|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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.
...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
is to extract more money from people.
>> 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.
Oh, OK. I assumed the difficulty of manufacturing a higher dot-pitch was
the main problem...
>> 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.
I especially love how I have a widescreen TV, but you have to manually
flip between 4:3 and 16:9 aspect. Even though it's connected by a
digital link, so you'd think it could *detect* which kind of signal it's
receiving...
That being the case, it's not entirely easy to tell whether you're
watching a widescreen broadcast, or a normal one with the top cut off.
(Unless of course you configure the TV to show black bars at the side -
but it's my mum's TV, and she always complains when I configure it that
way.)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |