Are There Really Any True "HD" Sites?

[Robbie]

I would think that the answer is "no". At least not as HD is understood in home theater.
It's a cool marketing gimmick. But if HD=High Definition then it just isn't so on the internet.
But I guess that marketing a site as your new "16:9 Ratio" website wouldn't sound as cool as HD.

[tony286]

you have a good point.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I Invented Adult HD Movies Online and invented the HD concept instead of 16x9.
Yer right it does not sound as cool. HD has impact and buzz

[Robbie]

It is a great marketing tool.

[Tempest]

I just checked one of the trailers on silver cash's Anal Hell and it's 1280x720.. Can't see the frame rate, but at least the resolution is correct for 720p60.

Downloaded one of the trailers from one of the high def riches sites and it's also 1280x720 but it seems to only be 30fps.. Could be the ones in the site are the full 60fps.

[PantieZ]

Jeans and Panties got TRUE HD vids.

All vids have 720p (1280 x 720).

[Karupted Charles]

Isnt true hd 1440 x 1080 thats what our HD movies are being put out as.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by Karupted Charles

Isnt true hd 1440 x 1080 thats what our HD movies are being put out as.

HDV footage is 1440 x 1080 when you capture it with it's 1.33 pixel aspect ratio, but most people export the movies for online distribution as a file with a square pixel aspect ratio which makes the frame size 1920 x 1080 and smaller equivalent proportions including 1280 x 720. If one exports a 16x9 HDV or HD file in 1440 x 1080 frame size with a 1.33 p.a.r., you run the risk of it not displaying properly in the end users media players I have found. For video files (WMV. QT, Flash, Real) my rule is to always de-interlace the footage and always use square pixels.

[Allhdreview - Jasin]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I would think that the answer is "no". At least not as HD is understood in home theater.
It's a cool marketing gimmick. But if HD=High Definition then it just isn't so on the internet.
But I guess that marketing a site as your new "16:9 Ratio" website wouldn't sound as cool as HD.

Yep, porn sites use HD's heavily compressed little brother HDV.

[HouseHead]

Originally Posted by Tempest

I just checked one of the trailers on silver cash's Anal Hell and it's 1280x720.. Can't see the frame rate, but at least the resolution is correct for 720p60.

Downloaded one of the trailers from one of the high def riches sites and it's also 1280x720 but it seems to only be 30fps.. Could be the ones in the site are the full 60fps.

HiDef sure is great.

[Fat Panda]

aren't naughty allie's and julie's movies full hd

[Thurbs]

full HD would kill ppls download time, might not be worth it for the impatient masterbater

[DigitalDruid]

I was just going to say that... at like a gig a min..... I dont want to see the server bills...

[crockett]

You have to remember the surfer has to watch the video via the internet. File sizes are always a concern in that regard. You simply can't offer up multi gig 30 min videos..

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Allhdreview - Jasin

Yep, porn sites use HD's heavily compressed little brother HDV.

yep add that and lack of proper lighting. it just looks like crap but only bigger.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by Karupted Charles

Isnt true hd 1440 x 1080 thats what our HD movies are being put out as.

16:9 aspect ratio for HD

720p = 1280 x 720 @ 60 progressive (non interlaced) frames per second
1080i = 1920 x 1080 @ 60 interlaced frames per second

DVD is 720×480 @ 29.97 frames per second

Current TVs use interlaced frames.. Basically you take an image and draw every even line on one pass and then on the next pass you draw the odd lines resulting in 30 different images per second. Note that old TVs use the AC 60Hz and thus that's why they were 60 frames a second.

The reality though is that as far as the frame rate goes, it's really going to depend on the display it's used on.. The one thing that we should be concerned about though is the compression of the videos.. I could make some videos that were 1080p 60fps but compress the hell out of them so they looked like crap.. Only thing I could find was that HD is typically MPEG2 and maybe at a bit rate of 28-Mbit/s. It appears that MPEG2 broadcast quality maximum is 19.4 Mbps and for cable it's a maximum of 38.8 Mbps. Elsewhere I found HDTV regfered to as 32 Mbit/s video.

