We have the same model TV, same viewing distance, and I can clearly see a difference. You do indeed have some form of HD blindness I'm afraid.

By the way, I said it's not day and night, so maybe it's just that failing eyesight that comes with age after all.

A waste of valuable life though to continue with this exercise in futility

A visit to the opticians then for me, oh no been there and dont need glasses, so guess its a common thing HD Blindness as me and several friends cant see the difference either.

Hardly......more megalomaniac than marvel in my opinion.

In all seriousness Faust's and others HD blindness Syndrome could be caused by them having a substandard visual interpretative faculty in the brain, probably quite a common disorder, but most people don't make such a song and dance about it as it has little impact on their lives. (it just saves them money, quids in etc)

There is a similar but more serious Syndrome (CPS) with hearing where an individual can have perfect hearing but can't hear what others say in noisy environments, parties, pubs, etc This is mostly due to the brain not being able to differentiate one voice from another or the background noise so everything sounds like babble. Again this is quite common possibly 20% of the population have this to a certain degree.

So it is conceivable that Faust's brain and others with HD Blindness can only handle so much visual information and anything beyond that point is just wasted on them.

Or there is the other phenomenon I alluded to i.e. people seeing or think they are seeing what is suggested they should be seeing, suggestible syndrome. This to is very common.

You can see why I gave up on this thread:



The wilful misunderstanding is breathtaking!

However, a couple of things have come up that need to be corrected.

FIrst, calibration is a (very largely) objective procedure. The goal is to get the display to be as close as possible to an agreed standard. It's not a matter of some settings being better for some people than others. There is only one correct setting. Faust, when you got your set professionally calibrated, did the calibrator say, 'what do you think? I can make it a bit brighter/more colourful if you like?' No.

But also despite some apparent agreement earlier on we are once again back with this:


This is simply untrue, if by that you are once again saying that HD is the emperor's new clothes, and by that you mean there is no objective difference between HD and SD at agreed distances. As has been explained, there is a well defined relationship, with well defined margins for error, between distance and perceptibility of detail for SD and HD pictures. This can be empirically proven by objective, repeatable tests of subjective picture assessments. (Look up for instance DSCQS if you're interested.) Your normal viewing distance falls in the range where differences should be detectable.

Senses such as vision typically fall within a Gaussian distribution, as has already been explained. It seems that, if you discount all other variables such as the TV's performance, as you have, you are placed somewhere on the less acute part of the curve. This is not not-normal, but you keep coming back to the suggestion that everyone else is imagining it as if you can't bear the thought that you can't distinguish detail as well as some others. But from what you've said, you can't. This really isn't a problem--you won't be alone--but saying that everyone else is merely suggestible is a big problem.

This is either a windup (nice one, well done) or totally serious (you have my deepest sympathy).

Good to see the debate is still going strong after 3 weeks - apparently in ever decreasing circles.

I said in an earlier post that I was not interested in becoming involved in this discussion, but last night I decided to conduct a little experiment, SD vs HD. I was watching a discussion program on BBC2 HD, where the main focus of the picture was on the faces of those speaking at the time. So lengthy close-ups of skin tones and hair. I was watching my 1000S & Panasonic 42" LCD setup (very carefully set up for PQ, output from 1000S set to 1080P) from about 10 feet away. Flicking back and forth between BBC2 and the same program on BBC2 HD I was mildly surprised at the disparity. The HD picture was hugely better, this was unmistakably the case and immediately obvious.
Now what we need is more HD channels actually showing content worth watching. That would make it worth caring about.

Totally serious of course like I've been in all my previous posts and I'm only agreeing with Faust, after all he's the one who came up with this new medical condition of "HD blindness".
I think it was a good idea to give it a name and popping Syndrome on the end should help those outspoken individuals that suffer from it feel slightly more important and pompous.

This thread is up there with the most crackpot of conspiracy theories knocking around on the internet.

It's a scary thought that hundreds of millions of us around the world are being duped into believing that HD gives superior picture quality. What fools we are not to listen to this pseudo-scientific evidence (?) put before us. "Suggestible syndrome" indeed.

