 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.119.250.12
Why is 1080P reserved only for the larger sizes of LCDs? For instance, why is the new 32" Sony Bravia native res 1366x768, and not 1920x1080? Is there a logistic problem of fitting that many pixels on a smaller screen, or are the benefits of 1080P not as dramatic on the smaller one? Or do manufacturers just figure someone interested in the smaller screen won't $pring for the extra detail?
Follow Ups:
My understanding is that it is technically difficult to make the plasma pixel cells small enough for 1920 x 1080 to fit into smaller sized plasma sets. Obviously, the progressive scanning aspect is not the problem.
I was in a local hi-fi shop (Myer-Emco) in the DC area last week and asked when sets that allow true 1080P input would become common. I told them I was interested in a 42" (due to our small room). They said there are no plans for any 1080P smaller than (I think they said) 46".I didn't ask why, because I immediately thought: "Right! Why would the make smaller sets 1080P when the extra resolution wouldn't be as discernible as on a bigger set?"
Maybe I was wrong. Am I?
Doug
I think there are 37" 1080P sets. And yeah, I guess the difference on smaller sets isn't that much. What I don't get though is why they make them 768P when no source material has that resolution. It's all either 720 or 1080, so a 768P TV will always be scaling the signal up or down.
I have been interested in this question for a while...First off, there are definitely native 37" 1080p displays available -
the Westinghouse, for example.I don't see why there should be grave technical problem producing
a 32" 1920x1080 LCD TV, since there are a number of LCD monitors
intended for computer use that pack in more than 1920x1080 in a
small package - as small as 24" (e.g. the Apple "Cinema" [or
whatever] display, and the Dell). Granted, the response time,
contrast ratio, color gamut, etc of computer displays might not
be suitable for video, but surely there are no showstopper issues.As far as I can tell, 32" 1920x1080 LCD panels suitable for TV use
are not produced by the panel suppliers (CMO, etc), presumably due
to a lack of demand from TV manufacturers.As far as I can tell, it's therefore entirely a matter of market
segmentation.Based on the size of the typical consumer's living room - where
they're going to put the TV that they spend signficant
money on - a 32" TV is probably going to be a "second TV," and
convincing the consumer to shell out more $ for 1080p for their
secondary set is, for now, a losing proposition - regardless of
whether the increased resolution [or reduction in downconversion
artifacts] would be visible by the typical consumer.Unfortunately, in my case, 32" is the maximum I'm willing to put
in my living room - so it's going to be the KDL-V32XBR2 or something
similar.
I asked the question on the website and the only difference is the 3 has a gloss black surround and the 2's have interchangeable colored panels for the surround. In the September issue of Home Theater, the beautiful Maureen Jenson reports coverage of the 2006 Home Entertainment Show 2006 (pg. 56). "The XBR2 line is very similar [to the XBR 3] in resolution and sizes but will offer interchangeable faceplates."And yes the 32" tops out at 768p.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
