I have 20/20 vision and can really tell the difference between BLU and SD-DVD. Others are not so wowed by this upgrade. I got to thinking about it and wondered if anyone that wears glasses or contacts may not see such a dramatic difference.

I know my daughter wears glasses and she claims her eyes see a difference but she also ooos and aaaahs over upconverted DVD as well! Although she may just be reacting to make me feel better! LOL

Curious if anyone else experienced this (not seeing a huge difference) with relatives or friends that wore glasses or had less than perfect eyesight?

The whole purpose of wearing glasses or contacts is to correct vision, so why would they have harder of a time? Their vision with glasses or contacts would be corrected to 20/20 or better.

Either way, I don't think it will have any effect at all. Quite silly really.

After reading some other posts here and there i think eye exams ought to be listed
with equipment upgrades especially when someone states they can not see much
difference between sd-dvd up-conversion and blu-ray.

Visual accuity certainly varies in individuals. I have always been able to resolve things that others may not, regardless of what the optometrist has measured. As an old goat, I currently wear contact lenses, in the monovision arrangement where one eye is for medium distances and the other for close distances. 1.75 and 3.75 diopter corrections. While not as good as my eyes in my 20s and 30s I can still see the screen door on flat screen displays very easily at distances where I should not be able to see those lines. It may be my brain processes the lines instead of the squares inbetween. Who knows. In any case my lovely wife cannot see one iota of difference from the crappiest SD picture to the best HD picture. (Neither can she tell whether a singer or instrument is in tune or way off.)

She has little use for HD. My guess is that there will be some, maybe many who will not be able to "see" the difference.

what will be a bigger detriment is that when you have a 42" tv and pop in a SD-DVD with upconversion and compare it to the Digital/Satalite HD channels you won't see a great difference because of all the compression and artifacts from the broadcasts. I think this will keep some people from investigating further into HD options. The best weapon against this is time, price and education.

I personally think its over all picture quality, IMO black levels, contrast, and color gradients is much better in Blu-Ray, DVD up converted is given the illusion to look as sharp and more pop but you can't see whats not there to begin with. I also a ton of mosaic and mosquito noise on SD-DVD in comparison.

I turly think apathy comes more into play here than eye sight the majority of the time.

Everytime I watch one of my Blu-rays I clean my glasses so that I can appreciate the picture that much more. It does make a difference in the quality of the picture.

Possible reasons adoption will be hindered:
1) People sitting too far back to make out the difference

2) Displays are too small (combined with 1)

3) Mediocre displays. There are some mediocre LCD,plasma, rear and front projection sets out there that show very little difference between upconverted DVD and HDM even from optimal distances. Combine this with the fact that there are a lot of so/so transfers... it's a tough sell. Now combine it with 1 and 2.

4) Too many tvs to upgrade in order to pass the disc around throughout the house. If you have one high def tv and 3 standard crts with dvd players, you're limited to watching that movie on that tv. What does that mean for disney/pixar titles ?

5) Apathy as others have said -- DVD is good enough, and the biggest indicator is that there are many individuals on here who would rather pay a few bucks less for the DVD than the HD version... This is coming from people who are really into it.. imagine what the casual viewer must think.


6) Like OP said-- eyesight. Some people dont have perfect vision, even after correction.

And many more...

The whole purpose of wearing glasses or contacts is to correct vision, so why would they have harder of a time? Their vision with glasses or contacts would be corrected to 20/20 or better.

Either way, I don't think it will have any effect at all. Quite silly really.

You have obviously never had a child or relatives that could not get up to 20/20 even with glasses.

There shouldn't be much problems for most with glasses or contacts, as someone already pointed out. I would bet that a higher percentage of those with glasses see perfectly than those without. There is the problem, all those that think they see perfect or think they see well enough to get by without. There's alot of those. They are obviously a bigger problem in traffic than in hindering HD adoption but I' sure it's a factor for many that can't see a difference.

Don't see it as an issue at all. I'm probably near legally blind but wear glasses which give good vision of course and I can clearly see the difference between HD and SD with glasses on. Without them, I probably wouldn't know if the TV was on or not.

The people I know with PS3s can easily tell the difference between DVD and blu.

But almost all of them say it's not worth a $15-$20 premium for a movie they'll likely only watch once or twice.

To use campaign talk..."it's the price, stupid."

There are other ocular conditions which affect not acuity as such or only acuity but the visual field too, as in diseases of the optic nerve, retina, age-related macular degeration, glaucoma and cataracts. These are not wholly correctable by glasses.

