var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
YardanCabaret
October 7, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Obviously didn't have any video/film professionals in that study. We would have seriously skewed the results.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 8, 2009 5:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lannister80: Maybe not. Maybe you guys aren't as good as telling the difference as you think you are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
amuro98
October 8, 2009 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dondegroovily:

It doesn't even take a video/film professional.

Once you've seen what HD looks like, you'll easily spot when something ISN'T in HD.

The only possible tricky part is trying to determine the difference between DVD on a 480i SDTV, and an upscaled DVD on a HDTV.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hewhoroams
October 7, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I didn't have the misinformation, but i've done side by side SD/HD and seen obvious results. I've even had people walk in and asked them which looked better.

On a related note, I've also done this with the 120mhz and 60mhz with NFL football and seen absolutely no difference at all. Had about 5 people over who couldn't tell the difference either.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
Preyfar
October 7, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hewhoroams: 120hz makes me feel queasy to watch as it's almost /too/ fluid. Personally, I also find 60hz to be just right from a preference angle. I admit, the high framerate of a 120hz can be slick, but they can make films seem far /too/ lifelike. Films look like more home movies -vs- Hollywood productions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Span_Wolf
October 7, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Preyfar: I have a 120hz TV and I don't think I've ever seen any content on it in 120hz, maybe you can throw me an IM at some point and explain it to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
October 7, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Span_Wolf: There is no 120Hz Content, all content that you see is provided to your set at 60Hz. When a TV has a 120Hz (or 240Hz) refresh rate it essentially looks at the information from the current frame and the next frame and tries to extrapolate and create a frame that represents the difference between the two frames. It is probably easiest to describe by example:


Picture a white background with a red ball in frame 1 located 1/3 of the way in from the left side of the screen. Frame 2 is exactly the same, but the ball has moved 1/3 of the way from the right side of the screen. The TV analyzes those 2 frames and determines that at frame 1.5, the ball is in the center of the screen, so it \"creates\" that frame and draws it on your screen.


Granted, this was an extreme example as you would never see an object moving that quickly on TV, but when you scale it to reality where an object may move 2 pixels over 60 frames you can see how this might be adventageous.


I personally have never knowingly experienced 120Hz refresh, but I am told that it works well in certain circumstances, but in others, it gives everything sort of a fake plastic look.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Battlehork
October 7, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Preyfar:
Most 120Hz TVs have in addition to the higher refresh rate additional picture processing (Sony calls it MotionFlow, Samsung AutoMotionPlus etc), which is what you're referring to here. This can be disabled.
It probably doesn't help that the marketing materials tend to conflate the two.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cash_da_pibble
October 7, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Preyfar:
I think that's why I like it- It puts a whole new perspective on horror and action films.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sean.thor
October 7, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hewhoroams: All I have ever seen 120mhz do is make the in store demo reel look like it's moving too fast.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darklighter
October 7, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sean.thor: In the store demo they probably have the extra smoothing setting turned on. Turn it off and everything is right with the world again.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chmeeee
October 7, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hewhoroams: 120 HZ isn't really something that's going to make an impact on watching football. The purpose is to reduce the uneven motion that LCD's cause in slow cinematic panning and similar movement.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kavatar
October 7, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chmeeee: However, it's marketed as such. 120Hz and 240Hz LCDs are marketed as being able to eliminate blur you often see when watching fast moving action on a regular 60Hz LCD. How much of an effect it has I can't say, but one thing the marketing is geared towards is sports watching.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jthon
October 7, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hewhoroams: Well I wouldn't have expected anyone to see the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz since content like football is typically recorded at 60Hz. Since the content is at 60Hz you won't really see a difference.

That said there are two reasons you might want an 120Hz display.

1. 3D, the new shutter glass 3D TV technology requires a 120Hz display so it can show you a frame for your left eye and one for your right at 60Hz each.

