Originally Posted by mwardy:
“if anyone from the BBC happens to be reading, I'd still rather watch the SD version than a DOGged HD version. ”
Originally Posted by grahamcrowden:
“What a strange viewpoint.
I hate DOGS but there would have to be one hell of a large one to make me watch an sd version over an HD version , especially as the HD dog sits on the black border and does not go over the image and secondly because the sd channels we get in the UK are so generally poor quality anyway and nowhere near dvd quality like they could be .”
Well, it's not strange to me! It's just a judgment call. I can't stand the things as they very easily knock me out of being absorbed in the programme, so I usually stick to SD. I'm especially disgusted with the BBC since I'm left paying for something I can't watch.
But I do recognise what you are saying though. Actually now I'm back with my freesat HD setup I saw a bit of Wall E on BBC HD (which looked excellent) and it is true that it's less intrusive on a scope film. I'll probably watch HD in future in those circumstances, possibly with the aid of a DOG remover (a bit of black cloth

).
As for the quality of SD I also agree it's often compressed to death, but perhaps controversially I think some of it is getting better. Some of the HD originated material shown on SD BBC for instance is really pretty good, whether this is because of its inherent superiority or because the BBC have new SD coders or whatever. I was also impressed by True Blood on Channel 4 recently. So sometimes the difference isn't *that* stark. And if I take my glasses off there's no difference at all!

As I say, a judgment call.
But it is true that these days I'm watching less broadcast TV than I used to as a result of the BBC DOG policy. Perhaps I should thank them!