so not 1080p, is what you are admitting, they only look good close to 1080p, but again not native 1080....

and dynamic scaling of resolution is avalible for osx, apps can be rendered at different resolutions on the same screen as your main ui, there was  a pretty cool pattent right up on independent dynamic reolution for apps, not quite sure why they developed it, but nice to know its there. 

No, the only game mentioned that doesn't render at a native 1080p is MGS4. It allegedly runs at 1024x768.

GT5P runs at 1280x1080, 1440x1080 in playback mode and 1920x1080 in garage and menu modes.

Wipeout HD runs at 1920x1080 down to 1280x1080 using a similar pixel filler under max load in anamorphic mode. It uses the PS3's horizontal hardware scaler (yes, hardware based) to fill in the remaining pixels when the frame buffer overloads.

From a technical standpoint (put the console opinions aside: they're just plastic boxes), this is still defined as 1080p.

The higher vertical resolution has been found to produce smoother images than the typical 16:9 aspect ratio 1280x720 upscaled to 1920x1080. It's a pretty significant difference to anyone who has seen the difference and knows specifically what to look for. The sharpness is retained, whereas a 1280x720 signal softens noticeably when upscaled.

It's still just compensating for the fact that the PS3 still can't generate standard, native render 1920x1080p visuals at a playable frame rate for games with heavy effects, objects and hardware overhead, but technically, still 1080p.

The bottom line is the picture still looks sharper and more defined for games that use these display modes.

While true, it has become a poor definition in my opinion as we generally no longer deal with analog signals. Since digital has a well defined number of horizontal pixels, simply refering to lines doesn't give the whole picture anymore (perhaps it never did in analog systems either).

As 720p and 1080p are generally defined as 1280x720 and 1920x1080 respectively, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to think when it says 1080p on the box that it actually does 1920x1080.

You can't go by the box.

MS started labeling all of its Xbox games as 720p/1080i/1080p after a firmware update automatically upscaled all content to 1080p. To most, this implies the games are "1080p" when it really only refers to the HDTV display modes the games are compatible with.

Halo 3 as an example, is natively rendered at 1152x640 but clearly marked "720p/1080i/1080p"

But if you can't notice the difference between a 640p, a 720p, a 1080i (which many assume/assert looks "as good as 1080p") or 1080p signal, there's really no point in quibbling over it anyway even if it makes you feel like are or aren't getting your pixel's worth out of your games.

If your criteria to label something as 1080p is the output resolution, my genesis outputs 1080p too =)

Either it renders natively at 1920x1080 or it doesn't. Everything else are just uprezzing shenanigans which show that the ps3 can't handle rendering those kind of visuals at that resolution. Those non-square anamorphic pixels still have one single value, so there isn't any additional detail there.

I got 4 ps3 games on Saturday, Ridge racer 7 is the only one I’ve played so far, I also got burn out paradise, lair and enchanted arms (the later 3 are Christmas pressies from the wife so I only have ridge racer for now) Any way, ridge racer, which says on the box it renders at 1080 looks SWEET as! no pixel stepping or anything! Is that a game that’s actually rendering in 1080p native or is it using one of those fancy up scaling techniques you guys have been talking about to achieve what looks like a perfect 1080 signal?

I'm interested in knowing because If these ps3 games are using fancy up scaling technology to produce what actually looks like a 1080p signal then it will dictate which console I purchase my multiplatform games on. For example, assassins creed on 360 is full of pixel stepping when it’s up scaling, does it do that on ps3 too? Or does it use some fancy method of producing an image that could be easily mistaken for native 1080p? How many ps3 games actually make use of these fancy up scaling concepts?

No, your Sega Genesis doesn't and neither does mine. It doesn't even render natively at standard def resolutions.

And 1080 lines of native rendered progressive scan video is still... wait for it...

1080p(rogressive)

No, it's not the same as a 1920x1080 image when it renders as anything but 1920x1080 pixels, but since this has turned into a technical debate over semantics, it's still 1080 lines of progressive scan video.

Don't take my word for it. Do the research yourself.

Personally, I'd be happier if ALL games, regardless of platform would have the native render resolution listed so people wouldn't have to rely on Some Guy with the handle of Quaz51 to let everyone know what the actual resolutions are.

Yeah but since your definition wether a game is 1080p or not is just the output, all I need is to hook it to an upscaler and boom Sonic 1 1080p, am i rite?

Since all the HD these days is done digital, the old analog scan lines concept isn't used anymore so no, 1080 lines of progresive scan video doesn't qualify as 1080p anymore. You can check the ITU paper on the subject (the ITU being the international organisation that set the standard). Heck, even the SMPTE has abandoned that terminology since it's not forward (not even current...).

Actually if we were to truly dig deep, no game renders at 1080p as per the ITU requirements, since there's a buncha things besides resolution (colorspace and all that jazz). It's the output chip that conforms the framebuffer to the 1080p standard.

Not correct. Displaying a DVD (480 line signal) at 1080p does not equal a native 1080 signal. The native source of the video signal is still 480 lines of resolution, regardless of how you want to upscale it, whether interlaced or progressive scan.

Similarly, displaying a 480 line signal (ie Wii native output) at 1080p mode does not equal a native 1080 signal. Displaying a Wii video signal on a 1080p display that upscales to 1080p does not equal "HD Wii." Nobody said this. Does anyone even think this? The source video signal is still being rendered at 480 lines of resolution which could be either a 4:3 aspect ratio with a horizontal resolution of 640 pixels, or 16:9 at 720. It's still defined as a 480p signal.

A signal being rendered at 1080 lines of resolution and transmitted via "HD" connection is still being rendered at 1080 simultaenously generated lines or rows of pixels, regardless of whether it's 1920x1080, 1440x1080, 1280x1080 or even a 1:1 aspect ratio 1080x1080. Vertical resolution is the definining factor whether you call them lines or rows of pixels.

It is generally assumed that a 1080p signal is 16:9 aspect ratio (1920x1080), but it still refers to the lines of vertical resolution. To say otherwise is the same thing as saying a 480p signal is only a 480p signal if it renders at 720x480, implying a 640x480 signal is "not 480p" which would be completely incorrect. 

All digital displays display in progressive scan mode by definition in that they generate a full field of pixels at once. Even if there are no cathode ray beams that paint scan lines on the back of a phospor coated tube, the terminology is still used by TV broadcast industry, film industry, etc. It's used internationally. So it's not just some hold over definition from the days of analog scan lines.