I forgot to mention the monitor issue. Most LCDs in the 17" to 19" range are 1280 x 1024 assuming non-widescreen (17" widescreen would be 1280/1366 x 720/768/800 and rarely 1920 x 1200) so 1280 x 720 is a better resolution. Now at 19"+ wide, we have 1440 x 900 and the occasional 1680 x 1050 so resolution-wise, 1280 x 720 is still better suited although at the higher resolution, downscaling 1920 x 1080 may be preferred. Greater sizes (20"+) have greater resolution, but full 1920 x 1080/1200 is still not common.DJ_Izumi wrote:Thirdly, while the majority of people have displays that can do 1280x720 without scaling down, the same can not be said for a resolution of 1920 × 1080. Only extreamly large displays can even do 1080p resolution without it being scaled down and making it a waste. Most LCD displays capable of 1080p start at about 24 inches. Even if LCDs are smaller and lighter these days, most people don't want anything larger than 17-19 inch displays on their desks. Which are great for 720p but 1080p will be scaled down. 1080p displays start at 24 inches and the price tags start around $800usd.
I haven't checked prices on 23/24" widescreens in a while so I was shocked that prices have dropped so much. And personally, I'd love to have a 24" widescreen 1920 x 1200 monitor (or 2) on my desktop. After having 1280 x 1024 pixels for a while, going with less vertical resolution is kinda a downer -- I want wider, not shorter so 1680 x 1050 is the minimum. I'm willing so compromise for my notebook (which has a 14" 1280 x 800 screen), but less so for my desktop.
Hopefully, with the increased adoption of either Blu-ray or HD-DVD, efficient H.264/MPEG-4 AVC will become more widely available. Although I'm sure that the computer companies rather have people buy newer, more powerful hardware (along side Windows Vista) than stick with their older machines.
Oh, and if you do release 1080p and 720p material, I hope it plays on my PS3. I've seen 1080p and 720p (even upconverted 720p stuff) on my HDTV and I like what I see.