Video quality vs. Enjoyment: What does science say?

[diogen]

Not exactly MIT level scientific analysis but certainly believable and common sense compliant
Video quality less important when you’re enjoying what you’re watching ? Science Blog

What we were looking at was how video quality affects viewers in a real way.
...We were seeing that low- quality movies were being rated higher in quality than some of the high-quality videos.
...If you’re at home watching and enjoying a movie, we found that you’re probably not going to notice
or even concern yourself with how many pixels the video is or if the data is being compressed...

Diogen.

 

[lakebum431]

I disagree 100% with this study. It all depends on who you talk to. Foir me there is a direct corolation between video quality and enjoyment of the program. I get pissed when the quality sucks and many times will refuse to watch. There is a reason that there are only about 10 SD channels in my favorites list with all the other HD channels.

 

[diogen]

There is a reason that there are only about 10 SD channels in my favorites list with all the other HD channels.

From the linked article

...showed 100 study participants 180 movie clips encoded at nine different levels, from 550 kilobits per second up to DVD quality.
Participants viewed the two-minute clips and then were asked about the video quality of the clips and desirability of the movie content.

Kortum found a strong correlation between the desirability of movie content and subjective ratings of video quality.

Hidef was not at option...

Diogen.

 

[TheForce]

Well, if the first qualifier is that I am enjoying the movie then I suppose it is not PQ wise-- objectionable. But if the movie is so poor the quality causes me to be distracted then how would I be enjoying that?

However, give me two screens of the same movie, one at very high definition and the other at VHS quality and put a camera to check eyes' point of focus. My bet is this science study will show most people will prefer to watch the hi def image.

I agree with diogen that this wasn't exactly MIT level science. and therefore don't agree that it is worth paying any attention to.

 

[Ilya]

Sure, when the program is interesting you are less likely to pay attention to PQ. But it doesn't mean that the PQ becomes insignificant!

I think it also depends on many other factors. The screen size and viewing angle for example. What kind of display did they use in their study? The smaller the screen, the less likely you are to notice or pay attention to compression artifacts. Since they didn't even get to HD resolution, I can only assume that the screen wasn't too big.

There is also a big difference between watching a YouTube video for laughs and enjoying a movie in your home theater. What is more than acceptable in one case, can be intolerable in the other.

I am just afraid that some cable/satellite top executive reading that article will come to a conclusion that it is ok to squeeze even more channels in the same bandwidth pipe. This study is dangerous!

 

[mike123abc]

It is not a big leap to see that one can be entertained by the worst PQ. People watched B&W small tubes for years and were entertained. They obviously were not being driven crazy by the lack of color. The same can be said for SDTV which for many years entertained people.

But, just because you can be entertained by low PQ does not mean you have to put up with it.

 

[diogen]

But it doesn't mean that the PQ becomes insignificant!

No, it doesn't.
And the authors don't claim it does.

This is a small part of the discussion that harks back to the HD vs. BD war.
After BD's win the technical aspects of the encoding process, codecs, parameters, etc. are of no interest anymore (unfortunately).

I think this study's subject it the human itself not video: human attention span is pathetic! And multitasking abilities non-existent.
We can't process two variables at the same time: story line and picture quality. Despite them being processed by different parts of the brain!

How much (bitrate) is good enough? Do you actually see the difference or believe what you are told (brainwashed)?

Just to avoid this discussion become religious again the researchers don't even mention hidef - probably the only chance to keep it rational and potentially fruitful.

Diogen.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Well if people never see the better pq , they won't notice the difference. I grew up watching analog ota static filled pictures on an ota antenna in the attic. Then Cable came out and I thought it was great and clear and the sound was better. Then satellite came out and I said WOW the picture is crystal clear. Then hd came out and I said WOW again.

Now lets look at equipment. I take the Vcr for example. I used to watch vcr tapes and they are like 280i in resolution compared to the then 480i of broadcast tv back in the 80s. I never knew they were worse quality, till I saw the dvd players that did 480p. Then Blu-ray came out in 1080p.

I had rear projection tvs in hd and I thought the pq was great. Then LCD came out and I said how bright the pq was . Now LED is out and the pq is even better. But I never knew what I was missing till some thing newer came out that surpassed what I had. But never knowing what I was missing with the latest technology ever interfered with my enjoyment of the program.

I think that 3-D is cool for movies at the theaters, but I could care less about at my home using some $150.00 glasses. I can promise you that watching a show in 2-D HD will not interfere with my enjoyment of a tv show compared to 3-D.

 

[mike123abc]

It is more of the case you do not know what you are missing until you have seen it. Old stereo tip was to never listen to a better system than you have because you will then hear how poor your system sounds. Same thing with video. If you do not see BD HD you will not know what you are missing when watching DVD.

Why is this in the HD DVD forum anyways? The forum is pretty much dead and it probably belongs in the BD forum or TV set one.

 

[diogen]

Why is this in the HD DVD forum anyways?

I put it here on purpose:
-this was often mentioned during HD vs. BD times but proof was never provided. This keeps the link handy;
-this is the least frequented video forum - less likely it will vanish from the first page any time soon. And religious wars thankfully are over;
-if we don't read more than the research actually says, it is actually quite significant and most likely applies to hidef as well (DVD level could mean bitrate level).

Diogen.

 

[dantheman77]

BRAVEHEART

 

[jvc]

Quality doesn't seem to mean much to most of the population (video or audio).
If it did, why is mp3 format doing so well, and sacd and dvd-audio has all but died?
People that are buying HT systems are buying $200-$300 systems, instead of quality systems. There's always gonna be some of us that cares...........

 

[mike123abc]

Quality doesn't seem to mean much to most of the population (video or audio).
If it did, why is mp3 format doing so well, and sacd and dvd-audio has all but died?
People that are buying HT systems are buying $200-$300 systems, instead of quality systems. There's always gonna be some of us that cares...........

I would speculate that most of the population is deaf anyways now when it comes to high notes. A subwoofer is all that they can hear a difference with now.

Picture quality is something different though. Now that HDTV is getting so cheap people will get used to high quality picture accompanied by mangled sound through small tinny speakers.

The cheaper TVs also lack the processing power to make SD look good. So, they need an HD image even more.