Apple TV 1080i?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Fivepoint, I'm not really trying to pick a fight, nor attack you- simply pointing out the fact that since you have a 720p set, you are biased to argue this argument (720p = 1080 since human eyes can't see the difference).

I simply try to offer an alternative point of view when someone makes a statement like "720p=1080" so that anyone who hasn't had a good comparison doesn't just take such statements as fact. The original poster- like me and others- asked a question about a 1080 TV, presumably because he doesn't want his purchase to be the weak link in his video chain (should a new version be coming soon). 3 posts later, someone offers up that 720p vs. 1080 is irrelevant because the human eye can't see the difference. Then you chime in several times to support that statement in spite of me and others saying that we can see the difference.

The correct answer for the original poster is something closer to "eye of the beholder" and not something that justifies the current TV as is because Apple arbitrarily decided that 720p was good enough. I don't know how to say it more clearly than this: My human eyes can easily see the difference when I compare the two.

So, if I believe you and your "scientific facts," then I must not have human eyes. Or, I must be only believing I'm seeing a better picture because I have several 1080 HDTVs. Apparently there are others with non-human eyes contributing to this thread as well, or they too are only believing they are seeing a better picture because they chose 1080-capable sets. Over at avs, the same argument exists with plenty of people on both sides pitching the merits of one vs. the other. It is just another version of Mac vs. PC, Beatles vs. Stones, Ginger vs. Mary Ann, etc. There's almost always plenty of ammo to support a side; but when one accepts a selection of evidence in support of their own belief, that doesn’t make their side of a debate right for everyone.

As to "scores and scores of HD experts," to each his own. For every argument you find that supports this belief, there is counter arguments by "scores and scores" of other "experts"- on sites like avs and all over the web.

I can make a chart that looks better than that one. And if enough people see it and believe it, it can propagate across the internet and be cited as scientific proof. Similarly, if a person decides that any belief is true, they can likely find some research to support that belief. But just because they selectively find this research, doesn't make it true. For example, I'm pretty sure that Paul is not dead in spite of the fact that there is plenty of "evidence" that says he is. I'm pretty sure that perpetual motion machines don't exist, but there is plenty of "evidence" that says they do. I'm pretty sure that there is not a Loch Ness monster, but there is an awful lot of visual and text-based "expert" research- even photographs- that argue otherwise. Etc.

I appreciate that you believe 720 = 1080 per the limitations of human eyes, and thus find your own 720p set to be the optimal choice for yourself per this belief and your own research. In turn, hopefully you can appreciate that others- like me- can- or believe they can- see a difference, and thus wish that an TV version 2 would be rolled out that included the hardware to exploit the higher resolution able to be shown by our 1080 HDTVs.

Since the cost of the hardware itself probably would not change the price of a new TV platform, what's it matter anyway? Those who believe what you believe could own the existing generation and apparently be happy with its 720p max output. And those who don't buy your belief could get what they want too.

The original poster wants a device that fully exploits the TV that HE has. TV as is won't do that since it can't output native 1080 video. Telling him to buy now because his eyes won't be able to see the difference is only true if his own eyes really can't see the difference (neither you nor I can know that). Deciding that he won't be able to see a difference because of the limitations of his human eyes flies in the face of those of us who say we can a difference with our human eyes. I respect that you would believe us all wrong because the evidence you believe as fact states that we have to be wrong. Can you respect the possibility that perhaps the evidence you cite may not be absolute fact, when a number of us are saying we can see the difference?

 

[nutmac]

With 1080p becoming the norm on TVs larger than 37", I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to native 1080i and 1080p playback on Apple TV. If anything, 1080p allows (1) crispier photo viewing and (2) HD home movie enthusiasts can target just one archival high quality 1080p output that can play on Apple TV (instead of exporting 540p/720p for Apple TV and 1080p for archive).

 

[fivepoint]

If you're trying to "not start a fight" with me, then I would suggest you stop misconstruing with I said and even misquoting me. For one thing, I never said 720 = 1080. What I'm trying to do here is to help people out by actually defining what real-world differences might be between the two resolutions. Many people get overwhelmed with all of this jargon, and my post is an attempt to simplify this information. I hope it was helpful to at least someone!

What I also provided was scientific data stating at which screen size, distance, that certain resolutions are viewable in attempt to put this issue in relative importance.

I suggest you go back and read my entire posts... to get a better understanding of my perception of 1080p. Heck, I'll even highlight a few of the important points for you.

