1 In 5 Viewers See No Difference Between HD & SD TV

[Smokey]

Some of the guys who took this poll must be blind.


Nearly one out of five viewers cannot see the difference between high-definition (HD) and standard-def (SD) TV programmes, according to an informal online poll put up this month by UK-based computer magazine PC Advisor.

The PC Advisor web survey posed the question, “What do you think of HD TV?“. Out of 802 visitors who participated in the poll, 19% voted that “they can’t really see the difference”. 32.4% thought that high-def content is great, but a quarter (25.4% to be exact) of respondents said that it is not worth the extra money even though they like the effect.

8.4% of the respondents preferred “normal” standard-definition TV broadcast over high-def ones, although the increased costs of HD subscriptions and necessary equipments may have played a factor. The rest of the participants – 14.8% – said that they have never watched high-definition television programmes.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/poll/index.cfm?action=showresults&pid=3259615

[GMichael]

My guess is that most of them are still using the wrong cables and/or don’t know that they need to switch to the HD channels to actually see HD broadcasts. Every time I go to my dad’s house, he’s always watching the lower channels. When I tell him that he’s not seeing HD he says, “But it says HD in the corner here. See?”
Then there are those who don’t know to change the output on their cable box.

[bobsticks]

Yup yup...same thing goin' on at my folks' house.

[recoveryone]

Very poor demographics to ask such a question, if you read the excerpts you can tell that those poll do not watch much TV at all and live in an area where HD is not being pushed. Most didn't have a HDTV in their own homes, so this was base on seeing HD in a Hotel? No question regarding the differences in Blu Ray and Std DVD? on a HDTV and what type of programming was being watched? There are many channels even here in my area that are HD, put still showing programming that was shot for STD TV, so you get no better PQ and black bars all around. Even my wife has to admit now that she can see a differences as more and more of here favorite channels are going HD.

I would like to see the same poll given in America in a major city and see what the results would be. Between Japan and America, you will get a far different response than from the UK. IMHO

[Woochifer]

"Informal online poll" = worthless hit trolling

[Smokey]

"Informal online poll" = worthless hit trolling

Well, this reputable web site from UK that test TVs didn't think it was a worthless poll trolling. They analyzed this poll and almost gave the same reasoning as GMichael, Bobsticks and Recoveryone did as to why some people might not see the difference.

Consider the one in 5 that didn't see the difference as Joe Six-Pack :D

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/1-in-5-no-difference-hd-sd-tv-201102261037.htm

[Woochifer]

Well, this reputable web site from UK that test TVs didn't think it was a worthless poll trolling. They analyzed this poll and almost gave the same reasoning as GMichael, Bobsticks and Recoveryone did as to why some people might not see the difference.

Consider the one in 5 that didn't see the difference as Joe Six-Pack :D

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/1-in-5-no-difference-hd-sd-tv-201102261037.htm

HDTV Test's tests might be reputable, but that PC Advisor poll still has no value whatsoever, except the extra hits that this kind of sensational headline attracts. Last time I checked, HDTV Test was still an ad-supported site, right? I think their analysis and GM, Bobsticks, and RecoveryOne's responses are giving the poll way more credibility than it deserves.

Asking people under controlled conditions if they can see the difference between SD and HD is one thing, but to throw it into a totally uncontrolled online poll with no validation of the results is a pure bullcrap exercise. That anyone would put any value in these results, besides the extra ad clicks, is beyond me.

I mean, do we even know that everybody answering the poll has even seen an actual HD source? Consider that as recently as three years ago, about half of HDTV owners did not use any HD sources.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

What percentage of the world is just plain morons? Those opinons need to be excluded. Some people are just plain crazy, too.

[Smokey]

Morons might be too strong of a word. Uninfomed or not technical savy might be a better word.

For example, I was in Radioshack last month looking at an LCD and to see whether it have analog audo outout or not. After looking at back, the sale guy kept telling me that component have one video (green color) and two audio connection (Blue &Red).

He was not convinced he was wrong untill we went to computer and he pulled up description of component connection on wikipedia which show him all three connection are for video only. And the guy was suppose to sell this stuff.

The poll just point to the fact that not everybody is informed.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Morons might be too strong of a word. Uninfomed or not technical savy might be a better word.

