On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:51:55 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

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

1. If a TV supported *only* 1080p, any video source you connected to it  
would also have to support it.
2. A video-scaling circuit is dirt-cheap compared to the cost of the panel  
and the back-light.
3. Calling all those resolutions "HD" lets them make TVs with lower  
resolutions and still market them as "HD".



>> 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.)

Making a high-resolution panel is expensive. Making a large panel is  
expensive. Making a large high-resolution panel is *really* expensive.



>>> PS. I am similarly baffled by the current fashion for "widescreen" TVs.
>>  I take it you have never watched a movie then.
>
> Some movies are widescreen. But by no means all of them.

Most movies are widescreen. However, most movie producers traditionally  
took care to make the movies easily convertible to 4:3 (typically through  
Pan&Scan) specifically because TVs used to be in that format.



> Besides, the time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time  
> spent watching normal TV - which is never widescreen.

That may be true for you, but you really need to stop assuming that  
everyone in the entire world has the same behavior and preferences as you.



> (Hell, even when the movie is widescreen, they usually show it in 4:3  
> aspect anyway.)

Once again, cost. Some networks save money by reusing the same tapes they  
have been using for decades. Since those tapes were already prepared for  
4:3, that is what you get. Newer movies, and also older movies shown by  
less stingy networks, are almost always shown in widescreen.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message