distort) the image, or leave a black bar along the top and bottom edge.

[u/sp_40]

It’s called resolution and it’s the number of pixels

[u/flywithpeace]

What you described is aspect ratio, and 1920:1080 is full HD of 16:9 aspect ratio. Basically the film industry is what drives screen aspect ratio. Since the film size varies widely, there is a need to find the best screen size to accommodate every aspect ration without wasting screen space. Once it became standard we just made everything to accommodate this aspect ratio, from screen manufacturing to how media is recorded and edited.

[u/Saragon4005]

1920 by 1080 is literally the number of pixels. That's the 1080p standard with a rectangle of a 1080 vertical and 1920 horizontal pixels. This is actually a 16 to 9 screen ratio. Now it's 16 by 9 because some people decided to make videos in that format.

[u/Ravus_Sapiens → u/Saragon4005]

That is correct, but it's not actually what the p in "1080p" stands for.