Proof that you can make yourself believe SD to be HD [here]

THis must be another reason that  recent  B&O SD televisions regularly get mistaken for HD.

Also explains why many think HD to be better at viewing distances where you couldn't tell the difference in any case!

Graham

Perhaps thats only true in Holland . . .

and there lies a problem with peoples opinions - at least with audio you can attempt a blind test - it's hard to remove any preconceptions when you can identify the units under test!

A lot of these SD v HD discussions are from people trying to convince themselves they don't *need* to move to a HD television. Perhaps if you have an Avant - and you do not want a larger screen - then it's a valid standpoint. However, I have a BV7-40 and ideally would like a 46". SD already looks fairly poor on the 40" and will be even worse on a 46". Gawd knows how it will look on the forthcoming BV7-55.

HD does give a far better picture on a large LCD screen (sharper, stronger colours etc). Plus, the audio is better, too, on Blu-ray.

moxxey:

A lot of these SD v HD discussions are from people trying to convince themselves they don't *need* to move to a HD television. Perhaps if you have an Avant - and you do not want a larger screen - then it's a valid standpoint. However, I have a BV7-40 and ideally would like a 46". SD already looks fairly poor on the 40" and will be even worse on a 46". Gawd knows how it will look on the forthcoming BV7-55.

HD does give a far better picture on a large LCD screen (sharper, stronger colours etc). Plus, the audio is better, too, on Blu-ray.

Agree! But I don't think this research was done on that basis. You certainly get the benefit of HD with large screens at appropriate viewing distances, but if you typically sit, say, 3-4m or more from the screen, a Standard Def BV5 image will look exactly the same as similar size HD model.

Abstract of original report: