|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:25:12 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> How about if it supported only SD (which is one resolution) or only HD
> (in one resolution)?
Then you would ignore the market segment that consists of people that want
something better than SD but cannot (or do not want to) pay the full price
of 1080p.
> I thought it's a high dot-pitch which is expensive? (The "resolution" of
> the finished item being the area of the panel multiplied by the
> dot-pitch.) By that reconing, a large 1080p display would be cheaper
> than a small 1080p display, because the dot-pitch is lower.
I am by no means an expert on LCD panel production, but I do not think
there are significant cost savings associated with an excessively large
dot-pitch; certainly not enough to offset the cost of a larger panel.
Making pixels really tiny is difficult/expensive, but making them really
large becomes a matter of diminishing returns.
> Well, I'm only talking about the UK. I don't know what's happening in
> other parts of the world, but in the UK everybody's acting like HD is
> this Really Big Deal that everybody should be excited about. As far as I
> can tell, there isn't really much of a difference.
The issue of whether there is an appreciable difference has been discussed
before, at great length, in this very forum.
> (What the hell is the advantage of a widescreen *laptop* for goodness'
> sake?!)
1. Watching movies on the go.
2. A better match for the aspect ratio of the keyboard.
3. Cost (remember that thing about the diagonal and the surface area).
> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
Are you smoking something, or have you simply never been to a cinema?
Practically all cinemas are widescreen. Heck, they can even adjust the
aspect ratio on the fly.
I have to ask: Is Milton Keynes like one of those little tribal villages
sometimes found deep in some jungle, where technology has not improved for
centuries?
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |