I just canít stand these LCD flat panels I see at the stores. Almost all of them ghost whenever you move anything on the screen, and very few of them allow for decent viewing at anything other than the optimal resolution. Not only that, but they seem low-resolution for the size. I want the flexibility to have 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960 and maybe even 1600x1200 on the same display. Perhaps allow the user to customize things so that each resolution is properly proportioned and centered on the screen so that you can effectively use each of those resolutions as required. How do they ever expect gamers to embrace these things if they not only have a very, very slow refresh but everything except the ďpreferredĒ resolution looks like junk?
Has anyone thought that maybe LCDís are not the best way to do things? Plasma can be a good option, because itís more scalable, size-wise. LCDs are also more prone to distortion, particularly when temperatures vary. Plasma displays should have a more uniform configuration but also tend to look washed out. I mean, I walk through CompUSA and watch DVD playback on these LCD screens and it looks horrible! The ghosting is so bad it is almost unbearable. Try the Matrix dojo scene on your average LCD and tell me that it looks as good as it does on a CRT. The technology just isnít there.
By the way, it really is about time they started quoting Actual screen size instead of some kind of fake number like CRTís have had for years. You buy a 25Ē TV, it is actually 25Ē diagonally, but not with monitors. 22Ē may be 20Ē in reality. What a lame rip-off idea. LCDís all seem to be the proper size they claim it to be.
Oh, and thereís more. Why do we have to hassle with odd screen sizes and aspect ratios? Iím a 4:3 kind of guy. Everything I do is 4:3, from CAD to bitmap to digital photography to camcorder shots converted to AVI. They only thing these 16:9 ratios are good for are DVDís, which I still donít want to watch on the computer. Why have oddball resolutions like 800x400 or 1600x1024? I donít get it, donít want it and donít need it.
Does anyone have a reason why these resolutions are needed? What about when we start playing console or PC games on HDTV sets? For the life of me, I donít understand whey every TV made does not default to 4:3 automatically and only go to 16:9 for DVD playback. Movies have always been a pain because so many people shoot films in different aspect ratios. Why should I have to carve out some obscenely huge rectangular space in my entertainment area so I can stuff one of these gargantuan boxes up against the wall and watch my TV shows stretched out all funny? Why are they pushing 16:9 as the de facto standard instead of a 4:3 with a 16:9 option? Canít they just encode DVDís to force a switch to 16:9 mode and then have it auto switch back to 4:3?
Iím also confused as to why the HDTV specification is so inconsistent. Walk into a Good Guys and ask a bunch of questions and they will tell you different things. How come 1080 has to be interlaced instead of non-interlaced (progressive)? How come some have 480p and not 600p or 768p? Why 1080 instead of 960? Just who thought all these specifications up anyway? If your digital camera takes 4:3 ratio pictures and your Quicktime movies are all in 4:3, what do you do when you want to show it on your handy new HDTV? Doesnít anybody just get sick and tired of there being no standards in the TV world anymore? Digital cable, digital satellite, HDTV broadcast signals, Standard Digital Television signals, analog broadcast, why does it all have to be so darn convoluted?