2. Movies. Most feature films are recorded at 24Hz which has been the standard for film projection since the industry first started including sound in their films. Since the film is running at 24 frames per second and your TV shows 60, your TV has to convert the source material to show it. The way most TVs do this is show some movie frames multiple times. The best way to do this would be repeat frame based on the ratio of 60 to 24, but 60/24=2.5 and you can't show half frames. So instead you often see 3:2 pulldown which shows 3 of one frame, then 2 of the next.

With a 120Hz TV you don't have to do this uneven pulldown technique for film since 120/24 = 5. In this case the TV just shows each frame 5 times and preserves the entire 24FPS experience of film.

If you want more details see [en.wikipedia.org]

(FYI it's Hz not MHz, I don't expect to ever see MHz TVs since 1MHz would mean 1,000,000 frames per second which is a bit overkill.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
yasth
October 7, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jthon: Also even though most film is 24 fps, that doesn't mean it is delivered to your home in that form. Lots of time it is pulled down before it hits your screen. There are some TVs that have modes that fix this, but it may well not be worth it.

Also some things shot entirely on digital are in 30fps native, and then converted and provided in 24 fps, because life is cruel.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ceilingFANBOY
October 7, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jthon: The real benefit to 120Hz and 240Hz TVs is that LCD TVs tend to lose a lot of resolution when images are moving on them. On a 60Hz TV, you can expect a 1080i signal to realistically give you a picture of 330 lines when images are moving. However, higher refresh rate TVs hold their resolution better. 120Hz LCD TVs tend to keep a resolution closer to 600 lines of resolution. Plasma still holds strong, with many models maintaining 900 all the way up to all 1080 lines of resolution, but higher refresh rates are certainly helping LCD TVs catch up.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
October 7, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't this the premise of The Secret?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 7, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe I do see that kitty in HD! Amazing!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JimBoSlobish
October 7, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't work for me. I have a 67\" DLP and the HD is amazing. Going to my mother's house, she has a 42\" HD-Compatible that she doesn't run HD on and it truely makes a difference, even in standard definition programs.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
cuchanu
October 7, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JimBoSlobish: The question wasn't \"which looks better; HD or SD?\" it was \"how does the picture look?\"

It's the same way that shitty products get glowing reviews on TV. People want to say what they are expected to say.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_IsWaving
October 7, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought you bought a pair of HD Vision sunglasses!

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Moosehawk
October 7, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think this really proves so much that you can make your tv's image look better by thinking its HD as much as I think it proves that humans are just easily influenced by the \"placebo effect\".

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Moosehawk
October 7, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Moosehawk: Should note that I still think it's kind of a funny study.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
October 7, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One thing I've said to people wondering how I could possibly LIVE with out an HD tv...
When you have an \"old fashioned\" tv, you aren't looking at it NEXT to an HD tv. Makes it a lot less obvious that there is a difference.
Sure when I'm at work, HD looks amazing on the flat screens but when I'm at home I never look at my tv and think \"Gee, that picture is SO crappy.\"
It just looks like tv.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
OneTrickPony
October 8, 2009 11:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: In my case, I think the fact that I've been mildly nearsighted since adolescence (about 20/35--barely enough to pass the DL test) means that I'm used to seeing the world slightly fuzzy around the edges. We're in no hurry to upgrade, so I haven't even really compared, but my suspicion is that at 10+ feet I might not even be able to TELL the difference.

Toss in the classic age-related vision loss, and what I really need are HD medicine bottles.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 7, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: Pretty much. You can't miss what you don't have. People always wonder this exact thing, and I don't get it.


@Saboth: If I went from HDTV to standard def, I could see maybe what I was missing. But since this is not the case, my friends have to watch movies on standard def. The horror!


@MostlyHarmless_Under Influenza: We determined that the largest TV we could get was a 36 inch, and we're probably sticking to a 32 if and when we decide to get a HDTV. Probably 10 years from now, since our CRT TV is still going strong, and I remember my parents bringing it home in the mid-90s!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
October 7, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah:

When I'm at other people's houses that don't have HD tv, and we are watching regular movies instead of Blu Ray, I say to myself \"Gee, that picture is SO crappy.\" I don't think I could go back. Each time I watch a blu ray at 1080p, I am continuously amazed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
October 7, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Yeah, it does look amazing. But I also realize that nice looking tv is nice, and it's really great to veg out to. There are lots of nights where we enjoy that. But how much does it contribute to my overall quality of life?