For example, I was in Radioshack last month looking at an LCD and to see whether it have analog audo outout or not. After looking at back, the sale guy kept telling me that component have one video (green color) and two audio connection (Blue &Red).

He was not convinced he was wrong untill we went to computer and he pulled up description of component connection on wikipedia which show him all three connection are for video only. And the guy was suppose to sell this stuff.

The poll just point to the fact that not everybody is informed.

I don't think moron is too strong a word. When you have an HDTV and an HD Cable Box and you still watch the standard def channel that is also broadcasting in HD you are a moron. When you have an HD cable box and continue to still watch TV with the RF/Coax cable even though you have component cable connected you are a moron. We all do moronic things in our lives and those sure are some of them. The other one is not having a free HD cable box when you have an HDTV. That makes me scratch my head and wonder what might be in the drinking water. I sit silently thinking but that is a SD box and that is an HDTV. OMG.....

[pixelthis]

I don't think moron is too strong a word. When you have an HDTV and an HD Cable Box and you still watch the standard def channel that is also broadcasting in HD you are a moron. When you have an HD cable box and continue to still watch TV with the RF/Coax cable even though you have component cable connected you are a moron. We all do moronic things in our lives and those sure are some of them. The other one is not having a free HD cable box when you have an HDTV. That makes me scratch my head and wonder what might be in the drinking water. I sit silently thinking but that is a SD box and that is an HDTV. OMG.....

No, its not too strong a word at all.
If these folks can see no diff between HD and SD, then they ought to save a ton of money
by not buying HD. Thats possible, you know.
SOME ARE CONTANKEROUS. They absolutely hate having "HD" "shoved"
down their throats, don't like the expense.
SOME DON'T CARE. I have seen so many purple and green people at various houses
that I have stopped preaching. If that doesn't bother them...
So the more things change the more they stay the same."NOBODY ever went broke
underestimating the intelligence of the American public, or any public, for that matter.
But tons have gone broke trying to sell quality.:1:

[Smokey]

I have seen so many purple and green people at various houses that I have stopped preaching.

This why some of the blame have to fall on HDTV manufactures also. I mean just look at variety of default picture settings on your TV. If different factory settings don't blind you first, as you said you will go from purple to green poeple or something in between.

Couple that with the fact that not all HDTVs are created equal. I just received March issue of ConsumerReports and cheap HD picture's quality brands like Magnovox, Sylvania, Philips, Westinghouse were rated much inferior to brands like Sony or Samsung.

[basite]

You couldn't possibly imagine how many people I've seen that used a composite cable to connect their "HD-box" to their gigantic tv...

and of course, no, you won't be seeing any difference then...

then again, a more interesting question would be how many people see/actually notice the quality difference between HDTV and blu-ray...
I also meet a lot of people that think HDTV is "just as good", as blu ray, because it also says HD, just like blu ray...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[bobsticks]

All of this speaks to, as Wooch referred to it, the lack of controls in the experiment.

[GMichael]

I also meet a lot of people that think HDTV is "just as good", as blu ray, because it also says HD, just like blu ray...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.
The owner of our company falls into this catagory. He believes that his HDTV is just as good as blu-ray and refuses to buy a BR player. I've asked him if he can see a difference between std TV and a DVD and he said yes. So I asked him why he still questions that BR would be better. I didn't get anywhere with him.

[bobsticks]

The owner of our company falls into this catagory. He believes that his HDTV is just as good as blu-ray and refuses to buy a BR player. I've asked him if he can see a difference between std TV and a DVD and he said yes. So I asked him why he still questions that BR would be better. I didn't get anywhere with him.

Exactly.

Then again. he may just not have the time or the inclination to investigate. It may be premature to call someone a "moron" because of different priorities.

[GMichael]

Exactly.

Then again. he may just not have the time or the inclination to investigate. It may be premature to call someone a "moron" because of different priorities.

He is far from a moron. He wouldn't be where he is today if he was. He just doesn't seem to want to be bothered with discs anymore. If he can’t download it, then it’s not worth his time. And then he justifies it by saying that theye're the same anyhow.

[bobsticks]

He is far from a moron. He wouldn't be where he is today if he was. He just doesn't seem to want to be bothered with discs anymore. If he can’t download it, then it’s not worth his time. And then he justifies it by saying that theye're the same anyhow.

Yeah, that last little bit wasn't directed at you but the smarter-than-thou brigade.

