| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Here's a topic I've wailed on more times than I can count. YES, YES, YES specifics are essential! Now that TBP includes them in reviews, it's so much better.
When sites tell you that they're "high quality," "hi-def," "hi-res," or "hi-rez" (perhaps how Noah Webster would have spelled it), it don't mean diddly jack squat all by itself. Some of us want to know the picture dimensions!
|
01-02-11 04:13am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
badandy400 (0)
|
No because so many have not concept of HD. I prefer to see the statistics. Also worth mentioning is that HD does not mean high quality. HD typically does not refer to the bit rate but rather only looks at the resolution which can give a false impression at times.
|
01-02-11 04:36am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
tangub (0)
|
Yes I particularly like to know the picture sizes, some sites boast "hi-rez 1024 px pictures"....to me that is not high rez
|
01-02-11 05:28am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Lionheart (0)
|
It's important to have the specs, now I have made it one of my goals to become better at writing in those specs into my reviews. But in order for those terms to mean anything we need the numbers.
|
01-02-11 07:49am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
pat362 (0)
|
The term is important but you need the specs to show what the site claims to be HD content is in fact tru HD. I``m trying to incorporate that in my reviews now.
|
01-02-11 09:21am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Rotterdam854 (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - tangub :
You're right…that's simply a measure of pixels. Ideal
HD Video quality is 1080 & H264 types. These come in QT/MPG format & are superb I must add. Quite a few European sites support these formats like 21sextury
|
01-02-11 11:27am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Rotterdam854 (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - badandy400 :
True HD renders absolutely no confusion & shouldn't as only certain formats can lay claim to the same like 1080i & H264. Even borderline HD cannot qualify as the real thing
|
01-02-11 11:32am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
dracken (0)
|
Hmm, I do try to include specifics in my reviews, but often I find myself downloading the smaller resolution images anyway since the HD size requirements often makes it not worth it for me.
|
01-02-11 12:37pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
turboshaft (0)
|
Not really, because unless they are backed up with specifics it makes reviewers sound like they're parroting market terms for the site.
And even if something really is in HD is it even interesting or shot well enough for me to care? Kinda like Michael Bay being one of the early supporters of Blu-Ray--if it's his movies I'm watching no format is going to be able to improve it.
|
01-02-11 09:05pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Denner (0)
|
Viewing quality - be vids or pixsets - is more and more essential to this user - BUT all those phrases - like Drooler states - are useless unless if it's follow up by that sincere quality - BUT that also why PU has a mission...
|
01-03-11 07:57am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
yote78 (0)
|
More often than not, "Hi-Rez" and "HD" are used as catchy marketing terms but they can mean a lot of different things. It's true that quality of the pix and vids on most all websites has greatly improved over the past 2-3 years, but that's more b/c a of the photo/video equipment used on the shoots and not b/c of the websites themselves doing much of anything different.
|
01-03-11 10:04am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
I did some asking around to see what the TBP Staff (Editors and Reviewers) use as definitions for Hi-Rez and Hi-Def. Here's what I was told ...
Hi-Rez (photos) have to have at least a TOTAL of 1800 pixals when the length and width are added.
Hi-Def (videos) must be at least 1280 x 720 with a bitrate of (approx) 5,000k
FWIW, when I'm looking at PU Review submissions, I like to see specifics (rather than the more gereral terms) to meet the "Each pro/con should be explained and be useful for fellow readers" criteria for an Excellent rating. There are always exceptions, but giving specific info about a site's content is (IMO) a big step in the right direction of providing info that is both explained and useful to fellow users.
I'm not surprised to see a lot of the users here prefer to see specifics rather than general terms used.
|
01-03-11 02:47pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Thedebilman666 (Suspended)
|
I sure as hell won't join a site that doesn't offer high-rez pictures, they make a HUUUGE difference.
|
01-03-11 05:41pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
BadMrFrosty (0)
|
I dont see the problem using the terms in reviews as long as cold hard facts are used as well. For example, in the bottom line of the review I might use the word high def to describe the video but as I would have already stated the tech specs in the pros or cons I think thats fine.
|
01-04-11 06:30am
Reply To Message
|
15
|
pornwatcher (Suspended)
|
Most if not all sites that claim HD have video with DVD quality at best. To get true HD, you would need Blu-ray. But a high quality Blu-ray could take up to 50GB per disc, which makes it prohibitive for any site to upload.
|
01-12-11 07:39pm
Reply To Message
|
