|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> why not increase the resolution *significantly*?
>
> Cost, both for producing the TV and for producing the content.
Producing the content I can understand. It presumably costs more money
to shunt larger volumes of data around...
>> Why allow half a dozen resolutions when
>> it would have been far simpler for the designers and less misleading
>> for the public if they allow only one resolution?
>
> Again, cost.
How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?
> Did you have a 40" computer monitor ten years ago?
No. But you would think that making a large monitor with a high
resolution would be much cheaper than making a small monitor with a high
resolution. (That would require a greater dot-pitch.)
>> PS. I am similarly baffled by the current fashion for "widescreen"
>> TVs.
>
> I take it you have never watched a movie then.
Some movies are widescreen. But by no means all of them. Besides, the
time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time spent watching
normal TV - which is never widescreen. (Hell, even when the movie is
widescreen, they usually show it in 4:3 aspect anyway.)
> Also, cost. Moving to widescreen -- while maintaining the same diagonal
> length -- reduces the panel area.
Ah. So that's the true reason...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |