interesting article

 http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html

"On a regular basis in our HDTV reviews, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray and HD DVD players. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV." 

"Our resident video guru, Senior Editor David Katzmaier, stands by what he said two years ago: The extra sharpness afforded by the 1080p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching 1080i or 1080p sources on a larger screens, say 55 inches and bigger, or with projectors that display a wall-size picture. " 

Full-HD is for projectors and VERY large flat panels, it's unnecessary and actually obstructive on screens under 60-50" - upscaling of SD and DVD gets messed up, and those formats are going to be around for a long, long time. HD-Ready is the perfect format for flatscreens in this size range.

(Adding: I see that Mr Katzmaier and I are in agreement. I actually did similar comparisons before settling on HD-Ready.) 

2 things:

1. MKII vs. MKIII The integrated dvd playback is far more 'stable' in terms of fast moving images, and the skin tones on close ups in particular are improved also. I've also compared sd DVD playback on a PS3 connected via the HDMI to a MKIII BV7-40 and the internal dvd is better IMHO. The test used casino royale SD.

2. The SD does look more pixelated, but so does broadcasted HD from SKY for example, than on the 720p MKII. However from a correct viewing distance the HD does look much more realistic, richer and again more stable. With 17" computer monitors now doing 1080p (or actually more 1900x1200) and larger 30" monitors doing double Full HD (!) things are still likely to get even more silly.

Numbers are one thing - performance is something entirely more important. I've seen a full HD Loewe TV, and various Sonys on HD and they had far more 'noise' especially on the darker colours than either BV7-40 MKII or MKIII.

I think it interesting that this thread has been raised from the dead by the quote above regarding 720vs1080 on 'smaller' screens.  And Flappo remarking that 'maybe bno were right all along'?  Well, that just floored me.

In this thread and one or two others, I and others were defending B&O's televisions (esp. the MKIII) based on the perceived image quality, as opposed to the spec.  I've been with BeoWorld long enough to remember wailing that B&O were using DVI for its monitors, not DVI, that they were late going to 720, then 1080, and of course 1080p.  We have argued that using the 'latest' does not always result in the 'best'.  

I am happy to see someone citing a source which actually looked, and compared, irrespective of the numbers.  I, for one, am not at all surprised at the resulting opinion.

Russ

PS.  Perhaps Trip's talking kittens will allow him to rest now.

i'm quite happy to admit when i might be wrong :)

imo 1080 is pretty pointless on a tv unless it's REALLY massive , my own experience tells a lot

i have a mac pro linked up to my bravia via dvi to hdmi , to save space in my bedroom ( think i might bite the bullet and get a mac display after the problems i get )

unfortunately due to the resolution of this panel its impossible to view anything on it at greater than 1344 x 756 - which rather defeats the purpose of 1080

at 1920 x 1080 everything is so small i have to sit a foot away from the screen or my eyes start hurting from strain 

ie ; don't believe the hype - new does not necessarily mean better