Talk:High-definition video/Archive 1

High-definition display resolutions
For the 1440x1080 entry, the description reads "Used on a majority of HDTVs, and is 'half' of 1080p due to its interlacing (i)". That line is subjective and probably not accurate, either. I think the "Description" column should be removed entirely and entries such as "Used by ITV HD in the UK" should be footnoted. rburriel 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

List of "Movies that have been shot on HD digital video"
Honestly? A list (probably less than comprehensive) of movies shot in HD video? Should we make a list of all "talkies" and all "color" movies, too? That seems very amateurish to me. rburriel 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Format Consideration
Would you agree that in its current form, it is a random lump of facts? I'm sure it is the product of good efforts of several editors, but it calls for cleaning. Should it just be about what factors one's choice for a particular HD format (24/25/30/i/p/720/1080)? Spare the poor reader from 0.01% pulldowns, which are off-topic and better explained in telecine. Binba 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolution
"High-definition television (HDTV) resolution is 1080 interlaced lines or 720 progressive lines.": I was under the impression 1080p is also a possibility. Could anyone clarify? Mikecron 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1080p is (currently) the "best" form of HD video. --Wulf 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, 1080p can only be broadcast at 24-30 frames per second. That rate is fine for movies, but high motion content such as sports require 50-60 images per second.  An interlaced "frame" is two images, so 1080i is acceptable for sports, whereas 1080p is not.

See my post at Talk:YCbCr
Please see my post about Sony Extended Video/Sony Higher Definition/xvYCC at Talk:YCbCr. (P.S., is there a way to superscript text in MediaWiki? Please reply on my talk page.) Thanks :) Wulf 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Do we have references for this movie having been shot in HDTV? If this is true, it's the first time HD has ever fooled me.Algr 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See here: . --Cab88 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well how about that. Thanks! Algr 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

High def VIDEO versus TELEVISION
Seems to be a lot of bleed from the HDTV article into this one. I agree that there is a distinction between HD video content in general and HDTV (though I'm not completely familiar with the relative standards, and whether such are similar or in constrast). However, this article is not doing enough to make that distinction. Alot of duplication with HDTV. So, I've added the following sentence "It is important to note the difference between general purpose high-definition video as discussed in this article, and its specific applictions in television (HDTV), filming (HDV) and video storage systems (HDDVD and |Blu-ray)." Hopefully we can work to make the as discussed in this article statement more true. Audiodude 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted every duplicate section with HDTV and other articles High-definition pre-recorded media and compression, Analogue High-definition television systems. This does not mean this page is meaningless. In fact, it should ocus more on the visual advantatges of high definion, as technical details have already been described in other pages. Thewikipedian 11:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said and done, I clarified Audiodude's statement. There are still numerous instances of using "HDTV" instead of "HD". If it's specific to HDTV it shouldn't be here, and if it applies to HD it should be renamed (and shouldn't be in HDTV). Binba 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheaper 1080i/p displays
The last line of the heading Format Considerations is inaccurate.

It says "An LCD capable of native 1080i resolution still costs over a thousand US dollars." However a Dell 24" monitor (resolution: 1920x1200) can be had for well under $1000 now.

HD in Filmmaking
The current text for this reads:

"Arguing that film is not high quality enough to make movies (in part because of poor film development processing, poor monitoring system, and a general inabilty to see what the camera is actually capturing) and the increasing usage of computer generated, augmented or edited picture sequences has led some directors to engage in shooting their movies using the HD format via high-end digital cameras. Although this argument is flawd as film has a much wider dynamic range as it can generally handle twice to four times the contrast as even the best HD cameras, not to mention that 35mm film can resolve up to 6000 lines while the best in HD so far can only resolve less than 1900 usable lines. Generally if somebody is pushing for HD, it's actually to save money on film stock and transfers to digital for special effects. Some examples are George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez.

Many television shows with science fiction themes and special effects — such as Star Trek: Enterprise and Stargate — have also begun to use digital cameras."