I'd notice it if we went back, yeah. It would suck, but I'd adapt pretty quickly, and that would be that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Whtthfgg
October 7, 2009 9:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog: Try going from surround sound stereo, to something taped on a mono VCR.

Blech!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
October 7, 2009 9:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Whtthfgg: I do that, when I have to go to the field, I'm in the middle of nowhere, and for a long time all we had were CASSETTE TAPES! (no electricity). I'll never forget the sound of Fleetwood Mac Rumours being played on an old field vehicle tape deck - \"Never Going Back Again\" sounded like it was being played on rubber bands. Which were what held the truck together. Memories.

That's just with music, though. Eventually we upgraded and with generator power, we'd sometimes have movie night. Movies would be watched iwth a computer projector (no idea where this came from), a laptop, and computer speakers - the $12 kind. We had to huddle around the speakers to be able to actually hear the movie. Not too shabby for the middle of the rainforest.

At home - it would be hard to deal with. But BF and I are both acoustics people...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 7, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: Exactly!!

The same thing happens with the size of the tv as well. The 32 inchers look so small compared to the 52 inch ones... but back in your apartment, the 32\" TV is going to look big enough. Esp if the apartment is small. And a 52 inch one can end up looking a bit too big.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ganzhimself
October 7, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless_Under Influenza: Yup... Every time I go to a big electroncs store, I feel like I need to plunk down for a 50 inch Plasma, then I get home and realize that the 42 inch Plasma I have looks HUGE in my apartment...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
smartmuffin
October 7, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a feeling this would work pretty well on people who don't have, or don't regularly watch HDTV, but after getting one myself, I now can tell *instantly* whether a broadcast is HD or not.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
October 7, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This isn't surprising at all, since hordes of people who actually do own HD sets have lousy pictures because they either have no HD source, aren't tuning to the HD source or just have a poorly-configured set.

I see lots of HDTVs displaying SD stretch-o-vision because they \"don't like them black bar thingies on the sides\" and people with HD sets on SD cable or satellite boxes, or connected to HD-capable boxes with S-Video or composite cables.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
716
October 7, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GearheadGeek: I know. Of all the people I know with HDTVs, maybe two of them are videophile enough to appreciate what they paid for. The rest are just keeping up with the Joneses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 8, 2009 6:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@716: They aren't keeping up with the Joneses, they're buying the TV at the store - TVs that aren't HD are almost non-existant now. Add the additional $10/month and up required to get channels in HD, and you can understand why people would run standard on an HD.

Also, the five cables required for component scare people who don't know their tech and the instead use the one RF cable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
716
October 8, 2009 7:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dondegroovily: No, people with perfectly functional televisions who decide to blow a couple grand to replace their non-broken TVs with HD sets, hook up their DVD players, blu-ray players, and cable boxes with composite or even coaxial cable, then don't notice the lack of an increase in picture quality... well, they just bought an HDTV without knowing what they were buying or why.

Of course, I'm not talking about everyone, just people I know personally. But they wouldn't have even been in the store if it weren't for the new thing that everyone else was buying. What would you call that?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 7, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GearheadGeek: Ugh.. I can't stand that. My mom had a plasma in her living room and the owner of the tv (her stepson) wouldn't let us take it off of \"stretch-o-vision\" because of the burn in.


Such a lovely tv.. but I hated watching it when I visited them.


