Slashdot Mirror
Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors?
An anonymous reader writes "I'm a veteran user of an old 17" Dell Trinitron CRT monitor. I run it at 1400x1050 with an 80Hz refresh rate — about as high as it goes before it'll go out of the monitor's scan range. More recently I've been looking to finally upgrade to an LCD monitor but found that, for the most part, every 17" monitor on the market runs natively at 1280x1024, as does every 19" monitor — I have to go for a 20" to go higher. Now yes, I know I'm complaining about just 120 pixels horizontal and 26 pixels vertical, but my laptop's 15" display runs natively at 1400x1050. Is there any standalone monitor on the market that'll natively do higher than 1280x1024 without killing my desk space?"
I hear Google is great for doing searches...
Your 17" CRT probably had a visible area of about 16" and a case of 18-19". A nice 20" widescreen 1680x1050 LCD really won't eat up all that much space on your desk. :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Samsung T220M (or HD) should suit your needs.
Before buying any LCD, you need to read this first: Desperately Seeking Quality LCDs.
my VS11979 is 19" and has a native resolution of 1680*1050, which exceeds your needs. It also has a very high response rate and insanely high contrast ratio. The colors are simply fantastic; I almost fainted when I first watched Big Buck Bunny on it. I also got it dirt cheep at Fry's. And everyone knows ViewSonic displays are the best. Just ignore the fact that it has built-in speakers - they're predictably terrible.
ASUS VW192T+ 19", 1680 x 1050, $120
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ASUS_VW192T+_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VW192T+/ps/1562122
ViewSonic VX1940w 19", 1680 x 1050, $150
http://www.superwarehouse.com/ViewSonic_VX1940w_19_Widescreen_LCD_Monitor/VX1940W/ps/1504859
Or if you want really high resolution (and have too much money):
EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8", 2048 x 1536, $6k
http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_GS310-CL_Single_Head_20.8_LCD_Monitor/GS310-CL-SH-MMP3P/ps/1543964
From what I can tell online, that only runs at 1680x1050 even though they advertise "Full HD" support. They must be downscaling. http://www.samsung.com/ar/consumer/detail/detail.do?group=computersperipherals&type=monitors&subtype=lcd&model_cd=LS22TDSSU/ZB Also, I couldn't seem to find an english language page for that product and a search on samsung's website for Canada and US turned up nothing.
You can get 18.5" monitors that run at 1366x768, like the Acer X183H.
Hands in my pocket
I have a pair of Samsung 21.5" SyncMaster 2233SW monitors on my desk; their native resolution is 1920x1080. I know you said you don't really want bigger than 21", but 21.5" is close ;)
I got them for $180 after rebate on newegg, but no free shipping. Shop around, YMMV.
That EIZO monitor doesn't do color. It's a grayscale monitor for looking at medical images like x-rays.
In a CRT, there are two practical considerations that set the upper limit for resolution: One is the dot pitch of the phosphor, the other is the speed/flexibility of the onboard signal processor. There's also, I assume, some upper limit for switching the electron gun. CPU is fairly cheap, and dot pitches of 0.22mm were common in the CRT era. At that pitch, the highest resolution would be something like 2048x1536.
Contrast that to an LCD monitor, where every pixel is a discrete LCD element, complete with wires and transistors for addressing. LCD dot pitches are in the 0.5-0.6mm range, and making them smaller is very expensive currently. Sadly, only us geeks seem to care that there is such a disparity with the "new and improved" technology.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Sanyo-Epson has a 7.1" 1080P display! It's even in color =) link
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
True, that particular one is. They do sell color versions though, like this one with 1536 x 2048:
http://www.superwarehouse.com/EIZO_RadiForce_R31-BK_20.1_Black_LCD_Monitor/R31-BK/p/1503373
Have the moderators and posters gone mad? Read the freaking requirements. Parent is +4 Informative for some reason. For phrackin sake:
'ASUS VW192T+ 19"'
Besides reading the link, divide the pixels. This is a 16:10 widescreen. Obviously not 4:3. Less pixel density. Smaller height than a 17" CRT. Fail.
'ViewSonic VX1940w 19"'
Same.
'EIZO RadiForce GS310-CL Single Head 20.8"'
Like you said, it's a $6k monitor. Second, too large. This one is a 4:3 monitor but by being so, it in direct comparison with a 4:3 CRT tube, so being a 20.8in monitor is larger than a 17in LCD by 3.8 inches diagonally. Not to mention what's already been stated that a 17" CRT screen diagonal is less than actual (it's tube diagonal, which isn't all real estate, unlike most LCDs which is actual diagonal (although that's changed too)), making the difference morethan 4.6 inches diagonally. Fail.
Fail on all 3. Again, the 19" LCDs have less pixel density than the 17" CRT. And again, the 17" CRT even accounting for a smaller screensize due to how CRTs are measured is still taller than a 19" LCD.
A 20in widescreen LCD may get you closer to the height of a 17" CRT and maybe pixel density if it bumps up, but still, you're increasing monitor width at the same time due to the usual 16:10 widescreen breakdown.
Here's a crappy worksheet with things badly rounded and significant digits taken at the wrong place and what not and lacking () but you should get the picture:
17
289
4x2 + 3x2 25
3.4 13.6 10.2 138.72
1400x1050 1470000
10597
16.2
262.44
3.24 12.96 9.72 125.9712
11669.333942996494436823654930651
19
361
16x2 + 9x2 337
1.035 16.56 9.315 154.2564
1680x1050 1764000
11435.506079488436136199211183458
Just make sure the vertical viewing angle is good on the display, as TN panels are designed to be looked at in a certain orientation. Putting an IPS display upright would certainly be no problem, though.
... and that is 1280x800 display.
Hint: Widescreen 1400x1050 means non-square pixels
The description shows the physical resolution as Optimum Resolution.
FAIL.
You guys are comparing apples and oranges. Even at the highest supported resolution, a logical pixel would consist of several RGB triads on a CRT monitor. Hell, the vast majority of CRT monitors would use a shadow mask, having their dots arranged in a honeycomb pattern and thereby making it impossible to use one RGB triplet per logical pixel!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
In contrast, on LCD monitors, every pixel is exactly one RGB triad. That's why you have to set your video card at the "native resolution" of your LCD screen (or suffer digital resampling artefacts), while on a CRT screen, you could choose whichever resolution you'd like best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display
Yeah, but have you ever seen how much power these things draw? I used 2 - 21" CRT tubes that were from the early 90s for probably 10 years. I had to reinforce my desk, because they were so heavy. In the end I found out the pull 1 KW of energy and replaced them with a 24" LCD (50w).
Don't forget that a 17" CRT is really 16" viewable best-case. I'll bet almost everyone has forgotten that by now. LCD is fully-viewable, so a 19" screen is really 19".
Also, NOWHERE in the article post does the author request another 4:3 monitor, so if a 19" widescreen has similar vertical viewing range and the same (or better) DPI, then we can assume it is a winner.
Some math for you
16" CRT (viewable) 1400x1050
We know the hypotenuse = 16. for a 4:3 monitor:
4^2 + 3^2 = 5^2. 16" / 5 = a factor of 3.2, so multiply all factors by 3.2 to get true screen dimensions.
Screen is 12.8" by 9.6", with a DPI of 109
19" widescreen LCD (16:10) 1680x1050
16^2 + 10^2 = 18.87^2, 19 / 18.87 = 1.007
Screen is 16.1" by 10.07", with a DPI of 104
With the 19" LCD, you get a VERY SLIGHT drop in DPI, with the same vertical resolution/area, and MUCH INCREASED horizontal area. Sounds like a win to me!
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.