This includes bald statements that are pushing one view. Would it not be better for a pro and con argument as to the benefits of HD vs the benefits of film and then the disadvantages. An analysis of visual acuity, the general seating distances in theatres and the colour gamut that the average person can perceive would be useful. After all, it's what the audience perceives that is the issue. There is also no mention in the current article of sensitivity to light. If the director wants to shoot in available street light at night, what are their options? What happens as you increase the speed of the film stock and also its grain? It states that 35 mm film can resolve up to 6000 lines (reference please as this seems a lot), but does not state what the final release print resolution is. What are the implications when matting is used? In normal film technology this introduces a third process of degradation. If you are using lots of matting, such as in Sci-Fi, this might be a good argument for using HD digital.

If I knew the answers to these issues I might try to address them, but sadly I do not. --CloudSurfer 02:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The recent edits to this section have removed the POV issues. Thank you.  The issues of matting and losses in the processing to the release print are still not mentioned.  Do we have any facts with references on the effective resolution, colour gamut and contrast ratios of the final product?  Another issue that occurs to me is that of shutter speed in terms of its effect on motion. Isn't there someone who is studying this at film school?  --CloudSurfer 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I renamed the title from "Movies that have been shot in HD". It sounded like a mere list. This topic is big, I can give a shot at rewriting it, as long as we're sure that this is the place for it and there are no duplicates? (I already removed one from HDTV) Binba 06:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good points cloud and bindba, wish I could help but this is not my are of ecpertise. As is the article is seriously lacking unfortunately. As an inegral part of both historical, popular and technological culture, past future and preseent, such details are a sine qua non of this encyclepdia. 62.38.17.143 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge "High-definition video" with "High-definition television".
against - While HDV is used with HDTV it is also used in film and for viewing on a computer and soon to be used with HD DVD's..

Against - "Television" implies broadcast and mass media, whereas "Video" includes computer monitor displays, digital cinematography, and even security cameras.Algr 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Against - While HDTV uses high def video, they are not same. hdv can be used in reference to not just presentation on tv but also on monitors etc. hdtv, at max can encompass hd transmission, but not hd video.

Against - BUT there needs to be a sharper seperation between hdtv and hdv facts, e.g. hd ready is a label for hd-tv. these tv sets are also able to display hdv, but their main funcion is to display broadcasted hd content. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Against - A non issue for me. 62.38.17.143 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Against - HDV and HDTV are two different things. ~Eljay

Against - If anything, HDTV should be merged into HDV -- FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Against - High-Definition Televisions should be merged into High-Definition Video. HDTV should be a section, containing subsections to represent the information that is not in the HDV article. Drbits (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge "High Definition Video" with "Digital Photography"
Against: Video (including HDTV) is not necessarily digital, despite today's standards. Against: Digital photography generally refers to still photography.

Against: Video doesn't necssarily to be digital, but HDTV is a digital format. However, I am against the suggestion to merge with Digital photography; The term refers to taking still picture using digital technology, not motion picture.

Against --Wulf 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Against --myselfalso 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Against --what?! Who is for that? HD is a specific set of standards for moving images, digital photography is about an acquisition process of a still image. Binba 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Against - Who came up with this one? Photography and television are two completely different things! -- FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Film to High Definition Transfer section
My 2 cents here as a longtime avid reader/contributor here, albeit anonymous. I think a lot of people on wikipedia are getting too anal for our own good, and I consider the diction in this section to be both very formal and up to par with wikipedia's standards. I also found it very informative, presenting the issues in very concise and, above all, comprehensible manner, unlike other technical articles that do not merit from a very dried up text neither in presentation nor in their ease of understanding. And on a side note here, letting an article have a balanced portion of formality and encyclopaedia tone with the writers indiosyncrasies are what we should be after. Traditional encyclopaedia's benefited from this a lot, where, whilst all articles maintained a set of rules for writing standars and editors made sure of this, they also had the authors signature in writing. Essentially what I am saying is that making it too cut and dry or getting too anal about diction will only hurt our efforts. 62.38.17.143 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my one cent. This article struck me as one of the most concise and informative pieces I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.69.122.62.231 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Compression?
Do all HD formats use some kind of compression, and if not, which are compressed and which aren't and which uses what kind of compression - and how does compression factor into image quality when transferred to and projected from film? --98.202.73.104 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all HD content is compressed.
 * All HD TV is compressed (usually MPEG-2). Communication from a computer to the display is usually not compressed, but some displays have MPEG-2 decompression built in for use with non encrypted cable. Some displays now advertise built-in decompression for the most common audio and video encodings for MPEG-4. So far, UHD displays have similar decompression abilities, advertised as using an additional internal processor.