• Most people don't sit close enough to their TV to see any benefit from 1080p over 720p.
• The human eye simply can't resolve the difference between the two at normal viewing distances.
• Bottom line... 90% of customers probably won't see any benefit whatsoever from 1080p. Analyze the chart and make your own assessment. However, depending on how close you sit, how big your screen is, etc. you might.
• If you're in the market for a set, I recommend you go to the store yourself and find two tv sets which are identical models except for resolution.
• Do yourself a favor... before you buy a set, consider first how far you will sit from that set. It's just as important as screen size and resolution.

And the big one...

• That being said, and really back-on-topic, I completely agree that Apple should offer 1080p versions in their store, assuming it does not negatively affect the simplicity of the store for the majority of users. People should have a choice, and home theatre owners should have the option to get higher-quality versions to match their setup.

As for your alien eyes, I find that amazing... can you also see a difference between a 4mp camera and a 12mp camera on a wallet-sized print or even a 4x6?

 

[ftaok]

I suggest you go back and read my entire posts... to get a better understanding of my perception of 1080p. Heck, I'll even highlight a few of the important points for you.

• Most people don't sit close enough to their TV to see any benefit from 1080p over 720p.
• The human eye simply can't resolve the difference between the two at normal viewing distances.
• Bottom line... 90% of customers probably won't see any benefit whatsoever from 1080p. Analyze the chart and make your own assessment. However, depending on how close you sit, how big your screen is, etc. you might.
• If you're in the market for a set, I recommend you go to the store yourself and find two tv sets which are identical models except for resolution.
• Do yourself a favor... before you buy a set, consider first how far you will sit from that set. It's just as important as screen size and resolution.

Where are you getting your information from? What does "most viewers" mean? What is "normal viewing distances"? Where the heck did 90% come from.

It's obvious to everyone that seating distance is the key variable in being able to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p. The correct seating distance depends on who you talk to. SMPTE suggest a 30 degree viewing angle. THX suggests 36 degrees.

For me, at 7 feet, THX recommends a 72" TV. Going by your chart, I should be considering a 1440p TV, if I could afford a 72"er.

If I go with the SMPTE, I would require a 59" TV, which falls under 1080p on your chart.

So if you talk to the movie experts, they would recommend getting at least a 1080p TV at "normal" seating distances.

ft

 

[fivepoint]

Where are you getting your information from? What does "most viewers" mean? What is "normal viewing distances"? Where the heck did 90% come from.

It's obvious to everyone that seating distance is the key variable in being able to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p. The correct seating distance depends on who you talk to. SMPTE suggest a 30 degree viewing angle. THX suggests 36 degrees.

For me, at 7 feet, THX recommends a 72" TV. Going by your chart, I should be considering a 1440p TV, if I could afford a 72"er.

If I go with the SMPTE, I would require a 59" TV, which falls under 1080p on your chart.

So if you talk to the movie experts, they would recommend getting at least a 1080p TV at "normal" seating distances.

ft

Hahaha, You're right man... It's AVERAGE for people sit 7ft. from a 72" set.

I think it's possible you're suffering damaging effects from sitting that close, it's affecting your brain pattern. First of all, I posted links from experts... that's where I got my information. It's all well known information said again and again by experts in the HDTV field. No reason to be mad at me about it.

You're also quoting freaking THX standards and crap for people who want to make home theatres... I included that information in my post, and said that 1080p is exactly what you'd want for those extremely unique cases, but it has no relevance whatsoever for the average consumer.

Jeebus man, less than 90% of the public even has a widescreen TV!!! Did you know that (for example) as of 2007 the average TV size in the UK was 37"? You'd have to have that screen touching your nose to see 1080p!! Nice try though.

 

[almostinsane]

Here's a more accurate chart that the one fivepoint always posts:

Any the latest info is that 25% of US households have at least 1 HDTV.

 

[Alrescha]

Jeebus man, less than 90% of the public even has a widescreen TV!!!

If you believe this, why do you keep quoting 'normal' and 'average' statistics as if they apply to a forum about the Apple TV and home theater?

A.

 

[nutmac]

Please let 720p vs. 1080p discussions die. Manufacturers have made the "hard" decision for consumers already. Almost every TVs 40" or larger are 1080p.

Perhaps your household controls where to view the TV but in some household, people sit wherever they want. And if you can notice the differences between 1080p and 720p, more power to you. If you don't, you are wasting energy selling them a 720p TV since manufacturers have stopped making 720p for TVs 40" or larger.