What gives the WOW impression is not only the result of perceptible picture resolution and visual acuity but a complex process of central visual processing in the brain and tied to emotional response.;)

Here is what I've collected from previous chats/mingles from neighbors and officemates. They don't care about the PQ. What they do care about is the ratio they're watching. If it's real widescreen such as 1.78, 1.85, 2.35 or 2.40, they're very happy. They hate when they see people stretched sideways on their screen especially when watching 1.33. That's all they care. It was only me in the group who was picky about PQ.

You have obviously never had a child or relatives that could not get up to 20/20 even with glasses.

I sure haven't.

Point is that most people who have glasses or contacts have fine vision. It would be no larger of a percentage than those without who have less than 20/20 vision and are unaware of their lack of sight or simply refuse to wear corrected lenses.

I don't see a dramatic difference and I don't wear glasses.

http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a99_feldman.jpg

that's very funny! :p

This guy for sure won't see the difference

http://restricted.dyndns.org/Keith-Richards.jpg

I don't see a dramatic difference and I don't wear glasses.

http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a99_feldman.jpg

LOL, Marty would need two screens - but his perception of a 3d effect would probably be awesome.

I think most people could tell the difference, but I also think that to many people it just isn't that high on their priority list as far as "must haves". As the prices drop however, it gets into "impulse buy" territory. And at some point, the "keeping up with the Joneses" factor kicks in too.

Oh man,.......I sure do miss Marty!

Some people just don't care to see a difference, and are perfectly happy watching any level of PQ. My step daughter is a movie freak, and she can't see any advantage with my HD-DVD stuff. She also can't see any difference between normal widescreen and stretched 4:3. She still owns a ton of VHS tapes, and has no problems watching them as well as no desire to replace them with DVD versions. Oh....and she loves to see new movie releases at the drive-in, cause it's cheaper. BTW, she has perfect vision without correction.

To each his own, I guess.

almost all of them say it's not worth a $15-$20 premium for a movie they'll likely only watch once or twice.

To use campaign talk..."it's the price, stupid."

I have a vision problem I guess, I can't see paying $15-$20 premiums for blu over SD-DVD.

Sometimes I wish I didnt see the difference, really. I sold off a ton of DVDs because I simply refuse to watch them now.

After watching blu-ray and hd-dvd, I can hardly stomach viewing a Lord of the Rings dvd. To me watching a dvd looks like someone put a foggy piece of plastic over the screen, like saran wrap or something.

And yet other family members dont even realize they are watching a football game on the "wrong" CBS. AKA they dont have it on the HD feed. When I change it, they hardly notice.

Another big problem with people adopting blu-ray is that many sales employees talk completely out of their @$$. Some of the things I've heard are apalling.

I think visual acuity might be a bigger factor than some are willing to admit. I think it should be a criteria included for instance when rating titles on the Blu-ray picture tier system. It's almost important as what distance you're watching from.

I'll start and begin by saying that I've been tested for vision very close to 20/10. An average adult will be somewhere around 20/18 to 20/20.

Possible reasons adoption will be hindered:
1) People sitting too far back to make out the difference

2) Displays are too small (combined with 1)

3) Mediocre displays. There are some mediocre LCD,plasma, rear and front projection sets out there that show very little difference between upconverted DVD and HDM even from optimal distances. Combine this with the fact that there are a lot of so/so transfers... it's a tough sell. Now combine it with 1 and 2.

4) Too many tvs to upgrade in order to pass the disc around throughout the house. If you have one high def tv and 3 standard crts with dvd players, you're limited to watching that movie on that tv. What does that mean for disney/pixar titles ?

5) Apathy as others have said -- DVD is good enough, and the biggest indicator is that there are many individuals on here who would rather pay a few bucks less for the DVD than the HD version... This is coming from people who are really into it.. imagine what the casual viewer must think.


6) Like OP said-- eyesight. Some people dont have perfect vision, even after correction.

And many more...

That hit the nail on the head and I only realised it recently. (And posted it here somewhere actually.) If you have a crap display then HD will look almost as crap as SD looks on it and people won't be impressed, they certainly won't want to spend hundreds on a new movie player and twice as much as some DVDs for new movies! By the way, I wear glasses and I can tell the difference between SD and HD so wearing glasses shouldn't be much of a hindrance.

Sometimes I wish I didnt see the difference, really. I sold off a ton of DVDs because I simply refuse to watch them now.

After watching blu-ray and hd-dvd, I can hardly stomach viewing a Lord of the Rings dvd. To me watching a dvd looks like someone put a foggy piece of plastic over the screen, like saran wrap or something.

And yet other family members dont even realize they are watching a football game on the "wrong" CBS. AKA they dont have it on the HD feed. When I change it, they hardly notice.

Another big problem with people adopting blu-ray is that many sales employees talk completely out of their @$$. Some of the things I've heard are apalling.

