You may be too short-sighted to enjoy HDTV, study finds
If Vision Express was looking for some attention, it just got it. A recent study by the optician chain found that 60 percent of Britons had avoided an eye test over the past year, with that number rising to 79 percent in Scotland. Phillip Hyde, dispensing optician and head of professional services at the firm, was quoted as saying that "even a marginally short-sighted person sitting on a sofa watching an HD broadcast may not see the full benefits in enhanced image quality." As if that wasn't comical enough, he continued by saying: "If you're investing in HDTV, you ought to have your eyes checked to make sure you get the full benefit." You heard it here first, folks -- factor in the cost of an eye exam before buying your next HDTV, or you'll regret it. Forever.
[Image courtesy of Lenslinger]
[Image courtesy of Lenslinger]
























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
air12ick @ Jan 15th 2009 2:43PM
Finally someone notices. There are people that surround me that do not notice the difference between BluRay and DVD playback on an HDTV. Even using the PS3 DVD upscaler I notice a difference. It turns out they need glasses or need to wear their glasses when they watch HDTV. But who wants to put on glasses just to sit and watch TV if you don't have to?
Shadowguitar @ Jan 15th 2009 4:55PM
I always wear my glasses at home, whether I need to or not. I only take them off when I'm sleeping or when I have my contacts in. I could probably tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray without my glasses, though it would be a little blurry.
kevin @ Jan 15th 2009 2:45PM
Seems to me that if you can't see the difference between SD and HD, you should be wearing glasses anyway...
atmusky @ Jan 15th 2009 3:25PM
Well given that the recommend viewing distance for a 50 inch 1080p set for someone with 20:20 vision (to be able to actually see/benefit from 1080p resolution) is only 7 feet +/-. It doesn't surprise me that most people actually are not seeing all the resolution being provided, either their eyes aren't good enough or they are setting to far away or both.
Q Lam @ Jan 15th 2009 3:32PM
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss this. I have a 46" 1080p and while I can tell the difference between SD and HD, I didn't realize the HD I was getting (cable) wasn't as good as I thought it was until I got new glasses. I see a lot more grain and noise now. I sit about 8' away from the 46" which would probably be pretty normal for average Americans.
Ryan @ Jan 15th 2009 4:36PM
I don't mind being a bit shortsighted when watching broadcast HD. It hides the compression artifacts nicely. It's annoying when playing Xbox, but I just sit a bit closer.
t3yf5g @ Jan 15th 2009 6:02PM
@Ryan
I have to agree. I just got HD cable last week and looked just as good as OTA HD - until i put my glasses on, then I noticed all the compression artifacts. Now I just wear my glass when enjoying my Blu-ray movies.
Scarabaeus @ Jan 15th 2009 4:01PM
No kidding. My wife is completely indifferent about my great HD setup. I noticed that it's about her eyesight (she refuses to wear her glasses in the house) when she could not read some fine text, which I had no problem deciphering. For her, an upscaled anamorphic DVD and a Blu-ray look the same. (42" 1080p Plasma, about 7' distance). And I'm the one with -6.5 diopter...
LonnieDvD @ Jan 15th 2009 5:41PM
So if I bought a 26 inch HDTV, I would have to sit 4 feet away to get the full benefit? I'm only asking because my SDTV is finally starting to wear out (Too many DVD's this winter), and a 26 inch HDTV is all that I can afford this year.
Shadowguitar @ Jan 15th 2009 6:15PM
You only have to worry about that if you have a 1080p set. If you have a 32 inch 1080p HDTV, you would have to sit 4 feet away from it to notice the difference between it and a 720p HDTV.
There's no point in buying a 1080p HDTV that's under 42 inches, so don't bother looking for a 1080p set at that size. You should only look at 720p HDTVs unless you are getting a bigger one, in other words.
Mike @ Jan 15th 2009 7:02PM
79% is madness, considering that eye exams are free in Scotland.
Shocking.
LonnieDvD @ Jan 15th 2009 8:36PM
Free? You are lucky, I paid $150 for my last eye exam.
Garst @ Jan 16th 2009 1:29AM
Ok, I admit it. I couldn't tell you the last time I went to the eye doctor. However, I can see the difference, but don't really care to invest in Blu-ray or pay for TV. I've spent $550 on a 1920x1200 monitor that has a built in ATSC tuner. That's about as much as I want to invest. For now at least.