Not sure if this is the right area and if it is not...please move or delete my post.

Im pretty new to HDTV tv and or viewing HD...i went from a 27 Inch Magnavox that was on its last leg (NEVER had a problem with it) to a 52 Inch Sharp Aquos HDTV...I really enjoy the HD part of viewing...however, when i view 720 format or 1080I or 1080P I see NO difference between them...NONE...ZIP...

Is this 1080I or 1080P over rated? i know i wear bi-focals and they were tuned up for the new millenium....someone enlighten me...thank you....just clarify it...I love it ALLLLLLL...

Gilbert

If the distance to the dispay is to far away i relation to the displays size. The improvment of going from 720P to 1080P isnt very large.

Also what title you watching also impacts.

Source has some to do with it too. There is great 720p and bad 1080p.

Also, I am amazed at the people who tell me that NFL games on ESPN (compressed 720p) look better than Blu-ray and HD DVD. They like the bright colors I guess.

And finally, people here like to freeze frames and stand a coupe feet away from their 1080p sets. Then they obsess about any little motion artifact that they see.:D Its a guy thing, you know "mine's bigger than yours (TV and resolution)".:D:D

a 52 Inch Sharp Aquos HDTV...I really enjoy the HD part of viewing...however, when i view 720 format or 1080I or 1080P I see NO difference between them...NONE...ZIP...You did not state what model of Sharp was purchased. Many of these sets have 1400 or less horizontal pixel elements therefore you would probably see no difference between 1280 and 1920 sources.

Source has some to do with it too. There is great 720p and bad 1080p.

Also, I am amazed at the people who tell me that NFL games on ESPN (compressed 720p) look better than Blu-ray and HD DVD.
I'm not. Movies are probably the worst format to present HD- there are too many variables from movie to movie, and the higher framerate of live sports makes HD look more lifelike than the 24fps of films.

I'm not saying that I agree that ESPNHD looks better than HDM, but I can understand why someone would think that.

Source has some to do with it too. There is great 720p and bad 1080p.

Also, I am amazed at the people who tell me that NFL games on ESPN (compressed 720p) look better than Blu-ray and HD DVD. They like the bright colors I guess.

And finally, people here like to freeze frames and stand a coupe feet away from their 1080p sets. Then they obsess about any little motion artifact that they see.:D Its a guy thing, you know "mine's bigger than yours (TV and resolution)".:D:D


Fox HD (720p) NFL games look awful. I think the 1080i NBC and CBS look better, at least when they're not going soft or blocking up.

Fox HD (720p) NFL games look awful. I think the 1080i NBC and CBS look better, at least when they're not going soft or blocking up.

I agree, and cable companies can make them look even worse by compressing the signal even more.

Now something like Sunrise Earth can look amazing. Since there is little movement, the 1080i signal looks as good as 1080p.

My Sharp is a costco model LC C5262U ....my media room (wife calls it that) is 20X20 and we sit about 12-15 from it...and we usually try to fill the screen...i feel "cheated" if i dont fill out ALL of the 52inches of that beautiful screen...I love watching the golf and Nascar stuff (on occasion)...i dare say that even THE NEWS looks great....
Gilbert

My Sharp is a costco model LC C5262U ....my media room (wife calls it that) is 20X20 and we sit about 12-15 from it...and we usually try to fill the screen...i feel "cheated" if i dont fill out ALL of the 52inches of that beautiful screen...I love watching the golf and Nascar stuff (on occasion)...i dare say that even THE NEWS looks great....
Gilbert

At 12+ feet you're going to have a hard time seeing a difference with a 52" screen.

~9 feet or less is likely where you'll start noticing I would think (depending on your eyesight w/ glasses on).

Also, this is assuming the content you are playing is actually good enough to show a difference. However, there is definitely a difference when the planets align and you have it all set up -- I wouldn't recommend anything but 1080p for TVs over 40", below that it depends... and Projectors are 1080p or bust!

Regardless, it should be apparent that it's HD rather than SD, even at 15'.

Not sure if this is the right area and if it is not...please move or delete my post.

Im pretty new to HDTV tv and or viewing HD...i went from a 27 Inch Magnavox that was on its last leg (NEVER had a problem with it) to a 52 Inch Sharp Aquos HDTV...I really enjoy the HD part of viewing...however, when i view 720 format or 1080I or 1080P I see NO difference between them...NONE...ZIP...

