Quote:
Originally Posted by
AppleZilla 
Nope. 1080P is true HD. 720P is for the cheap guys. Fox is 720 (I think still) and even Sony tried to get away with it at first. Apple is falling behind.
In one famous test, a group of well known audiophiles were taken to hear a new speaker cable. After showing them how it was built and giving the usual tech spiel, they all agreed that there was definitely some more "brightness" to the new cables. However, the testers had actually replaced the cables with un-bent coat hangers, and then revealed this. Much consternation ensued.
In test after test after test, viewers cannot tell the difference between 720 and 1080 when compressed from the same original source to the same bit rate. What DOES matter is the compression, as all of us ATV owners are more than aware of.
Do you even know why there are two standards? It's because Ronald Reagan saw a demo of MUSE in Japan and freaked out, starting a program in the US to build a similar but incompatible analog HD format. You think I'm making this up, don't you?
But making an analog HD format is not easy. With four times the content you have four times the bandwidth, and MUSE's tradeoffs are questionable. Basically they only send HD for still images, and anything moving gets seriously degraded. Like SERIOUSLY. To the point where sports started looking like absolute pants, worse than conventional NTSC.
So someone at Zenith went to AT&T and asked them if they could come up with something better. Since the biggest problem had to do with motion artifacts and interlacing, they decided the proper solution was to use a progressive-scan system at the same refresh rate, thus basically doubling the effective frame rate.
Worse, 1080p still used up two channels, in an era when the number of free channels was disappearing at a furious rate. 720 used up 1.5. So there was some SERIOUS market interest.
When 720p went head-to-head against 1080i in testing, it won every single quality test hands down, if there was motion. The lack of flicker, especially on larger screens, was also widely noted. That's why 720 even exists, because at one point in time it had clearly better pictures.
Ahhh, but times change. Now the whole concept of interlace is a joke. Our TV's pull down both frames and apply DSP algos to de-line them, and display everything "progressive" on a display where the idea of "refresh" isn't what it used to be.
So everyone looks at the numbers and is utterly convinced that higher resolution means better picture. In fact, in most cases any differences between the two are due to differing levels of compression.