Full HD: Hip or Hype?

The aggressive marketing of 1080p as ?Full HD? obscures more than it reveals.

Full HD is the latest buzzphrase in television marketing. If we want the latest and greatest in HDTV, we want Full HD—or so we’re told. But is it possible to have too much of a good thing?   Full HD is marketing-ese for 1080p. Since alphanumeric monikers tend to leave us cold, the name is an adroit way of turning something seemingly dry and technical into something that sounds more desirable, something you’ve just got to have—unless you want your neighbor smirking at you because his home theater system is Full HD and yours is only, well, partial HD.   I first wrote about 1080p for Audio Video Interiors in 1998, when HDTV was still gleaming on the horizon. But I didn’t hear the phrase Full HD until relatively recently. Now it’s rampant in TV ads, reviews, and all the assorted information and misinformation that surrounds digital television. When I realized what it meant, I began wondering why this, why now?

The Case for Full HD

What is 1080p, a.k.a. Full HD? Since I’ve written about this subject here before, I’ll keep the definition brief. It’s high-definition television with 1080 by 1920 pixels, delivered in full frames. The p is what distinguishes 1080p from 1080i, which uses an interlacing process to deliver gapped pairs of half-frames.   But 1080p and 1080i aren’t the only forms taken by HDTV. There is also a 720p format that delivers 720 by 1280 pixels. If 1080p is Full HD, then this other format must be less than Full HD, right? After all, it has fewer pixels.   The case for Full HD seems even clearer if you count the total number pixels onscreen. Multiply 720 by 1280 and you get 921,600 pixels. Multiple 1080 by 1920 and you get 2,073,600 pixels. Now it makes perfect sense, right? Full HD has more than two million pixels and that inferior HD has fewer than a million. Case closed. Send the jury home. Let’s go to the bar across the street from the courthouse and get wasted. We can drink and watch basketball games in Full HD.

1080p Is Off the Air

Not so fast. Maybe this isn’t as cut and dried at it seems at first. True, 1080p has more than twice the pixel count of 720p. But if you have all the facts, some of them will continue niggling at the back of your mind.   For one thing, the people who devised the HDTV standard didn’t even bother to provide for 1080p (at least, not in practice). The broadcast standard they had in mind included 1080i, 720p, and standard-def formats like 480i. Since 1080p isn’t part of the broadcast standard, at least not yet, there are no 1080p broadcasts. CBS and NBC, for instance, use 1080i, while ABC and Fox prefer 720p.   You can get a true 1080p signal from Blu-ray or HD DVD disc, and potentially from some PC and game sources. The format has also gained traction as a production standard. But due to the initial setting of broadcast standards, there are lots of working HDTVs that don’t support 1080p. Most of them are 1080i. In those that do offer 1080p, it’s often just an upconversion standard—these Full HD sets accepts signals in other formats and displays them in 1080p. In the case of 1080i to 1080p, this is a straightforward line doubling.   As far as HDTV’s founding fathers were concerned, 1080i and 720p were both designated as HDTV, to distinguish them from SDTV formats like 480p and 480i. This whole notion that 720p is less than Full HD is relatively new and largely marketing-driven.   It’s all so confusing, isn’t it? But there’s one more point that makes everything perfectly clear. All these DTV formats have to go through a bottleneck that puts their relative merits on a different basis than that implied by the number of pixels. Actually, two bottlenecks. They’re your eyes.

Believe Your Eyes

Eyesight is ultimately what mocks the Full HD hype. Even if you have 20/20 vision, your eyes can’t distinguish the pixel size of 1080p vs. 720p on screens of 42 inches or less. Even at 50 inches, the difference is debatable. Up at 70 inches, you may see differences—but even then, things like video artifacts, video noise, and the limits of source material (whether HD or not) take their toll.   Furthermore, with movie content, there is effectively no difference between 1080p and 1080i. True, 35mm to 70mm film is an extraordinarily high-resolution medium, so movies shot on film can be sharp enough to take advantage of 1080 by 1920 resolution (or better, in the distant future).   But movies are shot at 24 frames per second, and the display of progressive video including 1080p is always 60fps or a multiple of that (or for 1080i, 60 fields, 30 frames). So a process called 3:2 pulldown comes into play to translate 24fps to 60fps. Whether 3:2 pulldown happens in the HDTV or in the Blu-ray/HD DVD player is irrelevant. It just happens, because without it, you wouldn’t get a watchable picture. So the p in 1080p doesn’t add anything to a movie that you wouldn’t get from a 1080i set.   My smarter colleague at Home Theater, video editor Geoff Morrison, explains it all here, here, and especially here.   I’m not saying Full HD/1080p is a bad thing. If you’re buying any kind of wall-hogging front-projection system, and plan to spend a lot of time watching Blu-ray or HD DVD, 1080p is a must. I’d also want it if I were buying a flat-panel or rear-projection set of 50 inches and up. Since a little headroom is never a bad thing, make that 42. Even so, I have no intention of dumping the smaller of my two HDTV sets, a 32-inch 768p LCD, to get 1080p.   Why the Full HD hype? The real story—the one you won’t read in a lot of reviews, and certainly not in any ad—is that profit margins are plummeting swiftly in the TV manufacturing industry. While this is nothing short of fantastic for consumers, it’s also nearly catastrophic for TV makers. They need to sell us bigger TVs, because they make more money on bigger sizes. And they desperately need a “step up” feature to persuade us that a slightly more expensive medium-sized LCD or plasma is better than a slightly less expensive one. Full HD spells “performance,” while 720p and 768p are “value.”   That’s why you’re hearing so much about Full HD. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Just know what you’re buying.   Mark Fleischmann is the author of the annually updated book Practical Home Theater.

