These would be controversial questions.. Perceiving from human eyes of a normal end-user (you and me)..

Assuming watching a blu-ray and HD-DVD:

1. 720p VS 1080i?

Some people I asked, they said no, they don't see a difference watching a movie using a 52" 1080p 60hz LCD panel in 720p and 1080i mode) Anyone can see the difference? I did a test with my HPTC and my dad's Year2003 56" 1080i Sony rear-Projector. Honestly, I don't see a difference.

2. 1080i VS 1080p?

People said no, (can't tell the difference between the interlace mode and the progressive mode using a 52" 1080p 60hz LCD panel) Anyone can see the difference? Can you really see the interlace line running across your display during the fast-moving action scene?

3. 60Hz VS 120Hz?

When I was comparing the two Sony panel 60Hz VS 120Hz at Circuit City, I see there's a hugh difference. 120Hz is much more smoother and more depth to the picture.

But when I watch a 60Hz alone (walk away from the 120Hz) I don't see any picture lags. Is it worth the extra $$$ for the 120Hz? Human eyes can percieve a maximum of 60fps, correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, then 120Hz doesn't output 120fps. 120fps outputs 60fps? 60Hz output 30fps?

If the answer to all the above questions are "No", then we should buy 720p 60hz??, which might be pretty much the same as watching a 1080p 120Hz? And save $$$?


Regards,
Sappy

PS: Are all these just marketing gimmicks?

720 vs 1080 YES, there is a difference. most people say they dont see a diff bc they have no clue what the difference is. If you pay attention to contouring and sharpness there is definitely a diff. Not to mention that most channels give you 1080 why even think about 720.

^^ The OP is talking about the TV not the signal.

For most folks the answer is.....it depends. It depends on their eyes, the room conditions, the TV and most of all subjectivity. I think the TV technology is slowly approaching the point of diminishing returns. Yes, there were huge gains from the days of analog TV signals and VCR type resolutions to todays' 1080i HD signal and DVD resolutions. But going to 1080p and BR type resolutions (and 120Hz) the gains are much more subtle and for some/many not worth the increased cost.

For the average TV viewer you'll be hard pressed to have them notice much difference between a $800 42" name brand flat screen and some upgraded TV at twice the cost. And if they do see some difference most of them wouldn't be willing to pay for it at those price differences.

I agree with the statement above it depends on the person's vision, how close they are sitting to the TV, screen size etc... I have an older Toshiba 34" CRT HDTV 1080i and a new Toshiba 32" 1080p flat panel and watching both there is a big difference to me.

1. 720p VS 1080i?
720p is better. After watching my 1080i TV for several years,when I go over to a friends house and see their 720p, I notice the lines and edges are sharper on a 720p.

2. 1080i VS 1080p?
Definitely 1080p. Watching the World series on both I could see sharper graphics,more detail and slightly better picture on 1080p even on a 32" TV.

3. 60Hz VS 120Hz?
I can't tell the difference. I stared at both for several minutes at Best Buy last week watching the World Series and could hardly tell the difference.

3. 60Hz VS 120Hz?
I can't tell the difference. I stared at both for several minutes at Best Buy last week watching the World Series and could hardly tell the difference.

Isn't 120Hz supposed to make a difference only for film-sourced (24p) movies on Blu-Ray or HD DVD?

Comparing the interlaced to the progressive is going to depend more on the TVs de-interlacing algorithm than the resolution, IMO. When interlace artifacts show up they're obvious. 60Hz vs 120Hz is should be obvious during pans on 24p material. If you're seeing more "depth" to the picture (not sure what you mean by that... contrast? Resolution? Color saturation?) it's probably some other difference between the sets.

Comparing the interlaced to the progressive is going to depend more on the TVs de-interlacing algorithm than the resolution, IMO. When interlace artifacts show up they're obvious. 60Hz vs 120Hz is should be obvious during pans on 24p material. If you're seeing more "depth" to the picture (not sure what you mean by that... contrast? Resolution? Color saturation?) it's probably some other difference between the sets.

I should use the word "realistic" rather than more "depth" to the picture. I also found the answer to my own question.

Yes, 120Hz is certainly better than 60Hz watching movies. The pictures look better on 120Hz is because movies and films are shot at 24fps (majority). 24Hz X 5 = 120Hz, using the 5:5 pulldown. This means no judder and drop frames.

As for 60Hz, 24fps go thru the 3:2 pulldown (3 first frames, 2 second frames). This is an issue when panning.

When you watch world cup series from broadcast, it is shot at 30fps (29.997fps) 60Hz can use 2:2 pulldown and 120Hz will use 2:2 pulldown displaying at 60Hz also. Therefore you see no gain.

Nothing Broadcasted OTA currently that i have heard is sent up to par with 120Hz thus no difference in picture quality. One could try to make an arguement that 120Hz is better for OTA the only slight difference there would be is predictive movements and such, but it has no other source to get the other 60Hz source to make the predictive movements, so its over sapm;ing to make a better picture which could cause more stress for the TV and cause it to create issues or have to many issues and have a shorter life-span.

1) My TV is only 1080i capable so I do not see the advantages of 720p. However I do notice the picture resolution of 1080i is better as there are 50% more pixles in each direction.

2) I have done tests with the difference between 480 interlaced and 480 progressive scan. When a scene is slowly panned, 480 interlaced has terrible jagged edges on everything. This goes away with 480 progressive scan. I am sure this is also true between 1080i and 1080p.

3) No actual experience with this. However if displaying at 60 fps and the source is 24 fps the TV must repeat one frame 3 times then repeat the next frame 2 times. This I would expect to result in a picture that is not as smooth.

Just my $.02.

Rick R