At an average UK living room viewing distance of 3m, you need at least a 50" screen for the eye to resolve HD resolution of a still image, let alone a moving one. The extra resolution on your average setup isn't therefore going to offer any advantage.. Sure, the HD demos are impressive, but this tells you nothing without a comparison to SD, something which rarely gets seen. One crude way to do this is to compare the demo on a HD screen to that running on an SD screen, eg a Panasonic 42PWD versus a PHD. Guess what - its near impossible to tell any difference even with the cheap built in scaler of the plasma. Many of those pushing HD will even admit to this....but all this proves is that the extra resolution counts for nothing. You are just enoying the benefits of meticulous production and high bandwidth. This matters because of television broadcasting and limited bandwidth. Almost all of the extra data in HD is from the resolution, and just a few percent in being progressive rather than interlaced. So why have a very limited number of channels in HD, when you could use the extra bandwidth to have 5 times as many channels that look just as good?!