Discuss: "HDTVs" - Why the Low Res?

So, I've been noticing these '720p' 1024x768 sets floating around...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889005114

Why do this? Why do companies continue on insisting to push these sub-HD resolutions? (720p = 1280x720 / 1366x768 [slightly pushing beyond the standard])

Last time I checked, 1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution, not 16:9, and it was a resolution native on a 15" LCD from 15 years ago, and 20 year old CRTs.

Not saying I'm purchasing anything, I'm plenty happy with my 1080p LCDs. Just starting this topic for merely discussion.

 

They are cheap which makes the jump to a LCD a whole lot easier. Keep in mind there are quite a few people that haven't made that leap yet. Some don't want to spend the cash for a true HDTV or the extra cash on a HD cable package. So in the end it's a compromise, low cost & yet still digital.

 

Even the HD standard wasn't a great step forward in resolution.

Face it. HD was never about "better quality" for us consumers, but about getting HDCP out to protect the content industry.

//Svein

 

It was a big enough step, 345600 pixels to 921600, then to 2073600.

Though the jump from 720p-1080p isn't as noticeable a jump as the one from 480p-720p, at least not on screen sizes under 50"

Some people prefer the look these lower resolution TV's, most of people i speak to still watch low quality content like SD TV, XviD's etc, and watching them on a 1080p LCD isn't very good, so these TV's provide a middle ground for people who want better quality, but don't want to give up on the lower quality content.

 

The big problem arises when they try to hook up their "giant monitor" to their computer, and find out that it can only do 1024x768 and everything's squished ^_^

 

yea my dad HDTV is like that that he uses for a montior. it has that silly 1366x768. Certain f2p mmos that are one res get cut off because of that res. He tried to get me to get one too because I mention wanting a tv. That was at the time i was getting a new montior.

THeres no way i wanna game at 1366x768 with a fast card,other then me hating that res.

 

Not a place for us on here, but i still think they have a place.

I know many people who hate HD, be it in movie, or video game form, and its mostly from not noticing the difference of a higher resolution, or just hating how bad a high res makes lower quality stuff look, but as much as i'd like that everyone would want quality over quantity, i know its not going to happen.

 

Plasma's are pretty cheap and majority of them are low resolution probably because of the way they are made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display
A plasma display panel (PDP) is a type of flat panel display common to large TV displays (80 cm or larger). Many tiny cells between just two panels of glass hold a mixture of noble gases. The gas in the cells is electrically turned into a plasma which emits ultraviolet light which then excites phosphors to emit visible light

Anyhow, not many people still want a plasma once they learn about the heat output and power usage. According to CNet, the typical power usage is over 300W compared to an LCD which uses around 100.
Plasma's are now thinner and have reduced heat output compared to a few years ago, but they suffer in speaker quality like most LED TV's.

Some people dont really care about quality and just want a bigger picture while saving space by switching to a flat panel. Then there are some people who really dont do their research and buy this because it is cheap.

 

Most cards can't even output that res

And there's not a single source that I know of that uses that.

As for the original topic, apparently it's a great way for Newegg to give 'shell shockers', like that "720p" Panasonic Plasma for $400.

 

I'm the happy owner of a 46" full HD LCD which I'm watching on from about 4.5 m. My eyesight is quite good, so I can pretty much see the difference between HD ready and full HD (for a 46" screen size) from 4.5 m, but If I were to watch on it from a greater distance, then the TV's pixel count woudn't make much of a difference. So, more pixels are better if one can see them, otherwise you better go for a less expensive TV set.
But bear in mind, there'll be times when you wanna take a closer look at your set... so full HD should be anybody's first choice...

 

Heard about it, but I reckon that's not gonna happen any time soon... since it still is big money to be made from current technologies, by consumer electronics manufacturers.

 

There is some EU regulation, that all TV broadcasters must go HD by 2012...

 

I cannot give you a straight answer, but as far as I know, all TV channels must be digital by 2012, that's at least the requierement from EU regulators.
I assume that TV companies are then going to go the full length, since they anyway have to upgrade their equipments and put money into it... so, it's kind of pointless going from analog SD to digital SD. The obvious choice would be to upgrade to full HD, since hi-def.(as a TV standard) is going to be around for quite a while from now on...
Unfortunately, you're never gonna watch old (and current) SD stuff at hi-rez., no matter the TV standards. Since "the original" of a particular footage was shot in SD, you cannot do anything to make it look like HD. Up-scaling doesn't do wonders...

 

First of all there are two sorts of Full HD: it's the 1080i (interlaced) which is the best (qualitywise, of course) for TV broadcasts and there is the 1080p (progressive) which is available on blu-ray players.
Secondly, like I earlier mentioned, ther are huge amounts of stuff that will look bad on Full HD televison, because it was shot originally in SD.
So, even if any TV channel will be (in theory) full HD, we are gona get the full advantage of the new technology when we watch on footage shot in HD, only.
You're right about cable operators, they will try to sell consumers digital SD at higher prices than analog SD, rather than giving them full HD... but I remember that, not long ago, "they" eventually failed in trying to charge customers by the minute for the internet... it's now going to be the same, as far as Full HD is concerned. Customers want HD, somebody will jump to offer it, and crowds will follow...

 

just to clarify, you are saying 1080i is the best quality you can get over-the-air/cable/satellite at the present time, correct? 1080p is better than 1080i, but not available in broadcast form (yet).

 

...as far as I know, yes (...kind of)

But I've just updated my data regarding HD broadcasts, and it looks like there's been some recent improvement in the field. Well, it's also very important the number of frames per second we are talking about, the most demanding being 1080p60.