The term “Full HD” obviously means “complete HD”, which is confusing, inappropriate, and damaging for the video production community when used as a haughty nickname for 1920x1080p, since it attempts to insinuate that 1080p is always superior to 720p, and that any other HD (like 720p) is therefore “incomplete HD”. That is far from the truth, as I explain ahead, together with thin raster and why 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p are so limited for final distribution.

The term “Full HD” obviously means “complete HD”, which is confusing, inappropriate, and damaging for the video production community when used as a haughty nickname for 1920x1080p, since it attempts to insinuate that 1080p is always superior to 720p, and that any other HD (like 720p) is therefore “incomplete HD”. That is far from the truth, as I explain ahead, together with thin raster and why 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p are so limited for final distribution.

In this article

• The reality of 1080HD versus 720HD for general broadcast
• Resolution versus perceived sharpness
• What is thin raster, and how does it fit in this article?
• Why 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p (aka “1080/60p”) are so limited for final distribution?
  • Forget 60, it’s 59.94
  • The problem with distributing 50p or 59.94p
  • So when to use 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p if not for final distribution?
• Conclusions

The reality of 1080HD versus 720HD for general broadcast

When I say general broadcast in this section of the article, I am talking about OTA (over-the-air) HD television, and what’s currently possible with most mobile devices (i.e. mobile phones, phablets, and tablets) that are currently in the hands of most viewers.

The reality is that when creating the current high definition (HD) over the air systems, both 720HD and 1080HD were included in order to emphasize each one’s unique virtues, taking into account the general shortage of bandwidth. The 1080HD system favors spatial resolution (more pixels), while the 720p system favors temporal resolution (more frames per second). That’s why many sports channels —which have plenty of movement in their content— have favored the 720p system, while those channels that mainly broadcast movies, whose temporal resolution has traditionally been 24 frames per second (but are often conformed to either 23.976 or 25 according to the region) have preferred 1080. Completely apart from favoring one type of resolution over the other, there’s another important reason why many news channels chose 720p over 1080: In many cases, by using 720p, they can continue to use their original microwave transmission systems, without having to purchase new ones for HD.

As I indicated in a recent article (highlighted above), currently there are at least 39 networks in the United States that chose —and to my knowledge continue to use— the 720p system. They probably did it for one of the mentioned reasons. Those individuals who erroneously believed that the 720p system was “older” or “inferior” no longer have any excuse. Each system has its respective virtues and weaknesses.

Resolution versus perceived sharpness

The final perceived sharpness encompasses many factors that go beyond spatial or temporal resolution. Other often forgotten factors include the optical quality of the lens and the contrast range, to which both the lighting and the digital signal processor (DSP) of a modern camera contribute.

What is thin raster, and how does it fit in this article?

Thin raster is a term that I suspect was created by someone who works for Avid, although I have no proof to back it up. It’s just that Avid was the first company I ever saw to use it. Thin raster is what I would call a euphemism for códecs and recording formats that don’t include all of the original pixels called for by the associated HD standard, which —of course— are 1920×1080 and 1280×720 respectively. These thin raster códecs/recording formats are incomplete and can record in resolutions like 1280×1920, 1440×1080, and 960×720, for later playback to the associated full raster targets. I have gone into great detail about this in prior articles, so enough said for now. The ironic thing is that I would like the term “Full HD” if it were used to describe full raster versus thin raster, but I have never heard or seen “Full HD” used in that context. I’ve only seen “Full HD” to make fun of 720p unjustifiably.

Why 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p (aka “1080/60p”) are so limited for final distribution?

Forget 60, it’s 59.94

First of all, 30 and 60 have not been standard framerates (or field rates) since before television became colorized in the United States. So almost all of the time, when you hear 30 and 60, they are really 29.97 and 59.94.

As I clarified in my June 2014 article called Video framerates and the Tower of Babel: a translation guide, I am the first to admit that even numbers like 23.976, 29.97, and 59.94 are not exact either. They are actually simplifications of a more complex number, which would be the result of 60 ÷ 1/1.001, 30 ÷ 1/1.001 or 24 ÷ 1/1.001 whose results are very long and not feasible to be used in common speech or even writing. However, numbers like 23.976, 29.97, and 59.94 are precise enough for our purposes.

The problem with distributing 50p or 59.94p

Whether a master edited video is 1080/50p, 1080/59.94p, 720/50p, or 720/59.94p, the problem is similar.

