PhilE has got it spot on here. I'd only add that (as I'm sure he's saying) in any display device, there's more to picture quality than simple resolution. Ask someone who knows about cameras (not me) and you'll learn that the quality of the lens has as much to do with final picture quality as the resolution of the device itself. With projectors, the same is true: two projectors sharing the same 1920 x 1080 Texas Instruments DarkChip 3 DMD (the top banana) can still have different picture quality, which directly reflects variables such as scaling and deinterlacing, optics, light engine (lamp quality, essentially) and more.
With a TV, the same is true. Full HD isn't necessarily the automatic path to video enlightenment. On paper, it's a good thing - but only (and I must stress only) after other picture quality variables have been taken into account. All I mean by that is this: I've seen some very poor Full HD TVs. That's poor even when fed by a grand's worth of Blu-ray deck connected by another hundred quid's worth of HDMI cable, and then given the best-quality disc transfers I know of.
Conversely, I've seen some HD-Ready sets that look terrific. That's partially because, as PhilE mentions, it's hard for the human eye to discern small differences in pixel pitch in smaller screen sizes (Full HD really only starts to make a huge difference in TVs above 50in, and most obviously, in projectors). But it's also because, like I said at the start, there's more to a great picture than simply resolution. Panasonic's affordable PX70-series of 37in, 42in and 50in plasmas are great TVs: not Full HD, true, but still, great. And as for the Kuro.well, you'll have to wait a few days for the next issue to find out!