|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> ...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?
I don't mind paying money when I actually get something in return.
>>> 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.).
I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet.
Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
(Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come out
too small. How many managers have you seen turn down the resolution to
make the text bigger?)
>> 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?
Even the adverts?
Which channels are you watching?
> 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.
Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what we
receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
(Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |