Do you have any proof to back up this claim?? Until you do I dont believe it, sure the cheaper model hdtv all have hdmi *inputs* that does 1080p signals just fine, there is no special hdmi that does this.*
Also more expensive hdtv just have better material such as the glass/panel and just circuitry (maybe chip to have features like my sony bravia has the motion enhancer as to other 1080p hdtv's or samsung has its own version at the same price and the (quality) as other hdtv. Then if your theory is correct, that means the cheaper hdtv with 720p natives cant really process it up to 720p but 720i (interlaced) and its hdmi isnt capable of streaming the full 720p?? That just doesnt make any sense my friend.
i've spent countless hours on the avs forums...trust me...the first 2 generations of "1080p" displays were not only fake 1080p, they couldn't accept a 1080p signal without converting it to something smaller internally.
as i said, today things are different, but we're talking about the last 8-10 months or so.
i never said anything about displays that down-res to 720i. I was talking only about "1080p" displays that are not. There is no 720i standard for displays. that would be less than EDTV resolution (852x480, typically) of first-generation plasmas.
the limitation on the first "1080p" displays was a signal processing issue only. i'll break it down for you since you don't seem to believe me.
a 1080p signal is sent via HDMI to one of these displays. The first thing that happens is that the HDCP handshake takes place, and the data gets decrypted. Then, in early 1080 displays, the signal processor down-samples the full 1080 signal to the display's internal native resolution, whether this is 1440x1080 or 1920x540 or some other in-between is irrelevant...the actual video display hardware wasn't capable of 1080p signal processing without quite a bit of delay. it was a limitation of the processing chips available 2-3 years ago, and it is well documented on the AVS forums if you want proof. This down- (or up- if you're sending a lower-resolution signal to the display) sampled signal is then processed and fed to the imaging device, which in any rear projection tv of the time was converted into a "wobbly" diamond pattern or some other visual trick to hide the screen-door effect of the actual resolution. The result was something considerably less-precise than what you would see on a native 1920x1080 fixed-pixel display such as a plasma or LCD.
Now, 2 years ago, a 50" fixed pixel (plasma) display with 1365x768 resolution (720p for all intents and purposes) was at least $3,000. 50" LCDs were few and far between, and still well over $10K. the first 50" 1080p plasmas were only available in early 2007, and the price tag was typically 4500 dollars or more.
Today that same 50" 720p display is 1500 dollars, and the 1080p version is 2500. The TVs at Wal Mart that say 1080p on them look like dog turds sitting next to a Panasonic TH-50PH10UKA, which is a 720p panel. Even nicer is Pioneer's current 50" 1080p display, but it is a cool $5K or more.
Now, the TH-65PF10UK is a full 1080p display and 65 inches to boot. It is beautiful. It's huge hanging on a wall. It weighs about 170 lbs. And it is still over 6,000 dollars at the cheapest plasma store in the country.
I'm guessing from your description of it that you've got the XBR KDL-52XBR, right? That's a 3,000 dollar LCD and not exactly in most people's budgets...That's a nice display. not the best black-levels, but good for an LCD.
Now do me a favor and go check out best buy and look at what most flat-panel displays are...they have 86 that claim 1080p and 57 that are 720p. Most of the 1080p panels are at or above 2000 dollars, and most of the 600-2000 dollar displays are 720p.
I promise you that most people buying a TV are not spending more than 2000 dollars. in fact, it looks like fewer than 10 of the top 50 best selling flat-panel TVs are more than 2000 bucks. Only 15 of them are listed at 1080p.
