Thanks for the link, OriGin.  Those are definitely some nice shots that show off the differences between SD and HD. 

But does HD make The Departed a better movie?  And is it worth an extra $10 to buy it?  (Amazon has the DVD version for $18 and the HD DVD one for $28 at this time.  List prices are $29 and $40 respectively.)  While HD may make it look a little prettier, I doubt the higher resolution makes all that much of a difference.  And I'm certainly not going to pay more for a movie than I have to.

If you dont think that is a very big diffrence... that is because that is the resolution a DVD (SD) runs at.

HD is 1080x1920 

How can you compare a HD image to a SD image, when the HD image is at the same resolution as SD?

That would be like compareing a 15mp picture to a 1mp picture... shrinking the 15mp picture to 1mp, and saying it dont look much better.

DUH, because your cutting 14mp out of the picture.

That is such a simple ploy to make HD not look much better. Infact the fact HD looks better there, that means a HD video would look better on ***SD***

Because that is SD resolutions. 

After seeing the side-by-side comparison videos at Best Buy today, I have to see, there's definitely a difference, but it's not one I'd notice unless looking specifically for it.  Looking at a 40-50" screen I couldn't tell you if what the TV was displaying was 480p, 720p, or 1080p.  The new TV's look better 'cause the picture is brighter mostly I've found.

Kwaad, I liken these images to comparing the same picture in different resolutions on the same screen.

Even though you have a 15mp picture and reduce it to 1mp it still looks fantastic.

I think the difference is massive personally and I think these images show it well, I just don't think the difference is worth it for the current pricing of everything.  I think Early adopting any technology is stoopid.

 No, a 15mp picture can see a hair on their head. Cutting it down to 1mp you cant. the 1mp picture (if it was crisp) Would look EXACTLY like the 15mp picture cut down to 1mp.

They should  zoom into the SD image and show it inch for inch.

not a screenshot of native 480p and a 1080p downsampled to 480p.

If the image was that size, you would be able to tell a MUCH bigger diffrence. I was thinking that HD didnt look that good. That explains why. 

Personally  I think there is a nice difference. I've seen it many times in the store. Yet, I simply can't justify spending 35 bucks on purchasing films, and not having a local store that rents them. And currently the selection is still poor. And I usually buy a film so I can also loan it out to friends and family. I couldn't do that. So despite the nice picture quality, it simply isn't enough to justify a purchase. Perhaps if I had a 65" hdtv lcd screen, then I might want it, but most of the time I end up watching films on one of my 30-something" tvs. Actually I usually end up ripping the movie and loading it onto my Archos AV700 7" screen and watch it on the go. So that realy kills it for me.

This is a better example... and it's still compareing down-sampled HD to SD... not upsampled SD.

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

 Awesome link, Kwaad. Now be a good little boy and fix it.

Thanks. There is something wonky with the link thing. It likes to add that little symbol after it. >.< Fixed.

EDIT: And rember. The diffrence is ALOT more than that. as the HD is DOWNSAMPLED. Meaning it has lost quality. And it STILL looks 3x sharper than DVD. 

Its a huge difference... looking at it on a high-resolution monitor, less than 1m away :)

Put it onto a TV, and watch it from normal viewing distance... and its NOT something I would pay (a lot) for.