 * Since MPEG-2 offers almost indiscernible compression to 1/3 the data size, almost all HD data storage uses some sort of compression. The Blu-Ray standard includes specific MPEG-4 compression options as well. The next generation of storage (using violet or near-ultraviolet light) is expected to support several standards that are now used for video compression onto computer storage (hard drives and the equivalent).


 * Video cameras vary in their compression capabilities. Few can output RAW (uncompressed) data. Special effects and animation editing is often done using lossless JPEG to store each frame, so each frame is complete (a key-frame) (source: discussion with Sony engineers). Some video cameras are able to output this format.


 * Some digital cinema (at least Sony) is distributed using JPEG-2 format to support encryption and automatic inclusion/exclusion of sections of the video to adhere to local standards or different ratings using the same data (source: discussion with Sony engineers). Drbits (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It used to be mostly MPEG-2 in North America while most of Europe began with AVC/MPEG-4 as the standard, but most North American broadcasts have switched to MPEG-4 compression also to save bandwidth.Dobyblue (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Almost all HD content is compressed." that depends where you are & what you're watching, surely? do you mean "in the home"? because when I'm sitting in an OB truck or an edit suite.... you need some context.

duncanrmi (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Origin of HD
This article needs to outright explain where high-definition video comes from. Most people who stop to think about it realize that they are seeing very old movies remastered into an HD edition on Blu-ray but have no idea how this is possible. Why do DVD videos have such resolution, why do Blu-ray movies have such resolution, how exactly is it restored? I thought it's impossible to restore lost information? To loosely answer this big question: because the analog film the video was originally captured on already has a way larger resolution than 1920x1080 and it is simply converted to digital, processed, and downsampled to an ideal resolution (e.g. DVDs can only store so much with MPEG-2 on 4.7 gigs and same thing with Blu-rays.) Professional studio cameras have always been this way since 1940-1950 so it's no secret how old movies can be remastered in HD, which is still only the beginning, and many people don't know this.

This key information should be elaborated in the article.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HD in video gaming
I made some changes to the "HD in Video Gaming" section. I cleaned up some wordiness in that section to make it easier to read.

Bradridder (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

iPlayerHD
There appears to have been some controversy regarding the addition of information for iPlayerHD by Alexandreaday into the World Wide Web HD Resolutions section. It was removed almost immediately after posting. I suspected it was done because of poor formatting but after some digging, it looks like a lot of the information text was copy/paste, triggering some copyright flags. I have corrected the formatting and changed the wording, restoring the iPlayerHD entry. Rburriel (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro and framerate
Irritating that the intro doesn't have any references. Seems flawed to me. Why isn't there a mention of frame rates with HD? Is 720 video at 15 frames per second HD? What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is very antiquated and needs to be revised. If you'd like to do that, go right ahead.

The section entitled "Standard High Definition Video Modes" covers frame rates for all HD formats.

Rburriel (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct Resolution of 1080i
Currently the section headed: Standard high-definition video modes

includes the following information in the table: Video Mode   	Frame size in pixels (W×H)    	Pixels per image    	Scanning type    	Frame rate (Hz)

720p    1280×720    	921,600    	Progressive    	23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 30, 50, 59.94, 60 1080i   	1440×1080    	1,555,200    	Interlaced    	25, 29.97, 30 1080p   	1920×1080    	2,073,600    	Progressive    	23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 30, 50, 59.94, 60

I'm curious whether the entry for 1080i is accurate.