Is this 1080I or 1080P over rated? i know i wear bi-focals and they were tuned up for the new millenium....someone enlighten me...thank you....just clarify it...I love it ALLLLLLL...

Gilbert

Hi and welcome to AVS.:)

What source of HD are you using? Cable/Sat/Telco/OTA?

What is the make and model number for the HD "box" you are using to feed your HDTV?

I just went from a Sony 50" LCD RPTV (KDF50E2000) which has a native resolution of 720 p to a 46" Sony LCD (KDL46S4100) that can go up to 1080p.

It was mostly because I began to notice that Blu-ray disc titles I have always seem to look so much better on displays in stores.

I know part of it was due to the silk screen effect of the 720p Sony. The screen always looked "dirty" and that may have been a factor. We sit about 8 feet from the screen in the living room. The 1080p Sony really does produce a much better result.

Contrast that to the 42" LG LCD I have in the bedroom which is a 720p. Because we sit about 12 feet from that, I'm hard pressed to call it anything but really sharp.

All I'm doing is just confirming my real world experience with what others have posted. A smaller 720p screen size from a greater distance can look just as good as a larger screen size 1080p from a closer distance.

By the numbers on paper, a 1080p should theoretically beat a 720p---but it doesn't always work out that way.

Sitting too far away from your HDTV is the equivalent of squinting. You're not seeing everything that's there to be seen.

Depends on what you're comparing between 720p and 1080i/p. Posts in the HD programming forum (and others) have been describing 1080i's greater detail from the earliest days of HD. A 1080p Aquos should reveal differences but a 1024X768 display isn't suitable for accurate comparisons--just as sitting too far away isn't.

Live sports often offers good 720p/1080i comparisons. Contrast the faces and other details in crowds or the lettering in signs; 1080i, with twice the format resolution of 720p, generally delivers more details. But in recent years 720p has become crisper because 1080i/p cameras, with oversampling/downconversion, boost the final effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) of 720p sources. 720p cameras, still used, deliver an often obvious reduced effective resolution.

Filtering of 1080i/p images, beyond that required for the limiting resolution (see link), reduces 1080i/p live/recorded detail. Oversampling/downconversion for 1080i/p should boost its limiting/effective resolution as well, although live OTA HD (MPEG-2 in the U.S.) likely couldn't handle such boosted detail coupled with motion.

Movies, because they're often deliberately filtered within cameras, aren't the best sources for 720p/1080i/p resolution comparisons. An earlier analysis of telecined film showed that 800--1100 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) per HD picture width maximum horizontal resolution was typical. Blu-ray or earlier HD discs based on downconverted 4k scans of film used for digital intermediate production, or from ~3k/4k digital-cinema cameras, should provide crisper images than older telecines, although similar spectrum analysis is needed for confirmation. But planned camera filtering would negate such oversampling/downconversion for boosted effective resolution. For example, while the TNT presentation of the CIA-history miniseries, "The Company," last year was shot with the ~3k German Arri digital camera, the director/DP filtered down images to give them an older 'historical' look. -- John

Hi and welcome to AVS.:)

What source of HD are you using? Cable/Sat/Telco/OTA?

What is the make and model number for the HD "box" you are using to feed your HDTV?


Hello Lee Stewart:
When i got the new TV I up graded from my 8yr old Direct Tv box to a NEW / latest version that picks up HD(TIVO free)....I am using Direct TV to feed the new tv...i have not upgraded my Home Theater receiver yet (to be ONKYO sr805)...strangely enough volume of the sound from the tv is not the same on all the channels...yes i am a little hard of hearing(too much war and rock and roll).

Gilbert

namrats,
Suspect, if you view DirecTV's continuing HDLite channels, downconverted to 1280X1080 from 1920X1080, you wouldn't see much difference with 1280X720p HD channels. But the newer MPEG4-delivered 1080 channels, without downconversion, should look crisper than 720p. -- John

namrats,
Suspect, if you view DirecTV's continuing HDLite channels, downconverted to 1280X1080 from 1920X1080, you wouldn't see much difference with 1280X720p HD channels. But the newer MPEG4-delivered 1080 channels, without downconversion, should look crisper than 720p. -- John

Are you saying that in some cases i could hear louder channels based on the delivery used?
Gilbert

Hi and welcome to AVS.:)

What source of HD are you using? Cable/Sat/Telco/OTA?

