text:
Talk:720p

NBC Resolution
"NBC uses the tagline "the nation's finest high-definition standard" in advertising its 720p programming."
 * But the NBC website claims that all NBC HD broadcasts are in 1080i:
 * "NBC broadcasts HDTV in the 1080i format, which provides the highest possible resolution to our audience."
 * Lee M 17:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see that the reference to NBC has now been changed to Fox. It's all a bit academic to me anyway because I'm in the UK... Lee M 17:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

which one is better 720p or 1080i? cheers Interesting that the ATSC saw the two systems as content-specific, but the Networks, possibly for financial reasons, have each opted for just one. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Sky HD launches in the UK.... incidentally (or perhaps not) Britain will use 1080i25 and 720p50, meaning that despite having the same picture resolution as the US there'll still be frame-rate conversion issues to contend with. Not to mention the whole thorny question of up-and-down converting from PAL and NTSC.Lee M 02:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither. The two standards exist because each is better suited to different purposes, and the technology of the time wasn't good enough to provide what was actually desired - IE full rate 1080p. Instead we have the twin compromises of 720p and 1080i, the former better for high motion material where the effective display would otherwise be a rather weird 1920x540 and suffer interfield motion artefacts, and the latter better for bringing out finer details in low motion video and 24-frame filmed material (and avoids the need for HDTVs to have an initially rather expensive scan doubling framebuffer to prevent flicker, despite otherwise only having half the ideal framerate). If one was automatically "better" than the other in all situations, why would both standards have been enshrined? It's a waste of time and effort, doing something like that for no reason. 80.189.129.216 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus building that 720p is better for moving images, whereas 1080i is better for video with a lot of still or near-still footage. Thus, movies, nature, and drama content are better in 1080i, like on PBS-HD and NBC.  Sports are better in 720p, like on ABC, Fox, and ESPN-HD. Obviously, 1080p60 would be the best of both worlds, but too bad, we can't have it. --Locarno 22:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1080p60 just requires more efficient data compression. They'll get there eventually, and then they'll start working on even higher definition systems.

 * Sorry, but what Locarno says is only true when comparing, say, 720p/60 with 1080i/30. If that is the case he should have stated so. If no refresh rates are specified one is forced to assume they are the same, in which case the opposite of what he wrote is true. Motion portrayal is smoother when using interlaced scanning, for a given refresh rate. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)+-
 * No, that's not a sensible comparison because now you have 1080i at it's maximum temporal resolution against 720p with it's bandwidth cut in half for no stated reason. In a "which is better" comparison, you have to assume that both contenders are working at their maximum potential.  Anyone who is interested in motion portrayal would use the maximum frame rate available for a given system, so 720p wold have the advantage of less line crawl on moving objects.  Algr (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the first sentence. Such an assumption certainly cannot be made. The majority of 720p programming is in fact at 24 fps therefore there would be no reason to assume a higher frame rate. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of driving happens at maybe 24 mph, but you wouldn't assume that that is as fast as a car can go. Using 24 fps is an artistic choice for drama, no one is ever required to use it.  News, game and talk shows are shot at 60 fps, and they add up very quickly, so I doubt that the majority of 720p programming is 24 fps. Algr (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether that is the case or not is hardly relevant. My point was and remains the fact that unless explicitly stated I wouldn't automatically assume one frame rate for one resolution/scan mode combination and another for a different combination. The driving analogy is irrelevant. What does the average driving speed versus the maximum have to do with video refresh rates? I would make no assumption about either and would expect both to be explicitly stated. Similarly, going back a bit, why would I assume the same bandwidth unless it was explicitly stated? There are various other parameters to be considered and I would make no assumptions about any of them. Why should I? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are making such assumptions then why assume that a "frame" contains two images taken at separate points in time? Who would expect that to happen if it wasn't explicitly stated?Algr (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that nothing should be assumed when making comparisons of this type, therefore all parameters need to be explicitly stated: number of active lines, scan mode and refresh rate. MegaPedant (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I was telling 83.104.249.240. His claim was based on some illogical assumptions about how video would be used. Algr (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect the two of you are talking at crossed purposes. Rewinding back to the top of the page, Locarno answers the question "Which one is better, 720p or 1080i?" without mentioning the relative refresh rates of the two standards he's comparing. I think Algr assumed that he was comparing 720p/50 with 1080i/25 (say) because the bandwidth used by both is similar. I think 83.104.249.240 assumed that he was comparing 720p at any frame rate with 1080i at any frame rate. From those standpoints both make valid points. My pedantic point is that all three people were making assumptions, none of which can be taken for granted to be valid. It is only meaningful to compare different line standards and scan modes if the refresh rate is also specified because it simply can not be assumed. One thing that has to be considered is that 720p/24, 720p/25 and 720p/29.97 are seen by some programme originators as a cheap way of getting into HD as it uses about half the storage of 1080i at the same refresh rate. Now, this doesn't give the comparatively smooth motion portrayal that 720p/50, 720p/59.94, 1080i/25 or 1080i/29.97 do but smooth motion portrayal isn't necessarily what it being sought after by the production company whose inexpensive HDV camcorders don't do 720p at the higher frame rates. MegaPedant (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Television resolution chart
How does one edit the Television resolution chart on this page? It contains incorrect references to "240i" and "288i" In fact, these are progressive, (240p) even when displayed on NTSC and PAL sets. Algr 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fox Revert
Fox uses 720p, but it is possible that some of their affiliates convert this to 1080i before broadcast. Many sets do a poor job with native 720p, and look much better if such a signal is converted to 1080i by something else first. Algr 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

citation needed?
Some U.S. broadcasters use 720p60 as their primary high-definition format; others use the 1080i standard.

 * We already have references showing that both 720p and 1080i are in use. Algr 07:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What Algr says is certainly true, however I would say that the 720p material is almost entirely captured at 24 frames per second (or the NTSC-friendly 23.976 Hz variant). The small amount that isn't is almost certainly captured at 29.97 frames per second in the U.S. The assertion that Some U.S. broadcasters use 720p60 as their primary high definition format therefore does require citation. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interlace is misunderstood ...
These 2 sentences contain gross misunderstandings ...

Progressive scanning reduces the need to prevent flicker by filtering out fine details, so spatial resolution is much closer to 1080i than the number of scan lines would suggest.

and

The main tradeoff between the two is that 1080i may show more detail than 720p for a stationary shot of a subject at the expense of a lower effective refresh rate and the introduction of interlace artifacts during motion.

Interlace doesn't "filter out fine details". Some interlace systems may low-pass filter vertical detail (only) to a very slight degree, in order to eliminate interline twitter that occurs when the subject includes narrow horizontal stripes that approach the vertical field resolution. 1920 horizontal pixel resolution is definitely greater than 1280.

Interlace doesn't introduce artifacts during motion. Interlaced video is quite good at capturing and portraying motion. Interlace artifacts are only introduced when interlaced video is converted to progressive scan.

 * That is completely incorrect. Interlacing can introduce spatio-temporal aliasing (edge flicker, line crawl, etc) unless video is properly low-pass filtered in the vertical dimension.  Interlacing samples space-time at half the rate of progressive scanning.

Don - both of us are guilty of not signing our posts. Clearly you know what you are talking about... but I don't completely agree with your statements. As you know, aliasing can occur when you digitally sample something that has information at a frequency greater than half the sampling frequency (the Nyquist frequency). Interlace has half of the vertical resolution per field, but the same vertical resolution per frame as progressive scan. If the picture being captured by the video camera contains information with a lot of detail, artifacts can occur. However there are many reasons why this is not normally a problem. The camera would have to be in focus on the object, otherwise the lack of focus serves as a low-pass filter. If the object or camera are in motion, the motion blur low-pass filters the detail. The accuracy of the lens and the sensor (CCD, CMOS) can low-pass filter the detail. In general, most scenes being shot don't have the type of image detail that causes visible artifacts. Very high-end cameras filter the vertical resolution in order to reduce interline twitter, but most cameras don't... it isn't necessary for most situations. Finally, I would have to say that interlacing samples space-time at the same rate of progressive scanning, to be fair. Space is sampled at half the quantization level at twice the frequency... but the trick of offsetting the samples between frames by on line (spatially) gives the eye a moving average of the detail and the motion. If the object is moving, your eye gets updated information at a better refresh rate. If the object isn't moving, your eye still gets all of the detail of the full frame (due to the way the human visual system works). I've got nothing against 720p... it's great stuff. Progressive scan has advantages over interlace, particularly when it comes to editing (like slow motion detail), or display on progressive scan displays (which are all the rage for TVs these days, plus they are a part of every PC). But interlace is a technique that works, even if it isn't well understood. Tvaughan1 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It is difficult to work out who wrote what in the discussion above as only the last contribution is signed but it seems to me that both contributors are making assumptions without expressing them. Tvaughan1 is assuming the same frame rate between the two scanning modes, such as 1080i/25 and 1080p/25. The former refers to a system with 1080 lines of vertical resolution interlace scanned at 50 fields per second, giving a refresh rate of 25Hz. The latter refers to a system with the same number of lines of vertical resolution progressively scanned at 25 frames per second, also giving a refresh rate of 25Hz. This is the correct way of making comparisons between the two scanning modes, the result being that for static images the two modes give identical results whereas for moving pictures the progressively scanned system gives a better perception of vertical resolution at the expense of the quality of the motion portrayal, for a given refresh rate. The other contributor (Don?) is mistakenly assuming that moving from interlace scanning to progressive scanning necessarily involves doubling the frame rate. He is therefore comparing, say, 1080i/25 with 1080p/50 without explicitly stating so. This is an unfair comparison because the latter uses twice the bandwidth of the former and should naturally look better to the viewer—though I would say not better by a factor of two. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn't continue to follow this thread, but you can find a discussion of the theory of interlacing in a paper I wrote for SIGGRAPH 199o. This discusses the mechanism of aliasing that can cause moving edges to flicker.  Television engineers sometimes talk about the "Kell Factor" which is lower for interlaced video. http://www.mentallandscape.com/Papers_siggraph90.pdf  DonPMitchell (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