I still have a flat faced CRT. Waiting for just the right deal to come along and the money availible to jump on it to upgrade.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SubPrimeLender
October 7, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What they dont explain is was the picture shown actually in HD or not ?? if it was not I really dont see how 30 people were duped , maybe if they were all 80 year old ladies with bad eyes. This article lacks information about the study.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
shockwaver
October 7, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dgruzew: The picture was in SD. One group was told it was HD, the other was just told \"this is tv, is it clear?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
October 7, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dgruzew: This article is just a quick blurb about the study. There are links at the bottom of the page if you want to read more about it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Orv
October 7, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Audiophiles fall for the audio equivalent of this all the time. \"I put green Sharpie marks on the edge of my CD. Can't you hear how much cleaner the highs are?\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
October 7, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Orv: Yeah, and the bass is way more black.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
October 7, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake: Snake is pretty prevalent in the pro-audio industry as well (it seems to have seeped into the domain from the audiophiles, as the true engineers seeped out.) External clocks, fancy cables, converters with \"mojo\" - and very few people willing to submit to true blind ABX testing.

Just goes on to prove that if you THINK it's better, your brain will mangle input to match.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
holytrainwreck
October 7, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dialing_wand: And don't forget those MONSTER cables. They MUST make it sound better! After all, they're 80 bucks and gold plated!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
October 7, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dialing_wand: DAMMIT - EDIT BUTTON! \"Snake\" = \"Snake Oil\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
October 7, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I can see-- a large number of people with HDTVs just watch stretched out SD and think they're getting HDTV- I've been at a couple friend's house and switched them over to the HD cable channels (usually higher up) for a sports event and seen the shock and awe.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chrisexv6
October 7, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did it specify how far they sat away?

If you sit far enough away from SD on a smaller size set it looks \"really detailed\" but in reality is not.

Recommended seating distance for HD on a 65\" RPTV is something like 10 feet. So a 42\" would need something less, maybe only 7 or 8 feet. Wonder if they sat their testers that close or not.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
frank64
October 7, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a old CRT and use a converter box to get over the air signals. First of all, I am not sure that LCD even brings a better picture. I take everyone at their word, but even my CRT computer screen is very nice has no pixelation or angle problems and no blurring of quick action.

The nuances of color seem better to me on the CRT. I guess if you look hard you can see more detail on the HD, but the real question is would I get any more enjoyment from it? I say no. Not to mention my 32\" TV is much bigger than a 32\" HDTV I am not sure what size I would need to get the equivalent, but I am thinking 42 or more. Meaning my $600 CRT TV would cost well over a thousand. I am keeping it.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
October 7, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: Plasma is the choice for video quality, LCD for energy usage and weight. These days, though, a plasma set of X quality is CHEAPER than an LCD set with roughly equivalent specs and generally lower video quality.

Full disclosure: I have a plasma set. We finally bought a new living-room TV for our christmas present to each other in 2008, and I chose plasma for several technical reasons. I'll pay the theoretically-higher utility bills for the superior picture quality, white-to-black slew rate, brightness, black level and viewing angle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
716
October 7, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: For what it's worth, your CRT computer screen is (most likely) a high definition display. High-def CRTs exist, and have been standard for computer monitors for as long as I can remember. It's why computer monitors have historically been more expensive than similarly-sized TVs.

Basically, if you can read this text without having to squint, your computer screen is an HD display.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JohnQPublic
October 7, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: I'd say that CRT is better than LCD. The biggest advantages of LCD are size, weight, energy usage, etc.
About the size, you'd have to buy a 39\" LCD to have the same screen height. [www.screenmath.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frank64
October 7, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JohnQPublic: Thanks,good link. I agree that the equivalent height is what I would be looking for. When my old one breaks and I have a job I think I will look for a plasma.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SteveBMD
October 7, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why I still listen to cassette tapes. The sound is virtually indistinguishable* from CDs, and I haven't spent a dime to upgrade my equipment since 1983.

* Unless you're one of those smug Mr Fancy Pants Audiophile types with your cool ipod and \"digital\" music. If you want to throw your money away, that's fine with me!

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
October 7, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SteveBMD: iPods normally are playing compressed digital music. Which means the quality will generally be lower. Although the difference gets less and less as players get bigger capacities and less compression is used in encoding.

The point of portable music players is the convenience of not having to deal with thousands of external tapes & cds. And the fast forwarding with tapes or scratching with CDs. And melted tape all over your glove box.

