Latest in 1080p

Image credit:

Philips explains why 1080p.....isn't


In the "oh no you didn't" of the week, Philips has tried to talk their way out of the whole "1080p TV's don't accept a 1080p signal" mess. Our friends across the pond at HDTV UK have the full response but the gist of it is Philips thinks that it is not worth it to put in the chips necessary to receive a 1080p signal, since very few devices can output at that level right now.

Did they really think we were going to fall for that? I'm not even going to say that their statement is not true, in that there isn't any 1080p content to watch right now, but what about when there is? I think their stance doesn't hold water one bit for several reasons.

  • They claim including the necessary equipment to process a 1080p signal would increase the cost of the set, I say so what? Anyone buying a 1080p TV is willing to pay a premium, and is paying a premium to have the technology. If current so-called 1080p TV's only cost the same amount as existing 1080i sets, no one would complain.
  • If they think 1080i is good enough HD, could they tell their friends over at Sony to stop calling 1080p the "only true HD"?
  • Speaking of Sony, what about the PS3 coming next year which will be able to output at 1080p, (whether that content will be rendered internally at that resolution is doubtful, but if the PS3 puts it out at 1080p, I want my TV to be able to take it)
  • If it's not a big deal, then why aren't TV manufacturers upfront about the current limitations of the technology.
As angry as I am regarding these comments, in fact I commend Philips for even making a statement on the situation and quite frankly I may remember that when it comes time to make my next HDTV purchase. While other manufacturers continue to play hide and go seek with their specs, at least Philips has let us know where they stand and why, whether or not we agree with it.

From around the web

ear iconeye icontext filevr