IC: Can you, perhaps, take your comments somewhere else?
In the real world, the one I live in and presumably Bozster does, and presumably most regulars at Engadget HD do, HD has a meaning. It's the system that's "high definition" in comparison with "SD"'s "standard definition". According to the ITU, HD is anything with 720x1280 (height x width) pixels of resolution or better.
That's what HD means. There's such a thing as good HD, great HD, bad HD, and awful HD. But they're all HD. If one of my local DTV stations were to squeeze six 720p channels into one multiplex, then it's safe to say they'd all look like ass, but they'd still be HD.
So it does include Vudu's Blu-ray quality "HDX" and their standard "HD". It also includes poorer quality systems such as Netflix's online HD streaming service, AppleTV, Hulu HD, YouTube HD, cable HD, etc. Vudu has chosen bitrates and codecs for HDX similar to those of Blu-ray, so if you admit, however grudgingly, that BD is HD, then HDX has to be too. But even if you don't, in the real world, the rest of us do consider it HD.
As we do ATSC HD.
Yes, in answer to your question, we should be demanding high quality. Here's how not to demand it however:
- Pretending something isn't HD because it's compressed enough to show artifacts. - Demanding some companies branded products be debranded and described generically using the technical details (what next? In the next "HD round-up" a demand that "TWC added USA HD, TNT HD, and TBS HD, to its service in Charlotte, NC" be rephrased to "An operator of cabulousvisional services added three audio visual streams containing mixes of movular, dramatical and comedial content"?)
How do we demand it? We demand bitrate and codec combinations that result in less artifacts. We make a distinction between good HD and bad HD, and we demand better bitrates where we see bad HD. And on the very, very, rare occasion that a company claims to be producing HD when they are producing content with a lower base and/or transmitted resolution than commonly accepted definitions (such as the ITU's) we call them out on it.
But redefining HD to mean "High quality HD" is a dead-end. It makes those who resort to such tactics look, well, dumb. On a technical level, you're wrong, and that's all anyone will see, your wider argument in favour of higher quality video will be discarded with the rest.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
IC: Can you, perhaps, take your comments somewhere else?
In the real world, the one I live in and presumably Bozster does, and presumably most regulars at Engadget HD do, HD has a meaning. It's the system that's "high definition" in comparison with "SD"'s "standard definition". According to the ITU, HD is anything with 720x1280 (height x width) pixels of resolution or better.
That's what HD means. There's such a thing as good HD, great HD, bad HD, and awful HD. But they're all HD. If one of my local DTV stations were to squeeze six 720p channels into one multiplex, then it's safe to say they'd all look like ass, but they'd still be HD.
So it does include Vudu's Blu-ray quality "HDX" and their standard "HD". It also includes poorer quality systems such as Netflix's online HD streaming service, AppleTV, Hulu HD, YouTube HD, cable HD, etc. Vudu has chosen bitrates and codecs for HDX similar to those of Blu-ray, so if you admit, however grudgingly, that BD is HD, then HDX has to be too. But even if you don't, in the real world, the rest of us do consider it HD.
As we do ATSC HD.
Yes, in answer to your question, we should be demanding high quality. Here's how not to demand it however:
- Pretending something isn't HD because it's compressed enough to show artifacts.
- Demanding some companies branded products be debranded and described generically using the technical details (what next? In the next "HD round-up" a demand that "TWC added USA HD, TNT HD, and TBS HD, to its service in Charlotte, NC" be rephrased to "An operator of cabulousvisional services added three audio visual streams containing mixes of movular, dramatical and comedial content"?)
How do we demand it? We demand bitrate and codec combinations that result in less artifacts. We make a distinction between good HD and bad HD, and we demand better bitrates where we see bad HD. And on the very, very, rare occasion that a company claims to be producing HD when they are producing content with a lower base and/or transmitted resolution than commonly accepted definitions (such as the ITU's) we call them out on it.
But redefining HD to mean "High quality HD" is a dead-end. It makes those who resort to such tactics look, well, dumb. On a technical level, you're wrong, and that's all anyone will see, your wider argument in favour of higher quality video will be discarded with the rest.