Why no 32" 1080P?

[mango]

This might be a dumb question, but I've searched the archives for an answer, and have read a few articles about 1080P, including a very good editorial on this site, and I still can't explain why 1080P is reserved only for the larger sizes of LCDs? For instance, why is the new 32" Sony Bravia native res 1366x768, and not 1920x1080? Is there a logistic problem of fitting that many pixels on a smaller screen, or are the benefits of 1080P not as dramatic on the smaller one? Or do manufacturers just figure someone interested in the smaller screen won't $pring for the extra detail?

 

[gmichael]

This might be a dumb question, but I've searched the archives for an answer, and have read a few articles about 1080P, including a very good editorial on this site, and I still can't explain why 1080P is reserved only for the larger sizes of LCDs? For instance, why is the new 32" Sony Bravia native res 1366x768, and not 1920x1080? Is there a logistic problem of fitting that many pixels on a smaller screen, or are the benefits of 1080P not as dramatic on the smaller one? Or do manufacturers just figure someone interested in the smaller screen won't $pring for the extra detail?

I think you already hit on three major reasons here.

 

[jcPanny]

32" Lcd

I am also in the market for a 32" LCD and noticed the max resolutions shy of 1080p. It is kind of annoying because you can't send the TV its native resolution. It will always be scalling up or down the 1080 or 720 input signal.

I think that the difference between 720 and 1080 really comes into play on >100" front projection systems. On these types of systems, you can see the pixle structure if you are closer than 1.5 x the screen width viewing distance.
Of course, if you sit too close, it is like the front row of a movie theater which most people don't enjoy.

 

[pbmpharmacist]

This might be a dumb question, but I've searched the archives for an answer, and have read a few articles about 1080P, including a very good editorial on this site, and I still can't explain why 1080P is reserved only for the larger sizes of LCDs? For instance, why is the new 32" Sony Bravia native res 1366x768, and not 1920x1080? Is there a logistic problem of fitting that many pixels on a smaller screen, or are the benefits of 1080P not as dramatic on the smaller one? Or do manufacturers just figure someone interested in the smaller screen won't $pring for the extra detail?

You've nailed the reason... it's not worth the cost of 1080p on such a set. I always want 1080p but I've got to say that for most people it's going to have to be over 50" in screen size to really tell if it's 1080p or not.

 

[mango]

OK, I guess I can stop waiting for a 1080P 32" lcd to come out then, and just take the plunge! Good point jcPanny, I didn't even think of that.