Quote:
Originally Posted by checkers
Anyway, mentar: I think you're trying to redefine "HD". HD doesn't mean High Detail, which is what you are suggesting it does.
|
I never did that, nor did I ever suggest that. If anything, I've been arguing against "details".
Quote:
|
It just means the video has been 720p+ for its entire life.
|
Oh, really? I'd like to get the source of this "definition". Please go ahead.
In the meantime I'll go with the real definition (see Wikipedia). HD = High Definition, a set of resolutions. Nothing more. There is no such requirement that the footage delivered in HD has to adhere to certain quality standards. In other words, a 1280x720 video of a black screen is HD aswell.
The problem with the addition "has been 720p for its entire life" is that if you use this, some commercial BluRay releases stop to be HD. A peculiar result, isn't it?
Quote:
|
...That's my original opinion. I was originally very much "naughty mentar, definitions are forever!" Then I read at work today wikipedia's page on the duck test. It's was probably just my natural tendancy to denounce upscaling as unholy that made me not like the idea of calling good upscales 'HD'. If it looks like HD, it is HD!
|
Fair enough. Anyway, it's never been my intention to deceive any downloader by claiming a quality grade a source doesn't possess. It does exceed the quality of normal SD releases however, by far in fact. And this initial bitching/trolling "baaah, never HD, it's just a sucky upscale" is way more deceiving than using the definition I did: If it's mastered in HD and could be recovered to HD resolution (accepting the inherent loss of scaling down and back up) is HD.
My opinion. Nobody is required to agree though
