>>>> 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?
> 
> 1. If a TV supported *only* 1080p, any video source you connected to it 
> would also have to support it.

How about if it supported only SD (which is one resolution) or only HD 
(in one resolution)?

> 3. Calling all those resolutions "HD" lets them make TVs with lower 
> resolutions and still market them as "HD".

Yeah. This is exactly the part I don't like.

>>> 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.)
> 
> Making a high-resolution panel is expensive. Making a large panel is 
> expensive. Making a large high-resolution panel is *really* expensive.

I thought it's a high dot-pitch which is expensive? (The "resolution" of 
the finished item being the area of the panel multiplied by the 
dot-pitch.) By that reconing, a large 1080p display would be cheaper 
than a small 1080p display, because the dot-pitch is lower.

> Most movies are widescreen. However, most movie producers traditionally 
> took care to make the movies easily convertible to 4:3 (typically 
> through Pan&Scan) specifically because TVs used to be in that format.

OK. Might be true I guess...

>> Besides, the time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time 
>> spent watching normal TV - which is never widescreen.
> 
> That may be true for you, but you really need to stop assuming that 
> everyone in the entire world has the same behavior and preferences as you.

Well, I'm only talking about the UK. I don't know what's happening in 
other parts of the world, but in the UK everybody's acting like HD is 
this Really Big Deal that everybody should be excited about. As far as I 
can tell, there isn't really much of a difference.

Similarly, it has now become virtually impossible to buy anything in a 
normal aspect ratio; only widescreen TVs and monitors (and even 
laptops!) are for sale. And I have no idea why. (What the hell is the 
advantage of a widescreen *laptop* for goodness' sake?!)

>> (Hell, even when the movie is widescreen, they usually show it in 4:3 
>> aspect anyway.)
> 
> Once again, cost. Some networks save money by reusing the same tapes 
> they have been using for decades. Since those tapes were already 
> prepared for 4:3, that is what you get.

OK, fair enough.

Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?

Post a reply to this message