Do we need a better definition of HD?
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Apr 3rd 2009 3:47PM
posted Apr 3rd 2009 3:47PM
There's no doubt that there is plenty of so-called HD content out there that isn't worthy of the name -- not to mention a broadcast radio technology that has nothing to do with definition at all -- but it seems that trying to comprise a specific definition of HD is simply an exercise in futility. This is because there are a few examples of HD that by any definition would be considered HD, but still look terrible. Just take some of the original movies released on Blu-ray for example or some of the less expensive 1080p HDTVs. Sure all the pixels are there, as well as the color space and frame rate, but that doesn't mean the encoder didn't go crazy and screw it up, or that the display can accurately display the colors or have a half way decent contrast ratio. So while it seems like a great idea to quantify HD, in practice, just let your eyes be the judge.
While I believe that this is a rediculous stance to take, there may possibly be a better solution.
Define that which is most definetly NOT HD.
Any material which was not sourced at 720P or higher resolution is NOT HD.
Any material which has EVER been reduced to below 720P resolution is NOT HD.
Any material which is not using VC-1, h.264 (MP4 part 10/AVC), or MPEG 2 in HD profile is NOT HD.
In short, any comrpomise which can potentially lower the quality or any compromise in source material, immediately makes the material NOT HD.
Whether or not the media is high fidelitly, high quality, or whatever is a subjective thing as you point out, but the technical aspects are quantifiable and should be the standards we hold things to as we define what IS HD.
I think also we should put a minimum bitrate in your definition Earthling. I agree with every you said but might add a minimum bit rate of 5 mbps to the hd profile thing. Since, if someone used the hd profile but manually select a bit-rate of 450kbps, we know it would be so pixelated, it would be a shame to call it hd.
Seconding the minimum bitrate requirement
A minimum bitrate of 5mbps? You may as well just call that DVD.
No matter what Microsoft wants you to think, and no matter how many times they claim on AVS forums that VC-1 is "transparent" below 10mbps, they're wrong. The brand new Pitch Black Blu-ray, for example, even with VC1 bitrates in the teens, has banding on character faces in a few early scenes.
And in reality, if you want to set a minimum, you would have to quantify it by codec (MPEG2 will be higher than AVC), and by resolution, (1080p obviously higher than 720p).
But seriously, no matter what you do, 5mbps is NOT good enough for any codec at any HD resolution -- if you want some semblance of quality anyway.
-Pie
Number one and two seem somewhat redundant of each other, but my response is in regards to #1. 35MM CAN be successfully rescanned and redone in 720p or 1080p. A great deal of older films have been undergoing this process.
@eating pie
The banding you see in Pitch Black (I know exactly what you mean) is not the result of compression. The banding is the result of poor quality pre-processing. Probably poor source as well and would happen even if the footage was uncompressed. In the original transfer of the material either from tape to file or from tape to tape (10 -> 8 bit) there should have been some dithering applied to remove the banding issue.
5Mb/s not good enough for HD? Well, in principal I agree with you, but you have to keep in mind how todays codecs work. If you have little motion, then you may drop down to a few kB/s in actuality so saying its not good enough to say that 5Mb is too low, that is just to general a statement. You could for instance encode full 1080p footage of a talking head (newscast) at 5Mb/s and have excellent quality. A lot of animated features could be encoded at very low overall bitrates.
What most people are looking at for compression comparisons these days are baby steps in the world of compression.
The tools that the pros are using are lightyears ahead of x.264, and what you get out of a standard VC-1 encoder. The tricks are in the pre-processing until the comrpession technology (VC-1 and h.264) mature quite a bit more.
There are companies that will be showing single slice h.264 encoding at full 1080p resolution and high quality, completely in software, on off the shelf intel CPUs at NAB this month. (for instance). Improvements in technology are happening all the time and will make some serious strides forward over the next 9-12 months.
Darn I didn't see your reply earlier Earthling.
Indeed, I understand that low-motion will work at 5mbps. But in *general* we don't watch movies of relatively still images, which is why I dissed the idea of such a low bitrate.
I never saw Pitch Black in the theater, so I can't say if the banding is for sure a result of compression. But this is a VERY common artifact with VC-1. 2001: A Space Odyssey, with VC-1 bitrates in the teens has horrible banding -- one example, when the stewardess enters the cockpit on the way to the moon, the walls are stairstepped with reds -- and that is not on the MPEG2 HD cap. So I am suspicious of blaming the pre-processing, especially since I've only seen this kind of artifact on VC-1 encodes.
A good example of low bitrate VC-1 working okay is Corpse Bride. A beautiful Blu-ray, made up of a collection of still images (basically), which compressed very well -- though still not 5mbps, but this is an older BD -- and definitely illustrates your point about animation.
So sure there are cases where 5mbps *may* work -- some day -- but those are more exceptions (some animation, and newscast-type shows), and it would be unwise to base the *whole* rule on them.
-Pie
Instead of changing the definition of HD, why don't we teach the average bear to distinguish the difference between SD and HD. Most people say that they can not tell the diference visually. This baffles me, but most people think they are running local HD channels when they are not. Here is a tip for ya, Average Joe. If the colors are washed out and blacks look gray, either you brightness set too high or you are running SD. If you fix either of these issues, you are getting there, slowly.
We need a standard minimum for HD. If it ain't up to that standard then you can't call it HD.
