http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/ Engadget Comments for Do we need a better definition of HD? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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.


]]>Apr 3rd 2009 4:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 5:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 6:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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]]>Apr 3rd 2009 9:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 10:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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.

]]>Apr 4th 2009 12:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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]]>Apr 9th 2009 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 4:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 10:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 4:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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]]>Apr 3rd 2009 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 4:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 5:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 5th 2009 5:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 5:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 5:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 6:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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.]]>Apr 3rd 2009 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 6:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 10:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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?]]>Apr 5th 2009 3:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/Apr 3rd 2009 10:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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.]]>Apr 4th 2009 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/03/do-we-need-a-better-definition-of-hd/
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?)

]]>Apr 4th 2009 12:21PM