|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.119.250.12
'); } // End --> |
In Reply to: Re: No 32" 1080P? posted by Doug Otte on August 16, 2006 at 12:18:28:
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.
Follow Ups:
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: