Toshiba To Stop HD DVD Player Production

[rodolfo]

You like to talk a lot.

Sorry... there is a "lot of standards" I just bring what I found on each one...

Yet all you do is confuse people. All you do is contradict yourself

I understand that it sounds like a series of contradictions, read everyone of the specs in detail and you will find those contradictions and a lack of clarity (ATSC is a good example)

720p IS twice the 16:9 equivalent of SD. While much of SD is transmitted in a frame size of 720x480, the actual square pixel resolution is 640x480. The 16x9 frame size is 640x360, which times two is what? Oh yeah...1280x720.

SDTV <> 640x360

SDTV = ITU-R601 has essentially two modes 1) 13.5Mhz for 4:3 and 18Mhz for 16:9, According to the definition of ATSC (definitions on A53 PART 1 page 9 and 11 of January 2007) SDTV (vertical)=525 line system 60 field x sec. 525x2=1050 (active 960). SDTV (horizontal 16:9)=960 active lines x 2 = 1920.

Back to the 24p topic. The current HDTV runs in a couple flavors...1080i @60i or 720p @60p...all framerates can "fit" or "run" within those two formats. Current 24p DVDs playback in 60i on SD tv's. Pulldown is added to the frames to conform 24p into 60i so it can run at 29.97. HD works basically the same way. A 720p 24p movie will be played back at 60p with extra frames added in. It's still HD. The resolution is there, the native framerate doesn't matter. It will all come out as 60p when broadcast the same way all 1080i/p will be broadcast as 1080i.

I understand that you can play You tube content on HD. that doesn't make it HD, right? yes you can see it! yes it looks big! but that is not HD.

Oh and I playback 720p 24p material through component outputs all the time. It just gets conformed on the fly to 60p. 720p, regardless of initial framerate is most definitely HD

When I refer that you cannot connect a 720p24 signal to a HD monitor via component video or HDMI , I mean a 720p24 signal, -a pure 720p24 signal-. no the ability of a monitor to play 720p60... where the content was "temporal-resolution" adapted to make it "HD" and more where HD has an specific mode for this which is 1080p24 and the monitor will play the movie with the right cadence.

I really don't get why you're on this anti-720p-24p crusade here. It's how all movies look in the 720p format.

Is not an anti-720p24 crusade... It is not even a crusade too... It is just an exchange of opinions and findings on this great forum...

My point is: Apple and anyone can advertise that they have a movie rental service on 720p24 and I'm sure that people who love Apple (including me) enjoy this service while expecting 720p24. However I disagree to market it as real HD. I don't like the idea to manipulate an ambiguity on the "broadcast" standard (regarding the constrains of MPEG2 encoding allowances) and advertise their movies as 720p (a nomenclature where people understand 720p as 60fps) and more when it comes from a company like Apple... there is not need.

Please don't take it as a personal attack...

 

[matticus008]

When I refer that you cannot connect a 720p24 signal to a HD monitor via component video or HDMI , I mean a 720p24 signal, -a pure 720p24 signal-.

When referring to films shot at 24fps, there is no effective difference. The original film is high definition and 24fps, and it is neither accurate nor fair to claim that the 720p version is "not HD" by virtue of the framerate limitation imposed by the source.

Those films are 24fps regardless of the output, even in 1080p (whether telecined to 1080p50 or 1080p60). The same is true of 720p. The display handles the difference. Television content filmed at 30fps will also have to be adjusted to hit 50/60fps as necessary.

As to digitally produced content, its framerate will be telecined to the content as needed as well. That is, motion pictures filmed at 24fps can have those frames repeated as necessary to sync with one of the display standards (just as 1080i can be double-framed by a TV to "upconvert" to approximate 1080p). This is just another illustration of why framerate, like colorspace, is not used as a defining characteristic of HDTV.

My point is: Apple and anyone can advertise that they have a movie rental service on 720p24 and I'm sure that people who love Apple (including me) enjoy this service while expecting 720p24. However I disagree to market it as real HD.

So in order for it to be "real" HD, you'd expect this one particular resolution to have a higher framerate requirement than film project, analog broadcast, SDTV, and 1080p? You'd require replacing motion picture equipment for one idiosyncratic gap caused by the fact that nothing is shot on film in 720p natively, and that digital recording isn't done at 24fps?