720p vs. 1080i
Just a suggestion, but I think it would be better to have a separate article for 1080i vs. 720p, and on that page include a table of what broadcaster uses what standard. Maybe even a separate page for that, updating as each one goes along? It would take some clutter out of this article, and would probably make a more sensible link on the 1080i page. Uagent 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to compare the quality of motion captured and displayed at 720p with 1080i the frame rate of each must be specified or the results are meaningless. This section as it stands doesn't make sense. Is the author comparing 1080i/30 with 720p/30 or with 720p/60, or even with the much more common 720p/24? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

768
Almost all LCD televisions in the 20"-40" range have resolutions of 1366x768. (Plasmas seem to be 1024x768, which is 4:3, but they have rectangular pixels.) Wouldn't this provide a worse image than an LCD with only 720 lines? With LCD computer monitors, you have to set your desktop resolution to the native resolution of your monitor or you'll get blurry images. Maybe because computer monitors deal with text, the problem is more pronounced on

Why does 720p even exist?
Does anyone know how this, or any of the other HD standard resolutions, came about? The number simply don't make sense to me. Can someone who really knows this stuff comment on my stream-of-conscious below?

The maximum theoretical resolution of NTSC is 525 lines, and of this 486 lines are visible. When they introduced DVDs, the obvious solution was to round this off to 480 lines, and provide the rest of the 525 "on the fly" in the players. So far, so good.

And then comes HDTV. This is where I get really confused. The painfully obvious selection for HDTV would be 480 x 2 = 960. This is very close to the existing 1080 standard, but because it's an even multiple it makes the scaling a whole lot simpler. So why isn't 1080 actually 960? Ok, so maybe you want a standard that can do both NTSC, PAL and SECAM, but that suggests you'd want to find a factor between 480 and 576, which suggests a number based on a multiple of 96... like 960.

The history section notes that the 720 was originally an analog system that was later converted to digital. OK, but how is it that they selected this format? I seem to recall the Japanese standard was something close to 1050 (which makes perfect sense given they used 525 at the time) so it seems like they simply selected this number "out of thin air". Does anyone know why it's 720 specifically?

And how was it that this selection of two incompatible standards has managed to survive to this day? It's one thing to pick a lower resolution standard for an analog system, but since everything went digital the cost of the extra resolution is pretty small. Why didn't it get eliminated somewhere along the line? Or, if the article is correct and the resolution of 720p is actually as good as 1080i, then how is it that 1080i survived? How did we end up in this ridiculous situation of having two standards that don't even have a common multiple?

Maury (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but it takes about the same analog bandwidth to transmit 720p as 1080i:
 * 720x1280x60=55,296,000
 * 1080x1920x30=62,208,000
 * In the early '90s the computer industry experimented with interlaced computer displays, and consumers absolutely hated them, so they wanted to make sure that progressive displays were standard. For things like reading text on a screen, a 720p CRT would look much better then 1080i. Algr (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The above assumes that the 720p signal runs at twice the frame rate as the 1080i signal—in this case 60Hz and 30Hz, respectively. However, that is by no means universally the case. 720p/24 is in fact much more common.
 * I believe that a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels is derived from the number of active lines used by the NHK 1125-line analogue HiVision system. The 1080-line standard was designed with interlace in mind, and with progressive scanning as an option. The 720-line standard was designed only for progressive scanning from the outset and the 33% reduction in line count was felt to give a similar perception of vertical resolution as the 1080-line interlaced standard, at a given refresh rate. Ideally both standards would have the same number of horizontal pixels because interlace has no effect on horizontal resoluton but to maintain an aspect ratio of 16:9 with square pixels means that the 720-line standard needs 1280 of them while the 1080-line standard needs 1920. So, while it can be argued that 720p gives a similar perception of vertical resolution to 1080i at the same frame rate, 1080i has potentially a significantly higher horizontal resolution. I say "potentially" because 1920 pixels of horizontal resolution are not often achieved in practice. Until quite recently HD television cameras had CCDs with only 1440 (rectangular) pixels horizontally. The most common HD videotape recording formats (HDV, DVCPro-HD and HDCAM) down-sample each line and record only 1440 anamorphic samples. In the case of DVCPro-HD working at 1080i/29.97 it actually records only 1280 samples per line, levelling the playing field a little, but not fully because at 720p/24 it records only 960 samples per line. The only two videotape formats in common use that record the full horizontal resolution of 1920 samples per line are HD-D5 and HDCAM SR. Then again, in order to save bandwidth broadcasters often reduce the horizontal resolution of the 1080i signal to 1440 anamorphic pixels when coding it up for transmission. How many people have 1920×1080 resolution television display, anyway? I know the number is growing but most displays branded "HD Ready" have only around 1360×760 pixels. Even if you've paid the huge premium and invested in a real 1920×1080 display are you sure you're getting 1:1 pixel mapping, and can you see the difference anyway? It really is a minefield. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * 720p and 1080i were proposed at about the same time, in response to the analog HD format developed in Japan. The television industry backed the interlaced format, because it was a familiar trick for them.  The computer industry was afraid that interlacing would become comoditized and begin to appear on computer monitors, where it has very poor properties (text and lines flicker).  Furthermore, the effective resolution of 1080i is not really much better than 720p, because interlaced video has to be veritically filters to avoid 30Hz flicker and other motion and aliasing artifacts. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 * There's a thing known as the Kell Factor which estimates the perceptual loss of resolution with interlaced video, and it comes from the CRT era (which is where these standards were also birthed). It's nothing to do with electronic filtering, but the blooming and overlap between the lines of each field (which are offset from each other by exactly one-half of a scanline, and the beam width is usually enough for a slight overlap between them; evidence of this can be seen in how the dark "scanlines" of old computer/console images on CRT TVs - caused by them sending a series of noninterlaced fields of the same type, instead of alternating "top"/"bottom", so a gap is left between each line - are not as tall as the bright lines in between), and the clarity lost by the human eye operating near the edge of persistence/flicker fusion and the brain having to fill in the gaps. Essentially, interlacing still gets you more useful resolution than the same field/frame rate without interlace, but it's not double... closer to 1.5x instead (I forget the actual figure for typical CRTs, but it's between 1 and 2...). That's how, for example, VHS and most analogue TV broadcasts could get away with surprisingly low horizontal resolution compared to their interlaced vertical rez - once the Kell factor is taken into account, they're actually reasonably well balanced against each other.

 * However, I have a feeling this isn't the reason for the two standards - they do, after all, have square pixels, and appear designed with the potential of display on extra high rez CRTs (computer grade, far in advance of TV by the late 90s), possibly with scan doubling, or LCD/Plasma flatpanels, where the Kell factor simply doesn't exist. I expect it's more for the flexibility of having a high frequency progressive mode that gives good clarity for high-motion material despite otherwise having 2/3 the spatial resolution in each direction and approx half the total pixels, and another that has greater total resolution but a slower total framerate, for lower-motion material (or for movie transfers), with the interlacing acting both to still give smooth motion where needed (but with only half the vertical resolution, for the fastest objects), as well as reducing flicker on screens which were hard-synched to the input signal.

 * The loss of resolution for fast motion in interlace mode is possibly a very crucial thing - it reduces the apparent rez to 1920x540 in the worst cases (whole scene pans, for example). Compared to that, 1280x720 has about the same number of pixels overall, but has a much better balance between horizontal and vertical - and also doesn't suffer the half-line zigzag combing that can make pulling a clear static image from an interlaced original a complete pain in the backside; instead you get 50 or 60 complete, independent pictures every second, no combing, no loss of clarity. Moreover, compared to SD it's at least 1.5x the rez in each direction (nearly 2.5x overall) AND doesn't suffer those interlacing drawbacks inherent to SD recording, AND scans at the same effective field rate (so is no more flickery - less so in fact, as it doesn't have the 25/30hz flicker some fine detailed material can exhibit). Which is why it's the preferred mode for sports broadcasts, if 1080p isn't an option, and even the US military for their surveillance drone cameras - clear, high-motion, and not as fatiguing to stare at for long periods.

 * For filmed material that never goes above 24/25fps anyway, and that you want to extract as much detail from as possible (as even 16mm has the potential to exceed 720p resolution with good filmstock, and 35mm is closer to 4k), as well as for news or studio-recorded programmes which tend to have much more in the way of static or low-motion footage, 1080i is your guy. Each pair of fields carries twice the pixel count of 720p, the interlacing means it doesn't look significantly more flickery for most material at normal viewing distances, it appears to maintain full resolution with slow pans or slowly moving objects even at 50/60hz, and if displayed on a flatpanel or a framebuffered, double-scanning CRT, films will look just the same with 1080i as they would with 1080p at the same framerate as 720p (on a single-scanning screen, they'll look that good divided by the Kell factor...).

 * Broadcasters don't seem to pay as much attention to choosing between the two options as they should, and tend to stick with 1080i in a lot of cases (though the improved broadcast bandwidth available over digital terrestrial, and particularly satellite, cable or IPTV, means sports channels go for 1080p instead of 720p), but that's what the two standards are best suited to, and I dimly remember reading that there was some thought behind it, setting it up like that deliberately.