That being said, and really back-on-topic, I completely agree that Apple should offer 1080p versions in their store, assuming it does not negatively affect the simplicity of the store for the majority of users. People should have a choice, and home theatre owners should have the option to get higher-quality versions to match their setup.

How is Apple upgrading Apple TV to 1080p affect simplicity? It's not like it won't playback existing 720p contents. All it will take is for the user to specify the resolution already found on existing Apple TV model. If Apple chooses to roll out 1080p contents on iTunes Store, it can use this setting (and perhaps Internet bandwidth and/or user preference) to download the appropriate version.

I just want to watch 1080p home movies and megapixel photos at 1080p on my 1080p TV. Is that too much to ask?

 

[fivepoint]

Please let 720p vs. 1080p discussions die. Manufacturers have made the "hard" decision for consumers already. Almost every TVs 40" or larger are 1080p.

Perhaps your household controls where to view the TV but in some household, people sit wherever they want. And if you can notice the differences between 1080p and 720p, more power to you. If you don't, you are wasting energy selling them a 720p TV since manufacturers have stopped making 720p for TVs 40" or larger.


How is Apple upgrading Apple TV to 1080p affect simplicity? It's not like it won't playback existing 720p contents. All it will take is for the user to specify the resolution already found on existing Apple TV model. If Apple chooses to roll out 1080p contents on iTunes Store, it can use this setting (and perhaps Internet bandwidth and/or user preference) to download the appropriate version.

I just want to watch 1080p home movies and megapixel photos at 1080p on my 1080p TV. Is that too much to ask?

I suppose the potential reduction in simplicity would arise if Apple were to offer many different sizes and formats of the same content. For each version they offer, they have to make one more button... This wouldn't be a big deal for many, but a major benefit to Apple's general philosophy is a lack of clutter and confusion.

I'd prefer they completely replace 720p with 1080p rather than having them both... but then again, the files will take up about twice as much space, so that isn't very practical for many customers either.... Tough choice.

 

[medinaroad]

I think what several people here are missing with all of their charts and stuff...is that those are fancy scientific calculations based on native resolution.

But nobody watches that. Whether you're on satellite or digital cable, or downloading it over the internet, the signal is compressed. It has to be.

After about 2 years of watching HD signals I can tell immediately, no matter how far I am from the stupid set, if the picture is 720 or 1080. The 1080 signal is compressed with a sample of over 2 million pixels. The 720 signal is compressed with a sample of just over 900,000 pixels.

The more info in the source, the better the compression. And the better the compressed picture.

And AppleTV will certainly be compressing their movies to make them deliver as fast as possible.

So forget the charts, they are irrelevant for consumers.

1080i or 1080p is, by far, a sharper, clearer picture to the naked, normal eye in normal consumer viewing circumstances.

And I won't be buying AppleTV either until they support at least 1080i.

 

[jaw04005]

You also have to keep in mind that different HDTVs scale and process content from different sources—well differently.

For example, on my 32" Samsung anything fed through the VGA input port is awful looking. This is due to the TV not processing the signal for color correction like it would an ATSC, QAM or HDMI source.

You also have to ask yourself if ABC is broadcasting their 720p programming at a lower bit rate than CBS with their 1080i programming?

I know my cable company significantly scales the bit rate on 1080i content from CBS and NBC to around the 7000 kbits/sec range. Additionally, they scale ABC's 720p feed to around the same bit rate.

ABC always looks smoother on my 720p HDTV simply because it's progressive and a lower resolution at a higher bit rate, proportionally.

There are just so many variable factors that go into 720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p, it's almost impossible to have definitive answer. Your specific TV, your cable or satellite provider and the specific programming all play a role.

By the way, the trouble with 720p LCDs is their native resolution is 1366x768. They're always scaling no matter which HD feed your using.

You should also not mistake differences in shooting and post-processing techniques for differences in resolution. Many HD TV programs are specifically shot and processed for that bright, high contrast, overly sharp look (CSI Miami). Others are processed for a more subdued, warm, film-like look (House M.D.).

I can't tell you how many people have complained to me about movies (DVD or Blu-ray) "not looking as bright" as HD TV shows.

 

[Cave Man]

Whether you're on satellite or digital cable, or downloading it over the internet, the signal is compressed...The 1080 signal is compressed with a sample of over 2 million pixels. The 720 signal is compressed with a sample of just over 900,000 pixels.

