What is the "standard" for HD?

[DeadlyNinja]

By that, I mean what resolution should it be to be truly considered Hi-Definition? Does it count as HD if it's 768 pixels tall including the black bars? I have a movie that's 1280 pixels wide, and 768 or so pixels high. The thing is, the height is only if you include the black bars. I've heard from some people that even though the movie is wide screen, it doesn't always fill out the entire screen, and you'll still have black bars on the top and bottom. Does it count as 720p if you have to include the black bars?

 

[Arwin]

In Europe, HD Ready is defined as being capable of displaying 720p, and being able to handle both a 720p and a 1080i signal, at both 50hz and 60hz (if I remember correctly).

Many 720p TVs are (for plenty of weird reasons that nobody understands fully except maybe someone who works at a panel factory) 1366x768p, but they will typically scale the 720p source image to 768p. However, these TVs also have a 16:9 aspect ratio. If you playback a movie that has a 'wider' aspect ratio, like 1:1.85 or 1:2.35, then to be able to display the full width of the image in the correct aspect ratio, there will have to be black bars on any TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio. See?

 

[DeadlyNinja]

Ok, I get what you're saying, but what if I take a snap shot with my PC's video player? When I take the snap shot, it doesn't include the black bars, but the resolution is something like 1280 x 528 or something like that. I compared the same movie to someone else's PAL screen shot and their shots were 1024 x 576. I know that's their standard, but now I'm confused over WTF I have on my computer.

Hell, forget all the tech talk, since I'm terrible at describing it (I did understand what you're saying, it just the 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 part I don't completely get). Let me show you a screen shot I took from the movie. Just keep in mind it doesn't include the black bars. Is the screen shot I posted truly HD?

US Version:
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7628/02usxs0.png

Australian Version:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4827/02aujm6.png

My Version:
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6922/vlcsnap23523hl3.jpg

You'll notice the other 2 contains black bars, but neither of which are HD. My version is HD... I think.

 

[Arwin]

it just the 1:1.85 or 1:2.35 part I don't completely get

And that's exactly the problem ...

1:2.35 means that for every vertical pixel, there are 2.35 horizontal pixels. 1280 divided by 2.35 = 545. 1:2.35 is very cool in cinemas, but regular TVs are the more humble 16:9 aspect ratio, which basically translates to 1:1.78, or in other words for every vertical pixel, you get 1.78 horizontal pixels. If you want a full screen image on that screen from the movie you have, you're then left wit the two options of either dropping parts off of the sides (as used to be done a lot width widescreen movies on regular TV), or rescale the image which would give your duuuuuude a much longer face than he already has now.

 

[Arwin]

So basically, what I have isn't really HD, it's some weird compressed rip from an HD-DVD probably. Oh well, I downloaded the movie out of curiosity anyway. I figured there was no way they could have compressed an HD movie down to 4.4 gigs. Still, I think the quality is better than the regular DVD so I'm not complaining.

Whether or not the movie is actually HD or upscaled is another discussion altogether (though it seems to be HD). It just doesn't matter for the black borders. Even if the original resolution had been 235 pixels x 100 pixels, then scaling this to 1280x720 would still have resulted in a 1280x544 with black borders that you've got now.

Do you understand? Basically, to make a 1:2.35 image display correctly with full vertical resolution at the correct aspect ratio, you'd need a very wide screen with a resolution of 1692x720 ...

If you don't understand it now, I can't help you ...

 

[kyleb]

A 2.35:1 movie like TMNT straight off the Blu-ray or HD DVD disk would be 1920x817 of actual content, and it's still HD as long as it isn't downsampled below 1280x544. The "HD" rip you have is just barely not HD as is squeezing everything into 528 horizontal, which is also why everything looks a bit short and fat in that shot compared to the other two.

Also, note that both PAL and NTSC DVDs have a horizontal resolution of 720, the playback software is just stretching those to 1024 or 853 respectively to present them at their intended 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

Whether or not the movie is actually HD or upscaled is another discussion altogether (though it seems to be HD). It just doesn't matter for the black borders. Even if the original resolution had been 235 pixels x 100 pixels, then scaling this to 1280x720 would still have resulted in a 1280x544 with black borders that you've got now.

Do you understand? Basically, to make a 1:2.35 image display correctly with full vertical resolution at the correct aspect ratio, you'd need a very wide screen with a resolution of 1692x720 ...

If you don't understand it now, I can't help you ...

No, I understood what you explained to me. As kyleb said, "The "HD" rip you have is just barely not HD as is squeezing everything into 528 horizontal." Originally, I didn't understand what is the true width of HD footage. I figured whatever's on the TV's box is the standard for HD.

 

[kyleb]

I'm sorry, I meant 528 vertical, it is the hight that is squished a bit below HD.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

Yeah, I know what you were trying to say.

 

[Fruitfrenzy]

A 2.35:1 movie like TMNT straight off the Blu-ray or HD DVD disk would be 1920x817 of actual content

I don't believe that is correct. The Blu-ray or HD-DVD would have the video encoded at 1920x1080 with instructions on the disc to scale that to 2.35:1. There is no reason to assume that pixels are square. That is generally only true for computer displays, not digital video.

 

[kyleb]

I wasn't assuming, I was explaining how it is done.