 * As for why that resolution particularly... it's just what worked. 1080 lines was what was settled on as a common halfway house between 960 (twice NTSC active height) and 1152 (twice PAL) (or, maybe more particularly, the 1125 total scanline count is close to 525+625; having a common picture resolution just makes life SO much easier when moving material between regions, even if the framerates are still different), that was divisible by 16 and would produce a horizontal width also divisible by 16, with square pixels at 16:9 aspect ratio (meaning it's locked in to heights that are multiples of 72; in this case, x10 and x15), and interlaced because that's what was necessary at the time in order to make the engineering practical (bringing the image data rate down to roughly that of cheaper-grade computer equipment, rather than twice as much). When the thought occurred that a progressive standard would also be rather desirable, it had to be as large as possible whilst still fitting within the same overall limits (data rate, aspect ratio, both dimensions divisible by 16), and preferably be produced from the exact same hardware (including pixel clock) just with different programming. There's not many modes which satisfy those requirements. As a nice bonus, the horizontal dimension for both modes is a multiple of 640 (and the verticals can be padded or cropped to 768 or 1024 without adding huge borders or losing anything from the "safe" area), making scaling to and reuse of commodity monitor tubes and panels rather simpler... 80.189.129.216 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

720p vs 1080p - Screen Size
If a TV's size is only, let's say, 1366 by 768 pixels, is there a noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p on a screen of this size?-- Just James  T / C  14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because 720 and 768 are so close, there is a fair amount of loss when images are scaled - every 15 lines in the signal has to be stretched into 16 lines on the display, resulting in a lot of detail falling between the cracks. A true 720p set would look much better, given a 720p signal. The 1080p signal would suffer less from this effect, but would not look as good as a hypothetical 1366 by 768 image.  (Such as if the set were being used as a computer monitor.) Algr (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In practice, though, there's still some overscan anyway. EG a lot of supposed 1080p sets stretch out the centre 1856x1044 or so pixels to fill their 1920x1080 (for why, I'm not sure, maybe it's to compensate in case SD material is carelessly upscaled without the ragged edges being cropped off? It's a figure I've run across a handful of times with different devices, usually when they've glitched out and think that a PC input is actually broadcast material, and you lose the edges of the image, which is very inconvenient if it happens to be your OS desktop), and we can assume HDready 720p or 768p sets do the same. So we have 1044 lines being crammed down, or approx 696 lines stretched out, to 768. In any case, the amount of upscaling is small enough that it doesn't significantly affect clarity, and the downscaling only loses about a quarter of the total transmitted. The difference between the two will depend on the quality of the built-in scaler; a poor one will end up smearing 720p material (and you'll probably end up hunting out the Service Mode codes in order to enforce 1:1 scaling for that mode, same as I had to in order to make PC 1920x1080 modes work correctly), but give a decent impression of 1080-line (maybe with some interlace artefacts for 1080i), but a good one should give an only slightly softer image for 720p vs 1080i/p, and deinterlace 1080i intelligently too. 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BBC
"The BBC is one of the EBU members transmitting in HDTV. It has not yet made a final decision on picture scanning format."

I think the BBC has decided on 1080i50, as have all other UK broadcasters. I do not have a source for this, but I don't see a source to say it is wrong either. --Iain (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In Europe the channels are larger then in the US - 7-8 MZ each. With this and H.264, and the slower refresh rate, I don't see why they keep going with half measures.  Why not 1080/50p?  Several cameras that can do this already exist.  (The Red One for example.)  Algr (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * 720p and 1080i were already defined as broadcast standards when HD started in Europe. Many people would have already had the TVs for those standards, and there would have been negligible benefit of going down that route. Bandwidth is limited (especially terrestrial), and film based material, for example, has no benefit of being broadcast at 50p. Even though there would have been benefits in sports broadcasting, it would not have been economical for such a drastic change in infrastructure with added expense of bandwidth.--Iain (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * As far as I know the BBC hasn't made an announcement of any decision but all the HD work I've been involved with in the UK has invariably been 1080i/25. The BBC's HD delivery format was until recently HDCAM (which doesn't even support 720p) with multichannel sound having to be Dolby E encoded due to the format only supporting four regular PCM audio tracks. Their future delivery format will be the much superior but significantly more expensive HDCAM SR format. Algr: sorry to disappoint you, but in Europe at least, HD isn't about quality. It's driven by the equipment manufacturers and it's solely and cynically about separating (mostly gullible) customers from their money. A lot of these people have, in the last five years, already upgraded their television receivers from standard definition 4:3 to standard definition 16:9, then the early adopters of HD bought 1366 x 768 so-called "HD Ready" branded equipment which they are now being encouraged to ditch in favour of "true HD". Meanwhile it's virtually impossible to buy a CRT, whether for domestic or professional use, but the replacement display technologies are all markedly inferior. Meanwhile the digital replacement for analogue broadcasting is sacrificing quality for quantity. In the UK the only SD channel that makes any attempt at maintaining technical quality and which uses a data rate that's consistently over 4Mb/s is BBC ONE. Viewed on a CRT, digital BBC ONE flagship programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who can look absolutely cracking, but they are the exception, not the rule. Everything else is poor by comparison. The situation in the US may well be different - I have no recent experience. I was last there in 1996, working at the Olympic Games in Atlanta and my opinion after watching several hours of television in my hotel room is that it was dreadful, both technically and in terms of its production values. I do hope it has improved in the intervening 12 years. MegaPedant (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Let's put this BS to bed.
 * *presses "Info" button on freeview PVR remote whilst tuned to a BBC HD channel*
 * Says 1080i50, and I think if anyone should know, it's the receiver decoding the broadcast. Is that good enough for you or do we need to find an actual published citation to close this ten-year-old squabble? 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitrate
What is the bitrate of 720p? Do you need 5 megabit to stream it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.232.65 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Depends on the content. Mypal125 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 * To whit: Uncompressed RGB, including usual blanking, is 1782mbit (4:2:0 YUV without blanking is 1188mbit, if my maths are correct). At the other extreme, the 25fps version used by the BBC on the iPlayer VOD site runs around 3mbit; probably if that was compressed with 2-pass VBR instead of a realtime CBR encoder it might average more like 2.5mbit. The upper limit of Blu-ray material (and HD video cameras) is somewhere around 21~24mbit. Most compressed cases (which I assume is what you're after) will be some arbitrary figure in-between those latter rates. 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

what does this mean?
"Unlike NTSC, the ATSC standards do allow for a true 1080p broadcast leaving this battle almost lost on both sides."

If the ATSC standards do allow for a true 1080p why is the battle lost on that side? Confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.84.66 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection to comment in opening paragraph
I dont know why the following is allowed on the first paragraph or anywhere in Wikipedia, because it is quite simply incorrect:

"so spatial resolution (sharpness)" FIXED by SadxPandaxFace

This implies that spatial resolution and sharpness is equivalent, and are not. I am going to change it to say "so sharpness is much closer to 1080i". 62.244.190.66 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Frames v Fields
It seems this article frequently and erroneously uses the word "frames" where it should be using the word "fields". It is my understanding that NTSC standard is 30 or 29.97 FRAMES per second, but 60 or 59.94 FIELDS per second. Each frame consists of two fields, each consisting of half the number of horizontal lines that make up the full frame. Even the first referenced URL in the article notes that this is the case. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, can we have all erroneous instances in this article corrected? --Ds093 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It's irrelevant in the case of 720p (or 1080p, 2160p... etc), as it's not interlaced. There are no fields, or perhaps more accurately every field is also a frame. Each 1/60th (or 1/59.94th) of a second, you get a full block of 720 lines, and each new block completely replaces the immediately previous one, instead of weaving inbetween them. Thus although the NTSC rate (60hz mono or 60/1.001hz colour) still holds sway for compatibility's sake, it's now the frame rate, not the field rate as it was previously. Of course, for 1080i, the distinction is still important, but this is an article about 720p ;) 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What is 720p when aspect ratio is not 16:9?
How do you define 720p when the aspect ratio of the videos are not 16:9? Alot of movies uses e.g. 2.35:1 and in my experience these films usually have a definition of 1280x544. So it's not really the height of the signal that is constant in 720p, it's actually the width. So why don't we call it 1280p then, which would be the correct width in every video. And what would the definition be if the aspect ratio is 4:3? 1280x960, or 960x720? Cachinnus (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's 720p even so, because the transmitted image (which is all that matters) will still be either 1280x720 (16:9) or 960x720 (4:3), just with hard coded letterboxing down to the reduced vertical height. Broadcast TV, Blu-ray video encoding, and indeed computer monitor specifications are not the same as the pirate DivXs you're probably thinking of (which have the letterboxing cropped off for economy and best multi-shape display compatibility, and can afford to do that as each programme or movie is individually encoded by an intelligent agent, ie a person, and meant for playback on a device powerful and flexible enough to deal with an entirely arbitrary video format, ie a computer; conversely, broadcast video is designed for entirely automated operation, and compatibility with the simplest and cheapest possible device that can be built, so tends to stick to a small number of very broad standards), and so you shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking they need to be defined the same way. If you play that 544-line video file out over a TV transmission, or directly to a TV in 720p mode or to a 1280x720 monitor, the actual format that finds its way to the screen is still 720-line, with the extra two 88-line high blocks of black padding (for 16:9, obviously it'll be more for 4:3, but that needs more maths because your video will have to be shrunk both horizontally and further vertically to fit inside the 960-pixel width) being added onto the "useful" data before it leaves the computer, media player, or broadcast tower.