What is the make and model number for the HD "box" you are using to feed your HDTV?

i looked it up and the model number is H20...probably a generic model for all Direct Tv products...not sure who made it for them...ill check the back of it later.

Gilbert

Are you saying that in some cases i could hear louder channels based on the delivery used?
Gilbert
That is the case even without different delivery mechanisms. While there are standards for the level of sound transmitted, there are ways to make something sound louder without the level being different. This is for example, is deployed in commercials to get your interest.

Some settop boxes or TVs may have a setting to equalize ("normalize") the levels. I know our Comcast box does. So you may want to look for that to mitigate this issue to some extent.

Fox HD (720p) NFL games look awful. I think the 1080i NBC and CBS look better, at least when they're not going soft or blocking up.

Say that in the HDTV programming section. They will laugh you off the forum. NBC looks awful. I have yet to see a game without macroblocking or other visible artifacting. It's a common complaint. I bet your Fox game was a widescreen SD. Most of their 720p games don't look too bad at all.

OP, 52" is a bit small to tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p unless you are sitting within a few (like 2!) feet of the display. The guys with larger screens will tell you that.

OP, 52" is a bit small to tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p unless you are sitting within a few (like 2!) feet of the display. The guys with larger screens will tell you that.

LOL LOL

Remember 10 years ago, when every one scrutinizing 480i DVDs on their 32" and 36" CRT TVs like their Sony Trinitrons and Mitsubishis.

That was cutting edge.

And now 52" Displays are too small to tell the difference on a resolution difference of 360 lines?

Namrats:

You have to be sitting no farther than 6' from your 52" display for your eyes to fully resolve a 1080 image assuming you have 20/20 vision. The display size has no bearing on the ability to see the full 1080 resolution assuming that the display can actually output full resolution 1080 without any HF rolloff. It's actually all about the ratio of viewing distance to screen size.

Check this out: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

Also, you need to make sure that your display's "View Mode" is set to "Dot By Dot" to prevent the displays internal scaler from softening the image.

If you don't meet these requirements, then you cannot make a valid comparison.

Vern

Namrats:

You have to be sitting no farther than 6' from your 52" display for your eyes to fully resolve a 1080 image assuming you have 20/20 vision. The display size has no bearing on the ability to see the full 1080 resolution assuming that the display can actually output full resolution 1080 without any HF rolloff. It's actually all about the ratio of viewing distance to screen size.

Check this out: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

Also, you need to make sure that your display's "View Mode" is set to "Dot By Dot" to prevent the displays internal scaler from softening the image.

If you don't meet these requirements, then you cannot make a valid comparison.

Vern

My vision is 20/20 with my finely tuned glasses...my LCD screen does have 1080 capabilities...as far as "dot by Dot" i went back and found it...i had it on "stretch"....Thanks
As far as setting 6 ft from a 52" screen to see the 1080 capability...I feel youre saying in a different way what i was stating that in most cases its hard to tell the difference... "perhaps" the 1080 quality is blown out of proportion...and most folks could easily do with 720...nooo im not taking my 1080 capable tv back...finally, i think in many situations we get caught up with stats and numbers....my favorite is the frequency response of speakers...20-20000....which most of us cant hear....I am a baby boomber and im sure i couldnt hear 20-20000 40yrs ago and for sure i cant hear it now.
I do appreciate everyones input and i am looking at the link.
Gilbert

My vision is 20/20 with my finely tuned glasses...my LCD screen does have 1080 capabilities...as far as "dot by Dot" i went back and found it...i had it on "stretch"....Thanks


I think he's talking about the mode that's also called Just Scan (that's what it's called on my TV) or 1:1 Pixel Mapping.

To the OP, maybe your new set just isn't calibrated properly (if it hasn't been mentioned already)?

And yeah, view distance plays a factor as well.

I didnt intend to convey the impression that i was not satisfied with the quality of the picture...i am very satisfied. its just that i really see no difference between 1080 and 720 and i was questioning whether the manufacturers are building flat screens with too high a standard for the customer ... In regards to calibration, i plan on calling the maker and request a calibration etc before the warranty runs out...i believe they will do it even if there is nothing wrong at the time.
Thank you for your input.