Sure I'll throw my money away on that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
October 7, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SteveBMD: Actually, tapes have much better fidelity than CDs as long as you keep your tape heads clean. CDs sample analog audio at 44.1kHz/16 bit. Tapes play back analog audio. No A/D or D/A conversion means better sound quality at 44.1kHz/16 bit. If you're sampling the analog audio at 48kHz/24 bit or 96kHz/24 bit you're getting much closer to analog.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
October 7, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: If by \"tapes\" you mean \"high-quality professional or audiophile reel-to-reel equipment and tapes that are scrupulously maintained\" then perhaps you might be able to back that up. If you mean compact cassette, well, I think you're living in a fantasy world.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
716
October 7, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: Well, now you've got me wondering: how would the analog image on a VHS tape look if played on a high-def VCR, if such a thing existed? Better than an upscaled DVD?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Orv
October 7, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: The Nyquist limit for 44.1 kHz sampling is about 22 kHz. If you're my age, you probably can't hear anything above 18 kHz anyway. Also, the high frequencies in tape are easily lost in tape hiss or muffled by head axis error.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
October 7, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Orv:

Not to mention that even if your tape heads are clean, the signal-to-noise ration is far lower on a cassette.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wagenejm
October 7, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds to me like they weren't given a chance to compare. They were just told to watch a video that was proported to have been HD when it wasn't, and they were asked \"Do you feel like you watched an HD video?\"

Obviously the majority of the sheep who were told it's HD believed it was. If they were allowed to compare side-by-side, the results would have been very different.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
716
October 7, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wagenejm: \"If they were allowed to compare side-by-side, the results would have been very different.\"

That's exactly the point. Who has an HD and SD set side-by-side in their living room?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
October 7, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wagenejm: Yeah. All they said was that one group reported a crisper viewing experience than the other -- but each group only saw one clip. I'm not even sure if they all watched an SD or HD clip.

I seriously question the validity of any conclusions one might draw from this study.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ganzhimself
October 7, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I kind of wish that I had an SDTV for watching content that is only broadcast in SD (at least through my cable provider), as a good SDTV will out perform (nearly) any HDTV when displaying SD content.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jcazz
October 7, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wife doesn't \"see\" the difference between SD and HD. She kept watching and recording shows on the SD channels until I hid them in the receiver's channel lineup!


I just do not understand how people cannot see the difference!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 8, 2009 6:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jcazz: If she is recording on a DVR, she can store 6 or 7 times more programming in standard than HD. If storing more programming is more important than picture quality, the standard is a no-brainer.

Our DVR stores 200 hours in standard but only 70 in HD. And we record everything we watch.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
October 7, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jcazz: Perhaps some of the shows were only broadcast in SD, so whether you were watching it on the HD channel or the SD Channel it didn't matter because you were still watching SD.


Most local newscasts, and daytime programming are still only broadcast in SD, so if those are the shows that she watches, she would never notice a difference because there is no difference.


I think the best way to demonstrate the difference to someone is to turn on the Discovery channel when \"Planet Earth\" is on and just switch from SD to HD without warning. In SD, the images are amazing, but in HD, they come to life.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Covertghost
October 7, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The brain is capable of performing many tricks like this if you can actually make yourself believe in it...


This just seems like the placebo effect in a different environment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ennis
October 7, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"I say \"nuts\" to all of you who use that newfangled, \"Hi-D\" television screens. I still use the original RCA Victor my father gave to me as a wedding gift in 1930, and it even came with a carbon tube phonograph player on the side.\"


See how silly you all sound when you brag about sticking with obsolete technology? Say what you want about planned obsolesence, as it is a reality these days. Technology improves, people adopt it. It's the cycle of consumerism, and honestly this site wouldn't have much to post without it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Orv
October 7, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ennis: I'll probably adopt it when I can get an HD set for roughly what a decent color SD set cost. So, in the $100-$200 range. I reserve the right to laugh at all the early adopters who paid $3000 for HDTVs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ennis
October 7, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Orv: I'm not arguing the early adopter angle. Those asses are the ones stuck with 8-tracks, Betamax and HD-DVDs in their libraries. I was specifically aiming for the die-hard \"holdouts\". Sorry if I wasn't clear with that.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
October 7, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the study participants have never seen HDTV in real life before and the set they were looking at was better than the one they had at home, of course they'd say the picture quality was better.

