- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,657 (0.56/day)
...and television resolutions are driven by broadcast mediums. Why buy something greater than 1080p if all that uses it is an occassional BD-DVD movie? Most people can't justify that expense unless the series they watch on a weekly basis supports it.
Come to think of it, gaming consoles might drive to higher resolution TVs than anything else.
Yes, due to the economics of part sharing. It is cheaper for them to build only 1920x1080 than build 1920x1200 for computer consumers and 1920x1080 for television consumers.
To the first point, DVD was expensive at one time. As production volume increased, and market penetration increased, pricing dropped. Players that started out at $500 rapidly became $50. Disks that were $50 dropped to $20.
Blu-ray is doing the same thing. I can buy a new disk at Walmart right not for between 20 and 30 dollars. Players still haven't largely broken the "cheap" gap, but they are occasionally on sale. Like it or not, Blu-ray penetration is a reality.
As Blu-ray is currently the most data intensive source, it stands to reason that manufacturers will use it as a rule. "Well, we can make monitors that are 1920x1080 in the 20" range. We could use the same technology to make monitors that are 40" big with 3840x2160." This logic holds, but the question stands, why?
As you stated, economics. It is cheaper to have one process than two. It is cheaper to have your most expensive component be interchangeable between computer monitors and consumer televisions. So yes, I agree that the economics drive this. The one economic limiter is Blu-ray, to which there is no successor and thus no reason to yet develop higher resolutions.
Video game systems are, whether you like it or not, not designed to push new TV sales. If you remember, Dead Rising had numerous people complain because the text was too small on a standard definition screen. These complaints hurt sales, rather than driving people to go out and purchase a new TV, so they could read the game text.
Likewise, its time to address the elephant in the room. The Wii sold how well? while everyone here would love to see the "hard core" games start to come back, the fiscal reality is that mediocre graphics, not even 720p from the wii, are acceptable to the average consumer. As such, video game systems will not drive resolution changes.
What we are left with is no reason to push for higher resolutions. There is a definite need for them in certain niche applications (medical, entertainment, etc...), but these niches have already subscribed to having very high pricing. Likewise, people who are on a budget do not want to spend massive amounts of money on a new system, when they have yet to functionally reach the limits of their current system.
Whenever TV moves forward, specifically whenever something exists to supercede Blu-ray, then monitors will move forward. As computer monitors are now linked with televisions, the two will stagnate in development. This is not horrible for the consumer, as further developments lead to decreased pricing. What it means for a resolution junkie is a plateau. Resolutions will continue to rise only when the TV demands more resolution.
So how does your carrot taste? I know yours are orange, but I've got this awesome variant that is still purple. The thrust of this is that you and I have the same underlying reasoning, but a different way to get there. Colors be damned, can't we just agree that the resolution for monitors isn't going to be changing any time soon?