Source for these percentages?

It was covered quite completely that an HDTV will be able to take a 1080i signal from an HD-DVD player and display it at 1080p (on sets that allow it) with no de-interlacing artifacts. You're confusing aquisition vs. transmission of the signal. Since both HD-DVD and BR encode the image at 1080p/24 that won't be the advantage you're looking for.

I'd refer you to this thread:

LISTEN:

ALL HD_DVD TITLES ARE AUTHORED IN 1080P. IMO, you should be banned the next timeyou make a statement like that because you are clearly beating the bushes and trying to troll.

There will also be a greater THEORETICAL selection of titles. It may be a long time before the number of titles available for BR exceeds the number for HD. With Sony having their finger on the duping of every disc, it may be a long while before their catalog of titles gets some steam behind it.

Also, as has been pointed out, HD will win in the "number of potential movies" game since their supporting studios control most of the movies in existence.

This is an undisputibale fact right now: HD-DVD has a HUGE margin on number of titles available over BR. BECAUSE BR HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET.

But it doesn't matter anyway. If the holdouts see some cash to be made on HD, then you can bet every last cent you own they will produce for it. I would even venture to say that in the long term, even Sony, who is a confused corporation (copy protected CDs and MP3 players) could even release on HD should market share determine that such a move is profitable. Believe me, Sony's "partners" are only loyal because they think they can make some money (mostly on the promise of the huge installed base that PS3 was supposed to already have started to deliver). If they smell money somewhere else, they'll drop Sony like a 10 cent whore. OH and by the way? The same thing goes for Toshiba's partners.

Dipwad, do you even have a 1080P TV? If not then what does this feature even matter to you then? HD will have players 1080P capable, and many say the current ones will be upgradeable. This is not an arrow in the BR quiver. You are grasping. By the time the PS3 (budget BR) player hits, there will be a similarly priced HD deck capable of 1080P out of the box. Then what is your next strawman argument gonna be?

Stop taking me out of contect. I know HD-DVD discs in 1080p. I know that the disc resolution is identical. However to many people say that the HD-A1 and all the Blu-Ray models have the same quality. The discs may but the players at the moment do not and for some 1080p ability will make the extra money more valuble. If you don't see 1080p as a great enough value to justify the price fine thats your view and I respect it but if you say that current HD-DVD players and upcoming Blu-Ray models have the same resolution thats an incorrect statement that I have to refute. Me I am skipping all stand-alone players and getting a Playstation 3 console.

Please try to read what other people have written. Let me try it one more time for you. As long as the source (the disc) is 1080p, it doesn't matter whether the signal from the player to the TV is interlaced or not. A 1080p TV will be fully capable of recreating the original 1080p image, exactly as it appeared on the disc (or, more correctly, in exactly the same way that it would be displayed from a 1080p signal).

You seem to want to believe that this is not possible, but that really doesn't matter. It is possible. It has been done.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...4929&Itemid=11

I dont see the percentages that you mentioned in there...can you cut and paste where you read the 45% and 85% of all movies? Im just curious where they got those numbers.

Also, just an fyi, Terminator 3 is warner so it will probably be on both....T2 is Studio Canal overseas and they have said that it will be on hd-dvd (link is in the release thread). Since there is no region coding, those of us with hd-dvd could get it. There is no date for it yet though.

I guess I see what you are doing but you are, of course, using the numbers incorrectly. Those number of titles is based on the Top-100 grossing movies (of all time). Those numbers hardly represent an entire studio's holdings. No classics, for example, would be included.

Sorry, you are going to have to try again.

I don't deny its possible to change 1080i into 1080p but I just believe that true 1080p outputed from the player will have the edge. The difference won't be night and day but if you look for it I think there will be an improvement. Similar to how DVDs almost always look better when outputed through a progressive scan DVD player then by a television deinterlacer. 1080p will make a small difference but for some videophiles every little bit will be welcome.

Based on what? Just your gut feeling or you have something to back it up with?

At least you included the "almost", because I've certainly seen cases where this is not true. Some very cheap progressive players have downright terrible deinterlacers.

See my post above again. It doesn't matter what you think or believe. Facts are facts. And the fact is that, barring defective or badly designed components, a 1080p TV will produce an IDENTICAL image from a 1080i and 1080p signal. A 1080p signal will have no edge over a 1080i signal.

