Video Asylum

Re: No 32" 1080P?

170.22.76.10

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Video Asylum ]

(A)

In Reply to: No 32" 1080P? posted by Mango on August 15, 2006 at 13:25:14:

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

Follow Ups:

Re: No 32" 1080P? - Mango 23:33:02 08/16/06 (1)
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.
- Re: No 32" 1080P? - ForwardLooking 16:35:41 09/05/06 (0)
  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.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.