[GMichael]

All of this speaks to, as Wooch referred to it, the lack of controls in the experiment.
Agreed. I find this to be the problem with most polls. The problem with the rest of the polls is too much control though. Sometimes questions can be worded in such a way that results in forcing one result over another.

[jjp735i]

The owner of our company falls into this catagory. He believes that his HDTV is just as good as blu-ray and refuses to buy a BR player. I've asked him if he can see a difference between std TV and a DVD and he said yes. So I asked him why he still questions that BR would be better. I didn't get anywhere with him.

I bought into the BR player and I don't see much a difference from my blue ray to DVD, both pluged into a plasma 1080i tv via HDMI. I also have a plasma 720p and I don't see much difference between 1080i and 720p. Maybe if you walk up close to the tv you can see the differences, but who the heck sits that close to 50 and 60" tvs.. So does that make me a moron. I personally think blue ray is BS. I got Avatar on BR and DVD and we tried to see the difference. I think I'll side with the morons this time instead of the audiofile geeks that see and hear everything different then us morons.

[GMichael]

I bought into the BR player and I don't see much a difference from my blue ray to DVD, both pluged into a plasma 1080i tv via HDMI. I also have a plasma 720p and I don't see much difference between 1080i and 720p. Maybe if you walk up close to the tv you can see the differences, but who the heck sits that close to 50 and 60" tvs.. So does that make me a moron. I personally think blue ray is BS. I got Avatar on BR and DVD and we tried to see the difference. I think I'll side with the morons this time instead of the audiofile geeks that see and hear everything different then us morons.
I wasn't one of the guys calling you/them morons.

BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.

[harley .guy07]

It just an example of the people not being shown the right quality of gear or the right media. I remember this back when I sold audio in the 90's and we sold higher end stuff while the other stores in my home town sold bose mostly. people came into the shop already sold on the Bose concept and most I could convince through showing them what a real sound system should sound like and they would compare and be surprised at the difference that our products had over a run of the mill receiver running Bose speakers. Others would just plain look at the prices and think that we were trying to screw them out of money and walk out still thinking Bose was king and a run of the mill cheapo receiver was the way to go. It goes to show that some people are just satisfied with the bare minimum when it comes to tv and audio and they don't want to explore any higher than that. Plus you have a small percentage of people that don't want to change from what they have been listening to and watching for years and years and see these higher tech better items as a fad.

[pixelthis]

You couldn't possibly imagine how many people I've seen that used a composite cable to connect their "HD-box" to their gigantic tv...

and of course, no, you won't be seeing any difference then...

then again, a more interesting question would be how many people see/actually notice the quality difference between HDTV and blu-ray...
I also meet a lot of people that think HDTV is "just as good", as blu ray, because it also says HD, just like blu ray...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

What happened when a friend got DIRECT tv, IDIOT INSTALLER used the composite,
and ran the white/red to the receiver! My friend was upset he wasn't getting DD.
When he changed over to UVERSE I again had to go over to "fix" what the so called installers did. MAINLY the same thing the Direct installers did.
Why have all of this tech if your installer is going to shoot you in the foot?
WHEN SOME have complained that "HD" looks just like "SD" I have pointed out that the reason for that is that they arent getting HD.. Then their jaw drops when I HOOK THINGS UP CORRECTLY.
Sad, really.:1:

[pixelthis]

I bought into the BR player and I don't see much a difference from my blue ray to DVD, both pluged into a plasma 1080i tv via HDMI. I also have a plasma 720p and I don't see much difference between 1080i and 720p. Maybe if you walk up close to the tv you can see the differences, but who the heck sits that close to 50 and 60" tvs.. So does that make me a moron. I personally think blue ray is BS. I got Avatar on BR and DVD and we tried to see the difference. I think I'll side with the morons this time instead of the audiofile geeks that see and hear everything different then us morons.

DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS AGAIN, but a 1080i pic loses half of its rez when things are moving. WHICH knocks it down to roughly 540 lines, which isn't really that much different
from the 480p that a DVD player puts out.
A BLU is capable of 1080p, 72hz(which is translated to 24p) and at these resolutions the picture is quite incredible. 1080i is really horse and buggy.
With a 1080p you are getting 2,000,000 pixels, blows the doors off of 1080i.:1:

[jjp735i]

I wasn't one of the guys calling you/them morons.

BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.

