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?"
When I upgraded from my CRT to an LCD I gained tons of desk space. Just push your monitor back and take whatever stuff you would have had to the side of the monitor in front of it. In my opinion, desk real estate has more to deal with footprint area than length, but maybe I'm crazy. (Crazy like a fox)
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar
seriuosly. that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.
lose != loose
I hear Google is great for doing searches...
Is most all new Monitors are Widescreen, I hate that 16:9 aspect ratio.
My next new one will have to be normal width 4:3 aspect ratio.
Maybe I am old school, but it just looks right,
besides I like to have a good resolution on more then just horizontal axis
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.
Being thin, LCD's don't take much desk space. Go for a 20". My Dell 2007WFP has a native resolution of 1680x1050, for example. and uses a little more than 24 sq. inch of desk space. That's less desk space than the 17" Dell Trinitron it replaced. :)
My blog
Why not get a TV? Tesco in the UK do 1920x1080 TVs around 20.1 inches.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Apple's 17" MacBook Pro can be had with a 1920x1200 17" LED backlit panel, so clearly the technology is out there, and being mass produced.
Still, no one has a desktop display of the same specs, at least that I can find. I suspect a large part of the reason is you're generally expected to be sitting further from the display at your desktop, and the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.
I wold like higher DPI displays in all resolutions though. IBM used to make 200DPI displays, but I think they stopped.
It does nothing.
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
I have been on this search for three or four years, and all I can come up with is that there's a conspiracy in effect, in order to promote this 'HD' thing the commoners are obsessed with lately.
I'm posting this from a four year old Thinkpad T43, with 15" display, at 1400x1050. As long as I've had it, I've been searching for a complimentary display for my desk. Nothing comes close. I don't want a 19", 24", or 30" monitor to get this pixel count, and I sure don't want to dodge the reflections on one of those glossy, color pop displays. If I have to move my head, there's a serious ergonomics problem.
I have been doing some research, and I can't find anything satisfactory. Samsung doesn't make a panel capable of what I want, nevermind a finished display.. I thought surely IBM would provide an engineering-quality display @ > 116 PPI, but if they do, I can't find it.
What I may do, and some others may explore as well, is to follow in the tracks of the homebrew projection TV people, and rig up an old laptop display with a converter and new backlight.
Some light reading on the subject:
An interesting paper on high pixel density LCD panels from 2005; why there likely are none, and why there likely won't be any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density
Manufacturers, listen up; For every one of those business class notebooks you've been selling for 5 years, you have changed the work habits of at least one person. Sell them a capable desktop display for a third to half the cost of the notebook, and garner a tidy profit. Just don't put one of those stinking shine panels on the front. Stick it in the box with some double-sided tape, if the focus group says you have to.
Did not consider this question before, but you really made a point: nobody gave a satisfiable answer to 'I look for a 17" LCD with resolution beyond 1280x1024, and hopefully 4:3".
The technology is definitely out there, my handhald with 9" has 800x480 which could be easily scaled up to 1400 + in your desired form factor (4:3).
There were even monitors with this kind of attributes a few years back. About 4 years ago I bought my which has the minimal DPI resolution you mentioned. I'm a bit astonished that time stood still in this sector for this amount of time. Not "Moor-ish" at all.
Guess the answer is, that mainstream did not want it, and niche markets are not asked any-more. Also there is a specific OS that can't handle scaling of wigdets very well, that mostly catalysed this non-development.
Your answer is: no, there is probably no such thing you are looking for.. Sadly.
One of the problems with LCDs is that even if you find one that has truly good parameters and shines in reviews, you have no guarantee that the monitor you buy will perform at any similar level, due to manufacturers selling different revisions with different panels under the same name. Like the infamous Samsung 226BW.
People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
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
Aah, if I only had mod points.
I set up some labs with bench space a while back and used exclusively 19" monitors with VESA arms. The space under the monitor becomes usable (since there's no stand in the way) and the adjustability (and ability to just shove the monitor to the side when not in use) is invaluable. This gets even better with 2x stands.