 * You're still free to call the file resolution whatever you like, and your monitor rez as well if it's different from 720 lines high. Because they themselves are not the same as the broadcast standard, and can be named accordingly and independently. 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

720p is not frequently used in Europe?
This article says »720p is not frequently used in Europe.« but in the German Wikipedia we can read, that »ARTE HD Deutschland, Das Erste HD, Eins Festival HD, ZDF HD, ORF 1 HD, ORF 2 HD, HD suisse, SVT, NRK, DR und YLE« are using 720p. So this information is definitly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.238.66 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect about 3:2 pulldown?

 * A 720p60 (720p at 60Hz) video has advantage over 480i and 1080i60 (29.97/30 frame/s, 59.94/60 Hz) in that it comparably reduces the number of 3:2 artifacts introduced during transfer from 24 frame/s film.

I don't think that's true. There will be just as much "judder" - caused by repeated fields/frames - on 720p60 as 480i60 or 1080i60. David (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 * It does, however, make interframe smoothing/motion blurring a bit easier, potentially improves the overall resolution (depending on how IVTC was performed before), and gets rid of the problem of deinterlacing/detelecine-ing glitches (back-forth jitter, excessive combing, etc) and bleed through between fields, which can make 3:2 pulldown even uglier than it already is. Also, I expect there's probably the option of using the "repeat frame"/IVTC flags as per DVD, both economising on bandwidth and allowing suitably intelligent displays (e.g. 120hz panels) to re-time a series of 60hz frames sent as (1)-R-(2)-R-R-(3)-R-(4)-R-R (etc) to a jitter free 24hz stream, without the additional complication of having to reconstruct the picture from individual fields that can come in four different arrangements. Effectively, the only image data being transmitted is the 24 full frames every second, same as with 25/50hz, just with a bunch of repeat flags inserted. However, it still loses out in terms of resolution, and if your hardware is sophisticated enough and transmission of good enough technical quality it should be able to reconstruct 60i into 24p just as well as 60p to 24p, just with twice as many pixels... 80.189.129.216 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

720p60 CVT-RB
I am looking for some information for possible use in improving this article (assuming I can find a reliable source)

Background: unless I am mistaken, the specifications for 720p60 CEA-861 video are:

1280 × 720 Resolution

59.940 Hz Refresh

44.955 kHz Vertical

74.176 MHz Horizontal

What I cannot find are the specifications for 720p60 CVT-RB (reduced blanking) video.

CVT-RB is a VESA standard (Coordinated Video Timings, VESA-2003-9).

ESA-2003-9 is available at ftp://ftp.cis.nctu.edu.tw/pub/csie/Software/X11/private/VeSaSpEcS/VESA_Document_Center_Monitor_Interface/CVTv1_1.pdf (despite the "Microsoft Word" in the URL, it is a PDF document).

It has some formulas, but does not specifically list timings for 720p60 CVT-RB. Does anyone know where to find the timing for 720p60 CVT-RB? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 * (Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 * AFAIK you just use a typical computer monitor modeline calculator to find that. However I'm pretty sure I've seen it listed amongst a bunch of other modes somewhere online recently, whilst looking up other specs, so at this point, nearly 5 years on from the original question, it may now be googleable? I'll write it in here in a bit if I find it. Also, thanks for the standard Hsync (45/1.001khz) and pixel clock (74.25/1.001mhz) rates, searching for confirmation on those is what brought me here in the first place (I think they need copying onto the main article, as there's no clue about the overall frame structure at all there)... The latter is what I arrived at independently but it seemed rather too high, as it adds up to 1650 pixels total. Little wonder a reduced blanking mode is also available... active width being only 77.6% of a line is a little narrow even in SDTV terms, let alone the modern era. 80.189.129.216 (talk)

 * (some time later)

 * OK, so, I did a bit of research, and some calculation... and the answer is...
 * ...no such thing as 720p60 reduced blanking exists. Because there's no reason for it.
 * The reduced blanking versions of CVT modes were produced as a way to push more pixels per second down the bandwidth-limited links represented by VGA, DVI, and early HDMI cables between PCs (or other output devices) and their monitors (or other display devices). As the regular 720p and 1080i HDTV modes are what both DVI and HDMI were designed to transmit, and they're well within the capabilities of a decent quality analogue VGA cable (and don't suffer too badly from a poor quality one), only one standard exists for each of them: the CEA-861s you already mentioned. And actually, that's a pretty efficient standard, at least compared to regular-type DMT, GTF and CVT - it seems rather that instead of allowing for poor quality electronics and thus providing plenty of overscan blanking as the other more general standards do, whoever put CEA-861 together instead came up with a timing spec that would work with the desired resolutions/framerates and available timing crystals, and challenged HDTV hardware designers to produce equipment that could successfully scan it.
 * CVT is made for maximum compatibility, even with sloppily engineered CRTs that absolutely depend on the transmitted sync and the blanking period around it to return the electron beam deflection back to the left and/or top of the tube, without either losing any of the picture off the side/spread out through the flyback, OR being *too* wasteful.
 * CVT-RB is made mainly for flatpanels, or at least CRTs with framebuffers - either way, displays that don't depend strictly on the blanking period for their internal synchronisation, but just use it as a basis for their own independent timing circuits, and something to centre the active image area between. It cuts the inactive display areas down to the bare minimum that can still contain a recognisable sync pulse for the screen to latch onto, and expands the active duty cycle out as far as possible around that.
 * CEA-861 sits in-between the two, but closer to CVT-RB than CVT, allowing a reasonable amount of blanking around the sync pulse, but without being particularly forgiving. For example, with 1080i30, there's just 300 pixel times of horizontal blank and sync allowed on top of the 1920 active pixels, which is roughly what you might expect for a GTF/CVT/etc PC mode of half that resolution. Nearly 88% of each line is active picture, when normally you'd expect 75-80%, and there's about 45 lines of blanking (22.5 per field) in 1080i mode/30 in 720p, which is on the lower side of average (for comparison, NTSC 480i has 45 lines itself, as does basic VGA 640x480, and PAL 576i has 49 lines).
 * Now, at the higher resolutions and refresh rates, as used for really fancy monitors (or 4K video), even the small difference between CEA standard and CVT-RB can be significant, where there are even CEA standards anyway; they only define a small number of core resolutions, so you're otherwise stuck with CVT or similar in most cases, and use of RB is pretty crucial. But at the lower, default-standard resolutions defined by the CEA, there's just no point in messing with the timing. The output hardware can handle it just fine, so can the target display, and the cable can DEFINITELY handle it. All you're doing is fussing with unnecessary details. RB is used to either increase the number of pixels, and/or the refresh rate, beyond what your video chip, cable, or display would otherwise be able to handle... and, well, once you increase one, other, or both of (960/1280 pixels by) 720 lines or 60 frames per second... the standard ceases to be 720p60.
 * Of course, what you actually do by reducing the blanking is reduce the required bandwidth for image transmission... but, if you're having trouble sending the 74.25mhz of standard HD video from any kind of modern computer to any kind of modern screen, over almost any practical cable you could name, you've got bigger problems than the scanning specs of the signal itself. Any of the main three mentioned can more than double that data rate (ie, meaning they can easily handle 1080p60, 720p60 3D, or twin 720p60 screens down the one line), and a high quality VGA, dual-link DVI, or any HDMI cable and send/receive equipment from v1.3 standard onwards can double that again (so, 3D or twin 1080p60 over one cable, or a single 2560x1600 60hz progressive).
 * Technically, the limit for single-link DVI or original-form HDMI is 165mhz, exact, and a common grade VGA can about match that; dual-link, HDMI 1.3+ or high grade VGA can hit 330mhz (and later HDMI standards take that to 500mhz or more, at which point the bottleneck is more likely to be in your video card or monitor instead). What can you do with 165mhz? With normal blanking, 1280x720 at upto 121.9hz (133.3hz with blanking equivalent to CEA-861), 1440x1080 at upto 74.8hz, 1920x1035 at upto 60hz progressive (CVT; similar to original MUSE hi-def), 1920x1080 at upto 57.6hz (CVT, or 66.7hz with CEA-equivalent blanking... so 60hz progressive is no trouble) = etc, etc = and 2560x1600 at 30hz (progressive with scan doubling/buffered flatpanel, or 60hz interlace). With reduced blanking, you can push 1280x720 to 148.2hz, 1440x1080 to 91.4hz, 1920x1035 to 74hz, 1920x1080 to 71hz, 2048x1080 ("2k") to 67hz, and 2560x1600 to 37.2hz (or 74.4hz interlace).
 * Now perhaps you really want to get that 148hz at 720p resolution... but that's 720p148, not 720p60. Maybe you want to run two 720p60 images down the same cable... well, that's an entirely valid aspiration, but you can do that within the parameters of CEA-861, so reduced blanking is still needless.
 * If you have a better-than-default cable, capable of 330mhz, you can double all those framerates... or push the resolution higher - 2880x1760 at 59.94hz rates just a smidge under the maximum, with reduced blanking. 3840 or 4096x2160 ("4k" resolutions) work nicely at 25hz with regular CVT, or 30hz with RB (or indeed CEA-equivalent) timing... in fact, up to 70 (4096-pixel) or 75hz (3840-pixel) interlace in the latter case. And if you do some manual massaging of the blanking to trim it by just a few pixels and/or lines from the RB spec, if your monitor can handle it, you can squeeze out 4096x2560 at 29.97hz (59.94hz interlace) or 4096x3072 at 25hz (50hz interlace)...
 * Beyond that, you'll either need even-later-standard HDMI, or a recent revision of Displayport or Lightning. But hopefully the point has been driven home that the system has more than enough capacity to handle 720p60 with even the most extremely wasteful conceivable blanking characteristics, let alone the default, so RB isn't needed for it, and so isn't defined as part of any standard (and, in any case, it only gives about 11% extra framerate vs CEA, rather than the 28% vs plain CVT). The figures I give for it above were calculated using a spreadsheet I found on some random website, and I'm not entirely sure of its accuracy... 80.189.129.216 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes 1. = not 60 FPS
According to my calculater 60 * 1000/1001 = 59.94005994005994005994005994006

