There is a lot of miscommunication about what is “HDTV”, especially around claims by George Ou and others about how you can’t talk HDTV without talking about bitrates. While there is a reason for this thinking, the definition of HDTV is really only resolution-based, i.e. any digital video that has a resolution of 720p or more (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.) is high def. Period.
Now George and friends DO have a very good point in the following respect: all HD video is not (created or transmitted) equal. If Blu-ray has a bitrate of 40 Mbps and iTunes has a bitrate of 4 Mbps (and they’re both using the same codec – very important since different codecs are better/worse at compression – although I don’t think there are many codecs that would overcome a 10-fold difference) then Blu-ray should absolutely have a much better quality picture than iTunes BUT they are both “HD”. [see also George's excellent Video Quality Reference Table for a list of sources, codecs, resolutions, and bitrates - keeping in mind that only one of those columns relates to the definition of HD and that's the "Resolution" column]
See, here’s the problem: if we start looking at picture QUALITY then we need to consider things like that fact that many (many, many, many) people don’t have the video settings on their TVs in an optimal configuration, those TVs may not be in an optical viewing space, the TV itself may be poor quality, etc. So while it’s great to have some non-subjective measure of quality (like bitrate – with the caveat that we need to also consider the codec), in the end when we’re trying to make an argument about the end-viewing quality we need to just admit that it’s hard to compare.
For example, a very nice and professionally adjusted TV playing back an iTunes HD rental may very well have as good or better a picture than a poorly-adjusted TV playing a Blu-ray disc. That’s all there is to it.
It’s not that what George and others are saying about quality is inaccurate, but once you start introducing variables like bitrate in an attempt to get at the quality issue then it seems remiss to actually ignore the viewing environment and other variables (it’s kind of like moving towards some “SuperHD” resolution even though our eyes may not be able to discern the change). And, really, it’s beside the point if what they’re looking for is a definition of what is and isn’t HD.
All that said, where do you guys think the best quality “HD” is in the decabled world? Let us know your fav sources in the comments!
PS: R.e. Blu-ray – Why is a technology in the 21st century using a dash in the middle of the name? That’s so 1900s
.