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?"

10 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Or maybe google? by Liquidrage · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hear Google is great for doing searches...

  2. LCDs might waste less space around the screen by Shag · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:HD Capable by acid06 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Samsung T220M (or HD) should suit your needs.

  4. Re:Sadly... by jo42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before buying any LCD, you need to read this first: Desperately Seeking Quality LCDs.

  5. Re:Syncmaster by SignalFreq · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  6. Re:Syncmaster by 644bd346996 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That EIZO monitor doesn't do color. It's a grayscale monitor for looking at medical images like x-rays.

  7. Re:HD Capable by geekboy642 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Re:Syncmaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... and that is 1280x800 display.

    Hint: Widescreen 1400x1050 means non-square pixels
    The description shows the physical resolution as Optimum Resolution.

    FAIL.

  9. Re:HD Capable by OneAhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  10. Re:Syncmaster by default+luser · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.