We have one. It's called 720p.
Without a doubt there needs to be more to what content providers and manufacturers can label "HD" than just pixel count. I mean Youtube's new "HD" channel" is actually DVD resolution, for Pete's sake. And with regards to broadcast and streaming content, there should be a minimum bitrate requirement for 720p and 1080p content before it can be sold as "HD"; the ultra-compressed video Comcast and Apple pedal as "HD" is the reason consumers don't think HD looks that much better — in those scenarios it's closer to upconverted DVD than it is Blu-Ray.
Sorry, but that's not true. I'll rip on someone that claims HD that isn't but youtube is. I've downloaded 2 files from YouTube HD and both came out as Quicktime H.264 .movs that are 1280x720. Even blown up to 1680x946 on my display, they still look respectable. But let's keep this in mind about YouTube, Vimeo, and other sites, we shouldn't be expecting BR quality from them. 720P is MUCH better than the junk resolution YT was offering before, so let's be happy with better quality.
Are there things out there that shouldn't be called HD, sure, but YT has made a fair investment with YT HD, so let's give them the credit they deserve...took 'em long enough though.
-Brian
We could definitely use some kind of agency or board that can "certify" programs or channels or discs, etc. and deem them HD and give them their stamp of approval.
This article sucks.
I remember when the term HD was first introduced to the masses. Every company was labeling their products as "HD", no matter how ridiculous it sounded. I swear I remember seeing an HD waffle maker at one point.
HD in kitchen appliances (e.g. stand mixers) means "heavy duty", not "high definition".
People looking to make money will always find ways to get around classifications. Look at the audio market. 100 watt X 5 receivers cost anywhere from $200 to $2000. I doubt anyone here will argue that a $200 receiver an output what it claims. The ideal solution is to give consumers a chance to actually see high quality HD content. Another example is youth and mp3; unless you've heard high fidelity audio, its easy to be fooled by 128Kb/s audio being promoted as CD quality.
It is a BS game thats being played especially with the cable co. compression being a big issue and causing horrible pixelations on HD channels.
This falls back to the minimum bitrate issue. This needs to be included in any kind of definition.
It's difficult to convince people what HD really is (or to even define what it "really" is)
So I've taken the opposite approach.
480i/p I refer to as Low Definition.
720p I refer to as Standard Definition.
everything else 1080i/p can be called HD, however cable/satellite is always called HD Lite, and Bluray I refer to as Real HD
I'm not trying to be an elitist with these labels, I only use them to educate people of the fact that just because you have an hdtv doesn't mean you ever watch anything in HD.
720p standard?
By your own definition, then, 1080i is not HD since it's easily comparable to 720p due to its interlaced nature. A 3:2 pull down needs to be performed on 1080i content by 720p monitors in order to successfully de-interlace it and display it properly. The same would need to be done on a 1080p monitor; said content would have to be scaled one war or another.
Yes, 720p standard. I've seen 720p on several 1080p monitors using various scaling software and hardware scalers. I can always tell it is 720p, and I would consider 720p to be comparable to good upscaled dvd. It is always noticeable and usually distracting to me.
And I find deinterlacing 1080i to be trivial. It should not be that difficult and unless there is absolutely no deinterlacing applied, then it should look almost indistinguishable from 1080p given comparable bitrates. Rarely can I see a noticeable difference between 1080i and 1080p on a 1080p monitor. And I don't even know why there are 720p tv's. What's the point? Maybe for my bedroom if it was less than 100$, otherwise why bother with a 720p tv?
I agree, they shouldnt be able to call it HD if it isn't. I hope someone at the FCC steps in and addresses this. The Dept. of Agriculture makes companies meet certain standards to call a product Organic - the same should hold true for HD.
Every release should have a Skin Pore rating, ranging from "Danny Trejo" up to "Zhang Ziyi."
We shouldn't attempt to redefine HD at this point. HD is HD. What might help is some sort of certification mechanism that spells out the quality of something. Problem is, it's too easy to end up with arbitrary metrics that rule out a lot of good video and let in a lot of bad, and if it's not based on clear metrics, then it's too easy to end up with something like THX, which is opaque and unreliable.
There was a similar sort of trouble back when DVDs were being sourced from VHS and poor-quality laserdisc transfers (some of which were THX approved, I believe). The only resolution for this, really, is for the HD content distributors to feel like their reputation depends on the reliability of product quality, and given how hard it is for so many to distinguish HD and SD, this is not going to be an easy process, except when dealing with physical media (e.g., Blu-Ray) and maybe download providers.
The problem is that pixel count is only part of what makes a good picture. It is a technical standard that is almost completely independent of actual picture quality.
I mean you can take a crappy 100x100 pixel photo and resample it and compress the hell out of it with Jpeg compression. You'll have a blurry, macro-blocked mess but technically it will be an "HD" picture at that point. HD is only about pixel count. It has nothing to say about were those pixels came from or how they are treated.
And since the general public isn't interested in investing a lot of effort into understanding all the factors that go into a quality picture, they rely on buzzwords and the little badges that get lined up across the bottom of CE electronics packaging to make their purchasing decisions. More badges must mean more quality, right? This is why manufacturers waste so much time inventing pseudo-technical sounding "features" that supposedly differentiate their TV. And so much of it is snake oil. (xvYCC anyone?)