Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.
The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.
It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.
I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.
The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.
It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.
Actually, it is. Think about it. If you could have a display capable of 3000p vs one that was only capable of 1080p, at the same cost and with no perceptable difference, which would you take? I'd totally take the 3000p display.
Whether it's perceptable or not doesn't matter. Today there are people that hookup a SD signal to their HDTV and think they're watching HD quality. That is perception, not reality. I'm sure the same thing will be true in 20 years when higher resolutions are available. People will plug it in and think they're suddenly seeing even higher resolutions, whether they really are or not.
I just don't accept that 20 years from now, 1080p will still be state of the art. Technology and resolutions are constantly pushing forward. No one in their right mind would use a 640x480 computer display these days, yet DVD resolution is only 480p. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, the average home theater will have an 80 to 100" screen, so 1080p will look like crap. I'm sure that 20 years ago, most people wouldn't dream of owning a 40 or 50" set, yet today that's considered normal.
Technology is moving forward and I have no doubt that people will be clamoring for even higher resolutions in the next 20 years. If it wasn't a matter of economics, then people would never get anything newer. That applies to TVs, computers, cars, etc. As costs come down and it becomes more affordable, the average joe wants it more, whether they need it or not.