Showing 7 comments

  1. Marthijn at 2:13pm 18th May 2010 The blur that you have seen may come because of the 'stretch' a 1080P has to make to get a full screen picture. More pixels need to work together in a 1080P screen for a 576I broadcast. If you are watching a 1080P broadcast or Blu-Ray you can see a diffrence (from up close).
  2. darrenjh at 4:07am 26th April 2010 i was in the store other day and i looked at 2 50" samsungs, both playing std def from the free-to-air channel. the HD was clearly better than the Full HD, the full HD was very blurry compared to it's cheaper bother, which was a pleasure to watch. now i'm confused.
  3. Timo at 1:46am 10th April 2009
  4. Pieter at 8:03am 30th June 2008 I am a complete idiot where it comes to HD, full HD,or whatever you want to call it. Can somebody please tell me if my tv which I just bought is sufficient - ie. is it OK. It is a LG 42" LCD and the specs are as follows;
    Video
    Native Display Resolution 1366 x 768p
    Dynamic Contrast Ratio 8,000:1
    Response Time (Grey to Grey) 5ms
    Brightness (cd/m²) 500
    XD Engine® �
    Super IPS â?¢
    True Wide View â?¢
    Viewing Angle 178º x 178º
    Digital Comb Filter 3D
    Color Temperature Control 4 Modes
    Aspect Ratio Adjustment 6 Modes
    Enhanced Noise Reduction (Video Noise Filter) â?¢
    Enhanced Line Doubler â?¢
    3:2 Pull-Down Correction 3:2 (480i)
    Picture Selection Mode 5 Modes
    Black Stretcher (Black Level Enhancer) â?¢
    DTV Signal Strength Indicator â?¢
    ACM (Active Color Management) â?¢
    Pure Black Level â?¢
    Color Processor 10 Bit
    1080p SOurce input HDMIâ?¢ 30p/24p
    Component 30p/24p
    Audio
    Mono/Stereo/Dual (MTS/SAP) â?¢
    Audio Output Power (Watts - THD 10%) 10W + 10W
  5. Sami at 5:49am 24th September 2007 After buying a Canon HV20 HDV video camera (1440x1080, has also a progressive mode) and looking at the footage from both a 1920x1200 computer screen and 720i TV (yeah, interlaced, since I haven't met a TV yet which is willing to show 1080i 50 Hz nicely), the difference is... big enough for me to stay away from these HD ready generation TVs. With Full HD you can also show still photos much more nicely and use it as a computer screen. Personally well worth the money.
  6. Chris Bauer at 4:32pm 23rd August 2007 "Eyesight is ultimately what mocks the Full HD hype. Even if you have 20/20 vision, your eyes can?t distinguish the pixel size of 1080p vs. 720p on screens of 42 inches or less."
    The difference between 720p and 1080p sources is easily distinguishable on a good 1080p set or a 1920x1200 monitor. In fact my wife and both kids can see the difference immediately. On a 720p or lower display yes, you are correct.
  7. Colin at 1:43pm 23rd August 2007 Actually.... In the HD format there is also 24 fps not just 30p/60i fps. I'm not sure that it's a proper broadcast frame rate but you see it on set looking at the preview monitors which are vibrating at 48hz. As for the better resolution making things look sharper, I find that it's the larger colour range that increases the detail. Once you see footage in 4:4:4 colour in the studio, regular TV doesn't look the same and from what I've seen from HD players they are really pushing the colour through to make it detailed and vibrant.
Close Suggestion HTC Declares War on iPhone
View Article