4 ms·

I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. T

I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. There is no need for better quality than HD (1080p), because you won't find a source better than that, so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible. Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...) It's hard to keep in mind, but the majority of buyers, and therefore the majority of income, may not be like you.

guelo 15y ago
Computer monitors are useful for much more than just full screen video. Even average users, working say a browser side by side with Word, would appreciate the extra real estate. Notice that Apple's monitors are now 2560x1440.
typicalrunt 15y ago
You're half right. But there's more to the story. In the consumer's mind, there is no better quality than HD because it doesn't exist. Look at the way marketing speaks to the average consumer. In marketing, perception is reality. You may know what 1080p means, but most consumers have no clue what the '1080' or the 'p' means, or how it relates to their viewing experience.
- antihero 15y ago
  I think a lot of is placebo, too. I bet people convince themselves they're enjoying things more because they consciously know they're getting "higher quality". It would be interesting to do a double blind study to see how many consumers could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
masklinn 15y ago
> I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. That's bullshit. > For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. You get the same ultimate experience with the previous 16/10 resolution for this size: 1920*1200. Oh look, even more pixels. > so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible. Right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers, it's just hardware providers lowering their costs by using TV resolutions on computer screens. > Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...) Which definitely is not happening.
someone_welsh 15y ago
At the distance from the screen which people generally watch TV, better resolution than HD makes no perceptible difference - it would be pointless and wasteful. At closer distances, such as those involved in using computers, higher resolutions are perceptible and so not irrelevant. Hence they exist for computers and not TVs. Sorry, no reference right now, may add one later

guelo 15y ago

Computer monitors are useful for much more than just full screen video. Even average users, working say a browser side by side with Word, would appreciate the extra real estate. Notice that Apple's monitors are now 2560x1440.

typicalrunt 15y ago

You're half right. But there's more to the story. In the consumer's mind, there is no better quality than HD because it doesn't exist. Look at the way marketing speaks to the average consumer. In marketing, perception is reality. You may know what 1080p means, but most consumers have no clue what the '1080' or the 'p' means, or how it relates to their viewing experience.

antihero 15y ago
I think a lot of is placebo, too. I bet people convince themselves they're enjoying things more because they consciously know they're getting "higher quality". It would be interesting to do a double blind study to see how many consumers could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

masklinn 15y ago

> I think the 1080p craze is driven by consumer demand. That's bullshit. > For the average consumer (not a gamer, not a power user), the ultimate visual experience is an HD movie. You get the same ultimate experience with the previous 16/10 resolution for this size: 1920*1200. Oh look, even more pixels. > so the most sensible thing for a hardware provider is to deliver 1080p at the cheapest point possible. Right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers, it's just hardware providers lowering their costs by using TV resolutions on computer screens. > Or to improve on other areas than purely pixel count (colour accuracy, brightness, viewing angle...) Which definitely is not happening.

someone_welsh 15y ago

At the distance from the screen which people generally watch TV, better resolution than HD makes no perceptible difference - it would be pointless and wasteful. At closer distances, such as those involved in using computers, higher resolutions are perceptible and so not irrelevant. Hence they exist for computers and not TVs. Sorry, no reference right now, may add one later