It's a motion picture. It was filmed at 24fps, probably on 35mm film. It doesn't stop being HD because those frames have to be repeated (it should be noted that many films already double up each frame to reduce 'jitter' in the theater).

 

[kaiwai]

Why are region codes so bad? Prices always drop so price is never really an issue. More capacity is everything for me at this point.

Region codes are crap because in some cases I am waiting up to 2 years to get a DVD of a television episode which played 20 years ago. That is why regional encoding royally sucks.

We, the vermin outside the US are continuously given the royal screw job by media inc. under the false assumption that those of us down here don't have televisions or money to spend.

 

[JesterJJZ]

24p in either 720p or 1080p is HD...end of story.

 

[rodolfo]

When referring to films shot at 24fps, there is no effective difference. The original film is high definition and 24fps, and it is neither accurate nor fair to claim that the 720p version is "not HD" by virtue of the framerate limitation imposed by the source.

Those films are 24fps regardless of the output, even in 1080p (whether telecined to 1080p50 or 1080p60). The same is true of 720p. The display handles the difference. Television content filmed at 30fps will also have to be adjusted to hit 50/60fps as necessary.

As to digitally produced content, its framerate will be telecined to the content as needed as well. That is, motion pictures filmed at 24fps can have those frames repeated as necessary to sync with one of the display standards (just as 1080i can be double-framed by a TV to "upconvert" to approximate 1080p). This is just another illustration of why framerate, like colorspace, is not used as a defining characteristic of HDTV.

So in order for it to be "real" HD, you'd expect this one particular resolution to have a higher framerate requirement than film project, analog broadcast, SDTV, and 1080p? You'd require replacing motion picture equipment for one idiosyncratic gap caused by the fact that nothing is shot on film in 720p natively, and that digital recording isn't done at 24fps?

It's a motion picture. It was filmed at 24fps, probably on 35mm film. It doesn't stop being HD because those frames have to be repeated (it should be noted that many films already double up each frame to reduce 'jitter' in the theater).

Although I can clarify each on of your points, and constraining our discussion to broadcast TV (As is clear that there is not 720p24 inputs on Digital and analog TVs) I believe is more productive to review ITU BT.1203-1 "User requirements for generic video bit-rate reduction coding of digital TV signals for an end-to-end television system" This effort came to clarify the points your mentioned, questions that were formulated officially 3 years before his release (June 8, 2003)

BT.1203 states the following formats:

BT.709/HDTV (16:9) 1920x1080p/24, 1920x1080p/50, 1920x1080i/50, 1920x1080p/60,1920x1080i/60

BT.1543 (16:9) 1280x720p/60

BT.601 and BT.1358/SDTV (4:3 or 16:9) 720x576p/50 720x576i/50, 720x483p60, 720x483i60

*50 & 60 means: 50 & 60 Hz environments

This effort also describes the bit-rate and compression profile considerations for each case on MPEG2/H.262 and MPEG4-AVC/H.264. (the AppleTV 720p24 format and H.264 profile is not close to those figures)

Also notice that ITU described BT.709/HDTV, and BT.1543 doesn't have HDTV. If you read the BT.709-5 document states HD on his title and all over the place. But if you read BT.1543, the document that describes the 1280x720 system there is not mention of HD at all (including High-Definition nor HDTV). It handles the term as 1280x720 progressive capture system which BTW is handled for 60Hz environments only.

Another document that makes a good description of HD is EBU-TECH 3320 "User Requirements for HD Monitors in TV production": There you will see that 1920x1080/p24 is required but there is not mention at all of 720p/24 but 720p/60. And if you also read the European Broadcast Union document "High Definition for Europe -a progressive approach". You will not be able to find 720p/24 in their official statement. (Actually you will read the statement of High-Motion made by American broadcasters justifying the existence of 720p60)

Furthermore: Keep always in mind that High-Definition Video was designed under the premises of visual acuity. If you use the subjective rule of thumb that our eyes "can see" 300dpi at 12 inches (i.e. get a book and you will be able "to see" the details...) and we follow the definition on BT.709 that HD should be virtually transparent at a distance of 3x the height of the picture. It means that HD should be close to 1200x2133p (make a 4x7.1 inches piece of paper and hold it at 12 inches from you and you will understand why Japan have designed the Super-High Vision system -aka UltraHD-, because that display size is not yet enough i.e. 8x14.2 inches is more realistic)

However, considering that we are talking about video and if the objects are moving rapidly the visual acuity decrease and thats why 720p60 was offered as format intended to deliver fast motion images (60fps=our best way to see motion). I remember that the 3 HD systems where designed while consider the effective resolution per second and taking in account the Kell factors (effective resolution) and all of them converged to deliver 49,766,400px of effective resolution per second...

