> Supporting more resolutions requires upscaling. That's more processing, and more ways
> to make the picture look subjectively "bad".
Speaking out of ignorance, but why can't they just blow the image up with more pixels and maybe add some anti-aliasing options? Sure they'd have to include hardware for that but its not like the tech doesn't exist.
> Analog inputs need to be digitised before you can feed them to an LCD, and you get
> even more issues with analog distortion, phasing, etc. Remember having to display a
> black/white pixel chequerboard to get perfect phase alignment when changing
> resolution on VGA-input LCDs?
I have no memory of this. My first LCD PC monitor didn't do that.
> Advanced screen configurations is more stuff for people to screw up. What do you
> actually want, anyway? Besides brightness, contrast, gamma and target colour
> temperature, you're left with silly gimmicks that just make the displayed image look
> less like the source material.
Resolution/Upscaling filters selection, filters on/off, adaptive sync
> No, they're interested in making a profit. Margins on TVs are actually pretty thin -
> that's why so many manufacturers have pulled out of the market. People will pay for
> big and bright, but for the most part they don't actually appreciate faithful
> rendition. You end up with gimmicks added to try and attract consumers while at the
> same time making severe compromises like chroma subsampling.
Thats a shame. I have limits for what I'll pay for a TV or Monitor, but if the features are there along with build quality, I'm willing to pay a bit more. You put some stupid markup on it, like they do with gsync displays and it a no-go.