>> ...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