59.940059 940059 940059 940059 940059 ... (the number with whitespaces between blocks)

59.940059 940059 94 (number on the page)

59.940059 940059 94940059 940059 94940059 940059 94 (extended period)

The number on the page is not the same as the calculator outputs. Either the formular or the value is wrong

So the number should be 59. 940059 - the underlined part is the part that repeats. (No clue how to put the line over the text.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.100.19 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Whilst this is true, it's an arguably entirely pointless level of pedantic precision. The difference between 59.94 and 59. 940059 - never mind between the latter and any more clearly defined figure - is 0.0000 599400 frames per second. Or, in other words, one frame per 16683.3 seconds. Or one for every 4 hours, 38 minutes and 3.3 seconds. I think it's safe to say there are almost no circumstances where having the framerate defined to just 3dp / 5sf, never mind the 14dp / 16sf that you complained about, will cause any kind of noticeable problem, because the slight desync blips between individual programmes, or even programmes and ad breaks / continuity announcements, will cause a reset long before it becomes an issue. I think the longest ever single programme I ever recorded was only 4 hours long...

 * Additionally, the difference between 59.9400599400594 (itself ludicrously over-specified) and 59. 940059 is - as best as Windows Calculator can report, anyway (my physical Casio scientific calculator not having enough digits on its screen to perform the task) - equivalent to one frame every 1.87 million seconds, or one dropped every 59.3 years. 59 years ago was 1959, a mere 6 years after the initial adoption of the 60/1.001 standard as part of the launch of colour TV. The timing error is literally so small that if you'd started a pair of displays running the first day that analogue NTSC colour was broadcast, one at 59.9400599400594hz (assuming you had any way of producing an output of that exact frequency, seeing as it requires precision of a minuscule fraction of a "pixel" per frame), and the other at exactly (60/1.001)hz, they would only just have ended up one full frame out of sync at the point where analogue broadcasting ceased in the USA. That's assuming you're relaying footage from a station that always shows colour footage instead of swapping between that and monochrome, and never has any breakdowns or retunes.

 * In real use, the timing variability in recording, playback and broadcast equipment is enough that specifying the frame rate even to 59.94006hz (or indeed 50.00000hz for PAL) would be a little OTT. The colourburst crystals that much of NTSC timing is based off of are only rated to 7sf themselves (eg 14.31818mhz), or even just 5sf (14.318mhz), and even a single oscillator can vary slightly with temperature and other factors. And then there's cheap or badly made equipment that might not count the right number of colour clocks per line, or the right number of lines per frame, not to mention videotape that can stretch and warp, transports that don't quite get up to speed, etc. That's why there's a horizontal sync pulse, and a colourburst pulse itself, to lock the receiver back into the transmitted signal on each and every line, and a vertical sync as well, with the interlace offset built right into it by dint of when it actually happens, with the receiver being quite forgiving about what it accepts as valid input, and just freerunning at whatever speed it likes otherwise. If you pull the specs of basically any and every last computer and games console that connects to a TV for its display, hardly any of them actually produce a proper (15750/1.001)khz horizontal, (60/1.001)hz vertical NTSC compliant output signal, though most of them do at least have a correct 3.579545mhz colourburst...

 * tl;dr - precision to that degree often isn't necessary for everyday things. Unless you're measuring things on the atomic scale, you just don't need to bother. There's a whole lot of slop in any given system, and if it's normally just given as "59.94hz", that's probably because that's as exact as it needs to be to work correctly.

 * As for "either the formular or my calculater is wrong" (sic), methinks you need to go find out what "rounding" and "limited precision representation" are. You're actually getting in to the realms where consumer level CPUs and FPUs start running into rounding errors, because they just don't represent numbers with enough binary digits (bits) internally to show any greater precision on the output. Even so, the figures still look like they've been calculated correctly - they've just been truncated to a sensible number of decimal digits, with rounding where necessary (e.g. xxx59 gets rounded to xxx6, which is correct unless you decide to add an unnecessary 0 on the end afterwards). Naturally, if you try to subtract a rounded version of a number from its exact rational-fraction or recurring-decimal form, you're going to get a non-zero result. It's just that, as you're not a computer yourself, and therefore imbued with some intelligence and human intuition, you're expected to not do such silly things and expect them to work.80.189.129.216 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Interlacing
720 is like webTV. 30fps at and interlace at a "SPECIFIC" 120khs refresh rate. Well I could go on about Sytax and Vizio but some people care about 30fps or 60fps. Interesting talk though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:DD52:A7BA:E943:107C (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 * What? Are you feeling OK? 80.189.129.216 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

1080x720? 3:2 aspect? Rec 601 spec? eh?
OK, let's see... in a great many years, I've never seen the 1080x720 resolution mentioned anywhere before, nor any TV standard that has a 3:2 aspect ratio. Rec 601, at least as far as I knew, and indeed as far as the directly linked WP article is concerned, is an early 80s format that long pre-dates any serious attempt at establishing HD standards, and only defines 525- and 625-line interlaced SDTV modes. No 720p or indeed 1080i/p of any kind, and no horizontal resolutions wider than 768 pixels.

Is there any kind of veracity behind this oddity, or is it just some random misguided wikignome's wild imagining that can be safely deleted? I'm feeling strongly inclined to Be Bold with it. 80.189.129.216 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:720p


text:
User:Timcotten

That's me. go wiki.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Timcotten


text:
2000–01 FA Premier League

The 2000–01 FA Premier League (known as the FA Carling Premiership for sponsorship reasons) was the ninth FA Premier League season and the third season running which ended with Manchester United as champions and Arsenal as runners-up. Sir Alex Ferguson became the first manager to win three successive English league titles with the same club. Liverpool, meanwhile, managed a unique cup treble – winning the FA Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup. They also finished third in the Premier League and qualified for the Champions League. Nike replaced Mitre as manufacturer of the official Premier League match ball, a contract that has since been extended multiple times, with the most recent renewal made in November 2018 to the end of the 2024–25 season.

UEFA Cup places went to Leeds United, Chelsea, Ipswich Town, and Aston Villa, who qualified via the Intertoto Cup. None of the top six clubs in the Premier League had an English manager. The most successful English manager in the 2000–01 Premier League campaign was Peter Reid, whose Sunderland side finished seventh, having spent most of the season challenging for a place in Europe, and briefly occupied second place in the Premier League table.

Despite the success achieved by Sir Alex Ferguson and Gérard Houllier, the Manager of the Year Award went to George Burley. The Ipswich Town manager was in charge of a newly promoted side who began the season as relegation favourites and on a limited budget, guided his team to fifth place in the Premier League final table earning a total of 66 points - the highest total in Premier League history for a newly promoted side since the switch to a 20-team format—and a place in the UEFA Cup for the first time in almost 20 years. 2000–01 was perhaps the best season yet for newly promoted teams in the Premier League. Charlton Athletic finished ninth, their highest finish since the 1950s. The only newly promoted team to suffer relegation was Manchester City, who in the space of six seasons had now been relegated three times and promoted twice. Relegated in bottom place were Bradford City, whose return to the top division after almost 80 years was over after just two seasons. The next relegation place went to Coventry City, who were finally relegated after 34 successive seasons of top division football, which had brought numerous relegation battles and league finishes no higher than sixth place.

Teams
Twenty teams competed in the league – the top seventeen teams from the previous season and the three teams promoted from the First Division. The teams that were promoted were Charlton Athletic, Manchester City and Ipswich Town, returning after a top flight absence of one, four and five years respectively. They replaced Wimbledon, Sheffield Wednesday and Watford. They were relegated to the First Division after spending fourteen, nine and one year in the top flight respectively.

Manchester United won a third successive Premier League title, meaning that they had now won seven out of nine top flight titles since the creation of the Premier League. Arsenal finished runners-up for a third consecutive season. Liverpool finished third and won a treble of trophies - the League Cup, FA Cup and UEFA Cup - after winning just two in the previous decade. Leeds United’s vastly improved form in the second half of the season lifted them from mid table to a fourth place finish. Newly promoted Ipswich Town finished fifth to qualify for Europe for the first time since 1982. The sixth and final European place went to Chelsea. Sunderland just missed out on Europe again with another seventh place finish. Leicester City had been fourth in the table as late as March, before a run of nine defeats from their final 10 games dragged them into the bottom half of the table.

Bradford City were relegated in bottom place after two seasons in the Premier League, followed by Coventry City after 34 years and numerous relegation battles in the top flight. The final relegation place went to newly promoted Manchester City. This was the first season where all of the relegated teams had their relegation confirmed before the final game of the season.

Personnel and kits
(as of 14 May 2001)
 * 1 The Dreamcast logo appeared on Arsenal's home and third shirts while the Sega logo appeared on their away shirt.

Hat-tricks

 * Note: 4 Player scored 4 goals; P Player scored a perfect hat-trick; (H) – Home; (A) – Away

title: 2000–01 FA Premier League


text:
Sender Inselsberg

The Sender Inselsberg (transmitter Inselsberg) is an FM, DAB+ and television-transmission facility on the Großer Inselsberg in Thuringia, Germany. It has two aerial towers, which were built in 1939 and 1974.

