http://www.xkcd.com/732/

This puzzles me too.

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.

(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?)

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...

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.

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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...

>> 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?

> 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.)

>> 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. Besides, the 
time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time spent watching 
normal TV - which is never widescreen. (Hell, even when the movie is 
widescreen, they usually show it in 4:3 aspect anyway.)

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

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

Post a reply to this message

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

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4bd54ca2$1@news.povray.org...

> 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?

Bandwidth. Your LCD is connected to your computer by a 4 foot cable that
carries a single "channel". Now think about the number of channels and the
distances involved in broadcast TV.

> (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?)

I'm with you on this one.

> 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.

Movies (on disk).

Post a reply to this message

>>>> 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.

How about if it supported only SD (which is one resolution) or only HD 
(in one resolution)?

> 3. Calling all those resolutions "HD" lets them make TVs with lower 
> resolutions and still market them as "HD".

Yeah. This is exactly the part I don't like.

>>> 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.

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.

> 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.

OK. Might be true I guess...

>> 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.

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.

Similarly, it has now become virtually impossible to buy anything in a 
normal aspect ratio; only widescreen TVs and monitors (and even 
laptops!) are for sale. And I have no idea why. (What the hell is the 
advantage of a widescreen *laptop* for goodness' sake?!)

>> (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.

OK, fair enough.

Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?

Post a reply to this message

>> 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?
> 
> Bandwidth. Your LCD is connected to your computer by a 4 foot cable that
> carries a single "channel". Now think about the number of channels and the
> distances involved in broadcast TV.

My monitor is connected via an analogue (or, if I'm lucky, uncompressed 
digital) link. Video signals tend to be highly compressible. Indeed, at 
higher resolutions the data may even become *easier* to compress.

But sure, I guess if you're trying to transmit stuff, there is only 
finite bandwidth to work with. You'd think all this would be less 
problematic for playback from disk though...

On the other hand, greating a succession of slightly higher resolution 
platforms gives manufacturers a way to charge you more money as you 
constantly upgrade all your equipment. :-P

Post a reply to this message

>> 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...

For the same size TV, increased resolution (smaller pixels) is more 
expensive for many reasons:
- Bigger backlight needed
- More/bigger driver ICs
- More expensive components due to higher pixel clock rate
- More RAM for frame buffer
- More powerful DSP/CPU for manipulating frame buffer
- More connections to the panel (worse reliability)
- Panel yield reduced due to roughly constant probability of pixel failure

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

Because not everyone can afford the top of the range model.  It's a well 
known economics method to introduce several products with varying 
performance and price to get more money overall.

> 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.

No, the cost of panel area outweighs all the things I mentioned above. 
Every LCD factory is run at almost 100% capacity, they measure income in $ 
per square metre, a panel that is twice the size is going to be roughly 
twice the cost (plus or minus a bit depending on the factors I mentioned 
above).

> Some movies are widescreen. But by no means all of them. Besides, the time 
> spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time spent watching normal 
> TV - which is never widescreen.

Funny how radiotimes.com indicates almost every TV program is broadcast in 
widescreen :-)  You need to fix your TV if you are not seeing a widescreen 
picture from normal TV.

Post a reply to this message

> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?

WTF?

Post a reply to this message

>> How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?
> 
> Because not everyone can afford the top of the range model.  It's a well 
> known economics method to introduce several products with varying 
> performance and price to get more money overall.

...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing 
is to extract more money from people.

>> 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.
> 
> 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...

>> Some movies are widescreen. But by no means all of them. Besides, the 
>> time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time spent 
>> watching normal TV - which is never widescreen.
> 
> Funny how radiotimes.com indicates almost every TV program is broadcast 
> in widescreen :-)  You need to fix your TV if you are not seeing a 
> widescreen picture from normal TV.

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...

That being the case, it's not entirely easy to tell whether you're 
watching a widescreen broadcast, or a normal one with the top cut off. 
(Unless of course you configure the TV to show black bars at the side - 
but it's my mum's TV, and she always complains when I configure it that 
way.)

Post a reply to this message