there is a reason 1080p cost more than 720p, it looks better.

It still boggles my mind how the differences in picture quality between 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p (along with the up-scaled version of all the above) are not visible to some people. Especially when the differences are so painfully obvious to me on a TV even as small as a 32" set and depending on build quality, even smaller. (PC monitor's excluded).
I also feel the same way with audio sources. I am not, as xlot4 stated, a "Tech Specs Junkie". I just am knowledgeable to what the specs mean and how they relate to the differences I see and hear.

nightsurge said: mrstickball said: chingrin - That may be mostly due to the fact one is a Samsung and one is a Sony. I wonder what the price difference between a Samsung and a Bravia is... As for me, I really enjoy my Samsung 50" 720p Plasma. I saved a ton (about $500) by purchasing a 720p over a 1080p. For me, it made the most sense since I own a 360, and wanted to get a larger TV, even if I had to sacrifice a small bit of picture quality to get a killer deal. A lot of the issue also comes down to the TV you buy. Not all TVs are created equal. You need to pay attention to what the picture quality is like, as a Visio is unlikely to look as good as a Sony (of course, a Visio is about half the price). Also, none of the OP statements really have anything to do with Blu-Ray. You are going to get a huge difference between a upper-converted DVD on a 720p vs. a blu-ray. Just because it *can* do 1080p doesn't mean it doesn't look purdy on a 720p First off, it's Vizio, with a "z".  And their picture quality is way up there with the rest of them.  They are not half the price of the competition, but they are definitely cheaper.  I'm glad they exist because they represent some of the highest quality sets for the price they should be at.  Maybe if they keep dominating the market in the US the other manufacturers will lower their prices too. If you research Vizio's sets at all, you'll see how they compete pixel for pixel with all the other top brands.  For their price I doubt any set can even come close to them in terms of features and picture quality.

I apologize. I knew it was Vizio, but didn't realize I had spelled it right.

Unfortunately, where I live, Vizio sets are only seen at general retailers like Wal-Mart. I guess it may just be the techs that set them up, but the picture quality on 'em is horrible. I've heard good things about Vizio, but my real-life experience has stated otherwise. At any rate, I am indeed glad that there is a low-cost good quality set out there. Colin Cowherd from ESPN has been promoting them for some time, so it does have some good promoters behind it.

^They definitely seem to favor Walmart type retailers just because they are like the everyday person's HD set. Out of the box, the quality may not match up to some other sets, but if you get a higher end Vizio like the XVT series and take a few minutes or so to properly calibrate it, they match up very well with other more expensive sets.

Bringing up old 2x DVD drives as reasoning why you can't playback HD res video on DVD media is really just for the sake of a pretty pointless argument.

Most, if not all old computers that shipped with a 2x DVD drive, wouldn't be able to play back any 1920x1080 video files, even when stored on HDD.

The argument pretty much ignores the fact that anything less than 8x is a rarity these days and anything pre-dating that very modest standard basically predates HD video formats.

You also are a bit off as far as stating that lower bit rate via higher compression requires additional computing power over lower compression, higher file size video. Contrary example: non-compressed HD video won't play without huge frame drops, reading off a regular HDD on a current system with decent specs. Even a modest 1280x720 uncompressed file.

You also glossed over two key phrases which should have stopped you from bringing up old hardware in the first place.

"...if I burn a 1920x1080 QT movie trailer to DVD, I'll still be able to get a normal frame rate if I play it off the DVD drive of any current computer."

"But the point was a 1920x1080p signal can be stored (and played back) on just about any storage media, assuming the data bit rate doesn't exceed the format/drive."

Lastly: a 10Mbs 1920x1080 video clip plays just fine off of DVD. I'm watching it right now on a laptop.

Again, none of that matters. Play that same file, on any DVD player, be it a computer or a player. Run into problems? Oh thats right, because DVD was never made for that. Also, a 10 Mbps video file at 1080? Where please enlighten me. At 1080p 30 FPS, just pure video signal the bitrate is between 15-20, add audio, and then add features like subtitles etc? Bit-rat fluctuates true, and may dip down as low as 10 Mbps, but thats pure signal. Normal bit-rat for a 1080p for blu-ray video is 45-70 Mbps.

It is wholly possible to have DVD media play on a CD, you just have minutes of video instead of hours. The same way you can have Blu-ray media play on a DVD, you just get minutes instead of hours.
A normal DVD set top player will not be able to play the Blu-Ray media format. No one ever argued that once. DVD set top players will not have the built in codecs for it. Just like how some DVD set top players will play DIVX CD's/DVD's and some won't. But if you have a DVD player on a computer that has the proper codecs and player that can reckognize the Blue-Ray media format, you can play Blu-Ray video from a DVD without any issue on a Blu-Ray player since it has the codecs..
When I only had CD's and had wanted to burn .vob video files from an old DVD, I was able to copy it to the CD and watch it at full DVD quality.

Computers, and DVD players have this thing called RAM. They read the data and then store it in RAM and then play it from RAM since it is faster. Even Blu-Ray players use this mystical thing. The read process on any spinning disk is often too slow or too inconsistent to stream directly off the spinning medium and directly to the video output. If the read happens to miss a single bit, it will have to wait until next rotation to read that single bit.

1)Console will be 1080P only next gen.
Now there is already some 1080p game like wipeout, GOD OF WAR COLECTION, Gran Turismo 5, 2D games etc.

2) The difference between 1080p and 720p when watching blu-ray is 2.31 better.
1200X720=864000 pixels
1900X1080= 2052000 pixels

2052000/864000 =2.31 ratio
TWICE AS MANY PIXEL, or 118800 more pixels to be exactly.

3)The 720p tv sold are 13666x864, meaning it is not tative 720, so streches the image.

4) 720p is a poor mans HDTV. And is only a a HD scam. The new standard is 1080P.

From one perspective I guess smaller sets have better quality than larger (ceterus parabus). Its that the lighting quality from the backlight is better on a smaller set than a larger set and its the quality of the backlight which can dictate the quality of the colour reproduction. You also can have less light bleeding around the edge of the set.

Generally though, smaller set and resolution means less detail in the image.  Nothing that I suspect would trouble current games on PS3/360 too much, but noticable with a BR film like Blade Runner or 1080p HD content.