Lol! I know what you mean. After first getting HD DVD and watching an HD movie when I watched an SD movie or TV I kept thinking "Why can't this be in HD? :("

Sometimes I wish I didnt see the difference, really. I sold off a ton of DVDs because I simply refuse to watch them now.

After watching blu-ray and hd-dvd, I can hardly stomach viewing a Lord of the Rings dvd. To me watching a dvd looks like someone put a foggy piece of plastic over the screen, like saran wrap or something.

And yet other family members dont even realize they are watching a football game on the "wrong" CBS. AKA they dont have it on the HD feed. When I change it, they hardly notice.

Another big problem with people adopting blu-ray is that many sales employees talk completely out of their @$$. Some of the things I've heard are apalling.

Ditto to this post as well! I have a hard time watching SD on my projector now and I used to brag how great it looked!

Also I get so frustrated when relatives act like it is no big deal! especially with football. SD is unwatchable on a big screen.

Man I hear a TON of garbage too like 720 is not true HD or you cant use this blu ray player on 1080i! Or Component wont transmit HiDEF! Heard all of this at BB!

Lets not forget the resolution is not the only deal maker. The 709 color space kicks the pants off 601.

That is one thing you cannot upconvert.

I have really bad eyes, but do benefit from high def. The sound is better as is the color and I do benefit slighly from 1080i on the better transfers. Most folks with my eye problems would probably call SD good enough. I'm the classical early adopter, so my values are a bit different though.

Bill

I have really bad eyes, but do benefit from high def. The sound is better as is the color and I do benefit slighly from 1080i on the better transfers. Most folks with my eye problems would probably call SD good enough. I'm the classical early adopter, so my values are a bit different though.

Bill

Sorry, that just makes me laugh because of your username. I imagine you sitting in front of a mirror thinking "This HDTV is great but the show's a bit boring." Lol!

The whole purpose of wearing glasses or contacts is to correct vision, so why would they have harder of a time? Their vision with glasses or contacts would be corrected to 20/20 or better.

Either way, I don't think it will have any effect at all. Quite silly really.

Glasses can't give one the kind of night vision I'm blessed with. So, I think vision is a factor just on that. There's a great many folks who don't have glasses that need them, or are wearing older glasses that no longer fully correct their vision. Then there's folks with Macular Degeneration who listen to movies more than they watch, like my mom. My mom got a Blu-ray deck so she could resume borrowing my movies. Without my influence, she'd of never gotten Blu this early, if ever.

I don't think eyesight is a silly notion here. It may not be the biggest factor in the mix hindering HDM adoption but it's appears to be within the vista.

Visual acuity does factor in. Check out this home theatre calculator (to calculate distances depending on size and resolution of your LCD/plasma/projector. It also factors in one's visual acuity so as to calculate the minimum distance in which one can actually see the difference between 480i/p, 720p and 1080i/p.

http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/

Also as you get older, your vision fluctuates throughout the day as your body cannot absorb glucose as efficiently. My dad has this problem, and glasses won't fully compensate for it.

I've also thought that differences in hearing account for similar differences in how people interpret the quality of the various sound formats. I know that there are a few frequencies that I can not hear when I take a hearing test, so I'm not hearing these frequencies on sound tracks, either.

Lets not forget the resolution is not the only deal maker. The 709 color space kicks the pants off 601.

That is one thing you cannot upconvert.

Hardly. The differences between 601 and 709 are best described as differences rather than significant improvements.

I have an on topic story. I will edit for brevity as this was may years ago.

I was working in a local high end audio/video store and was just finishing up a calibration on a brand new Sony projection television with a newly received copy of video essentials. Proud of my work I stood back watching a dvd and thinking "boy would I like to own this tv".

I hear a voice behind me saying "that is the worst picture I have ever seen on a television". Resisting the urge to make a crack . . .

I turn around as see a customer standing there with the biggest coke bottle glasses I have ever seen.

"Good afternoon sir, what may I help you with" was all I could come up with.

This is a highly subjective hobby, video for the eyes and audio for the ears. Which makes all the backbiting and sniping on these forums all the more entertaining. No one can tell another person what they will like or what they should choose.

People should learn to trust their own senses, if they cannot see or hear the benefits then why buy it?

LOL, Marty would need two screens - but his perception of a 3d effect would probably be awesome.I don't know about that. I read an interview with Mel Brooks about him. “Marty had a condition that was opposite of cross eyes,” Brooks said. “His eyes would be on the outer edge. So, in order to hide from Marty Feldman you had to go right up to his face. His peripheral vision was acute, but he couldn’t see you if you were right in front of him, because he couldn’t cross his eyes.”

I guess he would have to sit well back from the TV.

How many think bad eyesight may hinder adoption?

Something wrong with glasses to correct vision problems? They have been around for almost 200 years.

