Do high-definition (HD) formats make anyone else out there ask the question, "What’s in a name?" It’s been about a year now since I have personally been mired in the mucky bog of HD technology. Although I have fallen in love with this curious beast, I am frustrated at how difficult those two words—"high definition"—have been to understand. There are just too many degrees of resolution, several frame rates, and no formula to decipher what each format implies.
Because I wanted to make this relationship work, my first step was to identify the problem. After wrestling with the p’s, i’s, 24s and 1080s swimming around me, I think I have discovered where the communication breaks down: naming.
Let me give you a down-home analogy. My name is Carol. My family calls me Carol, my friends call me Carol, my clients call me Carol. Pretty simple. My sister’s name is Mary. Our family calls her Mary, her friends call her Mary, her clients call her Mary. Again, pretty simple.
However, if Mary and I were HD formats, things would look a little different. First, our names would be determined by significant characteristics. If pixels were height and frame rate was weight, my name might be 5’6". However, Mary’s name might be 140 lbs. Why not her height? Beats me—I’m just glad the naming gods chose to identify me by my height and not my weight!
If we continue to follow this HD analogy, we must then add other characteristics to our names. My name might also include something about my field advance style, so then I become 5’6" blended. Mary is now known as a 140 lbs. smooth. Huh?
Why does Mary sound better than me? Herein lies the problem. As HD formats are currently named, there is no uniformity and very little clarity as to the actual specs of the format. The way I see it, there are four components that define the qualities of HD formats: lines and pixels equaling resolution, frames per second (fps), aspect ratio and field advance imaging.
The current favorite HD format for broadcast is 24p. All that tells me is 24 fps progressive field imaging. Having become very acquainted with this format, I can fill in the gaps: the aspect ratio is 16:9 and the resolution is 1920×1080. However, the name of another popular format, 1080i, includes entirely different information. 1080i is 1920×1080 resolution with interlaced fields. The missing information is its frame rate of 30 fps and aspect ratio of 16:9.
It gets worse. The European HD equivalent of PAL is called 25p. Then there is this curious little guy named 60i. Not to mention 720p. I could go on.
The lesson I have learned is not to depend on the name. After all, what’s in a name? I want the best HD quality I can get. Otherwise, what is the point? According to the experts, anything less than 1920×1080 lines of resolution is not true HD. So I start with that. Then, depending on the end product, I choose my aspect ratio, field advance style and frame rate.
In empathy, at least until HD resolves its identity crisis, I, too, will answer to whatever name you choose to call me.