My impression is that 1080i is typically 1920x1080 interlaced when displayed.

I did see elsewhere in Wikipedia that a number of video cameras appear to capture images at 1440x1080 interlaced, and that they use wide rectangular pixels for capture, so that when they render output it is at 1920x1080 interlaced and shows up correctly on a display that has square pixels.

Is my understanding correct?

If so, should the "Standard high-definition video modes" table be amended to say: 1080i   	1920×1080    	2,073,600    	Interlaced    	25, 29.97, 30

Thanks James Grove JHGrove3 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1080i information is based entirely on the Wikipedia entry for 1080i. Your information matches that of the Wikipedia entry, thus it should be updated and corrected here to match that information elsewhere. I will apply the correction.

Rburriel (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Frame Rate on the Web
What are the Frame Rates for HD YouTube videos and other web HD videos? Tri400 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Expired links
The last two links in "Further reading" are expired. So is the first in "External links". (Sorry if didn't write in the right place or whatever, I'm quite new to editing in Wikipedia. Please let me know. Thanks! LGFN (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

DVB
This article talks tons about "DVB" without ever once explaining what that means, linking to an article explaining what that means, or even saying what the letters stand for. Josh (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Youtube 4K resolution
Two references give different dimensions for Youtube's 4K resolution:
 * http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-bigger-than-1080p-4k-video-comes.html - 4096 x 2304
 * http://www.ditii.com/2010/07/09/youtube-videos-now-in-4k-4096-x-3072-resolution/ - 4096 x 3072

I beleive the Youtube source is more reliable and have reverted to that for now. If anyone can help resolve this more definitively, please do. --Kvng (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked Youtube.com, now that they have actually accepted some ultra HD videos. Videos carried on Youtube.com that are accepted by the service as "4K" are 2160p 16:9 image aspect ratio. This is the same format falsely advertised as 4K displays.


 * 4096 pixel wide displays exist for professional use with various aspect ratios, these are actual 4K displays. For example, some video games are edited on a 4096x1080 or 4096x1440 display. Frame editing for animation and cinematic special effects is often performed on a 4096x1714 display (43:18 aspect ratio is used for digital cinema, most Blu-Ray copies of films are letter-boxed to fit 16:9 displays). Drbits (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Game Consoles
Should Xbox One, PS4, & PS Vita be in "HD in video gaming" if so it should say "Xbox One, supports HD up to 1080p" "PS4, supports HD up to 1080p" "PS Vita, supports HD up to 720p" & the Wii U should it say it "The Nintendo Wii U, supports HD up to 1080p" I didn't know if that was okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.180.26 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

PANYA
People's Association for Nagar and Youth Advancement was established in 2nd October 1996 in Devimeenakshi Nagar, INDIA. Mr.Rajan is the present General Secretary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.99.104 (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultra high-definition video modes
In the section Ultra high-definition video modes, "2160p (also known as 4k)" should be changed to "2160p (marketed as 4k)". The same applies to "4320p (also known as 8k)". The 4K shorthand is misleading and possibly used as false advertising.

1080p with frame rates of 128 Hz and 196 Hz should be added. These are intended for sports and game use.

"720p wide" (1720x720) should be added. This is 720p with the modern cinematic aspect ratio. The displays are capable of the same frame rates as 1080p. ''The 16:9 aspect ratio used in most consumer displays was the common cinematic aspect ratio in 1970. The extra frame rates allow the display to update at cinematic frame rates.''

"1080p wide" (2580x1080) should be added. Same frame rates as 1080p.

"1440p wide" (3440x1440) should be added. Same frame rates as 1080p.

A display with the cinematic aspect ratio reduces neck strain when used as a computer monitor compared to a larger 16:9 display, because the human neck rotates side to side easier than rocking up and down.

Cinematic aspect ratio displays (43:18 or 21:9) are currently (February 2016) more expensive than double resolution 16:9 displays (such as 2160p), because most existing manufacturing equipment uses the 16:9 aspect ratio. Drbits (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)