gonk,

As always I appreciate you expertise...so I can change the TV to 1080i on my AT&T U-Verse (I can get 1080i)for a better picture???...

Perhaps I will look into a BluRay player which may be priced a bit better after Thanksgiving...

Thanks!
Bill

You can give it a try - but it is possible you will like the 720p picture more if your TV's native resolution is 720p (or 768p) depending on the quality of the scaling and deinterlacing at different points in the signal path. If you output 1080i from your AT&T box, the TV will deinterlace it and convert it to its native resolution. If you output 720p from your AT&T box, the TV will still do some scaling but the AT&T box will do deinterlacing and scaling for any HD sources that are natively 1080i. If the TV has a better scaler and deinterlacer than the AT&T box, it's very possible that 1080i will look better.

thanks...
Bill

Hey gonk,

If you are referring to the earlier 1080i DLP chips that used wobulation to get to 1080i, the wobulation was actually done on the 1920 (horizontal lines) by using 960 pixels that wobbled back and forth to approximate 1920x1080.

This is why, when I bought my SXRD Sony 50" there was a clear and noticeable difference between it and the "1080" Mitsubishi right next to it.

That's what it was! Thanks, it had been so long I'd forgotten quite how their wobulation technique worked. So it was 960x1080 instead of 1920x1080, compared to 1388x768 (or one of the other 768 variations) that was standard at the time.

Right. We didn't see true 1080 fixed pixel (non-CRT) sets until Sony and JVC came out with their LCoS RPTVs.

No Gonk you were correct originally. Many of the original CRT based rear based projectors (at least Toshiba's) were based upon a 540p capability and used that to render 1080i. I don't recall the technical details but it was not wobulation which Blogging accurately displayed.

I am guessing it was easier in the early days of HDTV to produce a 540p device then a 720p. It also may be related to PAL and the original Japanese HDTV devices that were all analog.

Wobulation was used only on DLP sets.

As for CRT HDTVs, I can't comment on whether they were truly 1080i capable or if they just displayed each field (half-frame) on the same 540 lines.

Seems kind of preposterous as they'd still need 1920 lines for the width of the picture...then again I guess it's easier to do 1920x540 as opposed to 1920x1080.

IMHO, no one can buy a monitor that will handle all standards that might come into consumer usage for the life of the monitor, without adding/updating electronics that will aid in the process of converting to the native resolution of the display. The HDMI 1.3 standard has already made room for 2560x1600, and 3840x2400 for some special displays is not that far off. Although these increased resolution standards are not just around the corner in the entertainment mass market, some segments of the industry are preparing for the day.

Bottom line: if you 'must have' some of the best available, you'll have to keep spending as 'even better' comes to market. Question: how much 'better' will make a difference?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but early on in the HD evolutionary process, 720p was deemed to be better for sports due to the fact that it was 720p/60, while, as previously stated, 1080i/60 is effectively 1080p/30. Seeing a hockey puck move in 60fps vs. 30fps provided clearer tracking. That is why Fox/ESPN broadcast in 720p.

Also, as stated above, it is likely that any 1080p broadcasts are likely 1080p/30 due to the bandwidth required to broadcast 1080p/60, but they'll never tell you how many fps they're broadcasting in!

FYI. Here is a very helpful link to a chart that gives distances and screen sizes for viewing the different HD resolutions. It is based on the ability of the human eye to see detail:

http://hdguru.com/hdtv-seating-distance-chart/6/

Basically, it tells me that I need to be sitting 7 feet from my 55" SXRD to see a difference between 1080p and 720p.