I don't sit 8ft from my TV. Maybe that's your problem. I'm probably 5ft away when using it as a TV, and 3ft when using it as a monitor. And I can easily see the difference between 1440x800 and 1920x1080 when looking at anything other than moving video; that's not as obvious due to motion blur.
My better-quality display is 24" at 1920x1200; to go to 48", I'd want 3840x2400. Except that it's not presently affordable (72" with 5760x3600 would be awesome, but exorbitant), and readily-available prerecorded media isn't better than 1080p anyway. My x1200 only allows me to have the controls onscreen if I want, without covering the picture. (Which I set to autohide, since they distract.) And most movies are much wider than 16x9 anyway; the video would be better encoded at 2640x1080 and played on a 22x9 monitor, but that's another matter altogether.
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.
I don't sit 8ft from my TV. Maybe that's your problem. I'm probably 5ft away when using it as a TV, and 3ft when using it as a monitor. And I can easily see the difference between 1440x800 and 1920x1080 when looking at anything other than moving video; that's not as obvious due to motion blur.
My better-quality display is 24" at 1920x1200; to go to 48", I'd want 3840x2400. Except that it's not presently affordable (72" with 5760x3600 would be awesome, but exorbitant), and readily-available prerecorded media isn't better than 1080p anyway. My x1200 only allows me to have the controls onscreen if I want, without covering the picture. (Which I set to autohide, since they distract.) And most movies are much wider than 16x9 anyway; the video would be better encoded at 2640x1080 and played on a 22x9 monitor, but that's another matter altogether.