Oh, and with many brackets, you can mount them from above instead of below, too.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
LCD dot pitches are in the 0.5-0.6mm range
Where are you seeing these ridiculously huge pixels advertised? I'm actively seeking larger dot pitch LCD monitors since they're easier on my eyes for longer periods of time, and the largest I've ever seen is .3. Most are right in the .27-.25 range, granted not as fine as a CRT but still hardly the double you're claiming.
Samsung T260HD for example (what I'm getting), is .282mm
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
google 17" LCD 1400x1050
Very first link is a KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black) for sale for $166.
I really can't believe this made it on Ask Slashdot. Shouldn't the requirement be to get on Ask Slashdot that someone can't find it with a 10 second google search?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
... and that is 1280x800 display.
Hint: Widescreen 1400x1050 means non-square pixels
The description shows the physical resolution as Optimum Resolution.
FAIL.
I would say windows is far more disfunctional when it comes to high resolution screen management with lots of small windows... The fonts don't scale according to screen DPI, and windows is very much geared towards having one app running full screen at a time - and many of those apps (and many poorly designed websites etc) just look stupid when used at a high resolution.
The mainstream Linux window managers suffer from trying to be too much like windows and having many of the same flaws... You really need a completely different WM for a small low resolution netbook than for multiple large high resolution screens, one size does not fit all.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Why not increase your DPI, so you still have a sharp image with big letters?
Why is this marked troll?
I'm going to answer you because I think this is important to understand, and I can take the karma hit if I happen to incur any.
The submitter specifically requested resolution greater than 1280 x 1024, but the person didn't pay attention and recommended the very type of LCD he is explicitly stating he does not want. You combine that with the fact that many people will willingly mod, but have no idea how to, and you get things that should be modded "Overrated" being classified as "Troll", "Flamebait", or "Offtopic".
For those who don't get why the post in question is not a Troll, Flamebait, or Offtopic: The guy wasn't trying to stir up trouble, and he stayed on topic. His advice just sucked because he didn't pay attention to the question before offering up an answer.
Now:
Q: Why shouldn't this post be modded down, even though it is technically off-topic?
A: The mod system is designed to improve the Slashdot experience by fighting abuse and promoting behavior that makes the Slashdot experience better. One should first classify the post in those terms, and only then pick an option from the set of categories that observe proper polarity.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
> You're point about TVs is well taken, but remember that most TVs simply aren't in the same
> size category as monitors, so there isn't much panel sharing going on.
I'd argue that's 99% of the reason why you can now get a 1920x1080 22" to 24" panel for *literally* just a few dollars more than a 17"-19" panel. A 17" panel isn't good for much BESIDES a computer display and a few ultra-niche laptops. Ditto, for most 19" panels (which are really the equivalent of a 15-17" 4:3 display when you get down to it). On the other hand, a 22-24" panel ends up being the same effective size as one of the most common sizes for low-end secondary TVs, as well as the larger-without-being-crazy end of computer displays.
Remember -- in the CRT era, computer monitors had much denser shadow masks than TV displays, so there wasn't as much potential for dual-use. You could either get a CRT with low dot pitch and bright display to use as a TV, or a CRT with a high dot pitch and dimmer display to use as a monitor. Making a non-HD CRT with higher dot pitch would have been counterproductive, because it would have looked just as blurry across the room, and would have been dimmer to boot.
In the case of TVs vs monitors, it's mainly a difference of backlighting. From what I understand, the practical limit of fluorescent/cold-cathode backlights is mainly, "How much power can you get away with drawing to light it up"? Use one that's highly efficient (but dimmer), or even LED-based, and you have a laptop display. Use one that's bright and burns power like a 500W early-90s halogen torchiere, and you have a cheap TV. Use one that falls somewhere in between, and you have a desktop monitor or small TV.
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
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.