The transmission tower built in 1939 is a 43.31 m freestanding cylindrical tower built of steel concrete, which carried until the beginning of the 1990s similar to Gerbrandy Tower a guyed steel tube mast on its top. This mast carried the FM- and TV-broadcasting aerials.

Nowadays this mast is demounted and there are only small aerials for mobile phone services on its top. The tower is nicknamed because of its cylindrical form "thermos flask".

The transmission tower built in 1974 is a 126 m freestanding steel tube tower on three feet. This tower which is similar to the tower of transmitter Brocken, which was built at the same time, carries above its legs three platforms for aerials for directional radio services and in its topmost section, protected by layers of glass-reinforced plastic, transmission aerials for FM broadcasting services and TV.

Analogue television (formerly)

 * Das Erste (originally DFF1), VHF channel E5 (Horizontal) 100 kW
 * MDR Fernsehen (originally DFF2), UHF channel 31 (Horizontal) 500 kW

Digital Television (DVB-T2)
In order to receive ARD-alpha HD (Internet) and SWR BW HD (Internet), a hbb-TV-compatible device is required.

title: Sender Inselsberg


text:
The Adventure of the Second Stain

"The Adventure of the Second Stain", one of the 56 Sherlock Holmes short stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is one of 13 stories in the cycle collected as The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1905) and the only unrecorded case mentioned passively by Watson to be written. It was first published in The Strand Magazine in the United Kingdom in December 1904, and was also published in Collier's in the United States on 28 January 1905. Doyle ranked "The Adventure of the Second Stain" eighth in his list of his twelve favourite Holmes stories.

Synopsis
Lord Bellinger, the Prime Minister, and the Right Honourable Trelawney Hope, the Secretary of State for European Affairs, come to Holmes in the matter of a document stolen from Hope's dispatch box, which he kept at home in Whitehall Terrace when not at work. If divulged, this document could bring about very dire consequences for all of Europe, even war. They are loath to tell Holmes at first the exact nature of the document's contents, but when Holmes declines to take on their case, they tell him it was a rather injudicious letter from a foreign potentate. It disappeared from the dispatch box one evening when Hope's wife was out at the theatre for four hours. No one in the house knew about the document, not even the Secretary's wife. None of the servants could have guessed what was in the box. Holmes decides to begin with some spies known to him and is then astonished to hear from Dr. Watson that one of those that he names, Eduardo Lucas, has been murdered. Before Holmes has a chance to act, Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope, the European Secretary's wife, arrives unexpectedly at 221B Baker Street. She asks Holmes insistently about the stolen document's contents, but Holmes only reveals there would be regrettable consequences if the document were not found. Lady Hilda also begs Holmes to tell her husband nothing of her visit.

Holmes's spy hunt does not go well. Four days after the murder, French police arrest the probable murderer of Lucas; Madame Fournier, whom Lucas married in Paris under an alias. She was seen in London near Lucas's house the night of the crime, but she is now useless as a witness because she has gone insane.

Inspector Lestrade calls Holmes to the murder scene to examine something odd. Lucas bled over a drugget, and the blood soaked through it, but curiously there is no bloodstain on the floor under the drugget. However, there is one under the opposite edge of the carpet. It can only mean that the constable guarding the crime scene has been foolish enough to let someone in and leave them alone while they moved things in the room, including the carpet. Holmes tells Lestrade to take the constable to a back room and obtain a confession, which he does vigorously. Meanwhile, Holmes pulls the unfastened carpet aside and quickly finds a hiding place in the floor, but it is empty. The errant constable tells Holmes that the unauthorized visitor was a young woman. She apparently fainted at the sight of the blood but had left while the constable went out to fetch some brandy to revive her. As Holmes is leaving Lucas's house, he shows the constable a photograph, and he recognizes it as the visitor. Holmes goes to the Hope household and confronts Lady Hilda, accusing her of the theft. At first, she denies everything, but is forced to admit her wrongdoing under the threat of certain scandal. Lady Hilda admits Lucas was blackmailing her with a compromising letter written by her years earlier, and demanded the document as payment (an unnamed spy had made Lucas aware of the document). Lady Hilda went to Lucas's house to do the business when, as it happened, his wife from Paris showed up and confronted him about his affair, believing Lady Hilda was his mistress. Lady Hilda hurriedly left. However, she returned to fetch the stolen document after her visit to Holmes convinced her she needed to do so. She hands the document to Holmes. At Holmes's suggestion, the document is put back in the dispatch box using Lady Hilda's duplicate key.

When Hope arrives back home with the Prime Minister, Holmes pretends to believe that the evidence has convinced him that the document must still be in the box, shuffled between other papers. It is soon found, and Hope rejoices that it was apparently only a mistake. The Prime Minister suspects Holmes knows more than he is telling, but Holmes simply responds, "We also have our diplomatic secrets."

Background
This case was first mentioned in "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty". In "The Naval Treaty", Watson says that this case has "interest of such importance and implicates so many of the first families in the kingdom that for many years it will be impossible to make it public." On the other hand, Watson also refers there to "Monsieur Dubuque of the Paris police, and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Dantzig, both of whom had wasted their energies upon what proved to be side-issues" who do not appear in the published version of the story. In My Dear Holmes, a biography of Holmes by Gavin Brend, Brend hypothesises that their mention suggests there could be another adventure featuring a "second stain".

Some scholars have speculated that the "foreign potentate" who wrote the missing letter was Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, whose foreign policy was controversial in Britain.

A reference in this same story makes it clear that "The Adventure of the Second Stain" is set in July 1888, in the middle of summer, whereas Watson says in the published version of "The Second Stain" that the case happened in autumn.

Watson states that, due to Holmes's retirement, the detective has been trying to avoid publicity, and only allowed Watson to publish the story because the doctor had "promised" to in "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty."

A spy called Oberstein appears both in this story and in "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans" (again listed as one of the three most prominent agents in London), set seven years later.

Publication history
"The Adventure of the Second Stain" was first published in the UK in The Strand Magazine in December 1904, and in the US in Collier's on 28 January 1905. The story was published with eight illustrations by Sidney Paget in the Strand, and with six illustrations by Frederic Dorr Steele in Collier's. It was included in the short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes, which was published in the US in February 1905 and in the UK in March 1905.

In Collier's, the story was presented as "the last Sherlock Holmes story ever to be written by A. Conan Doyle". This would prove to be incorrect since the story preceded later Sherlock Holmes stories collected in His Last Bow and The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, as well as the novel The Valley of Fear.

Film and television
A short silent film adapted from the story was released in 1922 as part of the Stoll film series starring Eille Norwood as Sherlock Holmes and Hubert Willis as Watson, and featuring Dorothy Fane as Lady Hope and Wallace Bosco as Eduardo Lucas. Teddy Arundell played Inspector Hopkins in this short film and other films in the series.

The story was adapted for a 1951 TV episode of Sherlock Holmes, starring Alan Wheatley as Holmes.

The story was adapted for the 1968 BBC series with Peter Cushing. The episode is now lost.

The story was adapted in the Granada Television series The Return of Sherlock Holmes, starring Jeremy Brett, in 1986. The adaptation contains a chronological error as Holmes is seen skipping past the Clive of India Memorial in King Charles Street, London. Only erected in 1912, it did not exist at the time the episode is set (1888).

The story was also adapted in the Soviet TV film The Twentieth Century Approaches (1986), the last television film in the series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.

An episode of the animated television series Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century was based on the story. The episode, titled "The Adventure of the Second Stain", aired in 2001.

Radio
A radio adaptation aired as an episode of the American radio series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. The episode was adapted by Edith Meiser and aired on 23 June 1932, with Richard Gordon as Sherlock Holmes and Leigh Lovell as Dr. Watson.

Meiser also adapted the story as an episode of the American radio series The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson, that aired on 29 January 1940. Another episode in the same series adapted from the story aired on 4 January 1942.

John Gielgud played Holmes and Ralph Richardson played Watson in a radio adaptation of the story that aired on the BBC Light Programme in November 1954. It also featured Raf De La Torre as Lord Bellinger and John Cazabon as Lestrade. The production aired in January 1955 on NBC radio.

Michael Hardwick dramatised the story as a radio adaptation for the BBC Home Service, as part of the 1952–1969 radio series starring Carleton Hobbs as Holmes and Norman Shelley as Watson, with Simon Lack as Trelawney Hope and Barbara Mitchell as Mrs Hudson. The adaptation aired in 1967.

"The Second Stain" was dramatised for BBC Radio 4 in 1993 by Bert Coules as part of the 1989–1998 radio series starring Clive Merrison as Holmes and Michael Williams as Watson. It featured Jeremy Clyde as Trelawney Hope and Sabina Franklyn as Lady Hilda.

The story was adapted as a 2013 episode of The Classic Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, a series on the American radio show Imagination Theatre, starring John Patrick Lowrie as Holmes and Lawrence Albert as Watson.

title: The Adventure of the Second Stain


text:
Talk:Calculating RGB values

-Why this is not part of the bayer filter article?

This should probably be moved to wikibooks. Thue | talk 17:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this could become a real encyclopedia article, discussing a bunch of the different ways to de-mosaic. dbenbenn | talk 21:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculating RGB values


text:
Jakub Sobieski

Jakub Sobieski (5 May 1590 – 23 June 1646) was a Polish noble, parliamentarian, diarist, political activist, military leader and father of King John III Sobieski. He was the son of castellan and voivode Marek Sobieski and Jadwiga Snopkowska.

