It’s the glorious new medium that’s going to revolutionise our viewing experience, the technological breakthrough that will change the way we make and watch everything from cinema to live television. But is high-definition (HD) video and television welcomed by everyone or is there a downside to a medium that can show us more than we ever needed to see?

It’s Oscar night: my first HD experience in front of the cameras. I’m invited to appear on Sky’s all-night coverage of the awards and I’ve done my own make-up beforehand. However, an apologetic make-up artist explains that my efforts just won’t cut the mustard under the all-seeing eye of HD. She fires up a machine that resembles something used to spray-paint lorries and air-brushes my face to a blank, white kabuki mask. My features are then painted back on. I’m not sure how I looked on camera as I haven’t dared to watch it, but in the flesh I looked like a hod-carrier in drag.

In very basic terms, high-definition television is a digital broadcasting system that operates with a significantly higher resolution — as much as twice the linear resolution of standard-definition television. This translates as better picture quality, more clarity, smoother movement and a richer range of colours. And the technology to receive these enhanced images has advanced as well. The best new HD television sets can display about two million pixels, nearly ten times the resolution of a normal television. Plus HD televisions tend to be massive, magnifying the talking heads that used to chatter inconspicuously in the corner of the room.

Not all HDTV broadcasts have to be shot on high-definition video, but much of it is. HD video is capable of recording images with a significantly higher resolution than conventional systems such as NTSC and PAL. To shoot on HD video, you need a state-of-the-art digital video camera. This technology is not available to the average home movie buff — yet.

This air-brushed make-up is one technique that the industry has come up with to counter a key problem with HD: it shows too much. And while a nature documentary gets more beautiful the more minute detail is revealed, humans, unfortunately, don’t. Blemishes, errant eyebrows, pockmarks and spots — all practically scream at the viewer. Barely perceptible plastic surgery scars on American news anchors are suddenly so pronounced that it looks as if he or she was sewn together by Dr Frankenstein’s less-gifted younger brother. And the technology has apparently cause shockwaves in the porn industry, turning titillation into a horror show of shaving rash and cellulite.

Are these just the teething problems that plague any new format or are film and television going to have to adapt to fit in with high definition’s unforgiving glare? In cinema HD has been reasonably widely adopted, including by such big names such George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez and Michael Mann. But it’s in the lower-budget film-making bracket that HD really makes a difference.

The director Neil Hunter shot his previous movie, Lawless Heart, on film, but switched to HD for his latest, Sparkle (released later this year). He has been pleasantly surprised: “People talked about the possible breakdown of equipment, needing an engineer on set. But we had a director of photography who believed in not using the very latest camera. That was a big relief, because there had been a lot of anxiety on that front.” A plus for HD is that it is quicker and cheaper — Hunter estimated that they were able to shoot twice as many takes as on film. “I wonder if in five to ten years people will be totally mystified by this debate.”

Also in favour of HD is Chris Titus King, the cinematographer on television documentaries and dramas including Genghis Khan and Daphne, the forthcoming BBC Daphne du Maurier biopic. “It just requires everyone to up their level of excellence. Make-up artists, costume people, the design team. It means we have all got to rise to the challenge.

“It requires careful lighting and careful consideration, but that is a good thing because I think the TV industry — I’m going to pick my words carefully — has been opened to a lot of people who have less experience than they should. If wigs are put on badly and they’re not very flatteringly lit, it’s not high def showing up itself, it’s high def showing up people’s skills.”

But there is a downside. Some industry insiders have speculated that HD might bring about a change as revolutionary as the advent of sound in cinema, which effectively killed off the careers of some of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Could Cameron Diaz, whose bad skin is magnified by HD, go the same way as Clara Bow and her abrasive Brooklyn accent?

The actress Loo Brealey, who worked with HD on the television adaptation of Bleak House, is candid. “High-definition telly — these things are designed for ant’s a***holes, not to show actors at their best.” She predicts a gradual change in the criteria that influence casting. “There is an aspirational element in terms of the look of people on film and television. It used to be easier to make silk purses out of sows’ ears. That’s not so possible any more, it places more of an onus on the cinematographer, it takes longer and on certain budgets it’s just not possible. I think when it all goes HD, either we decide that we don’t mind seeing our actors and actresses literally warts and all, or casting changes.”

Explore Film

• Film Reviews

• Trailers

• DVD

• London Film Festival

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of the Decade
• 70 facts you didn't know about Marvel
• The 50 Biggest Movies Of 2010