TV 1080P resolution

I bought a Sharp LCD 42" top of the line TV 4 years ago. At that time, the TV was the most technologically up to date model and cost close to $2000.00. The company, Sharp, categorized this TV as "Full 1080P capability." The store where I bought the TV also told me that this TV was fully 1080P capable and that even though, at that time, there were no 1080P broadcasts, by buying this 1080P set now, I would be ready when 1080P came into vogue. I am a DirecTV customer (live in a area where there is no cable). DirectTV offers Pay-Per View movies in 1080P resolution. Why won't my TV recognize their 1080P signal? Sharp says it's DirecTV's fault. DirecTV says it is Sharp's fault since the TV is NOT 1080P capable regardless of what claims they (Sharp) may be making in this regard.

I had DirecTV install a new receiver since Sharp said that had to be the problem (my DirecTV receiver was not 1080P capable). This made no difference. My TV still will not interface with their 1080P signal.

Any ideas here?
Model #?
I agree Model number and a few questions: How do you have the TV connected to the DirecTv box? Also what are the output settings of the DTV box?
Make sure you are using an HDMI cable to connect your DirectTV box to the TV. This is the only way you can transfer a 1080p signal. Component cables can only transfer up to 1080i.
You may need to tell your Directv box that your set is capable of receiving 1080p. And that HDMI thing...
At 42in its not really noticable anyway, plus there is video compression/upsampled signals so while I can understand your concern your not really missing anything.

Can anyone explain the circumstances / medium / content where 1080p would be noticably better than 1080i?

The fact that HDMI does anything noticably better than component video (above and beyond an audio signal) is news to me.

And yes, I know that all this information and more is available on but I would rather hear it from you.
On very karge projection rigs 120in and up you can start to see the benefit of the added pixels but anything in the ballpark of your average display of 40-60in its just bragging rights, the human eye simply cant resolve the micro pixels, but there will always be those who cant come to grips with that. Face it, HDMI benefits grandmas hooking wires up and Hollywood studios and nothing more.
The benefits of 1080 P occur with relation to screen size and viewing distance.
And keep in mind that 1080 is 1080, whether it is interlaced or progressive. You will not see any differences unless you have a very large screen (> 80") or sit *very* close...Do not sweat this insignificant specification.


Chadnliz is correct again, but could also add Best Buy salesmen to the list.
You guys are correct to a point, 1080 is 1080 and it is more pronounced on larger screens but progressive signal is always superior to interlaced. Think of it this way on, a 32" crt tv a dvd will look superior to a standard cable or sat signal, even though both are 480 on a smaller screen. Only difference is dvd is a progressive signal. Same could be said for blu-ray verses hd broadcast. I will admit the gains are smaller but completely noticeable on any quality display 50" or larger. As for the op's original question, if the tv is a native 1080p display and you are using hdmi to connect the two, the problem almost certainly is with your direct tv receiver. Could be you are missing a setting somewhere or it's a software/hardware issue. Heck it could be a hdcp issue on one end or the other(I hate hdmi). If you have blu-ray player connected with hdmi and it works you can eliminate the tv and hdcp from the equation. Hope that helps.