1920x1080i30 x Kell factor 0.8=49,766,400
1280x720p60 x Kell Factor 0.9=49,766,400
1920x1080p24 x Kell Factor 1.0=49,766,400

Again: I'm not arguing that anyone can use the 720p60 high-motion system to send only 24fps or 2fps or YouTube content and make it fit in a HDTV display. But that doesn't mean that this content will be converted to HD. It is just displayed on a HD display.

I respectfully thing that Apple should review his statement that they are renting "HD movies".

 

[matticus008]

BT.1203 states the following formats:

...for video bit rate. Again, you are inundating the discussion with irrelevant facts. You are referring to video display constraints to systems supporting particular color modes. It does not follow that source production in video content has any such framerate requirement. Motion pictures are filmed at 24fps. It doesn't stop being high definition merely because of one gap in the display requirements.

BT.601 and BT.1358/SDTV (4:3 or 16:9) 720x576p/50 720x576i/50, 720x483p60, 720x483i60

SDTV is not 16:9, and there again you're referring to resolutions below the threshold.

Also notice that ITU described BT.709/HDTV, and BT.1543 doesn't have HDTV. If you read the BT.709-5 document states HD on his title and all over the place. But if you read BT.1543, the document that describes the 1280x720 system there is not mention of HD at all (including High-Definition nor HDTV).

Again, you are referencing an outdated document from 2001 when ITU contended that 1920x1080 progressive was the sole form of HD. It lost that argument. Twice, in fact.

Another document that makes a good description of HD is EBU-TECH 3320 "User Requirements for HD Monitors in TV production": There you will see that 1920x1080/p24 is required but there is not mention at all of 720p/24 but 720p/60.

That is because there IS NO NATIVE 720p CONTENT at 24fps. All 720p production occurs digitally at 50fps or higher. This does not mean that we draw a moat around the source content to create some erratic definition of HD.

Furthermore: Keep always in mind that High-Definition Video was designed under the premises of visual acuity. If you use the subjective rule of thumb that our eyes "can see" 300dpi at 12 inches

Resolution without size is an untenable argument. A 1080p display is HD whether it is 30" or 65", whether it is viewed from 4cm or 100m. If you want to make a visual acuity argument, you're going to have to go into every room in the world and de-certify 90% of televisions out there.

I'm not arguing that anyone can use the 720p60 high-motion system to send only 24fps or 2fps or YouTube content and make it fit in a HDTV display. But that doesn't mean that this content will be converted to HD.

No, because it already is, with the exception of YouTube content, which is irrelevant because it's not 720p or better. We don't require a specific frame rate for HD resolution. We require that the displays support a certain minimum framerate so that they can potentially display such content.

The only reason 1080p24 is permitted is that most HDTVs for the first several years didn't have the hardware capacity to render video at higher framerates anyway. The DSP simply didn't support the 1080p60 goal of ITU. They lost that fight, allowing 1080p24. They lost the fight allowing 1080i. They lost the fight allowing 720p as well.

I respectfully thing that Apple should review his statement that they are renting "HD movies".

Be that as it may, your reality-defying system is totally irrelevant to the issue. We do not define HD content for the purposes of labeling by either its framerate or its colorspace (those factors set the optimality minima for HD displays such that they have the full potential to display any content meeting the standards; it simply does not follow that all such content must be produced at that specific nexus). We do so based on its resolution (and not on its angular size, either), and all international bodies have clearly delineated the 480/576 standards from the 720 and higher standards. The former is SD and the latter is HD.