• With OTA (over-the-air) HDTV, neither 1080/50p nor 1080/59.94p can be broadcast. That’s why the decisions were made as described in the first section of this article. It’s also limited in other ways, as indicated ahead.
• Although 720/50p and 720/59.94p can certainly be broadcast via OTA (over-the-air) HDTV and can be played on most computer screens, neither 50p nor 59.94p can be played on most mobile devices that are currently in the hands of viewers (i.e. mobile phones, phablets, and tablets). Most mobile devices will have to throw away half of the frames, as will most web video services with the notable exception of YouTube, so the problem of having a consistent look across screens remains. Spatial resolution (pixel count) is very easily scalable, but temporal resolution (framerate) is not. The video simply won’t have the same feel with only half of the frames played per second. So you have three choices: (1) Stick below 30p, i.e. use 29.97p/25p/23.976p. (2) Accept that most of your mobile viewers will have a haphazard experience. (2a) If you choose option 2, you might try to turn a problem into a benefit by advertising (together with a sponsor who either manufacturers or sells phones, phablets, and tablets of the very few that can play 50p and 59.94p) and say: “If you are not watching us on a XXX tablet or YYY phone, you are not getting the full experience.”.

So when to use 1080/50p and 1080/59.94p if not for final distribution?

For shooting high framerate for organic slow motion, and later conforming to 23.976p/25p/29.97p.

Conclusions

• Don’t use the term “Full HD” as a synonym for 1080p.
• The next time you see a manufacturer (or anyone else) use the term “Full HD”, don’t repeat it. Tell the manufacturer or other source that “Full HD” is disparaging, misleading, and quite empty, and refer him or her to this article.
• Avoid using 1080/50p or 1080/59.94p for final distribution, or do so understanding all of the limitations covered in this article.

Upcoming articles, reviews, and books

Stand by for upcoming articles, reviews, and books. Sign up to my free mailing list by clicking here.

Si deseas suscribirte a mi lista en castellano, visita aquí. Si prefieres, puedes suscribirte a ambas listas (castellano e inglés).

Follow @AllanLTepper

Books, consulting, articles, seminars & audio programs

Contact Allan Tépper for consulting, or find a full listing of his books, articles and upcoming seminars and webinars at AllanTepper.com. Listen to his CapicúaFM and TecnoTur programs. Search for CapicúaFM TecnoTur in iTunes or Stitcher Radio.

My latest book (paperback + ebook)

My most recent book is available in two languages, and in paperback as well as an ebook. The ebook format is Kindle, but even if you don’t have a Kindle device, you can read Kindle books on many other devices using a free Kindle app. That includes iPad, Android tablets, Mac computers, and Windows computers. Although generally speaking, Kindle books are readable on smartphones like Androids and iPhones, I don’t recommend it for this particular book since it contains both color photos and color comparison charts. The ebook is also DRM-free.

In English:

In English, it is currently available in the following Amazon stores, depending upon your region:

• Amazon.com, for the US and other countries in the Americas that don’t currently have their own Amazon store, or anywhere if you simply prefer it
• Amazon.br for Brazil
• Amazon.ca for Canada
• Amazon.de for Germany
• Amazon.es for Spain pero a lo mejor lo preferirás en castellano, a continuación)
• Amazon.fr for France
• Amazon.in for India
• Amazon.it for Italy
• Amazon.co.jp for Japan
• Amazon.com.mx for México
• Amazon.co.uk for the United Kingdom

Or in your favorite bookstore by requesting ISBN–10: 1456310232 or ISBN–13: 978–1456310233.

En castellano:

En castellano, está disponible actualmente en las siguientes tiendas Amazon, según tu región:

• Amazon.com para EE.UU. y todas las Américas donde no existe ninguna tienda particular… o en cualquier parte si simplemente lo prefieres
• Amazon.com.br para Brasil
• Amazon.co.jp para Japón
• Amazon.de para Alemania
• Amazon.es para España
• Amazon.fr (Francia)
• Amazon.in para India
• Amazon.it para Italia
• Amazon.com.mx para México
• Amazon.co.uk para el Reino Unido

o en tu librería preferida al solicitar el ISBN–10: 1492783390 ó el ISBN–13: 978–1492783398.

FTC disclosure

No manufacturer is specifically paying Allan Tépper or TecnoTur LLC to write this article or the mentioned books. Some of the other manufacturers listed above have contracted Tépper and/or TecnoTur LLC to carry out consulting and/or translations/localizations/transcreations. Many of the manufacturers listed above have sent Allan Tépper review units. So far, none of the manufacturers listed above is/are sponsors of the TecnoTur programs, although they are welcome to do so, and some are, may be (or may have been) sponsors of ProVideo Coalition magazine. Some links to third parties listed in this article and/or on this web page may indirectly benefit TecnoTur LLC via affiliate programs.

Copyright and use of this article

The articles contained in the TecnoTur channel in ProVideo Coalition magazine are copyright Allan Tépper/TecnoTur LLC, except where otherwise attributed. Unauthorized use is prohibited without prior approval, except for short quotes which link back to this page, which are encouraged!