>> 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