All manufacturers, all trade groups, and all standards bodies reflect this. We do not create special requirements based on tenuous math and worthless redirection, as 1080i would not meet your zig-zagging arbitrary line.

If the content is mastered at 720p, it is HD, whether it's a static image, a 24fps motion picture, a 30fps TV show, or a 50/60fps video made simply by repeating frames in mastering to compensate. Or are you arguing that if the image isn't moving on the screen, it's not really HD either?

 

[rodolfo]

All standards I have referred and reviewed are on "in-force" status

I believe that your criticism is very constructive and I sounds supported by a good technical background but with all my respect, on some of your points it looks like you are not reading to the standards and facts I have cited:

Per Example:
* BT.709-5 is not just a color space spec but the detailed definition of HD Video (frame rates, picture characteristics, optoelectronic conversion, etc...) which includes the film content scenario.
* BT.601-6 defines 960x480 as SDTV WideScreen (16:9).
* BT.1203-1 Is absolutely relevant for our discussion as it answers your previous question -A similar question that was made by the industry in 2003- (Question ITU-R 12-1/6)

Bottom line: The International industry has already defined that film content should be on 1920x1080p\24. no 1280x720p\24. 1280x720p\60 is a format justified for "sports/high motion" content and should not to be used to false advertise "HD Movie" content.

And if this doesn't sounds right, and you truly believe that 720p24 is HD. Then thing for a moment about why more than 80 major companies joined to develop HD-DVD and BluRay --A standard DVD has been always capable to storage what Apple claims to be HD movies-- right?

Check the latest version of the standards and ITU documents I have cited and let me know your conclusions...

 

[matticus008]

All standards I have referred and reviewed are on "in-force" status

It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

* BT.709-5 is not just a color space spec but the detailed definition of HD Video (frame rates, picture characteristics, optoelectronic conversion, etc...) which includes the film content scenario.

No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.

There is no native digital 1080p60 capture at the moment; the closest is 1080i60.

BT.601-6 defines 960x480 as SDTV WideScreen (16:9).

No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

Bottom line: The International industry has already defined that film content should be on 1920x1080p\24. no 1280x720p\24. 1280x720p\60 is a format justified for "sports/high motion" content and should not to be used to false advertise "HD Movie" content.

A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.

The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content. Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.

A standard DVD has been always capable to storage what Apple claims to be HD movies-- right?

Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie. Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.

 

[intoxicated662]

yes! finally the format war is over. now if we can only get a blu ray player bullt into a macbook that would be the best. since afterall, toshiba laptops had hd built in

 

[rodolfo]

It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Sorry, I thought it was you...

However you posted on #403

Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

And I believe now is clear that BT-709 doesn't includes 702p\24. (I don't talk again about ATSC as it was clear to me that it is used for interoperability reasons on the broadcast chain)

Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.

Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.

No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

My point was under the context that ATSC defines SDTV as on BT.601, (page 11) A53's definition of SDTV also integrate the term "standard digital television" and ATSC defined HDTV as 4x SDTV 16:9.

However to be honest, I believe that this definition requires a commite revision, since I believe that their reference to BT.1125 should be read BT.709 (1125 lines HDTV system, BT.1125 has nothing to do in this context) and I also believe that 720p60 is HD video

A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.

This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)

The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content.

No. The files are in 720p24, Apple TV will output it as 720p60, again a delivering system designed and justified for High-motion/sports content no for movies...

Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.

I don't believe is irrelevant. BTW: HD-DVD and BR uses 1080p24 and will output it using the display capabilities (i.e. HDMI 1.1 -1080p24)

Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie.

You are missing my point... And -yes- it does at the compression level that Apple is using. in fact it can fit the movie in a little bit more than one layer, leaving 1:25 minutes of 720p24 for all the extras on the second layer of the disc.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.

It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Sorry, I thought it was you...

However you posted on #403

Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

And I believe now is clear that BT-709 doesn't includes 702p\24. (I don't talk again about ATSC as it was clear to me that it is used for interoperability reasons on the broadcast chain)

Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.

Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.

No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

My point was under the context that ATSC defines SDTV as on BT.601, (page 11) A53's definition of SDTV also integrate the term "standard digital television" and ATSC defined HDTV as 4x SDTV 16:9.

