In a PC Advisor poll of 802 website visitors, almost one in five (19 percent) said they 'can't really see the difference' between standard-def and HD television.
"Had it for a year on 40in. Absolutely no difference so cancelled it," reported PCA forum member Kevscar.
Asked 'What do you think of HD TV?', the largest group of respondents was the most positive, with 32.4 percent ticking the answer 'I think it's great!'
"I have a high spec Samsung HDTV and Sky HD," wrote bremner. "HD broadcast are markedly crisper, sharper and clearer than their SD counterpart. Without doubt it is nature programs that stand out the most."
But around a quarter of voters (25.4 percent) said they 'like the effect, but don't think it's worth paying extra'.
"Performance doesn't live up to the hype," declared morddwyd. "I have it on two 32in and one 42in sets, and while there is sometimes a marginal difference on the 42in (the printing on the adverts on the stands in sports programmes is a bit crisper), by and large it's vastly overrated."
As well as the 19 percent who see little or no difference with HDTV, a surprising 8.4 percent actually said they 'prefer normal TV'. This may be a function of price, as skeletal pointed out: "Cheaper/low-quality TVs give a poor picture in both normal and HD. A good normal TV will give a better picture than a poor HDTV."
The remaining 14.8 percent had not tried HDTV when they responded to the survey.
Based on 802 votes, February 2011. Vote in the poll, or have your say in the forum discussion.
Latest poll: How much did you spend on your current primary PC?
Comments
Pete said: Matt is correct - SD in the UK can be very good - as good as HD on most TVs below a certain screen size 40 maybe So it doesnt surprise me that 19 see no difference In fact on my 37 Sony I told a group of friends that a movie we were watching on Sky was in HD They marvelled at the pic quality I dont have Sky HD
2bathred said: I cannot believe people see no difference Watch a football match and actually see the ball travelling through the air rather than a blurred object I for one think it excellant and well worth the extra 10month on Sky
Matt Egan - Editor said: Rob give your wife the keys to the farm for safe keeping The vast majority of PC Advisor readers are based in the UK and we really dont have the same ambiguity in terms of HD that you do in the states The difference between standard and HD is not as great over here as we generally had better standard definition anyway I am surprised that so many people see no improvement but it is only an evolutionary upgrade and a marketing ploy
HQ not HD said: Cant see the point in having HD when most programming is crap
Rob said: Either the report or this reporter failed miserably to ask the important question Are you ACTUALLY watching HD In other words do you tune to ComCast 187 ABC HD in Chicago or are you still watching channel 7 SD in Chicago Have you even connected the equipment properly RF and composite video CANNOT transmit HD Id be willing to bet the farm that 90 of the people you cant see a difference are not actually watching HD and the other 10 are blind
onion said: it is true that nature scenes really do look good in hd amp football matches but things like boxing doesnt look any better im most looking forward to see f1 in hd hoping that will be good whats needed is properly scaled images not stretched sd pictures
Stan said: Kevscar and Morddwyd also stated that their guide dogs could not notice any difference either