I didnt intend to convey the impression that i was not satisfied with the quality of the picture...i am very satisfied. its just that i really see no difference between 1080 and 720 and i was questioning whether the manufacturers are building flat screens with too high a standard for the customer ... In regards to calibration, i plan on calling the maker and request a calibration etc before the warranty runs out...i believe they will do it even if there is nothing wrong at the time.
Thank you for your input.

And you most likely won't see any significant difference between 720p and 1080p from 12' away from a 52" screen. I can see difference between 720p and 1080p on a 100" screen from 11.5ft away.

And you most likely won't see any significant difference between 720p and 1080p from 12' away from a 52" screen. I can see difference between 720p and 1080p on a 100" screen from 11.5ft away.

Like "comet tailing" on very fast ball movements with 1080i?:rolleyes:

In regards to calibration, i plan on calling the maker and request a calibration etc before the warranty runs out...i believe they will do it even if there is nothing wrong at the time.
Thank you for your input.

I've never heard of any company doing that. I wish my warranty hadn't run out 2 months ago or I'd try it, lol!

I've never heard of any company doing that. I wish my warranty hadn't run out 2 months ago or I'd try it, lol!

I will find out one way or the other and for sure I will give it a shot

I will find out one way or the other and for sure I will give it a shot
The typical repairman will not have the equipment and possibly the skills to calibrate a TV. They can turn the dials by eye but that is not calibration. You would also have to pretend the TV is broken to get them to your house. They are not going to come to calibrate it.

Say that in the HDTV programming section. They will laugh you off the forum. NBC looks awful. I have yet to see a game without macroblocking or other visible artifacting. It's a common complaint. I bet your Fox game was a widescreen SD. Most of their 720p games don't look too bad at all.

OP, 52" is a bit small to tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p unless you are sitting within a few (like 2!) feet of the display. The guys with larger screens will tell you that.


Like I said, when it's not blocking up. 720p Fox just looks too soft.

Is it just me????Unfortunately, it's not just you who creates thread (topic) titles that don't give a clue as to what your question is actually about. :(

Evidently 31 others have read the post...Thank you for your interest/response (?)

This is HDTV's dirty little secret - viewing from a common distance of 10 feet or more will reveal virtually no difference between 1080p, 720p, or even 480p (my current display). I was in a store yesterday and had to ask the salesman if what I was viewing was Blu-Ray. He said yes, on all three sets, a Panasonic plasma plus Samsung and Sony LCDs - all 1080p displays. Stepping back to my home viewing distance of about 11 feet I really did not see a significant improvement over what I see on my 42" Panasonic EDTV (not to mention my EDTV does a much better job with SD sources). Moving to within 6 feet did show more detail than I would see on my 480p plasma, but the fact is almost no one watches a 50" display at that distance. Someday 80" displays will be commonplace and we will all want 4K resolution, but for the average consumer today, paying more than a 15% premium for even 1080p is a questionable investment, IMO.

This is HDTV's dirty little secret - viewing from a common distance of 10 feet or more will reveal virtually no difference between 1080p, 720p, or even 480p (my current display). I was in a store yesterday and had to ask the salesman if what I was viewing was Blu-Ray. He said yes, on all three sets, a Panasonic plasma plus Samsung and Sony LCDs - all 1080p displays. Stepping back to my home viewing distance of about 11 feet I really did not see a significant improvement over what I see on my 42" Panasonic EDTV (not to mention my EDTV does a much better job with SD sources). Moving to within 6 feet did show more detail than I would see on my 480p plasma, but the fact is almost no one watches a 50" display at that distance. Someday 80" displays will be commonplace and we will all want 4K resolution, but for the average consumer today, paying more than a 15% premium for even 1080p is a questionable investment, IMO.

+1 ...got your flame suit on?

btw, I love EDTVs. SD looks better than on many HDTVs. Bad scalers can really ruin a 480 picture and make it look unwatchable.

+1 ...got your flame suit on?

btw, I love EDTVs. SD looks better than on many HDTVs. Bad scalers can really ruin a 480 picture and make it look unwatchable.
Why would he be flamed? 11 feet back from a 42" display, you shouldn't expect to see much difference.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png

...Moving to within 6 feet did show more detail than I would see on my 480p plasma, but the fact is almost no one watches a 50" display at that distance.

