> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing is 
> to extract more money from people.

Of course, why else would any company do anything?

>> 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...

No, that's technically easy.  Besides pixels can be made orders of 
magnitudes smaller than what is needed for TV (computer monitors, cell phone 
screens, LCDs for projectors, etc.).

>> 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...

Don't know about that, I have a widescreen TV and all the TV programs I 
watch come in widescreen format, so I never need to adjust anything and it 
always looks fine.  Where are you getting 4:3 content from?

> 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.)

With 99% certainty anything you are watching from UK TV will be widescreen. 
It is very rare anything is broadcast in 4:3, I certainly haven't seen 
anything and looking through radiotimes.com I can't find anything either.

Quite often you will see the text and captions on the TV will be formatted 
within some "safe" area for 4:3 (so won't use the left/right edges), but the 
main feed will be 16:9 format. Like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/jonchoo/954963b2.jpg

Post a reply to this message