@ RocketPig

From your Wikipedia article:

"1080p is the shorthand name for a category of display resolutions"

Note, how its states resolutions rather than resolution. Your own source, name me a few 1080p resolutions.

I can list you 100 TVs that are advertised as 1080p and have a 1920x1080 resolution.

Name me ONE that is advertised 1080p with a resolution other than that. Simple request if you're correct about this, right?

BTW, it's real simple. If, theoritically speaking, a manufacturer was to make a 4:3 1080p television set, it would be 1350x1080. Still higher than your 1280x1080 GT5p resolution, which is actually used for 16:9 aspect ratios, not 4:3.

Methinks you're seriously confused about how "interlaced" and "progressive" work. There aren't multiple resolutions in progressive format, unless the aspect ratio of the actual device is different.

If rocketpig won't name a few, I will.

1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30, 1080p50, 1080p60. They're in that same article.

*chuckles*

I did some Bestbuy.com searching for giggles. Only one I found that says 1080p but is not 1920 x 1080 is

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8400624&productCategoryId=pcmcat96200050057&type=product&tab=2&id=1179877503499#productdetail

It's resolution is actually 1920x1200, which is probably why it costs 33,000 dollars.

Doesn't prove Mike right, but I just thought I'd share what I found ^^;;

Heh, nice find. I suspect that they advertise that as 1080p just because it's a well-known marketing term and because technically, the television can do that resolution (and better).

edit: The reason for that resolution is that it is actually 16:10, the format used for computer monitors. 

Probably right Rocketpig, I just figured I'd throw you what I found. This is what I found when searching the high end, when searching the low end of prices that had 1080p in the name I found nothing that was went against what you said.

I understand what you're saying, Mike, and I agree that some reviewers will put some focus on technical specs of a game, but in the end it comes down to "how much does the reviewer like the game".  Remember, Bioshock got the rare 10-out-of-10 rating in Game Informer.  Mass Effect received a 9.75-out-of-10 rating.  Halo 3 received a 9.75-out-of-10 rating.

A LOT of potential customers read that magazine. 

So... do you believe that in the future Game Informer will refuse to ever give high scores to 360 games because they run at hardware-scaled 640p or 720p instead of native-1080p, or because the frame-rate isn't as high as the PS3's, etc.?  I would say the reviewer-focuses-on-raw-specs-instead-of-overall-experience theory is dead, wouldn't you?

As far as consumers noticing, I would say it's a red herring.  I'm playing Mass Effect and it looks and sounds beautiful to me.  Yeah, every once in a while the movement has a slight "skip" in the movement.  I'm a video-phile and an engineer by trade, so it's not like I don't pay attention to these things.  The question is not "how much more potential horsepower is under the PS3 hood?"  The question is "do PS3 games give the customer a significantly enhanced experience to sway customer choice?"  At this point, the Blu-ray player and the emergence of long awaited games such as GT5 and MGS4 may be the driving factors, not "oh, wow!  Look at the pores in Snake's skin!!". 

Wow. Sony told me they will win and that the other guys are done. Guess I should buy some stock.

"We have good games coming some time in the next 18 months. All the other guys' good games are already available so you can play them now, perhaps at cheaper used prices or GOTY prices with added content. And they may be making more good games we don't now about yet. So we're better. Ha ha."

Yes. Sounds about right.

Most 720p (HD Ready) advertised TVs have a slightly higher native resolution. Content is being up- or downscaled by a scalar chip to the TV's native resolution, like 1366×768.