Not to seem argumentative, but most video experts I've read recommend that a person sit at a distance of about 1.75 times the screen size for optimum viewing of an HD television. Of course, it varies from person to person according to individual preference and/or room dimensions, but ideally for a 50" screen that would be about seven feet and for a 42" screen about six feet (give or take a foot).

As others have noted, a 42" screen viewed from eleven feet away, well, you'd have to have the eyes of an eagle to notice much difference between 720 and 1080 resolution.

John

Namrats:

You have to be sitting no farther than 6' from your 52" display for your eyes to fully resolve a 1080 image assuming you have 20/20 vision. The display size has no bearing on the ability to see the full 1080 resolution assuming that the display can actually output full resolution 1080 without any HF rolloff. It's actually all about the ratio of viewing distance to screen size.

Check this out: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

Also, you need to make sure that your display's "View Mode" is set to "Dot By Dot" to prevent the displays internal scaler from softening the image.

If you don't meet these requirements, then you cannot make a valid comparison.

Vern


People need to stop misinterpreting those graphs/studies/etc. That graph tells you at what point you can accurately discern individual pixels. When Someone is watching a movie, they're don't need to be able to discern individual pixels to tell a difference in picture quality, especially when theres movement.

People need to stop misinterpreting those graphs/studies/etc. That graph tells you at what point you can accurately discern individual pixels. More importantly, that graph tells you at which point you can fully see the inherent resolution in a 1920 x 1080 image. Any further away and you eyes will not be able to accurately make a judgement on the detail inherent in the image. This has been proved over and over again by people commenting on how an image from a BD like Patton is so amazingly detailed. When questioned further, it turns out that they are usually viewing a 40" display from 10' away.

Discerning individual pixels is dependent on additional factors, such as the fill factor of the panel and the quality of the optical system being used.

Vern

More importantly, that graph tells you at which point you can fully see the inherent resolution in a 1920 x 1080 image. Any further away and you eyes will not be able to accurately make a judgement on the detail inherent in the image. T

Again, you do not need to be able to discern all of the pixels to see a clear difference in image quality, especially when movement is present. Movement reduces effective resolution, and thats where the higher resolution formats excel.

Not sure if this is the right area and if it is not...please move or delete my post.

Im pretty new to HDTV tv and or viewing HD...i went from a 27 Inch Magnavox that was on its last leg (NEVER had a problem with it) to a 52 Inch Sharp Aquos HDTV...I really enjoy the HD part of viewing...however, when i view 720 format or 1080I or 1080P I see NO difference between them...NONE...ZIP...

Is this 1080I or 1080P over rated? i know i wear bi-focals and they were tuned up for the new millenium....someone enlighten me...thank you....just clarify it...I love it ALLLLLLL...

Gilbert

Namrats:
As it was already stated here, the quality of experience that you are getting from your system depends on many factors... and since God is usually in the details, I'd try to see if (element by element) you got them all right: the box you get your signal from, the channel in question, the environment, the cables you use, the TV calibration, a great 1080p source image, etc, etc, etc... whatever...

Some of these elements you can reasonably control. Others you simply cannot.

But in my point of view, your sensibility is your best guide and if - after checking most elements just to see if there's no big mistake anywhere - you do not see real difference... well... it's ok. It is true that there are some enthusiasts who overblow differences most people will never see. Some people say the difference between "this" and "that" is HUUUGE... and maybe it is for them... and you and I may be left unimpressed.

Bottom line is: we all have very different sensibilities. And sometimes marketing, opinions, statements and other things make us go with the herd and spend money on things we don't really see (or need). A year ago there was a huge war about bitrates and some people used to magnify (laughs) screenshots in order to compare pixels.

I believe I can see the difference between SD, 720 and 1080... but I also believe that (as I said) the variables are so many that the more demanding you get, the less satisfied you end up. Enjoy the great movie... not the resolution. Should we look for the best resolution? Sure! Is it 1080? I guess so. But check some older threads and you'll see people angry about the film grain that suddenly became more evident with HD (or something like that). Go figure!

