Ask HD Beat: Does 480p and 16:9 Really Match?

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/04/25/ask-hd-beat-does-480p-and-16-9-really-match/' target='_blank'>http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/04/25/ask-hd-beat-does-480p-and-16-9-really-match/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Reader Ralph writes in and asks: Does 480p and 16:9 Really Match? If a video game is 640x480 which is obviously not 16x9 how is the image 16x9? So is it some behind the scenes TV work that is going on to make the image widescreen? Or is the image stretched slightly?" Yet another great question by an HD Beat reader. This really drove me nuts until I researched it. You sort of already know the answer, the picture is displayed in the appropriate aspect ratio regardless of the actual resolution. The reason is that not all pixels are square..."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/OU_Vs_LSU_dist_sm1.jpg" /> <br /><br />High-definition television is great, but unfortunately, it's a bit ahead of its' own time. Not all broadcasting equipment is capable of 720p or 1080i, and bandwidth restrictions prevents content providers from delivering uncompressed high-definition signals. So what happens? Distortion, compression artifacts, signal noise...you're not getting the full picture. Turns out Fox has been fooling people into think they're seeing an HD picture, when in fact it's just an SD signal shot in widescreen, compressed to 4:3, then stretched back to 16:9. DirecTV has even more tricks up their sleeve. A great article, and a must-read.

[Felix Torres]

Technically (and legally) speaking, neither FOX nor DirecTV (coincidentally owned by FOX) are doing anything actionably wrong: the transmision and display Specifications are *intentionally* nebulous in areas of horizontal resolution and aspect-ratio to accomodate the limitations of analog-display tech and the broadcaster's capital investment budgets.
No accident since these are the very people who *wrote* the freakin' spec! ;-)

BTW, for more aspect-ratio fun, consider that the european HD-ready spec allows for the sets to be *physically* 15x9 as well as 16x9. So how'd you like to display that mangled 16x9 video on a 15x9 set?
Makes you want to time-jump 5 years, no?

Better yet, somebody have Mark Cuban explain the technology to the Murdocks; DRM-paranoid FOX is currently second only to SONY in customer-hostility, just ahead of Disney...

[bluemax]

One thing everyone needs to understand --

Pixels are not necessarily square!

Historically, pixels have been everything from tall and thin to perfectly square to wide and short. CGA and it's permutations were certainly not square. Early PC programmers had to adjust arcs because pixel ratios would make circles ovoid.

It is only since the complete adoption of VGA and is offspring that pixels have been square more than not. Other display systems have not always followed the VGA spec though. Since it is analog, NTSC does not even understand pixels.

So, along with history and the "loose" spec for digital TV, you can expect there to be numerous holes in compatability.

Bill B

[Felix Torres]

One thing everyone needs to understand --

Pixels are not necessarily square!



True, but...
HD pixels are.
The "looseness" of the spec stems, in fact, because the content is defined at specific resolutions (with square pixels) but the displays are not actually required to naturally match the content. And no mention is made of the way the content is supposed to be processed.

Basically, it is up to consumers to set de-facto standards by being discriminating in what they buy and don't buy under the label of HD. If consumers are willing to accept faked-up, mangled content, improperly de-interlaced, and downscaled to match non-square and/or under-res displays, then the middlemen will *continue* to play their games.

It costs money to properly broadcast HD and it costs tons of R&amp;D to fix the under-performing display technologies and the ultimate test is in the marketplace and the ultimate power (and responsibility) lies with consumers.

Anybody who doesn't do their homework and gets fed cat instead of hare deserves what they get.

Always Caveat Emptor.

[Jeremy Charette]

I was going to reply but...ditto what Felix just said. Every word of it.

If you need me, I'll be drooling over 1080p LCD displays. :D

[klinux]

True, consumers can definitely be diligent and do all they can but ultimately the content producers still control the distribution platform and method, unfortunately.

DirecTV is controlled, not owned, by Fox (34% stake).

Trust me, Jeremy, Murphy's law dictates that as soon as you get that 1080p LCD, someone will announce an SED, laser-DLP, smell-o-vision, or an alien based technology that will make you wince at what you have and crave what you have not. :)

[Felix Torres]

Actually, we all know what comes after 1080 displays because its already been announced (plus, it is the logical next step).

The next step in HD evolution is Quad HD displays (3840x2160) which makes perfect sense since is an exact multiple of both 1280 (3) and 1920 (2), so simple pixel-replication maps both types of HD content cleanly, simplifying the electronics. And, of course, upscaled 1080 content will look great on them.

First models will ship in 07 for $10-15K for LCD (probably cheaper for DLP's thanks to wobulation) and they should hit the $4-5K range around 2010-11, just in time for our next HD set, right, Mr Charette? ;-)

Of more immediate impact will be 1080 models with strobbing backlights, LED light sources, Laser light sources, and better imaging electronics--all due in six-month increments over the next two years.

[Jeremy Charette]

First models will ship in 07 for $10-15K for LCD (probably cheaper for DLP's thanks to wobulation) and they should hit the $4-5K range around 2010-11, just in time for our next HD set, right, Mr Charette? ;-)

And I was just going to settle on a 1080p LCD! Now I gotta wait another five years?

Of course by then $4-5K will be a bargain, what with gas prices topping $10 a gallon in the US, hybrid cars outselling conventional models, and the average home going for over a million dollars.

[Felix Torres]

...and the average home going for over a million dollars.

Oh, you live in San Francisco? :twisted:

[Jeremy Charette]

No, I live in Brooklyn, and in my neighborhood houses are running $1.5-3M USD. Even on Long Island $750,000 houses are common. Insanity I tell you.

[Jason Dunn]

No, I live in Brooklyn, and in my neighborhood houses are running $1.5-3M USD. Even on Long Island $750,000 houses are common. Insanity I tell you.

Time to move buddy! ;-)

[klinux]

It is the logical next step... which makes perfect sense

And we all know how logical the manufacturers and broadcasters can be, right? Or how well technology and innovation can be predicated five years away from now.

On a separate topic, like Jeremy, my neighborhood is also starting to become a 7 digit sale price areas too!