HD makes a big difference to picture sharpness in general, and a huge difference when the shots are close-ups. I was watching the re-run of the Premier League darts final tonight, and every bristle of James Wades' stubble was precisely defined. You could even examine Phil Taylor's pores. Surely that's worth £10 per month?

well worth it.

Fraser, but as our resident techy, I bow to your superior knowledge although, the prospect of seeing Jocky Wilson's stomach wobbling while he walks up to the ochie isn't a great recommendation.

I have a Virgin V+ and find that footy is noticeably enhanced in HD, especially when its shown on ITV for some reason.

I've got a plasma Panasonic Viesta Widescreen tv coupled to non-HD Sky+ box as well as PS3. So I can watch tv in non-HD and also play Call of Duty in HD on the PS3 and watch HD blu-ray on the PS3 too.

I think my tv picture quality is pretty good - definition is sharp etc. But I would only go to a SKy+ HD box when my current one packs up - I cant justify the cost of throwing away something which is perfectly ok for a better but not that exceptionally better quality.

And AxeKeith - Jocky Wilson hasn't played top-level darts for years - he's a bit of a recluse. I'm waiting for the comment about drinking lager on stage - haven't done that for years either :0)

HD is available free on Freesat for ITV1 and BBC and I believe is also coming to Freeview. OK this is nowhere near as many channels as Sky but I guess it depends on whether you watch those other channels - crap is still crap even in HD. It may be my imagination and wishful thinking but I think that standard definition pictures are also sharper thanks to the upscaling capabilities of my Humax Freesat box.

HD does make a difference to things like football which tends to be blurry on LCD/plasma screens in standard definition. And as the World Cup is on BBC and ITV but not Sky I'm quite happy with my more limited channel line up. I eventually cancelled Sky when they kept trying to convince me that I ought to be paying another £10 per month for HD on top of the £40 I was already paying for channels I rarely watched. And Rupert Murdoch now gets no money from me which is a further bonus.

...in the setup at your sister's if you can't see a difference between normal (SD) and HD. There is around 4 times the picture information in the HD signal and if it's being watched on an HD TV (even one only 'HD Ready' as opposed to 'Full HD') with the right connections (bear in mind this has to be either an HDMI cable or a composite cable - scart or anything else just doesn't work, although you'll still see a picture) you will definitely see the difference.

Footie is actually a good example, because the difference is so marked. Of course the size of the TV matters - the smaller the screen the less marked the difference will be - as does how far away from the screen you sit (if you're 3 feet away from a 42 inch screen, you'll still see some artifacts but these will be a limitation of the TV, not the signal), but it's impossible not to see the difference between the two if the HD is correctly set up.

HD is fantastic for concerts and festival footage not to mention music shows like Later .... The Beeb's HD Glastonbury coverage is particularly stunning. Basically anything that is 'live' is greatly enhanced in my view. I don't notice such a significant difference in dramas although the period detail in Mad Men is even more glorious.
I think it's worth a try Axekeith and now would be a good time to take the plunge with the World Cup/Wimbledon/Glasto coming up.

stick with your conventional cathode ray tv

excellent picture but just take up a lot of room if you want a big screen

I have a Philips 32" Full HD LCD, and it was a sod to set up..but then I am fussy about these things! TVs these days are almost infinitely adjustable and it can make a huge difference. Having said that, as said above, I can only think that the individual isn't using HDMI cables if there is really no difference. There are variations across channels and the source material is also important - if the original is standard definition (or just old!) then very often there is less appreciable advantage with HD. Live events (sport, concerts etc) tend to show it to its best advantage. What do people think of Blu Ray? I love the definition, better sound, better features etc, but I'm not gripped by the need to replace my DVDs, which look great upscaled...and how often do we repeatedly watch things anyway? Have Blu Ray manufacturers shot themselves in the foot here by making the upscaling so good? Does this explain slow Blu Ray disc take up??

Pacific on HD is extraordinary

some great advice and I'm leaning towards HD (although I have had a couple of glasses of wine ho ho). Maybe it's just my eyes. Iseem to remember when I first saw HD on my father in laws tv, there seemed to be a vast improvement so let me talk to the GLW and go from there. Thanks again.

... 576i (576 lines, interlaced) and US TV being only 480i there is less of a difference between standard TV and High Definition TV over there. Also bear in mind that HDTV is (at least, it is here) 720P or 1080i (either way it's the same bitrate) whereas Blu-Ray is 1080P (progressively scanned), so you may well perceive a smaller difference comparing SDTV to HDTV.

HDTV via the local cable TV company here is a night & day difference compared to SDTV. And it's free!