On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:19:45 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I mean, if you're going to force everybody to buy a new TV, new  
> receiver, new type of disk and a new machine to play it, why it increase  
> the resolution *significantly*? Why only increase it by a small amount?  
> I don't understand that.

Cost, both for producing the TV and for producing the content.


> (And hell, half the equipment and content that says "HD" on it isn't  
> even full resolution anyway... Why allow half a dozen resolutions when  
> it would have been far simpler for the designers and less misleading for  
> the public if they allow only one resolution?)

Again, cost.


> Hell, when I was at uni ten years ago we had computers exceeding these  
> resolutions. With Windows NT 4.0, Service Pack 4. Has technology not  
> moved on since then? It's not like there's any technical challenge to  
> using a higher resolution, after all...

Did you have a 40" computer monitor ten years ago? How much did it cost?


> PS. I am similarly baffled by the current fashion for "widescreen" TVs.  
> Given that 99.998% of all video content ever created is in 4:3 aspect,  
> what the hell is the advantage of buying a TV with a 16:9 aspect?? I  
> don't understand.

I take it you have never watched a movie then.

Also, cost. Moving to widescreen -- while maintaining the same diagonal  
length -- reduces the panel area.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message