Biography
Sobieski was educated in Kraków and Paris. He was a famed orator and parliamentarian. He participated in the military expedition (Dymitriads) against Russia in 1617-1618 (wounded during the assault of Moscow), and was a member of the War Council (Rada wojenna) of King Władysław IV. He took part in negotiations with Muscovy in the Truce of Deulino in 1618. Subsequently, he fought in the Chocim expedition against the Ottoman Empire in 1621, and the expedition against Abazy Pasa in 1633. He was one of the negotiations with Sweden in the Treaty of Stuhmsdorf (Sztumska Wieś) in 1635.

After his marriage to Zofia Teofillia Daniłowicz his wealth increased significantly, as Zofia brought in her inheritance after the Żółkiewski family and part of the Daniłowski family estates, including Żółkiew Castle.

Official career
He was courtier since 1617, Krajczy of the Crown since 1626, Podczaszy of the Crown since 1636, voivode of Belz Voivodeship since 1638 and of Ruthenian Voivodeship since 1641 and castellan of Kraków since 1646. Starost of Trembowla, Krasnystaw, Jaworów, Stryj, Kałusz, Bar and Gniewo. Elected Deputy to seven Sejms between 1623 and 1632, as Sejm Marshal he led the ordinary Sejm in Warsaw from 24 January to 5 March 1623 and from 27 January to 10 March 1626, the extraordinary Sejm in Warsaw from 27 June to 18 July 1628 and the Election Sejm in Warsaw from 24 September to 15 November 1632.

Character
He was considered by his contemporaries a wise and honorable person. Member of many commissions and diplomatic bodies, he often acted as a mediator or as a guardian of orphaned children. In politics, he usually supported king's plans, but was also a defender of the nobility rights and religious tolerance.

Children

 * Marek became starost.
 * John became Marshal, Hetman and King of Poland.
 * Katarzyna married Władysław Dominik Zasławski and Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł.
 * Anna Rozalia became a Benedictine nun in Lwów.

Works

During the Chocim expedition in 1621 he wrote a diary called Commentariorum chotinensis belli libri tres (Pamiętnik wojny chocimskiej - Diary of the Chocim War), which was published in 1646 in Danzig. It was used by Wacław Potocki as a basis for his epic poem, Transakcja wojny chocimskiej (The Progress of the War of Chocim).

He authored Commentariorum Chotinensis belli libri tres (1646) and instructions for his sons journeying to Kraków (1640) and France (1645) which are seen as a prime example of liberal education of that era.

title: Jakub Sobieski


text:
DBI

DBI may refer to:

 * dBi, decibel isotropic
 * DBI (gene), the gene encoding diazepam binding inhibitor in humans
 * DBI Beverage, a subsidiary of Ingram Entertainment
 * DBI, a company founded by David Belt which now operates as DBI Projects and DBI Construction Consultants
 * Beck Depression Inventory, a psychological test used to measure depression levels
 * Dahabshil Bank International, Somalia
 * Data Bus Inversion - a method of power saving in DDR4
 * Davies–Bouldin index, a metric for evaluating clustering algorithms
 * Davie-Brown Index, an independent index for brand marketers
 * Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, U.S.
 * Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, the Biographical Dictionary of the Italians
 * Doppelgänger brand image, Doublewalker in marketing
 * Dubai, a city in the United Arab Emirates
 * Dynamic binary instrumentation, a technique to change programs
 * ISO 639:dbi or Doka, a Plateau language of Nigeria
 * Perl DBI, a database interface for Perl
 * Phenformin, by the trade name DBI

title: DBI


text:
Talk:Sköll

Skull
For years, my father, a Danish emigrant to Canada, used to lift his glass to have a drink, and his one word toast was "Skoll".

He used to tell us that skoll stood for skull and was in reference to the Vikings of old brashly drinking their liquor from the skull of a dead man.

Is there any truth to this?>

Warmest personal regards,

Earl Barnholden  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.196.147 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2004 (UTC)

 * My grandfather (Farfar) used tell us the same story about the origin of "skoll." He emigrated from Bornholm (an island that's actually closer to Sweden than Denmark) to the U.S. in 1926, eventually ending up in California.

 * "Skål" is a common Danish toast meaning "bowl". bloodofox: (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

see http://www.viking.no/e/england/e-viking_words_2.htm#S.

Sólyomszem (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The salute Skål (cheers) - when you raise your glass - has nothing to do with this wolf named Sköll. It has none the less roots in other ancient norse ritauls. --Ktp72 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Skall is 'loud barking' in Swedish. Drakoniam (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Skoll Beer
Skoll Beer is (surprisingly) a beer company. They seem to still be around, but the only thing I remember of them is some advertising cardboard beermats of sorts my dad had when I was a kid. They were cutouts of some characters from the comic strip Hagar the Horrible. I think he may have picked them up when we were in england in '87. Would it be relevant to add info about the company to the article?--DooMDrat 00:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Surename?
Should it be assumed that Sköll's surename is Hróðvitnisson like his brother Hati's is --Graff Zeppelin (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

Skoll and hati
Wrong !!! Skoll is not another name for Fenrir. skoll and hati are the sons of Fenrir. 67.172.226.236 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article only states that one scholar believes it is possible that is the case, it doesn't state it as fact. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by Elhefe3192 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I just finished updating the article and adding in a lot of missing information. SleepyDragon18 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sköll


text:
Goldbergturm

The Goldbergturm is a 51 metre high water tower on the Goldberg (gold mountain) at 48.70167°N, 9.0175°W in Sindelfingen, Germany. The Goldbergturm was built in 1963 and has in its basket, besides a water reservoir, a restaurant from which a stairway runs to its open-air observation deck.

title: Goldbergturm


text:
Skarpnäck (borough)

Skarpnäck is a borough (stadsdelsområde) in the southern part of Stockholm, Sweden.

Overview
This area corresponds mostly with the Skarpnäck parish. The districts that make up the borough are Bagarmossen, Björkhagen, Enskededalen, Flaten, Hammarbyhöjden (except the Blåsut subdistrict), Kärrtorp, Orhem, Skarpnäcks Gård, and Skrubba.

The population of Skarpnäck borough is 40,707 as of December 31, 2007 on an area of 15.66 km2, which gives a density of 2,599 /km2.

Sports
The following sports clubs are located in Skarpnäck:

 * Bagarmossen Kärrtorp BK
 * Spårvägens GoIF
 * Spårvägens FF

title: Skarpnäck (borough)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Booth

Larry Booth
Larry Booth was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

This is a basic resumé for a non-notable architect. His firm Booth Hanson does not have an article, so why should he? I went to Harvard for architecture too; that doesn't mean I should have a Wikipedia entry. Gsd97jks 17:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Article does not establish notability. Delete, without further evidence. Katefan0 21:22, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. CV of someone who doesn't seem to have done anything notable. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 00:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  02:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * Delete: CV's are expressly forbidden, although if he's a lecturer at the ivies on architecture, he probably has done something worthy of note. We're not told what it is, though.  (With a degree in architecture in 1960, he would have to be in his late 60's by now, so not likely vanity.)  Geogre 05:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * please note there are hundreds of people who lecture at those architecture schools each year, many of whom are not particularly notable. Until I see an article about his firm, or even about one of the other "Chicago Seven architects" (several of whom are far more well-known, such as Stanley Tigerman or James Freed), I'm not buying it. Gsd97jks 18:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User:Xillimiandus~enwiki

title: User:Xillimiandus~enwiki


text:
Category:Parenting

Articles relating to parenting, the intricacies of raising a child. Not exclusively a biological relationship.

title: Category:Parenting


text: User talk:81.223.212.226

title: User talk:81.223.212.226


text:
Observation Tower Ahlbeck

The Observation Tower Ahlbeck is a 50 metres tall observation tower with tree observation decks at Ahlbeck on the island Usedom in Germany. The Observation Tower Ahlbeck is a steel framework tower and carries on a fourth platform over the observation platforms and the top some aerials for mobile phone services.

title: Observation Tower Ahlbeck


text:
Eye injury

Physical or chemical injuries of the eye can be a serious threat to vision if not treated appropriately and in a timely fashion. The most obvious presentation of ocular (eye) injuries is redness and pain of the affected eyes. This is not, however, universally true, as tiny metallic projectiles may cause neither symptom. Tiny metallic projectiles should be suspected when a patient reports metal on metal contact, such as with hammering a metal surface. Corneal foreign bodies are one of the most common preventable occupational hazards. Intraocular foreign bodies do not cause pain because of the lack of nerve endings in the vitreous humour and retina that can transmit pain sensations. As such, general or emergency department doctors should refer cases involving the posterior segment of the eye or intraocular foreign bodies to an ophthalmologist. Ideally, ointment would not be used when referring to an ophthalmologist, since it diminishes the ability to carry out a thorough eye examination.

Flicking sand, flying pieces of wood, metal, glass and stone are notorious for causing much of the eye trauma. Sporting balls such as cricket ball, lawn tennis ball, squash ball, shuttlecock, and other high speed flying objects can strike the eye. The eye is also susceptible to blunt trauma in a fistfight. Children’s games such as bow-and-arrows, bb guns and firecrackers can lead to eye trauma. Road traffic accidents (RTAs) with head and facial trauma may also have an eye injury - these are usually severe in nature with multiple lacerations, shards of glasses embedded in tissues, orbital fractures, severe hematoma and penetrating open-globe injuries with prolapse of eye contents. Other causes of intraocular trauma may arise from workplace tools or even common household implements, including bottle-caps suddenly propelling at great force.