This is more a function of bit rate than image size. I have 720p movies at 6 mbps and I can see pixelation in high-motion scenes. But if I transcode at 10 mbps, that deterioration is not apparent. Likewise, if I transcode a 1080p Blu-Ray rip to about 14 mbps I do not see pixelation, but I do at 12 mbps.

 

[fivepoint]

This is more a function of bit rate than image size. I have 720p movies at 6 mbps and I can see pixelation in high-motion scenes. But if I transcode at 10 mbps, that deterioration is not apparent. Likewise, if I transcode a 1080p Blu-Ray rip to about 14 mbps I do not see pixelation, but I do at 12 mbps.

Exactly. As Cave Man says, 1080p requires a much hither bit rate to achieve the same picture quality (outside of resolution). As a general rule of thumb, things that are directly affected by bit rate (pixelation, shading, blocking, etc.) have more of an effect on PQ than resolution alone. The problem is that cable companies and dish companies are always trying to reduce the bit rate of their files. Unfortunately, because 1080 requires a much higher bitrate, it loses PQ much faster than 720 content will as the bit rate is reduced significantly.

 

[lostz711]

What is the HD encoded in iTunes? Is it 720P? I don't think Apple will have a big incentive to upgrade the Apple TV until higher resolution content is available in iTunes.

 

[basesloaded190]

What is the HD encoded in iTunes? Is it 720P? I don't think Apple will have a big incentive to upgrade the Apple TV until higher resolution content is available in iTunes.

Yes Itunes is 720p

 

[dynaflash]

This is more a function of bit rate than image size. I have 720p movies at 6 mbps and I can see pixelation in high-motion scenes. But if I transcode at 10 mbps, that deterioration is not apparent. Likewise, if I transcode a 1080p Blu-Ray rip to about 14 mbps I do not see pixelation, but I do at 12 mbps.

<laughs> hit the nail right on the head cave man. Its a common misconception as everyone bandies about 720p vs. 1080p blah blah.

Yes, your tv has a native screen size supporting one of these formats. But the term does nothing to address bitrate. Cave's observation is totally correct.

Try it yourself using HB (or your favorite video encoding software thats capable) and a 24fps 720p source (since current atv's can play it). Do one at 1000 kbps bitrate and another at 5000 kbps bitrate and you tell me which one looks better on your 720p tv. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself, and remember, they are both "720p" movies.

So, yeah 1080p in the atv would be great, but *only* if it could also support an appropriate bitrate and h.264 options to play it at the quality required for it to look decent. Okay, so you say "but my blue ray looks great on my 1080p tv" . Yep, it does. But are you realistically gonna store video at up to 30GB a pop locally, much less try to suck it through an internet pipe ? Holy hard drives batman.

As others have said, comcast is famous for compressing the bejesus out of their "HD" movies, to the point you can match them with a HB encode from an sd dvd.

There is alot more to visual quality than number of pixels. Marketers should be shot.

Otoh, thats just my .02

 

[dynaflash]

wouldn't mind if they allowed 29.967 fps 720p content like they do for 24 fps. That sure would be nice here in the states converting from an eyetv.

Plus, just an iTunes/atv software upgrade to allow it ( I've tried it by manually loading on onto my atv and it plays just fine). Kind of reminds me of when a quite firmware update suddenly allowed 640x xxx h.264 vids on the 5G ipods that previously only played 900 macroblocks.

Apples funny that way.

 

[fivepoint]

Holy hard drives batman.

LOL! "Holy hard drives batman." Hahaha, omg.

People need to get over the idea that one number (720 and 1080) determines the quality of the image. The subject, as Dynaflash taught me once upon a time, is FAR more complex.

 

[dynaflash]

People need to get over the idea that one number (720 and 1080) determines the quality of the image. The subject, as Dynaflash taught me once upon a time, is FAR more complex.

Well, its not to say that a 1080p television is not *capable* of displaying a better image, of course it is *given the proper source* (which in my opinion are in short supply). Having said that, I will leave it to others to determine if they can tell the difference in the real world.

Its been a long time but many moons ago I was into hi fi audio, always amazed me that people would sit and discuss the merits of a set of speakers with a frequency range of 20hz - 44khz or whatever. Back then it was proven that the highest frequency would only make your dog pee (or maybe open your neighbors garage door). The human ear could never pick up that frequency. But boy the marketers sure liked to toss the numbers around. It sold speakers.

