Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder if anyone else 'can't see' HD?

141 replies

CrohnicallyAspie · 28/12/2015 21:49

A family member got a new 4k TV at Christmas and it sparked a discussion about whether there's a discernible difference between standard/HD/4k.

Almost all the female members of the family (3/4) say they 'can't see' any difference, but the men (5) can.

I am the odd one out, I'm female but find HD much clearer.

So I was intrigued as to whether there is a genuine division by male/female, or if it's coincidence and another family might find all the women can see it but not the men, or if it's because the women in my family don't really care about TV so aren't observing that closely?

And if there really is a male/female divide, why can I see it? Anything to do with the fact that I'm autistic?

OP posts:
Roussette · 29/12/2015 10:14

Ahhhh... makes sense Metal! We don't game on the TV and new telly is very new so haven't discovered anything in 4K on it yet!

Haggisfish · 29/12/2015 10:19

Female, can def see difference. I like hd for things like nature programmes but hate, hate gate watching other stuff. I get the hyper real bit, too- it's like they are acting in my lounge and so it's much harder to get into.

Raxacoricofallapatorius · 29/12/2015 10:30

I'm so glad people know what I mean about it being hyper real. I kept saying to DH that it looked like we were watching a stage show, not a tv programme. I couldn't work it out. The foreground and background seemed out of sync and the lighting weird. It really was like a wobbly 70s sitcom set. Of course it makes sense now. It's because it was a carefully lit set. The HD made it impossible to suspend disbelief. I'm sure sport or similar looks great but it did Call The Midwife no favours at all.

Meow75 · 29/12/2015 10:36

I don't think it matters for your average telly watching, day to day, but my DH and I are ice hockey fans. It's a much faster sport than football, for example, and it's unwatchable in SD as the puck travels so fast and is so small that you can't see it.

Until I first watched football, and then shortly after, ice hockey, I thought it was a fuss over nothing. Now, watching anything in SD is akin to watching through a bottle of water!!

BreakingDad77 · 29/12/2015 10:55

Well first thing the broadcast has to be in 4k or HD. I have not seen 4k but for me I find a stark difference between HD and SD. Sports is very apparent form being able to see numbers and faces properly.

Also with films it depends how they have been converted to make HD etc. Its like the old example of vinyl being transposed to cassette and there not being much difference instead of using the original recordings and remastering.

Original poster
CrohnicallyAspie · 29/12/2015 13:43

Sorry it took so long to return, I tried this morning but it wasn't working for some reason.

Anyway, I don't think its to do with screen size or distance from TV because we were all in the same room, sitting next to each other, watching the same TV!

I think it's more a processing issue than pure eyesight, I need new glasses but can still see the difference.

And for those that were asking, we were watching 4k stuff on Amazon prime.

OP posts:
wasonthelist · 29/12/2015 13:49

Considering the amount of people I see watching 4:3 progs in 16:9 I am not surprised some folk don't "see" HD. I wouldn't shell out for 4k just for the improvement jusy yet though.

WhenTheDragonsCame · 29/12/2015 14:04

I'm not sure about the difference between SD and HD as I only really watch the Sd channels.

I do remember watching a 3D TV a few years ago and everyone else was saying how brilliant it was and I just thought it looked a bit crap. I have been told since that I could be stereo blind. It doesn't affect your normal sight but means you can't watch 3D.

imwithspud · 29/12/2015 14:47

I definitely agree that HD is an improvement on SD but I do think 3D tv is over rated and gimmicky. I know two people who have 3D TV's and after having their TV's for a while they don't bother with the 3D feature at all.

BreakingDad77 · 29/12/2015 14:50

3D is gimmicky, and I think it will die away again, hollywood seems to be going cold on it again.

whatsforsupper · 29/12/2015 15:11

A 4k HD resolution TV is fab if you have content you can watch,the majority of HD TV is 720 and 1080 bar a few sporting events.

TV manufacturers constantly move the goal posts in the hope you'll upgrade its a standard marketing ploy!

whatsforsupper · 29/12/2015 15:15

Oh,yea 3D is finished it never took off.

Producers of film/tv have to invest in 4k equipment before they can produce any content,they spent fortunes on HD I don't see them rushing out any time soon to buy 4k!

imwithspud · 29/12/2015 15:53

Yeah I think it will be a while before we 'upgrade' to 4K. Looks good on display in the shops but content is very limited. It's bound to come down in price over the years.

JohnLuther · 29/12/2015 16:04

For those who are saying the video moves too quickly on their TV's please check the refresh rate and other options as some TV's turn on a load of image options automatically and it can make the image look and move like a polished turd. My TV is calibrated and most of the image 'enhancement' options have been disabled, Blu-Rays and HD Netflix shows etc look fantastic, especially if they were shot in HD.

StellaAlpina · 29/12/2015 16:34

I see the difference and find the HD painful as i have sensitive eyes. Everyone is always on at us to get a newer/better tv but I am resisting!

enderwoman · 29/12/2015 17:06

I can on a big enough screen. (My TV is 48")

New posts on this thread. Refresh page