I have a tiny, old TV. It wouldn't have to be HD for me to see an improvement in picture quality.

(This is the third time I've attempted to make a similar comment. Anyone else having issues?)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Orv
October 7, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Comments are taking up to half an hour to appear, for me.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
The Marionette
October 7, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a very noticeable difference between sd and hd when you have the right kind of tv and media. Example, I was at bestbuy with a friend and the tv they had there with the bluray of the darkknight looked amazing. When you have a \"hd\" tv that isn't on par with the rest of them it's kinda hard to tell the difference between that hd tv and a sd tv.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
October 7, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It makes a huge difference if they showed a DVD and claimed it to be HD vs showing an SD broadcast and claiming it's HD. A properly upscaled DVD can look damn near HD past a certain distance, whereas you'd have to be friggen blind to think 4:3 analog NTSC broadcast looks anywhere near HD.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mbz32190
October 7, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I agree there is a difference between SD and HD, most people I believe, could care less. TV programming is crappy enough as it is...some additional pixels isn't going to change that. (Note, I do own an HD set but it's not connected to an HD source as I refuse to give Comcast any more money than I am already paying. To me, TV is TV.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
October 7, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190:

To me a TV is also a display for my consoles. Try playing an XBox360 or PS3 on and SDTV vs. HDTV sometime.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Orv
October 7, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mbz32190: If you can put up an antenna you can probably get broadcast HD with less compression than Comcast would put on it, anyway.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hewhoroams
October 7, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chmeeee:
Most of the marketing I've seen for 120hz has been about sports, so that's where a lot of testing originated. A lot of nonsense about quick motion blur and everything.
I've played some 1080p content on it, but didn't run a comparison on it side by side with 60hz.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jfischer
October 8, 2009 11:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

News Flash - People ignorant of basic principles of science are more likely to be taken in by scams, and sold substandard stuff by fast-talking hawkers of Sham-Wows and such.

Those same people are more likely to be taken in by scientists getting their shot at fame, maybe even fortune, as science is the art of infallibility, perpetrated upon the general public, who know that they are not infallible.

Anyone who gets anything published in any journal anywhere (and there are hundreds of journals, some willing to publish nearly anything mailed to them) can start all of his sentences with \"It Has Been Proven By Science...\" and thereby rule out any disagreement by anyone except another published researcher.

Politicians, businessmen, clergy, philanthropists, and philosophers are all questioned and criticized, but scientists, rarely, if ever.

It is good to be a scientist!

I am a scientist. I question the study. It sounds like it was crap, as it only showed that people can be influenced by the implied authority of things like posters, signs around a TV, and the unquestioned statements of those perceived as \"experts\". Allen Funt used to prove this every week on \"Candid Camera\".

They could not tell \"digital TV\" from \"HDTV\", and the likely explanation is that the content shown was better quality then the signal they get at home from their cable-TV provider.

That's just Comcastic! :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
October 8, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My TV is a 37\" widescreen 720p Toshiba. I bought it because I wanted a larger screen, and it was the biggest that would fit in my cabinet. It's easier to watch because it's bigger. The only time I notice a huge difference is when I watch a DVD; then the picture is better. When I'm just watching shows, I can't tell the difference, and cartoons look a little grainy sometimes. I think maybe I haven't set it up right? I don't know.

I'm so nearsighted that having the bigger picture is the best thing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
October 8, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can look at most TV pictures and tell if the picture is HD or DVD quality fairly quickly. I have had people over to watch sports when I was using rabbit ears on my 50\" plasma, and they all commented it was the best picture they have ever seen. The rabbit ears were concealed behind pictures. They realized that my picture was better than their HD TV, because they weren't using a high quality HD feed. You can't beat an antenna for broadcast programing, the satelite and cable companies all compress the signal

Reply
","");