Controlling for every other quality, a true 1080p input has value if the set is big enough for someone to appreciate it from a typical viewing distance. After a point, 1080p will not look much different from 1080i or 720p--in terms of sheer resolution, that is. Any progressive 1080 signal, however, that's actually constructed from solid 2:3 or video processing might have that ineffable snap to it that some might find worth a little extra cash. But that kind of processing is more likely to derive from an external component than the set itself.

I'm not keeping up with which lines appeared when, but apparently Samsung is poised to offer 1080p that does not derive from wobulation, or "smooth picture" technology. Personally, I find that a good development. It suggests a realization that wobulation can't quite do what the full complement of pixels can. LCoS and LCD do not wobulate to achieve 1080p.

At any rate, this new ability for TVs to accept 1080p signals seems to be directly correlated to Blu-Ray's impending arrival, which will be capable of 1080p through HDMI (component will be limited to 1080i). Samsung is going to be first on the market with a Blu-Ray player. If you want one fool's opinion, if you can afford 1080p, why not get it? You'll have that extra bit of versatility. But here's where I get subjective: If I'm going to get 1080p capability on a TV, I'd rather not have one that wobulates. Lots of people may disagree with me, because a wobulating DLP can look pretty damn good. But I want all of the horizontal pixels, not half of them, if I can swing it. The other caveat concerns how good a particular 1080p set performs in other respects. Achieving a resolution of 1080p is but one small step for mankind. Just as important, if not more important, is how well a display handles other tasks that contribute significantly to what you see on screen.