I guess if you like how your 1080p tv looks, super. If your happy with your 720p set, you saved a buck and are happy. I still don't think we will see a 1080p capable atv any time soon and even if we did, it would likely have to be so neutered decoding wise that a higher bitrate cabac 720p encode would probably look better anyway. *sigh* but then again I am blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other

 

[Bartman01]

If Apple would create a 1080p capable ATV that could play ANY format that it had the processing power to handle I would buy one in a heartbeat. As it stands I am out of the market because none of the consumer devices do what I want them to do.

 

[nutmac]

While 720p at lower bitrate (e.g., 7 Mbps) would look better than 1080p at the same bitrate, we are talking about capability here. If Apple can upgrade Apple TV to handle 1080p without increasing cost, why not? It's not like 720p contents become obsolete all of a sudden.

With hard disks getting cheaper every year (1 TB USB hard disk costs $150-170), storage capacity should no longer represent the critical path to 1080p. While 1080p download over the Internet would require substantial bandwidth (and with ISPs such as Comcast adding bandwidth cap, highly understandable concern), 1080p capability would allow sharper rendering of Apple TV UI, photos, home movies, and Blu-Ray backups.

And dynaflash, it has been said already but 1080p is no longer a premium feature on TV sets 40" or larger. You owning a 720p set shouldn't penalize 1080p owners to 720p.

 

[dynaflash]

While 720p at lower bitrate (e.g., 7 Mbps) would look better than 1080p at the same bitrate, we are talking about capability here. If Apple can upgrade Apple TV to handle 1080p without increasing cost, why not? It's not like 720p contents become obsolete all of a sudden.

But, as I said, to play 1080p *properly* and as it should be played, you cannot do it for the same cost afaik.

With hard disks getting cheaper every year (1 TB USB hard disk costs $150-170), storage capacity should no longer represent the critical path to 1080p. While 1080p download over the Internet would require substantial bandwidth (and with ISPs such as Comcast adding bandwidth cap, highly understandable concern), 1080p capability would allow sharper rendering of Apple TV UI, photos, home movies, and Blu-Ray backups.

Um, your gonna back up 30GB per movie blu ray on what ? yes, disk space is cheaper than ever, but c'mon, how big of a library do you think you will need to hit a terrabyte ? Not much at 20 - 30 GB a pop.

And dynaflash, it has been said already but 1080p is no longer a premium feature on TV sets 40" or larger. You owning a 720p set shouldn't penalize 1080p owners to 720p.

*shrugs* as I said, whatever floats your boat. Not that it matters much, but I happen to own both, 720p at 42" and 1080p at 50". Both hooked to atv's. Afaik I am not "penalizing" anyone, but merely pointing out my observations. You advocate 1080p, then knock yourself out.

I still say don't expect a 1080p atv anytime soon (to speak to the OP), but who knows, I suppose weirder things have happened.

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea of what's required to properly decode 1080p h.264 at say ... a modest 10,000 kbps bitrate with cabac and decent video options smoothly (forget streaming btw) ? Its *alot* more than the hardware that is currently in the atv. Boy, and you think it gets hot now !

 

[nutmac]

But, as I said, to play 1080p *properly* and as it should be played, you cannot do it for the same cost afaik.

Apple encodes 720p contents at 4 Mbps bitrate, which falls short of Blu-Ray, but almost all will perceive it to be superior to DVD.

You may smirk at this lowly bitrate, but DirecTV uses 8-9 Mbps, Dish about 9-10 Mbps, and Comcast 10-12 Mbps for 1080p (all with H.264 or similar codec).

Serious home theater buffs will accept nothing less than Blu-Ray of course, but you can get very good image quality at 15 Mbps (which is what Dish's acclaimed 1080p video-on-demand uses). 15 Mbps = 6-7 GB per hour, enough for 70 or so average feature films on 1 TB hard disk. While 70 may not be enough for heavy collectors, it's enough for most and affordable 2 TB hard disk should be out by the time it's filled up.

No, it doesn't take a multi-core expensive CPU to decode 1080p 15 Mbps H.264 contents. All AVCHD camcorder can do it, you just need a GPU that can handle it. Apple TV is over 1.5 years old and I have a hard time believing that there hasn't been an advancement in semiconductor industry to handle such task.

I still say don't expect a 1080p atv anytime soon (to speak to the OP), but who knows, I suppose weirder things have happened.

If the prospect of Apple releasing updated Apple TV with 1080p is weird, then you live in a very slow world. But you may be right. Apple considers Apple TV to be a hobby product and 1080p is probably a low priority item.

