|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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...
For the same size TV, increased resolution (smaller pixels) is more
expensive for many reasons:
- Bigger backlight needed
- More/bigger driver ICs
- More expensive components due to higher pixel clock rate
- More RAM for frame buffer
- More powerful DSP/CPU for manipulating frame buffer
- More connections to the panel (worse reliability)
- Panel yield reduced due to roughly constant probability of pixel failure
> How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?
Because not everyone can afford the top of the range model. It's a well
known economics method to introduce several products with varying
performance and price to get more money overall.
> 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.
No, the cost of panel area outweighs all the things I mentioned above.
Every LCD factory is run at almost 100% capacity, they measure income in $
per square metre, a panel that is twice the size is going to be roughly
twice the cost (plus or minus a bit depending on the factors I mentioned
above).
> 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.
Funny how radiotimes.com indicates almost every TV program is broadcast in
widescreen :-) You need to fix your TV if you are not seeing a widescreen
picture from normal TV.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |