I get not wanting to call it "2160p" because that's a lot of syllables. But you're right, it was really dumb to switch which lines we are referring to. I'm sure a better name could have been come up with. Even UHD was better imo.

The one that really irks me are the people who call 2560x1440 2K. I have always known 2K to mean 2048 x 1080. But it has picked up so much traction that it has pretty much been redefined at this point.

[–] dudewitbow@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

2k is the term i refuse to use in my linguo. Ill yake QHD, or 1440p, but not 2k. 2560 doesnt even round to 2000 in the thousands place.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.

I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing "4K screen" and "4K-benefitting screen" and we end up where we are now.