I wasn't saying anyone was calling me a moron, just giving my view on things, but thanks for the tip on the 1080p, Maybe I need to switch to 1080p when I'm watching a blue ray and see. I'm a bit behind on all the new stuff, been quite some time since I have done some upgrading on the audio and video stuff. I have the new TV now and really need to upgrade my old Yamaha receiver that doesn't even have digital input, which I really need.

Thanks,

jjp

[bobsticks]

I wasn't saying anyone was calling me a moron, just giving my view on things, but thanks for the tip on the 1080p, Maybe I need to switch to 1080p when I'm watching a blue ray and see. I'm a bit behind on all the new stuff, been quite some time since I have done some upgrading on the audio and video stuff. I have the new TV now and really need to upgrade my old Yamaha receiver that doesn't even have digital input, which I really need.

Thanks,

jjp

One of the vexing truths of new technology is that requires precise compliance in following the chain to receive optimum results. And, also vexingly enough, Pix is correct in his assessment about 1080i.

It is probably also worth stating that Avatar might be one of the worst possible movies to compare DVD v. Blu Ray. While Pix is right in that 1080i will only have 540 lines of continuous resolution, every TV will upscale a picture to fit its native resolution, which often gives the picture a smooth or dreamy or animated quality. With a film like Avatar that was shot with so much CGI the effects may negate some of the perceived quality.

It's probably worth noting too that designating an group of people with a single, non relevant feature as "less than" or inferior is generally frowned upon.

[Woochifer]

I bought into the BR player and I don't see much a difference from my blue ray to DVD, both pluged into a plasma 1080i tv via HDMI. I also have a plasma 720p and I don't see much difference between 1080i and 720p. Maybe if you walk up close to the tv you can see the differences, but who the heck sits that close to 50 and 60" tvs.. So does that make me a moron. I personally think blue ray is BS.

Sorry, but Blu-ray is not BS. It's one thing to say that the difference is negligible, or that it's not worth the fuss. Those views I can respect. But, saying there's no visible difference? Unless there's a problem with the setup, even with a 720p plasma, the difference is obvious at an 8' viewing distance.

BTW, unless you plasma dates back to the late 1990s, it's not native 1080i. All plasma sets built since that time are native progressive.


BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.

Actually even with a "720p" HDTV, you will see a considerable difference with a Blu-ray. My parents have a 50" 720p plasma, and I ran several comparisons. Even they could see the difference between a Blu-ray and DVD. Of course, they don't really care about the difference -- they just like that nice big picture, regardless of whether or not it looks fuzzy.


DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS AGAIN, but a 1080i pic loses half of its rez when things are moving. WHICH knocks it down to roughly 540 lines, which isn't really that much different
from the 480p that a DVD player puts out.

Nope, that's just flat out wrong. Do you REALLY think that a 1080i HD broadcast looks no different than a DVD? Or that the 720p signals transmitted by ABC and Fox are visibly superior to the 1080i signals on CBS and NBC?

1080i simply means that native progressive frames are created by merging two interlaced frames together to create a 1,920 x 1,080 pixel image. This deinterlacing process creates 30 progressive images per second. This is the resolution equivalent of a 1080p30 signal (native resolution of 1080i60), that gets frame-repeated to sync up with the 60 Hz video standard.

The issues with 1080i have nothing to do with the resolution, but rather the artifacts and picture anomalies that can crop up during the deinterlacing process with a less-than-optimal source and/or inferior video processor. The advantage of 720p/1080p sources is that there are fewer processing steps along the way that can impact the picture quality.

Keep in mind that the DVD format is a native 480i format, not 480p. A progressive scan DVD player outputs to 480p using the EXACT same deinterlacing process used to display a 1080i signal. By your logic, are you saying that the DVD format is really only 240 lines?

[Woochifer]

One of the vexing truths of new technology is that requires precise compliance in following the chain to receive optimum results.

Actually, the chain is a lot more complicated (and IMO vexing :cool:) with the DVD format than it is with Blu-ray and HD sources.

Consider that in order to display a DVD output onto any HDTV, the image has to be both deinterlaced AND rescaled. Remember that the DVD format has a native resolution of 480i (@60 Hz). The deinterlacing process is exactly the same as with 1080i HDTV, except that the artifacts that can crop up during the deinterlacing process are much more obvious due to the DVD's lower resolution.