About 5.3 million cases of foreign bodies in the eyes occurred in 2013.

Complications
Multiple complications are known to occur following eye injury: corneal scarring, hyphema, iridodialysis, post-traumatic glaucoma, uveitis cataract, vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment. The complications risk is high with retinal tears, penetrating injuries and severe blunt trauma.

Diagnosis
The goal of investigation is the assessment of the severity of the ocular injury with an eye to implementing a management plan as soon as is required. The usual eye examination should be attempted, and may require a topical anesthetic in order to be tolerable. Many topical agents cause burning upon instillation. Proxymetacaine has been found to have the best tolerance.

Depending on the medical history and preliminary examination, the primary care physician should designate the eye injury as a true emergency, urgent or semi-urgent.

Classification
Based on the injury to the eyewall (outer fibrous coat of the eye consisting of cornea and sclera)
 * Closed globe injury: the eye globe is intact, but the seven rings of the eye have been classically described as affected by blunt trauma. Types include contusion and lamellar laceration
 * Open globe injury: there is a full thickness injury of the eye wall (cornea and sclera)

It includes

A) Globe rupture: caused by blunt trauma and is an inside-out injury.

B) Globe laceration: a full-thickness wound caused by sharp objects. It includes

1)Penetrating trauma: the globe integrity is disrupted by a full-thickness entry wound and may be associated with prolapse of the internal contents of the eye. Such injuries are often referred to as a Globe fracture or a Globe rupture, although these can be incurred by blunt trauma as well.

2) Perforating trauma: the globe integrity is disrupted in two places due to an entrance and exit wound (through and through injury). This is a quite severe type of eye injury.

Other types include
 * Blowout fracture of the orbit is caused by blunt trauma, classically described for fist or ball injury, leading to fracture of the floor or medial wall of the orbit due to sudden increased pressure on the orbital contents.
 * Muscular Entrapment Fracture of the orbital bones can lead to muscular entrapment limiting gaze in one direction.

Emergency
An emergency must be treated within minutes. This includes chemical burns of both the conjunctiva and cornea.

Urgent
An urgent case must be treated within hours. This includes penetrating globe injuries; corneal abrasions or corneal foreign bodies; hyphema (must be referred); eyelid lacerations that are deep, involve the lid margin or involve the lacrimal canaliculi; radiant energy burns such as arc eye (welder's burn) or snow blindness; or, rarely, traumatic optic neuropathy.

Semi-urgent
Semi-urgent cases must be managed within 1–2 days. They include orbital fractures and subconjunctival hemorrhages.

Irrigation
The first line of management for chemical injuries is usually copious irrigation of the eye with an isotonic saline or sterile water. In the cases of chemical burns, one should not try to buffer the solution, but instead dilute it with copious flushing.

Patching
Depending on the type of ocular injury, either a pressure patch or shield patch should be applied. Up until circa 1987, pressure patches were the preferred method of treatment for corneal abrasions in non-contact lens wearers; multiple controlled studies conducted by accredited organizations such as the American Academy of Ophthalmology have shown that pressure patching is of little or no value in healing corneal abrasions and is actually detrimental to healing in some cases. A Cochrane review found that patching simple corneal abrasions may not improve healing or reduce pain. Pressure patching should never be used on an individual presenting with a corneal abrasion who has a history of contact lens wear. In this circumstance, a virulent infection caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa is at a clearly delineated increased risk for occurrence. These infections can cause blindness within 24 – 48 hours and there is a possibility that the infection can move into the peri-orbital socket, resulting in the need for evisceration of the eyeball. In rare cases, the infection can enter the brain and cause death to the patient.

In cases of globe penetration, pressure patches should never be applied, and instead a shield patch should be applied that protects the eye without applying any pressure. If a shield patch is applied to one eye, the other eye should also be patched due to eye movement. If the uninjured eye moves, the injured eye will also move involuntarily possibly causing more damage.

Suturing
In cases of eyelid laceration, sutures may be a part of appropriate management by the primary care physician so long as the laceration does not threaten the canaliculi, is not deep, and does not affect the lid margins.

Epidemiology
A recent study estimated that from 2002–2003 there were 27,152 injuries in the United States related to the wearing of eyeglasses. The same study concluded that sports-related injuries due to eyeglasses wear were more common in those under the age of 18 and that fall-related injuries due to wearing eyeglasses were more common in those aged 65 and over. Although eyeglasses-related injuries do occur, prescription eyeglasses and non-prescription sunglasses have been found to "offer measurable protection which results in a lower incidence of severe eye injuries to those wearing [them]".

title: Eye injury


text:
Downtown 81

Downtown 81 is a 2000 American film that was shot in 1980-1981. The film was directed by Edo Bertoglio and written and produced by Glenn O'Brien and Patrick Montgomery, with post-production in 1999-2000 by Glenn O'Brien and Maripol. It is a rare real-life snapshot of an ultra-hip subculture of post-punk era Manhattan. Starring renowned artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and featuring such East Village artists as James Chance, Amos Poe, Walter Steding, Tav Falco and Elliott Murphy, the film is a bizarre elliptical urban fairy tale. In 1999, Michael Zilkha, founder of ZE Records (the label of several of the film's artists), became the film's executive producer.

Synopsis
The film opens with Jean (Basquiat) in hospital with an undisclosed ailment. After checking out, he happens upon an enigmatic woman, Beatrice (Anna Schroeder), who drives around in a convertible. He arrives at his apartment only to discover that his landlord, played by former Yardbirds manager Giorgio Gomelsky, is evicting him.

Later, while trying to sell his art work, he encounters many downtown New York characters, from musician Arto Lindsay and his band DNA to David McDermott to graffiti artists Lee Quiñones and Fab Five Freddy. Jean eventually does manage to sell some of his art work to a rich middle-aged woman who is interested in more than just his art, but she pays with a check. As the film progresses, he wanders the streets of New York City, looking for Beatrice. He catches performances by Kid Creole and the Coconuts and James White and the Blacks. Finally he happens upon a bag lady (Debbie Harry) who turns into a princess when he kisses her. As a reward, she gives him a stack of cash.

Parallels to real life
Writer and Producer O'Brien had a popular music column "Glenn O'Brien's Beat" in Interview magazine and created the film to showcase the bands that he had been writing about. The film was initially titled New York Beat, referencing the music. The story was created to string together the live performances, shot on the RCA 24-track mobile recording unit, the best live recording technology at the time. O'Brien, who knew Basquiat from his TV Party program and the Mudd Club, cast then-unknown Basquiat in the film, and said of the movie: "The film is an exaggerated version of life," he said.

Jean-Michel Basquiat was homeless at the time of the movie and slept in the production office during most of the shooting. "The production bought Jean his first real art supplies and gave him his first real studio, which he lived in," said Gina Nanni, widow of O'Brien. "All of the books that talk about [art dealer] Annina Nosei giving Jean-Michel his first studio, that wasn't actually true. The film production gave him his first studio, and the first paintings that he made were the paintings that you saw him carrying around in the film."

Debbie Harry (who plays the fairy princess who gives him money), and her boyfriend Chris Stein, both of the band Blondie, bought a painting of Basquiat’s for $200 after the end of shooting.

Production
New York Beat was shot over December 1980 and January 1981. The film was funded by Rizzoli, but the movie was abandoned in the mid-'80s due to financial problems. Producer O'Brien resurrected the film after acquiring the rights in 1999 (over a decade after Basquiat's death). It was released in 2000 as Downtown 81 at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival.

The dialogue audio for the film was lost, so actor Saul Williams dubbed the late Basquiat's voice. However, the musical soundtrack, mostly live club performances recorded on location using an RCA 24-track mobile unit, survived.

Soundtrack
The soundtrack features music by: Jean-Michel Basquiat with Andy Hernandez; Basquiat's own band, Gray; John Lurie and the Lounge Lizards, DNA, Tuxedomoon, the Plastics, Marvin Pontiac, Kenny Burrell, the Specials, Chris Stein, Melle Mel with Blondie, Liquid Liquid, Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch and Suicide. Many of the recordings were of live performances, but DNA and Tuxedomoon were recorded in the studio for the soundtrack.

Reviews
After it premiered as "Downtown '81" at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival, reviews were mostly favorable. Variety called it “an extraordinary real-life snapshot of hip, arty, clubland Manhattan in the post-punk era.”

A rare movie review in Artforum said, "Basquiat is a joy to watch. He floats through the movie with cool grace and unflagging energy; he's a natural in front of the lens..."

British art critic Adrian Searle wrote that "Downtown 81 captures that New York moment when punk, emerging rap, art school cool and the East Village art and music scenes were at their creative best.”

While the main appeal of the film seems to have been the art and music, some commentators also appreciated giving the modern viewer a peek at the decimated Lower East Side of 1980, saying "the real star of the film is the gritty milieu of a New York long gone", and that "New York Beat...conveys the vast gulf between Manhattan’s rich and the forgotten corners of the city, and the marginal existence of the artistic underground who tried to survive in between these worlds."

title: Downtown 81


text:
HYP

Hyp or HYP may refer to:

 * Hatha Yoga Pradipika, a medieval Indian text on hatha yoga
 * Big Three (colleges), collectively Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities
 * Hungry Young Poets, a Philippine rock band
 * Hydroxyproline, an amino acid
 * Hypothetical mood in grammar
 * People's Ascent Party (Turkish: Halkın Yükselişi Partisi), a political party in Turkey
 * Hyp, a character in The Land Before Time series
 * Hyperbolic functions, analogues of the ordinary trigonometric functions, but defined using the hyperbola rather than the circle.

title: HYP