@Monroville - This thread does not need to become an PAL vs NTSC vs HD argument.
Your arguments are mostly valid, but the PAL v NTSC article fails to take into account the horrible things PAL does to audio to reach 25 fps, that NTSC on a true interlaced NTSC TV is almost impossible to see combing on, and that it isn't uncommon for PAL DVDs to just be upscaled from NTSC masters or interlace or blend fields, etc.
BUT all things being equal, more lines of resolution is always better, and only a one-eyed idiot (with the good eye swelled shut) can't tell that HD looks better than SD no matter what size the screen.
And of course there is the 'comfortable distance' qualifier. HD was first used in Japan because the rooms tend to be small and sitting that close you can see the scanlines on standard definition.
From Cnet:
|
16:9 TV diagonal screen size
|
Min. viewing distance
(in feet) |
Max. viewing distance
(in feet) |
| 26 | 3.3 | 6.5 |
| 30 | 3.8 | 7.6 |
| 34 | 4.3 | 8.5 |
| 42 | 5.3 | 10.5 |
| 47 | 5.9 | 11.8 |
| 50 | 6.3 | 12.5 |
| 55 | 6.9 | 12.8 |
| 60 | 7.5 | 15 |
| 65 | 8.1 | 16.2 |