Topic: What is HD?

There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about what HD means, mainly in regards to video games. Sure, we all know it's an acronym that means "high definition", but all it is referring to is the resolution. Stuff like 1080p, 480p, etc. Now, "HD" generally refers to any image with more than 480 horizontal lines. I see people all over the internet, and in real life, who seem to think HD automatically equals good graphics. It just refers to the number of little dots that make up the picture, or pixels. Here are a few "HD" screenshots of games, followed by some non-"HD" screenshots.

As you can see, the bottom images have much higher graphical fidelity, but they are not HD. They are just 480p. The top images are N64 games running in an emulator in HD. These are 100% HD. Does that mean they look amazing? No. Should you make such a big deal about an "HD remake" of something? No. HD does not mean good graphics. And fun fact, the Wii U's gamepad's resolution is 854×480, which is not HD by any stretch of the imagination. If you play your "hd console games" on the Wii U gamepad, you're not playing an HD game. Don't make such a big deal about a game being "omg hd such awesome grafix", HD is just a resolution. Odds are, if you played a game on a PC in the last ten years at least,, it was in HD. No one made a big deal about games being in HD then, because companies didn't throw the term "HD" around like it's the greatest thing ever. Pretty soon "Full HD" will be phased out for 4k, which is just 3840 × 2160. Still HD, just with more pixels. Won't automatically make your games look better, that depends on the graphical fidelity. Shaders, high-poly models, good physics, high quality textures, these things make your game look good, not the fact that it's HD.

Hope this clears things up a bit, HD is not some amazing thing that revolutionizes the way games look, it's just pixels.

Also if I've made any errors in my formatting, any of my facts are wrong, etc, feel free to point them out.

Pictures didn't size just right, just right-click em and open in a new tab to see them in their correct resolution

You are right of course. HD is a term for stupid people to understand they bought a new TV with a higher resolution - usually 720p or "Full" HD 1080p.
Anyway, the Gamepad which is not "HD" - because of the smaller screen looks more spectacular than HD on TV in my opinion.

I think it makes a difference. I thought above 480p was considered high res while 720p and above high def. Games just have a cleaner, crisper, and more vibrant look in HD.
Majora's Mask is bumped up to 480p on the Wii VC and looks amazing (which also means it would look great on the 480p gamepad). I did a side by side with the original.
I think the common person notices HD more than technically complex graphics.. My brother refuses to buy Nintendo consoles because of the graphics capability. When I played MM in 480p he asked me if it was the new Zelda.... he said the graphics looked really good.

Cleaner and crisper? Yes. Simply because you have more dots making up your picture, resulting in less-visible jagged edges. that's it. More vibrant? No. resolution won't affect color.

Here's a nice picture showing the difference between (relatively) high resolution and low resolution.

And some more:

a miserable little pile of secrets

One thing that bugs me is the constant comments on this website that graphics can't be improved further without going to 4K. That's nonsense. We had 480 for NTSC and 520 for PAL for the N64, Cube and Wii, and that's quite a big jump in quality.

I do think the jump to HD for consoles was a big deal though. At first I didn't really care, but a few months after owning a 360, I saw a demo pod hooked up to a HD TV, playing the same games I had at home, and the difference came as a huge surprise to me.

So yeah, graphics are certainly not all about resolution, but the resolution can make a big difference.

OK, I have a good question.

Do we really need super HD?

HD doesn't technically mean shiny graphics, no. It is inferred through association, though. It's easier to say "this new game in HD" than "this game features many many polygons and super-high-res textures and fancy dynamic lighting and [everything else making a pretty game pretty]."

It's a grammar argument really. Not strictly the correct usage but everyone understands that the message being pushed across is "this looks really good" and not necessarily "this is outputting a high number of pixels"

People seem to say that we can't have better graphics without a better resolution, but it's just plain false. The PS4 is putting out better graphics without a better resolution. This cap resolution has put on graphics people speak of has never had any proof shown either. More power can deliver much better graphics and a number of other things. There is no magic graphics cap that we have reached with PS360. They are limited by their power and such caps at being raised with next-gen systems. (Wii U aside)

One diff between today's hd games and games from the N64 era are that hd doesn't just mean a high enough resolution to help eliminate "jaggies" but to also increase texture resolution, which can make games look a helluva lot sharper.

Of course not. I still buy plain ol' DVDs by the stack. I can head over to my local used everything place, and walk out with 10 DVDs, old and recent for easily under 30 dollars. The cost ratio is way to steep compared with entertainment value, in my eyes.

The N64/PS1 era was the ugliest, IMO. In the sense that it was a really awkward 3D stage.

A higher resolution just gives a sharper, clearer image. It enhances the game's graphics without altering them.
I don't think there's a single game since the PS1/N64 era that doesn't benefit from a higher resolution.

To me, a game's frame rate is much more important than a higher resolution. The only reason I buy some HD remastered games is because it often runs much smoother than they originally did.

Fun fact, lots of PS3 or Xbox 360 games aren't even true 720p. They're rendered at an even lower resolution and then upscaled.

See: Call of Duty franchise, Resistance 3, Alan Wake, Halo 4, many more.

It's false though. The screenshots I posted above, if you say the bottom three are HD because they have high-res textures and shadows, good lighting, etc, you'd be wrong. It's not a grammar argument, it's the fact that the general population has been misguided as to what HD means.

While yes, you are absolutely correct that the original definition of HD was simply a matter of resolution, it has entered common usage in the video game world to indicate, along with a higher resolution, better graphics engines.

It irks me too, but you just have to accept that language evolves, and in common usage HD no longer strictly applies only to resolution. Original meanings of words are often lost or obscured as the word is employed differently. Sure, it can be frustrating when you're talking about technical terms, but it's what makes etymology so interesting.

I think 4K will make a difference. Things look good in 1080p as it is, but there's apparently more detail to be shown by a higher resolution, otherwise such an improvement wouldn't exist.
I've said this in the Wii U forum section with much disagreement, but Xbox∞ and PS4 should be able to show some form of Ultra HD. Remember that these companies future proof their consoles to a certain extent, and that definately includes resolution. The market is making products available at a high rate, and people are resistant to upgrades coming out so fast. It's exactly why I don't like Apple's approach of 'the best thing ever' coming out every year, to see that there's hardly a difference.
4K TVs are already able to be ordered, and they wouldn't be making them for no reason.