HD matters only when the narrative depends heavily on what you're seeing. In general, story, narrative, plot, etc. do not rely on picture quality. Similarly, I've always thought that 3D televisions are not inevitable. It might enhance a fraction of television-viewing experiences, but it is by no means a requisite for the telling of a story.

Nope. I almost didn't even buy a 1080p television the first time around.

The older I get the more I appreciate HD...easier on the eyes!

I watch more "television" on youtube, netflix, and hulu, than on my actual cable. That means I get streaming level clarity for just about everything despite having a huge HDTV. I could care less about how high def it is, and car far more on if I can get what I want to watch, and when.

to me it matters, I like the image to fill my field of vision ( sit close to big screen). I pick HD channels over standard def and pay the extra to rent blu-rays from red box. Just love the large crisp picture.

I would appreciate a larger bitrate more than I would larger definition. We've been watching 320*240 res for years, now I am watching it at 720p and have large blocks of pixels floating around the screen makes it look just like SD.

Watching The Assassination of Jesse James on HD was so so good. The scene in the corn field at sunset when he was running his hand through the corn was so nice looking it was worth the extra expense of HD. The same goes for Collateral and many more movies I cant think of off the top of my head. Sometimes HD can make the very ordinary seem extraordinary (I sound like a tv exec there)

Also, I will say when I watch BBC HD (Sherlock,Lipstick or any David Attenbourough documentary) I think the brittish have the nack for HD shooting better than Americans (Im Irish before anyone things Im trolling) Its the tinniest bit off focus, the colour pallete seems to suit HD, the lighting seems to allow HD to work well with actors without a flawless skin tone or facial musculature. When I watch some US HD shot stuff (mostly some HD TV stuff) it looks like a badly shot soap or similar.

Here in France, I watch every HD channel, HD. I've programmed my remote to skip the non-HD channel when the HD is available.
As the geek of the family, it's matter. My half one does even know the existence of HD channels. Some programs with landscapes are so much better in HD

I care about HD, but even comparing televisions side by side in the store, I can only tell the difference some of the time.

More important to me is the fact that I rarely "just" watch something. My wife and I tend to read books or play on our tablets while only half paying attention to the television or a movie. Unless we're at the theater (where, obviously, resolution is not the same as at home) there's nothing we're so focused on that a more ridiculously crisp image improves our lives.

@phizzled Yea, Ive got into that habbit too Phizzled. Alot of things on my tv are not attention consuming for this reason. Its gotten to the stage now where its nice to shut down everything and concentrate solely on a move for 2 hours

I find Blu-ray to be slightly un-relaxing to watch. It's so detailed that every pixel demands attention. It reminds me of when I used to listen to music on my Aiwa cassette player with a special bass boost feature. It didn't sound at all hi-fi but even with the hiss, wow and flutter it sounded absolutely lovely.

I blame much of the confusion on cable. Having a redundant set of channels for both SD and HD makes little sense, since the cable boxes and DTAs cable companies provide could most likely handle passing HD through to an SD set with little problem (I mean, there are those little set-top boxes that were meant to get people through the digital transition by translating over-the-air digital signals to be viewable by older SD TVs that didn't have digital tuners.

As for artifacts: OTA broadcasts are less compressed than what cable seems to do with their broadcasts. I really wish cable companies would get their acts together on this. I hope the better codecs that are right around the corner result in practically artifact-less viewing soon (as well as 1080p at 24 and 30 frames per second standard).

I absolutely HATE HD. It makes everything and everybody look like it was shot on crappy video I equate with Soap Operas and acting class.

It completely degrades all the beauty and work and aesthetic of what goes in to make things look like they are 'on film' and causes absolute professional actors to come across as amateurs. h-a-t-e i-t.

i totally agree with missmizu.

I like high definition....much clearer and more pleasing to my eye.

To me it really depends on the content that I'm watching. If it's a beautifully shot movie, absolutely it has to be crystal clear true HD (viewed on a correctly calibrated display - so many TVs look crap simply because they're not set up properly), whereas it doesn't bother me too much if regular TV shows are SD. Bad compression and the wrong aspect ratio are things that irk me more (yes, I do adjust poorly set up TVs in hotel rooms).

Definitely looking forward to when the formats are all standardised as 16:9 HD - there's so much mixed content out there. We've gone backwards in Australia with most free to air content at standard def, then up scaled when watching on an HD TV, eek.

I think we've gotten spoiled-- I'm not even that old, but I can remember the days when I had to try to get a picture by fiddling with a dial-- lots of static and no remote in sight. Even the upgrade from that TV was still housed in a wooden cabinet. Anything's an improvement since those days to me.

Anyone who denies the importance of HD should spend a day walking around without their contacts/glasses (assuming they wear them).. This is the effective difference between true HD and SD. Standard def is essentially like having a televised astigmatism.

I've been behind on my feeds for the past few weeks and stumbled upon this post with my comment featured! Yay!

One concern that I've come across in the past was the premium price of HD Cable channels. In the Detroit metro area, we have the option of a handful cable and satellite providers (lucky, I know). While WideOpenWest offers basic cable channels and requires a bundle upgrade for HD, Comcast Xfinity's TV package includes many HD channels without the use of an upgrade.

Within 5 years, I would hope that the SD to HD upgrade path is phased out and HD will be available as default by all providers. For now, many folks simply don't want to pay more for HD channels.

Can you really convince your mom to pay an extra $15 - $30mo just to see Sean Hannity interviewing Karl Rove with more pixels?