[hypedough]

Kayden420.com is all 720p HD 24p. Holla.

[BluMedia]

We have a true HD site and offer a specific link for HD users http://www.brokestraightgirls.com. Site converted 1/350 in January and that is front page uniques and not 2nd or join page. :D

Mark

[VIPimp]

Those loooking for HD sites to push... check out http://www.FreakSpankings.com and http://www.RectalFreaks.com

[Eman - PG]

We have true 1920x1080 HD.

http://www.perfectgonzo.com/our_websites.php

[Robbie]

My point is...it doesn't really matter what you use to shoot with or what resolution you shoot at. In the end you are going to compress it. My raw .avi footage runs 8 to 10 gigs for a 20 minute scene. Obviously if I were shooting HD it would be a lot bigger than that. But just at my "normal" resolution nobody could have thousands of 10 gig scenes on their website. And your members wouldn't be able to watch them anyway because it would take forever to download. So I would have to say that all the "true" HD site claims on here are bogus. What you have are scenes that are perhaps shot in HD. But then they end up as a .wmv or a compressed .avi or some other compressed web media. The very second that is done...it's no longer High Definition. It's a compressed 16:9 web media scene. Am I off track there? How can anything be "High Definition" (in the true sense) if it has even the slightest compression. Even that big picture up there that Eman-PG posted to "prove" that he has "true HD" is just a compressed jpeg. I don't even put up an uncompressed picture, much less a video. Hell, my uncompressed images from my Cannon EOS 5 D are damn near as big a file size as the typical 20 minute .wmv!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is no true HD on the internet. Maybe on tape. But not on your website.

[Eman - PG]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My point is...it doesn't really matter what you use to shoot with or what resolution you shoot at. In the end you are going to compress it. My raw .avi footage runs 8 to 10 gigs for a 20 minute scene. Obviously if I were shooting HD it would be a lot bigger than that. But just at my "normal" resolution nobody could have thousands of 10 gig scenes on their website. And your members wouldn't be able to watch them anyway because it would take forever to download. So I would have to say that all the "true" HD site claims on here are bogus. What you have are scenes that are perhaps shot in HD. But then they end up as a .wmv or a compressed .avi or some other compressed web media. The very second that is done...it's no longer High Definition. It's a compressed 16:9 web media scene. Am I off track there? How can anything be "High Definition" (in the true sense) if it has even the slightest compression. Even that big picture up there that Eman-PG posted to "prove" that he has "true HD" is just a compressed jpeg. I don't even put up an uncompressed picture, much less a video. Hell, my uncompressed images from my Cannon EOS 5 D are damn near as big a file size as the typical 20 minute .wmv!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is no true HD on the internet. Maybe on tape. But not on your website.

Our videos are 1920x1080 @ 30fps 8Mbps ~2.5GB a piece. That's full HD. Yes it's compressed. the RAW stuff is about 100Mbps.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My point is...it doesn't really matter what you use to shoot with or what resolution you shoot at. In the end you are going to compress it. My raw .avi footage runs 8 to 10 gigs for a 20 minute scene. Obviously if I were shooting HD it would be a lot bigger than that. But just at my "normal" resolution nobody could have thousands of 10 gig scenes on their website. And your members wouldn't be able to watch them anyway because it would take forever to download. So I would have to say that all the "true" HD site claims on here are bogus. What you have are scenes that are perhaps shot in HD. But then they end up as a .wmv or a compressed .avi or some other compressed web media. The very second that is done...it's no longer High Definition. It's a compressed 16:9 web media scene. Am I off track there? How can anything be "High Definition" (in the true sense) if it has even the slightest compression. Even that big picture up there that Eman-PG posted to "prove" that he has "true HD" is just a compressed jpeg. I don't even put up an uncompressed picture, much less a video. Hell, my uncompressed images from my Cannon EOS 5 D are damn near as big a file size as the typical 20 minute .wmv!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is no true HD on the internet. Maybe on tape. But not on your website.

