"HD" definition

[kteague]

1. What exactly does "HDTV" define?

2. Does it only define a specific set of resolutions?

3. Does it include audio?

4. Does it define a certain bit rate?

5. Does compressing the content using a lossy codec still constitute the broadcast as being "HD"?

6. Does transcoding the content from, say, MPEG2 to MPEG4, still constitute it as being "HD" even though the MPEG4 codec is also lossy?

I'm at a loss, here. DirecTV is broadcasting "HD" content as "HD Lite" and claiming it's still HD. AT&T U-Verse compresses the hell out of their stream and use various codecs, all lossy, which reduces the picture quality. Macroblocking is the result. Is that still "HD"? Thanks in advance.

[Cholly]

1 -- see the two references below, but basically, in the USA, it defines picture format (16:9), resolution (1920X1080 and 1280X720), scan type (progressive and interlaced), audio requirements (Dolby Digital (AC-3)) and degree of compression (MPEG-2). See the ATSC standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television
http://hdtv.gov/

2. Yes. For practical purposes, in the United States, the only broadcast resolutions are 720p and 1080i. 1080p is supported for high definition video recordings (HD DVD and Blu-Ray Disc), when the studios begin issuing media in that format.

3. Yes, it includes audio -- Dolby Digital and DTS

4. MPEG-2 has a bitrate of 80 megabits per second

5. Yes. MPEG-2 is lossy.

6. Not an easy answer. I pass on this one. It does help the content providers by allowing multiplexing and also DRM support. Beyond that, I dunno.

[harsh]

DirecTV is broadcasting "HD" content as "HD Lite" and claiming it's still HD.As DIRECTV claims, their programming meets a standard for resolution (ATSC Standard A/81 (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a81.html)). There are no bitrate requirements. Nobody really knows what standards (if any) that AT&T is using, but since it isn't broadcast in the classic sense, there may be no standard.

As for the double encoding issue, that should be resolved as more and more of the programming providers deliver in MPEG4.

[kteague]

Thanks, guys. That clears some things up. It seems that the standard lacks some aspects, allowing multi channel video broadcast providers to essentially do what they want with the original feed so long as it retains what *is* specified in the standard, and at this time, the standard only defines a specific set of resolutions and audio types. They can compress the hell out of it and/or transcode it, degrading the picture quality, and still call it "HD". That's a shame.

TMK, their VoD uses a certain type of video format/codec, and it looks good most of the time. The real-time feeds are pretty damn bad, as they don't have the opportunity to run multiple passes on the video stream before it's broadcast. It seems that the only way to get "true HD" at this time is OTA.

Where do you all see the best (to the worst) HD content? Please list them in that order (best to worst). The only HD I've seen is on DirecTV and at stores. I believe stores are pulling them OTA, or they're playing a standard DVD movie and using a high quality (Faroudja) video scaler. To me, DirecTV looks decent, but I have not done any side-by-side comparisons. U-Verse, after seeing some screenshots, looks horrible. I signed up for U-Verse 2 weeks ago and I'm not very satisfied with their IPTV, but it's new and has potential.

[harsh]

Most big box stores use either a hard disk based recording or digital CATV. It is possible that CC has their own HD DIRECTV channel, but given the short cycle time, I'm inclined to think is disk based.

A couple of the stores around here use component DAs to push analog HD signals around.

As for the truest rendition of HD, that would have to be either HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

[n3ntj]

If you go to KMart or Target, they feed their HDTVs with analog feeds...looks like crap and no wonder the stores that actually show HD programming are the big sellers. I was at KMart with a friend and I showed him the HDTVs. He said..'so what's all the fuss about? They look like crap.'. That's why.

[Stuart Sweet]

Also there is no true accepted definition of "HD-Lite", "Full HD", "True HD" or any of those. They are accepted conventions but nothing else.

Cholly hits the nail on the head. It has to be compliant with all ATSC digital modes of display, use MPEG-2 and Dolby/AC3.

[Nick]

Also there is no true accepted definition of "HD-Lite", "Full HD", "True HD" or any of those.
They are accepted conventions but nothing else...I would debate that, Stu -- I suggest that the terms are neither accepted nor conventions,
but rather, simply terms that have been used by a few to describe HD or less than HD.

Quite often, display mfrs will "coin" or adopt terms like "full" and "true" (we all remember
"Lving Color") in an effort to differentiate their HD sets from the competition. The result is
confusion on the part of consumers as evidenced by comments in this and other threads.

Given the choice, would you rather have a set with "True HD" or "Full HD"? :shrug:

[Stuart Sweet]

I agree with the spirit of your argument. I used the term "accepted conventions" when I really meant "accepted conventions at many consumer-electronics web sites". I apologize for not being clearer.

I always hated "living color", although it explained why the Munsters were in black and white.

[Stuart Sweet]

You know what I hated worse? "Live on Tape". What was the opposite supposed to be... dead on film? Sorry, old joke.

[kteague]

Thank you all for your replies. It clears some things up. I briefly looked at the ATSC specification and found that it does mandate certain resolutions (that's only part of my concern), but I don't see anything about the minimum bit-rate they're supposed to stream at. This leaves DirecTV to re-encode the broadcast using a lower bit-rate to consume less bandwidth, thus sacrificing picture quality.

What about IPTV on U-verse? Which standards do they have to follow? We invest a lot of money in our home theater systems to give us the best pleasure when watching a movie, but the broadcast we're really getting is garbage.

Please disregard the next two posts as I'm going to blow through my 5 minimum posts before I can post links. Links to follow in the last post.

[kteague]

test1

[kteague]

test2

[kteague]

Here are links to what spurred off this whole topic:


http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,2806.0/

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,2821.0/

http://www.uverseusers.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,2/topic,2729.msg22377/#msg22377

[harsh]

What about IPTV on U-verse? Which standards do they have to follow? We invest a lot of money in our home theater systems to give us the best pleasure when watching a movie, but the broadcast we're really getting is garbage.As I said in post #3, AT&T only has to subscribe to whatever standard will keep their customers subscribing. DO NOT expect nor assume that simply because of the technology used, that the PQ will be either better or worse than some other technology.

There are more than a few poor souls out there with their head buried in the sand that still believe that FIOS is uncompressed IPTV. If it works for them, let them believe it.

[kteague]

U-verse is using MPEG-4 to encode their broadcasts -- a fairly standard codec used today. That said, it's apparent that my expectation isn't based on the technology they use, but rather what they're doing to the broadcast before it reaches the customers' home. If they don't correct this, it will be a customer retention issue. Only those who do not know the potential of HD will not notice.