Originally Posted by trgraphics
I'm, sure your right. The better the source the better the picture. But, you wouldn't make statements about the quality or lack thereof of 1080i when you set is not capable of displaying it, would you?
plazman may have his reasons to do so, and he is more than capable of defending his results.
What is most important to me is that you run the same tests on the same test bed (television) under the same conditions (cable, resolution, disc, calibration, and so forth). As long as there is no gross neglagence in terms of testing, I frankly don't care what conclusions are derives.
Like I said, I'm sure it looks good.But it is not displaying the capabilities of the players. How can you say 1080i looks good or bad when all your seeing is 1365 x768p not 1920x1080? That is a fairly big difference in resolution. At least to my eyes.
Yes, there is a huge difference in raw pixels, but the contention is not really 1080i as 1080i, but rather 1080i as a means of transporting the video. The comparions were made in the same configurations, which to me is the most important aspect.
Should he run the tests again at 720p, yes. The more data you have, the more information you have to pool together to make a more informed decision.
However, one thing we have to remember, is that not every user will have a 1080i/1080p display. As such, it is important to test the abilities of these units in all aspects, and not just the "optimal".