The distinction that you are making is irrelevant for the end user. Obviously, for web distribution one has to compress the video files to something manageable like a WMV or Quicktime file. BUT, if you film it with a HDV or HD camera in 16 x 9 and light it very well (most importantly), the perceived quality is very much higher than a 4x3 standard WMV or Qucktime video file that was shot with a standard DV camera.

That's why it makes sense for sites to advertise as shot on HD or HD quality or however the sites are wording it on their tour. Because the encoded video files that the end users will be watching are normally much higher quality than a standard def video if they were shot correctly.

[Robbie]

That's not real HD though Eman-PG. But it's damn impressive. My point was that the second you compress something it's no longer what is considered "High Definition" because you just removed a shitload of visual information. But obviously the less you compress the better.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

The distinction that you are making is irrelevant for the end user. Obviously, for web distribution one has to compress the video files to something manageable like a WMV or Quicktime file. BUT, if you film it with a HDV or HD camera in 16 x 9 and light it very well (most importantly), the perceived quality is very much higher than a 4x3 standard WMV or Qucktime video file that was shot with a standard DV camera.

That's why it makes sense for sites to advertise as shot on HD or HD quality or however the sites are wording it on their tour. Because the encoded video files that the end users will be watching are normally much higher quality than a standard def video if they were shot correctly.

I agree. I was just saying that the vids aren't really HD. It's just a marketing tool. They are really 16:9 ratio vids.

[BluMedia]

Sure everything is compressed even your HD on tv is. The only way is to not have it compressed it to watch a bluray or hd-dvd.

Mark

[Eman - PG]

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's not real HD though Eman-PG. But it's damn impressive. My point was that the second you compress something it's no longer what is considered "High Definition" because you just removed a shitload of visual information. But obviously the less you compress the better.

Of course it is real HD. HD refers to the resolution that the image is capture and delivered at. High Definition is something higher than Standard Definition.1280x720 or 1920x1080 are the ONLY HD resolutions. The HD signal you get in your HDTV is compressed MPEG-2 to about 5-6Mbps. BluRay is 15-20Mbps MPEG-4 AVC or VC-1. Everything is compressed even raw formats (ie. HDV = compressed, DVCPROHD = compressed).

[Dollarmansteve]

If we had "true" HD (ie non compressed, 1080p) in our members area we would be out of business in a month.. since no one would ever be able to download and/or watch one second of video.. and that goes for everyone.

Of course it's marketing, but it's not deceptive - and it's not just 16:9 ratio either.. compressed 1080 or 720 HD video isn't higher quality than SD? Of course it's better, and striking a balance between quality and functionality is what sells memberships.

I'm sure there are lots of other hairs that need splitting

[Robbie]

Good discussion. I'm gonna go with you guys and when I switch cams to a HD cam I'm gonna call my stuff true HD too! I completely agree that the better the cam the better the quality. Right now I'm shooting with my pansonic ag-dvx100b which can indeed shoot at 16:9 and can shoot at 30p, two types of 24p, and 60i But the 16:9 is letterbox So even though I'm quite capable of getting broadcast quality video under proper lighting conditions...I'm not HD, or the definition of what we are calling HD here.
By the way, Eman-PG, you said that I'm not getting true HD on my t.v.? Why not? I'm not aware of any compression going on when I watch HBO HD with DirecTV satellite and my flat screen. What's up with that? Fill us in. I'm ignorant about that. Thanks.

[aico]

the movie trailers at apple.com/trailers/ are in true HD.

[Buzz]

5StarHD.com has 1280x720 px non-exclusive video for sale

[Eman - PG]

Originally Posted by Robbie

By the way, Eman-PG, you said that I'm not getting true HD on my t.v.? Why not? I'm not aware of any compression going on when I watch HBO HD with DirecTV satellite and my flat screen. What's up with that? Fill us in. I'm ignorant about that. Thanks.