As for me, I just want my photos and home movies to utilize my TV's resolution.

 

[dynaflash]

If the prospect of Apple releasing updated Apple TV with 1080p is weird, then you live in a very slow world.

I never said "weird", I just thought it unlikely any time soon.
Yes, I suppose I do live in a slow world. Particularly when it comes to video encoding. Touche' 'nuff said.

 

[Electro Funk]

If you're trying to "not start a fight" with me, then I would suggest you stop misconstruing with I said and even misquoting me. For one thing, I never said 720 = 1080. What I'm trying to do here is to help people out by actually defining what real-world differences might be between the two resolutions. Many people get overwhelmed with all of this jargon, and my post is an attempt to simplify this information. I hope it was helpful to at least someone!

What I also provided was scientific data stating at which screen size, distance, that certain resolutions are viewable in attempt to put this issue in relative importance.

I suggest you go back and read my entire posts... to get a better understanding of my perception of 1080p. Heck, I'll even highlight a few of the important points for you.

• Most people don't sit close enough to their TV to see any benefit from 1080p over 720p.
• The human eye simply can't resolve the difference between the two at normal viewing distances.
• Bottom line... 90% of customers probably won't see any benefit whatsoever from 1080p. Analyze the chart and make your own assessment. However, depending on how close you sit, how big your screen is, etc. you might.
• If you're in the market for a set, I recommend you go to the store yourself and find two tv sets which are identical models except for resolution.
• Do yourself a favor... before you buy a set, consider first how far you will sit from that set. It's just as important as screen size and resolution.

And the big one...

• That being said, and really back-on-topic, I completely agree that Apple should offer 1080p versions in their store, assuming it does not negatively affect the simplicity of the store for the majority of users. People should have a choice, and home theatre owners should have the option to get higher-quality versions to match their setup.

As for your alien eyes, I find that amazing... can you also see a difference between a 4mp camera and a 12mp camera on a wallet-sized print or even a 4x6?

and just a little more to back up your argument...

1080i HDTV continues the tradition of interlaced scanning, and brings with it the interlace quality penalties. In the DTV world, each scanning line is made up of samples, called pixels. In 1080i, each line is made up of 1,920 pixels, which is in some cases reduced to 1,440 pixels. There are 1,080 lines in each complete frame, and 540 lines in each field, a little more than double the number of lines in an NTSC frame and field respectively. 1080i is usually transmitted with a frame rate of about 30 frames per second, as is NTSC.

The other HDTV scanning format, 720P, is a progressively-scanned format. Each 720P line is made up of 1,280 pixels, and there are 720 lines in each frame. 720P is typically transmitted at about 60 full frames per second, as opposed to 1080i's 60 half-frames per second. This affords 720P some significant advantages in picture quality over 1080i, advantages such as improved motion rendition and freedom from interlace artifacts.

The advocates of 1080i HDTV support their cause with a flurry of numbers: 1080 lines, 1920 pixels per line, 2 million pixels per frame. The numbers, however, don't tell the whole story. If we multiply 1920 pixels per line times 1080 lines, we find that each 1080i frame is composed of about two million pixels. 1080i advocates are quick to point out that a 720P frame, at 1280 pixels by 720 lines, is composed of about one million pixels. They usually fail to mention that during the time that 1080i has constructed a single frame of two million pixels, about 1/30 second, 720P has constructed two complete frames, which is also about two million pixels. Thus, in a given one-second interval, both 1080i and 720P scan out about 60 million pixels. The truth is that, by design, the data rates of the two scanning formats are approximately equal, and 1080i has no genuine advantage in the pixel rate department. In fact, if the horizontal pixel count of 1080i is reduced to 1440, as is done in some encoders to reduce the volume of artifacts generated when compressing 1080i, the 1080i pixel count per second is less than that of 720P.

per http://forum.dvdtalk.com/archive/t-519273.html and many other sources.

as i said i own a 720p a 1080i and a 1080p set.

the clear winner is obviously 1080p. but when it comes to the other 2 sets, especially when watching something fast action, i think my 720p set looks better than the 1080i.

facts will back up that there is no noticeable difference other than when watching something in fast action... then i actually think my 720p set displays a better picture due to the reasons above. (than the 1080i)

Although there is nothing like watching bluray on my 73" 1080p set. gorgeous.

all in all it comes down to the eye of the beholder. people can argue facts all day long. it's what the picture looks like to "them" is what counts.

if one is happy with their HDTV purchase, then that is all that really matters. no?