Confused about the pixels

[pandy]

pandy, I must respectfully disagree with you.


[Attachment 40545 - Click to enlarge]

And i don't disagree with you but this is not about HDMI or general HW/SW capability but on Source - we can't forget about historical context - HD was defined between 1985 and 2005 as evolving, iterative process. In 2005 only available codec (for consumers) was MPEG-2 (h262) - due of many limitations (mostly HW performance) two main formats was selected - 1920x1080i30(25) and companion progressive 1280x720p60(50) - bot with unique target - 1080i as movie/general video format and 720p as sport/dynamic format, As Europe on those times was quite delayed in HD introduction, main market was USA and remember lot of discussion about selecting particular format for particular service - 720p popularity was somehow limited - never saw in EUrope 720p50 honestly in regular broadcast but it was present in USA for sure (in my stream library i have some recordings 720p60 and don't have any 720p50).
Using 720p especially in a way described by Jagabo (i.e. cropping 2.35:1 movie 24p) is typical internet format - rather low quality to squeeze every possible bit from overall bitrate. (HDV case is slightly different - 1440x1080i 16:9 is series of compromises between HW codec implementation, available bandwidth and target i.e. popular, portable, consumer digital video camcorders).

So reading between lines 720p at half frame rate is intermediate format more close to EDTV than HDTV - yify style of compression.

[awgie]

EDTV is the same resolution as SDTV (720x480 or 576 pixels) just progressive instead of interlaced.

Anything that is 720 pixels high falls under the HD category. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily high quality, but it is still HD. You may not like that, but your opinion doesn't change it.

[pandy]

Once again - this is not my opinion but industry outcome - HD is not only spatial resolution but also framerate - industry outcome was quite clear - 720p targeted as dynamic (sport) format - that's all. Of course YIFY fans disagree with such approach but...

[awgie]

Well, that is your opinion, and a very narrow one at that, of the "industry". I'm just stating the simple facts of what is defined as HD video. You don't like it? Fine. Nobody said you had to like it. But facts are facts. If you're going to disregard the facts just because you don't like them, go into politics.

As for YIFY? I don't even know what that is (well, I do now). I had to look it up when you mentioned it, so I certainly don't qualify as a "YIFY fan".

[pandy]

Well, that is your opinion, and a very narrow one at that, of the "industry". I'm just stating the simple facts of what is defined as HD video. You don't like it? Fine. Nobody said you had to like it. But facts are facts. If you're going to disregard the facts just because you don't like them, go into politics.

As for YIFY? I don't even know what that is (well, I do now). I had to look it up when you mentioned it, so I certainly don't qualify as a "YIFY fan".

Fine for me - some of us consider 1280x540p24 as HD, some of us not that's all. It is not about me but about technical recommendations - you will never find EBU or ATSC recommendation to transmit 1280x720p29.97(25) that's all (it is not even listed as optionally allowed) - for HD EBU and ATSC recommends 1280x720p60(50) or 1920x1080i29.97(25) - take any serious document and this is pure outcome of it - transmitting 1280x540p24 in 1280x720p60 is possible but it will be pure waste of bandwidth - to be honest - i saw some TV operators transmitting 1280x720p25 to save bandwidth but IMHO selling such services as HD is plainly unfair.

Sorry for YIFY - it was more like description of some erosion process where compromises following another compromises and at some point we are in middle of nowhere - as a customer i don't want to be cheat but i know some people have nothing against - that's why people watching movies on computers, even professional broadcasters care less about video quality... it is common to see wrong dominance during broadcast nowadays in Europe, people don't care...

[_Al_]

So is it conditioned by visual quality or just by some numbers that someone put on piece of paper? Engineers can put on paper whatever they want and marketing will clap their hands. At the end it is viewer that can say, that one looks better, because even different technique was used to record footage itself, different specs.

It is impossible to say what is real HD if you judge quality, there is no defining border that would define if it is below it or above it. HD is just a label, like a level in H264 stream, just an info what it should be technically a ballpark, expected quality but visual quality might say something else. We can experience that every day, streaming videos etc.

[awgie]

i saw some TV operators transmitting 1280x720p25 to save bandwidth but IMHO selling such services as HD is plainly unfair.

I won't argue that packaging poor quality video as "HD" is an insult to the consumer. Because "HD" has become assumed to mean "high quality". But "HD" does not guarantee high quality. Besides frame rate, bitrate is equally -- if not more -- important to quality. You can take a 1280x720p60 source and reduce it down to 1500kbps, and you can take a 720x480 DVD and reduce it to 1500kbps. The resulting files will be the same size, and will utilize the same bandwidth for streaming, but the 1280x720p60 video -- even though it is still technically "HD" -- will actually end up looking worse because there is much less data defining each frame, and it will have lost a lot more of its original definition, compared to the DVD version.

It's the combination of all of the factors that result in the finished quality. "HD" or "not HD" is irrelevant. As Al said above, it's just a label.