Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor
The problem is you guys didn't provide any, this wasn't all about resolution, it was about color rendering smearing and artifacts in where I provided all the test results and links. I clearly have proven from demonstrable links and tests that I have won this debate. you can twist create false scenarios, and that's all you done. Can all those links I provided be wrong vs some forum that couldn't lose a debate gracefully.
LOL! Getting the last word in doesn't mean anything. The tests links and evidence is in. BTW, the Pioneer plasmas they used I'd pass the full 1080p conversion test. If you look back I provide the 2006 list of TVs that fail the deinterlace test. Also Pioneer is #1. So another one of your hail mary scenarios shot down by my verifiable links. Oh once again, the 720p ssignal beat 1080i. That's the evidence. I presented the evidence of kell and other factors. Once again 720p WON in all bitrates.
To better understand the issues about interlaced-versus-progressive scan, we consider in the following sections the idealised spectrum of the three HDTV formats: 1080p/50, 1080i/25 and 720p/ 50. In the following diagrams we apply on the three axes: cycles per vertical resolution (picture height), cycles per horizontal resolution (picture width) and a temporal resolution (cycles per second). We assume for the following consideration the impact of a vertical Kell factor and an inter- lace factor applied to the vertical resolution, although it can be assumed that the low-pass character- istic of the HDTV system will also cause a reduction in realisable horizontal resolution. Therefore we denote the Kell factor as Kv (v for vertical) and the interlaced factor with a capital “I”.
The Kell factor Kv is defined as the ratio of the number of perceived lines to the number of total active video lines and usually has a value of 0.7 . This factor was based on CRT measurements, and ideally would be measured in a non-CRT environment. The interlaced factor is field-rate dependent and is given in the literature  between 0.6 and 0.7. We use here a factor of I = 0.7 for 50 Hz field rates.
As we can see from Fig. A1, the 1920 x 1080p format has a larger horizontal and vertical resolution than the 1280 x 720p format. When a Kell factor of Kv = 0.7 is applied, both formats suffer from a reduction of vertical resolution.
In Fig. A2 we show the 1920 x 1080i format and the impact of interlace which results in a gradual reduction of vertical resolution with movement, caused by subdividing a single frame into two fields (interlaced). Fig. A2 (right) shows the 1080i/25 format with a Kell factor of Kv = 0.7 and in addition the interlace factor I = 0.7 caused by incomplete cancellation of the fields (interline twitter). Both factors further reduce the available vertical resolution of the format.
In Fig. A3 we show the idealised spectrum of the 1920 x 1080i format with Kell and interlaced factor compared to the 1280 x 720p signal with Kell factor....
From the considerations given in this Appendix we can conclude the following:
The spectral distribution of a 720p/50 and an 1080i/25 signal is basically similar in spatio-
The 720p/50 signal should provide better movement portrayal and the 1080i/25 system should provide more detail via the higher horizontal resolution;
Kell and interlaced factor both “reduce” the available resolution while the interlaced factor reduces the vertical resolution of the 1080i/25 signal. Considering all factors, a 720p/50 signal seems to have more advantages than a 1080i/25 signal;