I was not the one saying compressed HD does not equal HD. I merely pointed out that all HD signals whether it's your TV, bluray or 'raw' footage have some sort of compression in them. If it's shot and delivered at 1920x1080 or 1280x720, no matter what the compression is, it's HD

[rvincent]

Just because the video is compressed doesn't mean it's not HD anymore Robbie. If the resolution is 1920x1080 with a pretty high bitrate (like the stuff of perfectgonzo) it still qualifies as HD imho (if only because it puts to shame the "DVD-quality" which was still the best thing since sliced bread 2-3 years ago).

[David - PG]

Originally Posted by Robbie

But it's damn impressive. My point was that the second you compress something it's no longer what is considered "High Definition" because you just removed a shitload of visual information. But obviously the less you compress the better.

By your definition nothing but 100% raw uncompressed frames is "high definition". That's ridiculous.

[Robbie]

Yeah, I know it looks much better to the eye. No doubt. And that's all that counts.

[Allhdreview - Jasin]

When sites claim "True HD", what they really mean is True HDV

HDV != HD

But HDV is fine, you can get different results based on your production and camera skills, as some of the sites posted in this thread prove. All sites seem to misuse the general "HD" term instead of HDV because it's easier, more buzzy, better for marketing, etc.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by David - PG

By your definition nothing but 100% raw uncompressed frames is "high definition". That's ridiculous.

David, I wasn't using my definition of the term. I was just going by what the whole idea of "High Definition" is supposed to mean. I'm not trying to define it. It's obvious that "high definition" has a much different meaning for us to deliver content on the web as opposed to "real life".

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Allhdreview - Jasin

When sites claim "True HD", what they really mean is True HDV

HDV != HD

But HDV is fine, you can get different results based on your production and camera skills, as some of the sites posted in this thread prove. All sites seem to misuse the general "HD" term instead of HDV because it's easier, more buzzy, better for marketing, etc.

Never thought of that. You just answered the whole thing for me right there. Thanks.

[SCtyger]

Regarding videos online, it's a balance between Quality and Performance... you have to find the happy bitrate medium that would satisfy the majority of your customers.

The bottleneck will always be the combination of how fast the user's PC is and how big their bandwidth is.

As someone else mentioned, what you see on HD cable tv is already compressed.. hell you'll even see some HD channels look better than others because there's only so much data that can be pushed through coaxiable cable at a time. Older HD movies on your cable box are usually pushed down at a lower quality than newer "hotter" titles.

Generally big ticket HD sporting events provide some of the best quality HD footage because they are pushed down with a higher encoding bitrate.

[Eman - PG]

Someone said above HDV is HD's little brother. The raw footage is more compressed in HDV than true HD codecs. The color space in HDV is also different. HDV is 1440x1080 at 1.333 pixel aspect ration, which when properly encoded will yield 1920x1080. Quality wise, at high bitrates, HDV is inferior to DVCPROHD, HDCAM etc..

[fuzebox]

This is probably the most informative thread on GFY in weeks... keep going guys

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by Robbie

...the second you compress something it's no longer what is considered "High Definition"...

Dude... DVDs are MPEG2 compressed.. BlueRay is compressed.. the HD signal that comes into your HD TV is compressed.. it's ALL compressed as Eman - PG and myself have said... So if you created videos at 1280 x 720, 60 fps and compressed it with MPEG2 (or one of the other HD supported codecs) at something probably greater than 5Mbps (although I think that might be too low as the max for broadcast HD is 19.4 Mbps) then that could be considered HD.

[Elli]

My videos aren't true HD, but I am still getting members saying their computers can't handle them. They're only 720x540 at 2mbps. There's no pleasing everyone, I guess.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by Elli

My videos aren't true HD, but I am still getting members saying their computers can't handle them. They're only 720x540 at 2mbps. There's no pleasing everyone, I guess.

Maybe there's an issue with those files being distorted or unable to play properly in their media players? 16x9 vids can't be 720 x 540 if one encodes them with a square pixel aspect ratio. Many media players have a problem properly playing non-square pixel apect ratios. The vids can be 1280 x 720 most commonly or 1920 x 1080 at the largest or smaller multiples like 480 x 270 typically.