It's essential reading, please keep it up.

mwardy..... I'm not saying every one else is imagining that HD exists when it doesn't. However, there are some posters on this and other forums who insist that because I can't see it I must either be blind, stupid, or both or that my TV isn't up to the job - night and day being some of the less rude comments.

There is however such a phenomenon as suggestibility along with group hysteria etc. People are told they should be seeing x y or z and sure enough they do even though the letters on the board say a b & c. Whose to say who is genuinely seeing what or not seeing what if you see what I mean? Why should those who claim they can see it be right and those who say they can't be wrong?

It could well be that a percentage of those who say they can see it only think they can whereas the rest definitely can.

As an aside - I watched Gardeners World again last night from around 4 feet distance in HD. No doubt about it, the PQ was excellent. I then watched the SD recorded version from around 8 feet. The PQ with the SD version was also very good but I will admit it wasn't up to the sharpness of the HD version. It is though only with a programme such as Gardeners World where I can see some difference due no doubt to the close up shots of flower studies.

I'm glad to see you have an open mind to science. Not much chance of anything getting in there I'll wager, or leaking out.

Bit harsh there mate.

I was in two minds whether you were just on the wind up but I do think now that you genuinely believe what you're saying. Bit like those who are convinced by the faked moon landing theory, the 9/11 conspiracy, the reptilian elite etc etc.

Some very elegant and clever arguments put forward for these. All complete and utter tosh of course, but good fun to read.

I don't think anyone is disbelieving you when you say you can't see much difference. They are trying to find reasons why. There is no contradiction here.

If some people come over as rude about this that's unfortunate, but maybe they were provoked by your initial claim that because you couldn't see it no-one else could, and your robust skepticism about claims otherwise. You've gradually refined your position to something much more tenable, which is good.


The first part of this is total speculation, which isn't very scientific and is best left aside. What's the point of it? With the bit in bold though I think we have finally reached a conclusion! Don't suppose that will mean an end of the thread though.

Result!

See, knew it wouldn't be the end of the thread.

For me though with my PX60 it's hardly a result if I have to get as close as 4 feet to see some difference and even then only on certain types of programmes e.g. Gardeners World. Added to which I had to concentrate so hard it made my eyes burn.

Yes, HD does tend to suit some programmes more than others, but there are those who expect all HD to jump out of the screen at them, though saying that, even the poorest example of HD can be distinguishable from it's counterpart at sensible viewing distances, but you would have to look harder - BSG comes to mind as there was more grain on the HD version, some were saying the SD version looked better, so on this occasion the differences normally seen would not have been so obvious.

Some movies tend to look average, this is where the director puts their stamp on the movie by adding post production effects, this could be added film grain or they tone down the colours, they still look good but feel different. Other movies look jaw dropping good like Carousel and Zulu for example. I find HD is more than just bright colours and I don't feel everything has to be a sensory overload. I'm sucked into a good story and belting soundtrack more than what my HD picture looks like or would look like in comparison to it's SD version.

Not a bad result considering, but I think you're gradually becoming a victim of your own syndromes, my advice is.........

"Do not try to see the difference that is impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth, there is no difference.
Then you'll see, that it is not the picture quality that changes, it is only yourself."

That should hopefully give you and others a little peace of mind.

Hell's Teeth that's a bit to deep for me. Sat four feet from screen again, athletics from Gateshead looks pretty decent, especially the rain.

At the end of the day, HD is better as far as the picture goes. can you see it maybe depending on a few factors.

But, are you really gonna watch that crappy soap just because it's HD, or find something better to watch even if it's only available in SD.

I always smile when BBC1 announces... and now the quiz program "Pointless", also showing on BBC HD.

Why? It's a tv programme made in colour to HD specifications, and a lot of people obviously don't believe that HD is worth bothering with or even know that it exists. So why not give these people a nudge and say 'hey it's on over there and it's just nicer to watch. Give it a go.'

A long time ago they used to announce that a programme was in colour.

I was thinking Pollensa's point was they announce it's on a channel that doesn't exist anymore !

Or even worse eastenders, now that is a waste of bandwidth, even for SD.

But they never say that and never have.