Originally Posted by Scottnot
Hey BobY, all your points are very fine, even great . . . except.
Why drag ATSC into it, as the only criteria they place on the display is that it:
Hasn't that always been your position anyway regarding discussions about "true HD", "full HD", and the like; doesn't it apply here as well?
Wouldn't it have been easier to simply point out that they all display at 768p anyway? At least that would have kept the burr out of my saddle.
mmmm, eventually, yes, but "it won't be long" . . . . I don't know.
My guess; <32", 32", even 37"; perhaps 10 years; perhaps longer.
The reason I brought the ATSC in, is they are the only organization who has the authority to define what HD means by virtue of the recognition of their authority by the government (via the FCC).
They have defined two resolutions they consider HD: 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080. That doesn't preclude them from defining other formats in the future, but officially HD is 1280 x 720 or above, regardless of what the CEA or individual manufacturers have to say about that, as the government does not recognize their authority to define what HD means.
720p is an encoding format--1280 x 720 pixels transmitted progessively--not a display resolution, so it really doesn't make sense to call a display a "720p" display (particularly a display that does not have 1280 x 720 pixels), unfortunately that is the current industry convention, much to the confusion of consumers.
Displays should be described by their native resolution, not by what input formats they accept--this has led to all sorts of consumer confusion and even lawsuits.
There is no officially accepted definition of a "768p" display (just as there is no officially accepted definition of "Full HD"). There is no encoding format with 768 lines and there are displays with 1024 x 768, 1280 x 768 and 1366 x 768 native resolution--which one of those is a "768p" display? All of them? I suspect many consumers would be very upset to learn the "768p" display they bought is only 1024 x 768 when their neighbor's "768p" display looks so much sharper because it is 1366 x 768.
LCD display manufacturing is like semiconductor manufacturing. Once the yields are good enough, they will stop producing anything less than 1080p displays, except at the very low end with small screens. It really won't cost them any more to produce a 1920 x 1080 LCD than it does to produce a 1024 x 768 LCD. Given good yields, the largest cost component of an LCD by far is the raw panel itself and that cost is related to size, not resolution.
I think by next year, but certainly not later than 2009, you will only see 1080p LCD's. All you have to do is compare the price/density curves of LCD's with the price/density curves of semiconductor DRAM to see where things are heading. Plasma is a bit different as it will always be cheaper to produce lower resolution Plasma displays due to the more complicated manufacturing process (LCD is a far simpler photolithography process, essentially the same as semiconductors).