However to be honest, I believe that this definition requires a commite revision, since I believe that their reference to BT.1125 should be read BT.709 (1125 lines HDTV system, BT.1125 has nothing to do in this context) and I also believe that 720p60 is HD video

A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.

This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)

The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content.

No. The files are in 720p24, Apple TV will output it as 720p60, again a delivering system designed and justified for High-motion/sports content no for movies...

Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.

I don't believe is irrelevant. BTW: HD-DVD and BR uses 1080p24 and will output it using the display capabilities (i.e. HDMI 1.1 -1080p24)

Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie.

You are missing my point... And -yes- "Apple HD Movies" fits on a DualLayer DVD leaving +1:20 minutes for extra content.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.

Agree...

Well I guess, you will remain convinced that "HD" is only about spatial resolution, and that Apple-TV HD movies are really HD movies.

My interpretation of "HD VIDEO/TV/FILM" from the international standards is a set of well defined parameters for production and content delivering that incorporates spatial, optical, spectral and temporal resolution to define HD video...; that each HD mode specified by the ITU was designed to cover specific scenarios; that some companies/individuals are interpreting an old "MPEG-2 interoperability codec constrain" to advertise "HD movies"; That if I want to experience a "FULL HD-Movie", I need a Blue-ray or HD-DVD player, but if I want to see something lightly better than a DVD, I can get an AppleTV and rent what they call 720p HD Movies.

Good luck! it was nice changing impressions with you... and let see what happen in the future... maybe people will not care... and Apple stock will increase!

 

[matticus008]

Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.

No, they're not. VTR streams are always 60fps (or 50 for PAL countries) and editing workflow follows this procedure. Were films digitized at 24fps, there would be absolutely no 1080p50/60 content. I suspect you are confusing acquisition with the carrier stream.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/app_hd_faqs.asp

This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)

No, I'm talking about HD as a practical designator, not as an environmental constraint. We have a clear separation between SDTV (480/576p) and HDTV (720p and higher) that works uniformly with all standards bodies. What you read from the standards is a massive conflation of requirements and modes for specifying broadcast and equipment standards. You're not looking at production, and you're not looking at the consumer impact. All international standards clearly support the whole range of 720p content, or you wouldn't be able to watch it on every HDTV ever made, or there would be a non-HDTV that would play it without any manipulation. But there's the rub: an SDTV won't play back 720p content unmolested; an HDTV will.

And that's the long and the short of it. There is SDTV and there is HDTV. Those are the only two officially recognized forms of DTV; SDTV is capped at 480p/576p. There's no twilight zone. 720p content is HD.

As an end customer, an HDTV is one that is 720p or better. The fact that the monitor has to support specific frame rates and conform to color space requirements is a non-issue, because all equipment labeled as HD meets that requirement. The content, too, is produced in the same format.

Framerate is an utterly meaningless qualifier, because motion pictures are 24fps in capture but can be mastered however the producer wants. They're 48fps for projection, they're 60fps on nearly any progressive-mastered disc, with the exception of some 1080p titles, which are 24fps due to (a) file size limitations and/or (b) equipment limitations. We simply do not disqualify motion picture content because it wasn't natively acquired at 50+fps. The nature of digital editing is such that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I captured the original at 5fps, 24fps, 30fps, or 300fps--the finished content will be mastered in an HD-compatible form: 720p50/60 or 1080p24/50/60, and those finished files, not the source, is what falls under the purview of HD playback and broadcasting equipment.

No. The files are in 720p24

Source? I have never in my life seen a 720p24 mastered file.

You are missing my point... And -yes- it does at the compression level that Apple is using. in fact it can fit the movie in a little bit more than one layer, leaving 1:25 minutes of 720p24 for all the extras on the second layer of the disc.

That isn't the point. A standard DVD was inadequate as a future-proof disc format. It is inadequate for what technology is capable of delivering. High definition disc formats were introduced solely because a DVD became a space constraint for the best possible technology. The move to a larger capacity disc has exactly zero bearing on whether a 720p film is HD.

 

[The General]

This has gone on far too long.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I think we are also forgetting that HD and HDTV are two completely separate things. Oh whatever...just whip out the measuring tape and get it over with guys...

 

[ebouwman]

This has gone on far too long.

I'll say!