Are there differences between resolutions? Sure there are. Are they obvious? Sometimes you can tell and sometimes not really, it may depend on many things. But if everything seems to be in order and you're still unimpressed, don't worry. Relax and simply enjoy the film. Let others throw themselves off the window if their Al Jolson does not come with PCM. :p

Enjoy the film anyway and do not think about it. I am a huge fan of two cinematographers called Raoul Coutard and Jack Cardiff and I guess it will take years until I see a glorious Blu-ray disc. I still enjoy them in SD (or upconverted - at best!) like everybody else.

Relax. I'm sure your entertainment room is fine and it will give you lots of pleasure! :)

Again, you do not need to be able to discern all of the pixels to see a clear difference in image quality, A clear difference is simply not good enough for me.... Spending roughly 50 years of my life as a projectionist, sometimes full time and sometimes part time, has made me very sensitive to image detail, resolution and artifact issues.

The way we projectionists tell if an image is in focus with 35mm sources is by making sure that the film grain is as sharp as possible over as much of the screen as possible.

I have a 5'x14' screen and is sit roughly 14' away from the screen. At this distance, with my projector (Sony Qualia 004) and anamorphic lens (Isco Cinema DLP 1.5X), I don't see individual pixels. This is mostly due to the excellent fill factor of the LCOS panel on the projector. Yes, I do have 20/20 corrected vision and actually have a pair of eye glasses with a custom ground prescription for the 14' viewing distance.

I have seen many display products where the detail suffers with motion, but that's much more likely to be a DLP artifact or a panel response time issue than a film issue as long as the motion speed in the scene is reasonable.

Since I use an HTPC outputting 24PsF, I don't have any motion judder to obscure detail on motion either.

In the end, it's an individual's choice as to their comfortable viewing distance, but to say that the graph in question which has been created based on data by professionals who specify the commercial movie theater environment is wrong or misleading is in itself doing a disservice to the members of this forum.

I do believe that many of the enthusiats who populate this forum are looking for the optimum solution, not the "good enough" solution....

By the way, here is another link of interest on the topic of viewing distance. I tend to go by the THX recomendations, personally.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Vern

Namrats:
As it was already stated here, the quality of experience that you are getting from your system depends on many factors... and since God is usually in the details, I'd try to see if (element by element) you got them all right: the box you get your signal from, the channel in question, the environment, the cables you use, the TV calibration, a great 1080p source image, etc, etc, etc... whatever...

Some of these elements you can reasonably control. Others you simply cannot.

But in my point of view, your sensibility is your best guide and if - after checking most elements just to see if there's no big mistake anywhere - you do not see real difference... well... it's ok. It is true that there are some enthusiasts who overblow differences most people will never see. Some people say the difference between "this" and "that" is HUUUGE... and maybe it is for them... and you and I may be left unimpressed.

Bottom line is: we all have very different sensibilities. And sometimes marketing, opinions, statements and other things make us go with the herd and spend money on things we don't really see (or need). A year ago there was a huge war about bitrates and some people used to magnify (laughs) screenshots in order to compare pixels.

I believe I can see the difference between SD, 720 and 1080... but I also believe that (as I said) the variables are so many that the more demanding you get, the less satisfied you end up. Enjoy the great movie... not the resolution. Should we look for the best resolution? Sure! Is it 1080? I guess so. But check some older threads and you'll see people angry about the film grain that suddenly became more evident with HD (or something like that). Go figure!

Are there differences between resolutions? Sure there are. Are they obvious? Sometimes you can tell and sometimes not really, it may depend on many things. But if everything seems to be in order and you're still unimpressed, don't worry. Relax and simply enjoy the film. Let others throw themselves off the window if their Al Jolson does not come with PCM. :p

Enjoy the film anyway and do not think about it. I am a huge fan of two cinematographers called Raoul Coutard and Jack Cardiff and I guess it will take years until I see a glorious Blu-ray disc. I still enjoy them in SD (or upconverted - at best!) like everybody else.

Relax. I'm sure your entertainment room is fine and it will give you lots of pleasure! :)

Technicolor: I have been enjoying your posts for some time. You are someone who knows film and will debate. Sooooo...

I agree. Too many folks on the forum are within an inch of their display with a magnifying glass (or a bit rate meter-how many standalone BD players have one?.) High Def IS better than standard def. You don't have to nitpick (which many on this forum do) to enjoy higher definition films. Excellent advice to the poster.