With HDTV and Blu-ray, you have native progressive sources (except with 1080i) that don't require the deinterlacing step. Those sources are either displayed natively or rescaled (scaling is a much simpler process than deinterlacing).


While Pix is right in that 1080i will only have 540 lines of continuous resolution, every TV will upscale a picture to fit its native resolution, which often gives the picture a smooth or dreamy or animated quality.

"540 lines of continuous resolution"? That would be true if you're only viewing every other frame on a 1080i60 signal, and we know that's not the case. The image output with 1080i is 1,920 x 1,080 pixels, because you're merging two interlaced frames to create one progressive frame. Even though it requires two frames, this is real resolution. This is not the same as upscaling a 480i DVD to a 1080p output, because the pixels are actually there in the source content.

[GMichael]

Originally Posted by GMichael
BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.


Actually even with a "720p" HDTV, you will see a considerable difference with a Blu-ray. My parents have a 50" 720p plasma, and I ran several comparisons. Even they could see the difference between a Blu-ray and DVD. Of course, they don't really care about the difference -- they just like that nice big picture, regardless of whether or not it looks fuzzy.

I agree with what you said here. My comment was in response to someone who said that they couldn't see much difference between broadcast HD and a BR disk on their 720p/1080i sets.

[bobsticks]

...though I was referring to the physical chain of compatibility.

I'm not terribly informed on specifics (nor do I care to go into it any deeper than you have, so thanks for the concise response) so I'll gladly defer to your explanation...but still contend that Avatar is a poor choice of films for comparison...:ihih:

[pixelthis]

[Woochifer]Sorry, but Blu-ray is not BS. It's one thing to say that the difference is negligible, or that it's not worth the fuss. Those views I can respect. But, saying there's no visible difference? Unless there's a problem with the setup, even with a 720p plasma, the difference is obvious at an 8' viewing distance.

Blu is amazing, and a huge advance



Nope, that's just flat out wrong. Do you REALLY think that a 1080i HD broadcast looks no different than a DVD? Or that the 720p signals transmitted by ABC and Fox are visibly superior to the 1080i signals on CBS and NBC?


NOT much different. There are other improvements besise res in a 1080i pic.
But since most sets deinterlace a 1080p and display it as 1080p this is pretty much a moot point now.
THIS was accidental but turned out great. Most broadcast is 1080i, the TV takes it and makes it 1080p. Space is saved during broadcast, but the consumer sees 1080p



The issues with 1080i have nothing to do with the resolution, but rather the artifacts and picture anomalies that can crop up during the deinterlacing process with a less-than-optimal source and/or inferior video processor. The advantage of 720p/1080p sources is that there are fewer processing steps along the way that can impact the picture quality.


Which is why BLU looks better, but really, a lot of joe sixpacks won't notice

[I]Keep in mind that the DVD format is a native 480i format, not 480p. A progressive scan DVD player outputs to 480p using the EXACT same deinterlacing process used to display a 1080i signal. By your logic, are you saying that the DVD format is really only 240 lines?[/QUOTE]

MOST 480i material comes out to about 330. WATCH A DVD with the progressive scan turned off, if you can find a 480i TV. BECAUSE a 1080p TV will up convert the pic to its native res anyway.
Thats the one great thing about modern TV sets, even 720p, and that is that they are
all progressive. Deinterlacing automatically improves any pic, even if you are just deinterlacing to 720p.
My first HDTV sets were 1080i, around 540 lines or so, still looked great, because of the increased color palette and 200 more lines of res.
BUT THE NEW PROGRESSIVE SETS blows the doors off of any interlaced TV,
which is why the one thing anybody can do who still has one of these, to vastly improve
their setup., is to give their outmoded set a toss.
Interlaced TV, still great for content delivery, but good riddance for display.
HAIL the new king, progressive.:1:

[pixelthis]

I would also like to point out that this has been one of the most contentious issues
on this or any other forum, mainly progressive vs interlaced.
While a 1080i pic had a lot going for it, better color, etc, the deficiency besides a
1080p pic, even one derived from deinterlacing, are obvious.
THIS IS BECAUSE of the loss if res that comes from a 1080i pic whenever there is movement. A lot of people simply refuse to believe this, but you will lose up to
half your res on an interlaced pic whenever there is movement.
No matter how good the interlaced TV is.:1: