640x480? What, did I travel back to 1997?
Name
Email
Reason
Agreed, should have been at least 720x480 16:9 EDTV. Or 640x480 "rectangle pixel" 16x9...They don't list the aspect ratio so I am assuming 4:3Why would you build anything new that was 4:3?That price blows for the resolution, at the very least the lumens should have been greater that 1000
I didn't even know TI made a DLP chip of that resolution. I guess they must have dug really deeply into the parts bin.
@nntpgrip: AFAIK, the aspect ratio is the lowest common denominator of the resolution. So 640x480 is indeed 4x3 (640/180 = 4 and 480/180 =3).
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
640x480? What, did I travel back to 1997?
Agreed, should have been at least 720x480 16:9 EDTV. Or 640x480 "rectangle pixel" 16x9...
They don't list the aspect ratio so I am assuming 4:3
Why would you build anything new that was 4:3?
That price blows for the resolution, at the very least the lumens should have been greater that 1000
I didn't even know TI made a DLP chip of that resolution. I guess they must have dug really deeply into the parts bin.
@nntpgrip: AFAIK, the aspect ratio is the lowest common denominator of the resolution. So 640x480 is indeed 4x3 (640/180 = 4 and 480/180 =3).