How come there are laptop screens with 1400x1050 and 1600x1200 res. and no comparable desktop TFTs ?

[Gomce]

My 15" is SXGA+ 1400x1050 native res.

Why 99% of the desktop TFTs have 1280x1024 from 17" and up?

I want 1600x1200 17" desktop tft

 

[vegetation]

I have to agree, I wish there were desktop screens available with that kind of resolution. My laptop screen has such a fine dpi that I find all existing desktop lcd screens to be shoddy in comparison.

 

[Zzzt]

Resolution on a tube is based on the accuracy of a cathode ray gun to hit a spot on a phosphor field. A TFT screen actually has a set number of pixels. Notice how a screen that is designed for one resolution looks really bad at a different resolution? That's because when running at the wrong resolution, the pixels your monitor is supposed to turn to whatever color are smaller or larger than the pixels available, so there is a bit of fudging...

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: Zzzt
Resolution on a tube is based on the accuracy of a cathode ray gun to hit a spot on a phosphor field. A TFT screen actually has a set number of pixels. Notice how a screen that is designed for one resolution looks really bad at a different resolution? That's because when running at the wrong resolution, the pixels your monitor is supposed to turn to whatever color are smaller or larger than the pixels available, so there is a bit of fudging...

Not talking about desktop CRT's. Desktop TFT's. It's hard to find a 17" 4:3 native. Most are 1280x1024.

And that explanation of TFT resolution scaling could use some work too

 

[Gunbuster]

You sit with a laptop closer, 16X12 on a desktop monitor 2-4 feet away is really small

 

[Baronz]

Originally posted by: Gunbuster
You sit with a laptop closer, 16X12 on a desktop monitor 2-4 feet away is really small

Good point, although I would still like some higher resolution desktop LCDs, I don't mind leaning closer

I think one other reason they only go so high is because people want to game at native resolutions, if you have an LCD with a native res of 1600x1200, you're either going to have your games play very slowly (unless you have a R9700) or lower your resolution and have them be all fuzzy. 1280x960 seems to be a good balance of resolution and usability for all users.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

What I don't get is the way LCDs with a 4:3 pixel count actually have physical dimensions that are more wide screen, and how 5:4 pixel monitors are physically 4:3. How do designers and artists stand the distortion??

 

[bigshooter]

Because most designers and artists are too poor to buy them?

 

[0roo0roo]

market for 1600x1200 17" probably smaller. u'd have to have a nice vid card to play all games at native res!

or perhaps its still really hard to make and the small supply is taken by laptops.

 

[henmaster]

Actually, a 1600x1200 native TFT would also be able to display 800x600 perfectly since it is a whole number multiple. So if the game was too slow at 1600x1200 you could bump it down to 800x600 for extra speed. I wish we had desktop TFTs with this native res too... none of this 1280x1024 crap that isnt even in a 4:3 ratio...

 

[Gosharkss]

There's a distinct difference between the laptop and desktop monitor markets, and therefore between the panels designed for each. Desktop monitor panels tend to be brighter having better contrast ratios and viewing angles then those high-resolution versions used in laptop displays. In many cases the manufactures intentionally keep viewing angles narrow on laptop monitors for privacy reasons.

Desktop LCD monitors have been designed intentionally for lower resolution (pixels per inch), in order to make them more competitive with the desktop standard CRT monitor. Also most people who what higher pixel densities want larger sized monitors not smaller. High resolution on a small screen is often very difficult for most users due to the small size of text and Icons etc. If you look at the trend for LCD monitors the sizes and approximate dot pitches match (or are close) to those of the standard CRT.

Its not a function of technology its basic math. Think about it, LCD?s use a matrix of cells, the distance between each cell (dot pitch) multiplied by the resolution defines the size of the panel. If you want higher density (dot pitch) the panel gets smaller. Most people want bigger panels. If the density gets to large above 0.28 ? 0.30mm the image becomes very grainy. Higher resolutions will help make the panel size larger at the expense on making text and icons even smaller on the screen. That?s the trade off.

 

[Steve Guilliot]

I'm sure that eventually someone will market a <19" UXGA LCD, but that will be a high-end niche product and therefore expensive. Fact is, the vast majority of people prefer 1280x1024 or smaller in these sizes. If any manufacturer wants a product to be widely accepted (and they do), they will make it appealing to the broader majority of users.

To put a different spin on it, it's financially better for a manufacturer to make one monitor that appeals to 90% of the market than to make 4 different monitors each appealing to 25%. The only way to make the latter worthwhile for them is to charge more, hence the niche premium.

As state above, displaying non-native resolutions on LCDs requires dithering down from the native. This appears as random fuzziness, having the greatest impact on small features such as text. This is not a problem that CRTs deal with, so the market dynamics are completely different.

 

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
What I don't get is the way LCDs with a 4:3 pixel count actually have physical dimensions that are more wide screen, and how 5:4 pixel monitors are physically 4:3. How do designers and artists stand the distortion??

As long as you run the LCD in its native resolution, there is no distortion, regardless of whether the physical dimensions ratio is 4:3 or not. The pixels are a fixed size, and not stretched to fit like a CRT would be.

A CRT (using the H and V expansion controls) stretches the image to the edge of the screen (if you adjust it to do so). This distorts the pixels by making them wider or higher to fit. A LCD doesn't present this problem because it has a fixed number of pixels, no more, no less.

 

[henmaster]

Jello:

TFT's with a native res that is 5:4 are physically 5:4 so there is no distortion. There will be distortion if you try to run a physically 5:4 TFT in a 4:3 res or a physically 4:3 monitor in a 5:4 res however. Which is why I would not buy a physically 5:4 TFT since there are very few 5:4 resolutions.

 

[bigshooter]

good luck finding an lcd that isn't running 5:4 and is bigger than 15". Most consumer level LCD's 17-19" run 1280x1024. I don't especially like it, but I've moved away from games for the most part, so it doesn't bother me now. By the time I upgrade this thing, I'm sure they'll have 1600x1200 19"+ panels for a lot cheaper than they are now.