"Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing."
Yes, but we're not discussing MORE pixels...we're discussing how they're displayed for the most part. The simple fact is that Mossberg is telling like it is: most consumers won't notice any appreciable difference from a native 1080i signal and a 1080i source that is properly de-interlaced and anti-aliased in 1080p.
Further, the number of 1080p sources of content available are virtually nil on the handful of sets that actually CAN display it. Most HDTV content is 720p or 1080i, and that isn't likely to change that quickly, when most of the current HTDV owners can't support above that. The paltry amount of releases on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray certainly aren't going to push the boundaries, any more than SA-CD and DVD-A did for audio recordings.
Mossberg can way oversimplify matters (or just get them plain wrong, IMHO)...but on this point, I'm in full agreement. Most people don't care.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
WizarDru @ Nov 14th 2006 8:21AM
"Clearly, more pixels available to display is never a bad thing."
Yes, but we're not discussing MORE pixels...we're discussing how they're displayed for the most part. The simple fact is that Mossberg is telling like it is: most consumers won't notice any appreciable difference from a native 1080i signal and a 1080i source that is properly de-interlaced and anti-aliased in 1080p.
Further, the number of 1080p sources of content available are virtually nil on the handful of sets that actually CAN display it. Most HDTV content is 720p or 1080i, and that isn't likely to change that quickly, when most of the current HTDV owners can't support above that. The paltry amount of releases on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray certainly aren't going to push the boundaries, any more than SA-CD and DVD-A did for audio recordings.
Mossberg can way oversimplify matters (or just get them plain wrong, IMHO)...but on this point, I'm in full agreement. Most people don't care.