How about Tinnitus? Think that will hinder adoption of Lossless Audio?:rolleyes:

Something wrong with glasses to correct vision problems? They have been around for almost 200 years.

The first wearable eyeglasses were invented sometime around the year 1284. Corrective lenses go back even further.

You were close, though.

The first wearable eyeglasses were invented sometime around the year 1284. Corrective lenses go back even further.

You were close, though.

LOL !:D

Art

You would have to be almost completely blind not to be able to tell the difference in something like this:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/DVD/ebc27d68.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/HD%20DVD/KKhddvd19.jpg

No offense people but COME ON! I have astigmatism and I can still tell a HUGE difference!

You would have to be almost completely blind not to be able to tell the difference in something like this:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/DVD/ebc27d68.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/HD%20DVD/KKhddvd19.jpg



No offense people but COME ON! I have astigmatism and I can still tell a HUGE difference!

You would have to be almost completely blind not to be able to tell the difference in something like this:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/DVD/ebc27d68.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/HD%20DVD/KKhddvd19.jpg



No offense people but COME ON! I have astigmatism and I can still tell a HUGE difference!

That's a good example but I'm just wondering why the first(DVD) image's resolution also needs to be resized to 1920x1080?. DVD is just 720x480. That for sure will totally degrade the quality because you are now stretching it.

Problem is tons of people still have the old TV sets which is perfect for DVD.

It's an upscaled DVD, if anything, it increased the quality.

I Can't See!, I Can"t See!
Why?
I Got my Eyes Closed!

Maybe that is the problem as one Curly Howard once stated!

It's obvious we need a new format for the blind. We already have a format for the deaf -- MP3.

It's all relative. Even if you have bad eyesight, SD will always look worse than HD.

Wolfie

It's all relative. Even if you have bad eyesight, SD will always look worse than HD.

Wolfie


Without contacts or glasses, I can't tell a difference. Of course, my eyesight is 20/300! :eek:

My wife has 20/20 vision and can easily tell the difference. When we first got HDTV, she was totally awestruck.

For me when I put on my glasses, its like cranking up the sharpness control. Definite difference for me.

It's all relative. Even if you have bad eyesight, SD will always look worse than HD.

Wolfie

True. Another problem is the viewing distance. I did some test this morning on my 48" HDTV, Shrek 3 DVD and HDDVD. Standing at 10ft from the hdtv, HDDVD PQ is the clear winner but it does a really good job on upscaling the DVD version. However, standing at kitchen like 25-30ft from the hdtv set, I don't see any difference anymore. There are cases like this such as when my wife prepares food while she watches.

I guess if my HDTV set is like 70", it would be noticeable but it won't happen since I have a small family room.

I think anything below 40" will always be good for upconverting DVD players. Technically, high def reso is far better than SD. But I don't know how much % of HDTV are out there, Europe, US, Asia, etc.

There are certainly many factors, but I agree with the poster who said apathy. There is an obvious difference, but it's not enough of one to someone who doesn't care.

Watching on a 120" screen using a 720p projector without my contacts, the difference is nominal between an up-converted DVD and HD. However, with my contacts in, it's a world of difference... even though I'm not 1080p yet.

There are certainly many factors, but I agree with the poster who said apathy. There is an obvious difference, but it's not enough of one to someone who doesn't care.

+1 ;)

That's what I said on my other post. I've spoke to many and they don't care. I just don't know why.

Watching on a 120" screen using a 720p projector without my contacts, the difference is nominal between an up-converted DVD and HD. However, with my contacts in, it's a world of difference... even though I'm not 1080p yet.

Of course, it will be very obvious because that is now really huge. :p That's why I said earlier, in order to appreciate it, a larger set is needed. Or if it's impossible to own a bigger screen, you have to sit closer to the tv set.

+1 ;)

That's what I said on my other post. I've spoke to many and they don't care. I just don't know why.

I don't understand why, either. You have a great picture next to a mediocre picture, and people will still say it doesn't matter. I guess it all comes down to opinions on things, and one's priorities. What is important to us doesn't matter to someone else. There are people who don't own TV's, they prefer to read.

It's an upscaled DVD, if anything, it increased the quality.You can't increase quality...aka you don't get something for nothing.

You can't increase quality...aka you don't get something for nothing.

So an upscaled dvd doesn't look better than a non-upscaled dvd? Not saying I don't prefer blu-ray to upscaled dvd, but upscalers do improve the dvd presentation on screen.

khwiggins2,

Upscaling does not produce detail that was not originally in the digital or analog payload. In fact, viewing a movie that was mastered in a certain resolution in a different resolution is always going to cost you a certain amount of quality.

Time will tell. Let's leave this one for the archives, just in case someone wants to see if the topic of vision and HDM adoption should come up again as a topic...they will know that it's been covered....completely.