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

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. However, it is unclear whether these sceptics were actually getting the best HD picture quality possible by using the appropriate HDTV display, connection method and video source.

HD vs SD on TVs

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.

Here at HDTVTest, we firmly believe that anyone with reasonable eyesight should be able to appreciate the superior image quality – mainly heightened detail and more vibrant colours – delivered by pristine HD video material. That said, there are a few possible reasons why HDTV owners are not optimising their HD viewing experience, to the extent that they cannot perceive any increase in picture quality compared to SD content.

Some viewers may be sitting too far from their HDTVs, so much so that any extra resolution benefit provided by high-def content is lost. Some may be plugging their source devices to their displays via analogue connections (like Scart, composite or S-video) instead of higher-quality digital interfaces such as HDMI. Others may have simply left their TV at its default factory settings which are typically overly garish, therefore negatively impacting on the displayed image.

On the digital TV broadcast front, recent programmes that are filmed and transmitted in native HD should look better than those which are upconverted. Of course, certain HDTV models (for example the 2010 Samsungs) are very competent at upscaling standard-definition material, in effect reducing the gap between the SD and HD pictures displayed on screen.

6 comments

  1. Viewing distance is what I first thought of for this apparent odd poll result.
    Screen size is a factor here, viewers really need bigger screens to appreciate the extra resolution when sat further back. My parent’s sit around 14foot away from a 50″ screen, that is much too small to enjoy all the benefits.

    50″+ plasmas are not common for the UK market and few can afford a wallet crippling 65″ plasma TV!! A distance calculator reckoned my parents need a 58″ screen and possibly a mortgage to pay for it! ;-)

    Screens tend to have an optical shrinking affect after a few weeks of getting used to them. I think that you need to factor in and extra 4″ to get what you think to be the right size for you. I now have a 46″ and it feels like a 42″ :-D

    One should also realise any letterboxed blu-ray content would possibly need a much bigger screen again to view this vista at a sensible size. Regular TV viewing and film viewing have quite different screen requirements!!
    My own Viera Z1 is just about OK for such content – one can never have too small a screen it seems!

    Some broadcast programmes however show negligable benefit over HD when downscaled to SD. Maybe viewers are comparing like for like content on BBC HD/BBC One HD against BBC1/2.
    When recording to my foxSat HDR I can often save space by recording the downscaled SD version; I find this often good enough for most programmes.

    Another issue is that the full HD resolution is not used by any broadcaster, BBC are at 1440×1080 and ITV1 much less than that. So ITV1’s HD can sometimes look underwhelming on many film HD conversions.

    IF viewers can’t be convinced of the merits of HD, what hope is there for 3D?
    3D is not suitable for all, and can cause many people unwanted side affects.
    There is also the potential with an active shutter design to induce migraine or epilepsy for latent sufferers. 3D looks to shift many TVs but in its current form is it actually desirable??

  2. I have had HD for a year now and have tried testing visitors to see if they could see the difference between HD and SD. I got them to watch a program on HD then made them leave the room then changed the channel to an SD channel with the same program. Most of the time they could tell no difference between the two.
    I have now cancelled my sub to Sky and just watch SD. My connection is via a mdmi connection direct to the tv and all connections are correct,also think it is not worth paying for HD as SD does the trick. TV is a 40 inch Sony lcd

  3. Michael Dewhurst

    I have a Panasonic TX-26LXD80 TV coupled to a Humax HD Fox T2 High Definition receiver. Video connection between the two is an HDMI good qualty cable. My wife and I sit approx 10ft from the TV We cannot see any difference at all between a programme broadcast in SD and the same in HD. I have tried all settings of the HDMI interface

    As far as HD is concerned the Humax was a waste of money but it is ueful as an extra recording source and it can connect to BBC iplayer and UTube via the Internet, this gives much better results than when using a computer coupled to theTV

    LIke Digital TV, HD is another big “con” Before analogue was switched off I couldn’t see any difference between Analogue TV and Digital TV

  4. I see no difference so I won’t fork-out for it

  5. it is all a big con, analogue was far superior. Then my channels didn’t delete themselves and needed retuning

  6. there is no difference, it’s pure bs tbh