"So it isn't true yet at the end it is true?"

Exactly it is true if you have a small screen or sit far away from it. It is definitely not true if you have a nice big TV and want cinema feeling (i.e. the viewing angles are big.) Digital cinemas have 4000p or something like that so for a given viewing angle even much higher resolutions like 1080p make sense and can be seen. If it is relevant for your living room I have no idea. But saying people cannot see a difference without pointing out the parameters is simply wrong.

 Edit: I just googled and modern cinema systems are so called 4k systems meaning 4096 horizontal resolution or 4096 pixels by 2160 = 2160p. 

its worth it, and with HDTV prices expected to have their prices lowered up 25% by the Fall it will be an amazing year for HDTV sales.

Well unless the cinemas that I been 2 suck though I been to a number of different ones the quality hasn't seem much different to me.  Only time I really seen a difference in picture quality is at home when watching HD broadcast or a movie on blue-ray at my cousins house.  I don't recall seeing the wrinkles when I watched the will Ferrel movie from nascar in the theather versus at home on blue-ray at my cousins house.  Yeah I guess we do have to take into account parameters and if you want some is basically coming home and turning on the TV or putting in a movie.  From SD to 720P you will notice a difference regardless of the TV but from 720P to 1080P like you said I guess it depends on parameters so really tough to argue.  Hey in the end it could just be that I need better glasses.  I still think 1080P is not needed and just a waste for all intended purposes when it comes to television and movies. 

Elnino, you're technically right. 1080p is a waste for television and movies IF you have a TV that properly deinterlaces 1080i. The signal and picture are the same. The only time 1080p improves the picture is when the content jumps over 30fps. Neither television nor movies will ever do that.

Which is why I bought a 720p television a few months ago. When the next generation of consoles release and 1080p/60hz becomes a reality for most games, I will upgrade to that resolution.

The only real reason to buy a 1080p set right now is to use it as a computer monitor or if you want the TV to last five years or more. Neither one applied to me so I went with 720p for the time being.

i can't remember the exact figures but based on the average human eye I believe to see the difference you have to be closer than

9 ft for 47" tv
7 ft for 42" tv
5 ft for 32" tv
3 ft for 24" tv

Now computers often use terrrible scaling, in addition to being under 2 ft away hence the importants for resolution in that format.

I think it is all a matter of time. The more the public is exposed to HD the more than can tell the diffference. When I first got my 42" 1080P my wife was simple pleased by the large size and wide aspect and noticed no diffference between dvds and hd. After watching a season of Lost she started to notice HD superiority to dvd (even if comcast overcompresses the feed). Now that we are another year down the road and watch House and Lost(720P) and other HD(1080i) along with some Blu-Ray(1080P) she knows the difference. She now picks up on compression artifacts in eh comcast feed and difficiencies in different scalers.

Now if you want to talk about a a waste of everyones time, it is those standalone dvd upscalers. If you cna see a difference with them that means the scaler in your tv is not working or crap(usually meaning picture quality of tv is lacking). But the worst part is these people could be payling slightly more to get a Blu-Ray player further holding back that adoption.

"1080p is a waste for television and movies IF you have a TV that properly deinterlaces 1080i. "

Really? This would be surprising to me. Do modern 720p/1080i LCD displays really have 1920*1080 pixels?This would be very surprising. I am pretty sure that my 32"LCD has 1376*768 physical pixels. I don't know what he displays when he says 1080i, but I am pretty sure that 1080p would have more details. Interlacing here, interlacing there. Its just a difference between LCDs with 768 lines and LCDs with more physical lines.

If you don't believe me, Google it. There are at least 50 articles that explain how 1080p and 1080i are visually the same if the TV handles 1080i deinterlacing properly. It's a commonly known fact that is often swept under the rug by rabid 1080p promoters.

Here are a few of the most-quoted ones:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/ 

"There are at least 50 articles that explain how 1080p and 1080i are visually the same if the TV handles 1080i deinterlacing properly"

This is true for TVs that have 1080 vertical lines. So if you have a 1080p display you may not get a better picture from 1080p then from 1080i source. But you said it doesn't make sense to buy a 1080p TV. And this is nonsense.

Why? Because most 1080i only displays at the moment have 768 physical vertical pixel lines. While 1080p displays have normally >1080 physical vertical pixel lines. And this is whats important. You cannot display 1080 vertical lines on a TV that has 768 vertical pixel resolution. Clear?

I reget to infomr you rocketpig but there are no native 1080i tvs. I have one tha twas sold as such as it was a crt tube tv. Problem is crts don't have a defined resolution. My tv and most sold as such had around 800 resolvable verticle lines when professionally calibrated. Those tvs and 720P tvs acept 1080i signals but some detail is lost compared to 1080P televeisions.

I understand that. This applies to some TVs but doesn't apply to others, such as CRTs or 1080i televisions that do not run 768 lines of resolution.