And many progressive scan TVs have outstanding deinterlacers, that exceed all but the very best progressive scan DVD players

I have compared DVD deinterlaced by both the progressive scan DVD and the television and the player looks noticeably better. I believe it will be the same with 1080i to 1080p deinterlacers. Of course I may be proven wrong but I doubt that a television deinterlacer can compare to the real thing. We will find next month now won't we.

Frankly, I no longer care what you believe, or what you say. I am tired of explaining this to you, only to have you ignore facts. However, I will continue to follow your baseless, utterly false claims with reality, in an effort to keep others from believing your hyperbole.

FACT - a 1080p TV can produce exactly the same image from a 1080p signal or a 1080i signal if that image originated as 1080p on disc (whether Blu-ray or HD-DVD).

FACT - Some progressive scan DVD players do a better job of deinterlacing than some progressive scna TVS. However, some progressive scan TVs do a better job of deinterlacing than many progressive scan DVD players.

I don't know. These 2 facts seem contradictory to my logic. I'm not disputing they are facts, just the conclusions you seem to be drawing. The problem there, Robo, is that the word you must use in the first fact is CAN. You can't use the word WILL. The plethora of crappy progressive scan players, at ALL price ranges, says to me that we can't trust these companies to provide TVs and players that can interlace and de-interlace properly without artifacts. This is quite simply an unnecessary step if you have a progressive scan TV. That is why I will wait until there is a player that simply outputs the 1080p un-interlaced. All my future TV purchases will be 1080p native, so whether I buy TVs or HDDVD/BD players first, I will get them to match.

Obviously, that's true. But if you can't afford the real thing, that doesn't mean something cheaper is just as capable. Some products must be priced higher because of additional features, period. And that means some people won't get into that market. You will never see a BMW in the same price range as a Hyundai. I happen to have higher standards (and lower than some people) on which features MUST be in my equipment. Which means I pay more.

God, I wish I was financially blessed. I wouldn't have 2 mortgages.

There is no question that what you say is true, to a degree. There are and will continue to be players and TVs that do a sub-par job of interlacing and deinterlacing, and as I have said before, all else being equal, it only makes sense to have 1080p output from a player. That is exactly why I used the word can in my first statement.

My frustration with Jimmy is that he continually states, in absolute terms, that 1080p output will exceed the quality of 1080i output on every display, with no exception. That is absolutely untrue. The notion that, simply because a player "only" outputs 1080i, it is automatically inferior in quality to one that outputs 1080p, is absurd to me. I would defy anyone to try to point out an interlace-related artifact on my 1080p TV when watching any of my HD-DVDs. You wouldn't be able to, because they don't exist.

What a lot of you are forgetting (or ignoring) is the fact that the interlaced DVD's and interlaced output from a 1080i player are NOTHING alike. Refer to the top of page 5. So, you can stop comparing interlaced DVD's to 1080i outputs on either of the HD formats.

What makes you so sure? Blu-Ray isn't out yet and neither are any 1080p players. You have no way to compare native 1080p inputs to upconverted 1080i. So how do you absolutly know that they won't look better? Again we will find out next month whether or not Im right or your right. I can't wait to find out. To be proven wrong or not.

It isn't native 1080p. So there is the rub.

Native 1080p would be 1080p60 (what the 1080p set needs to display). But 1080p24 is what stored on the disc. To get to 1080p60 (from 1080p24) it'll require conversion.

Your tirade about progressive is going to look better than interlaced would be much more correct if 1080p60 information was stored on the disc. Unfortunately, bandwidth dictates otherwise.

Close, but not quite right. Right now, no next-gen DVDps can send the hi-res audio signal in its native bitstream (still waiting on HDMI 1.3 for this one). The decoding of the packed signal in uncompressed PCM must be done in the player. From there we have two options - send the uncompressed PCM to the pre/pro (or receiver) via HDMI or send all the soundtrack information in analog form via the 5.1 (or 7.1) analog outputs. Simply decoding the bitstream isn't a big deal and I couldn't care less if it happens in the DVDp or the pre/pro. However, I would much rather have my pre/pro handle the digital to analog conversion, bass management, etc.

There are two things that make me "so sure." First, I own a 1080p set, and have seen the quality of the 1080i signal from my HD-DVDs on it. There are no interlace artifacts present in the image. And second, there have been reviews of the player posted on various AV web sites by people who look specifically for such problems, and their findings exactly agree with mine.

You've already been proven wrong. Sorry about that.