Invisible wrote:
>>> why not increase the resolution *significantly*?
>>
>> 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...

Yes, inside the TV as well. How much did his laptop cost in 2004? How much 
did his television cost in 2004?

Do the math on memory bandwidth for 1920x1080x60x32bits, for example.

> How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?

It's cheaper to manufacture something with lower resolution. Much, much 
cheaper. And in the USA at least, there's only two HD resolutions, not "half 
a dozen".

>> Did you have a 40" computer monitor ten years ago?
> 
> 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. (That would require a greater dot-pitch.)

*You* might.

(Actually, you're confusing terms here. A large monitor with the same 
resolution as a small monitor will be *far* more expensive.  A large monitor 
with the same pixel count as a small monitor is what you meant.)


> Ah. So that's the true reason...


Wow. You're getting as snarky-cynical as I am! :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message