Where are the bigger Monitors?

[Nebor]

Whatshisface is right, a projector would be right up your alley.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: GreatDaleness
so I am to believe that in this world of $700 cpus, $600 speaker systems, and $600 VPUs that no one wants to play Half Life 2 , Doom III, or UT2004 on a 22" viewable monitor instead of a 20" viewable? How much would a $400 level 20" Dell/Viewsonic cost at 22"? Surely not more than $700! Like I said in my original post, we went up from 14" to 22" and then stopped. WHy?

The general market consensus these days is that it's not worth pursuing ultra-high-end CRTs, since LCD monitors are vastly superior in many ways (super-high resolutions, response time for gaming, and somewhat better color calibration are about all that CRTs have over them now, and LCDs are gaining ground every year in all of those categories). You may be able to put out a large, low-quality CRT at that price point (I think you'd be looking at more than $1000, personally -- it doesn't scale linearly at all), but who's going to buy it? Students have no money and no space. Graphics professionals will want higher quality. Business users (the biggest market segment) won't spend that much. Home users won't want a giant, clunky box that weighs 70+ pounds to check their email. Gamers might go for it, but they'd rather have that new CPU or graphics card. So you're looking at hardcore gamers with money to burn that have already upgraded everything else, which is not exactly a large market.

Also, it's a case of diminishing returns. A 19" monitor versus a 17" monitor is 27% bigger, and the cost difference now isn't much. A 21" versus a 19" is 23% bigger. A 22" versus a 20" is 22% bigger. A 24" versus a 22" is only 19% bigger. But the price differential increases each time -- glancing briefly at Pricewatch, you'll pay roughly double for a 21" versus a 19" (only 23% bigger), and triple for a 22" (only 36% bigger!). Would you pay even 4x what you would for a 19" monitor for a 24" (63% more screen)? I wouldn't -- I'd rather have three $200 19" monitors and two $200 graphics cards, and run a triple-head setup.

3-4 years ago, when there *was* impetus to develop really big CRTs, they cost way too much. I suspect it's very, very difficult to manufacture components for them -- TVs are big but relatively low-res (even HDTVs). Now the prices are down, but they're down because demand is down and all the engineering costs for 19-20" and smaller monitors have been amortized -- they're basically tweaking the same designs and parts they've used for the last few years. If you're desperate for more screen real estate, it's cheaper to just buy several smaller but higher-quality displays and go with a multi-monitor setup.

Edit: And I didn't even get into projectors!

 

[GreatDaleness]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Like I said in my original post, we went up from 14" to 22" and then stopped. WHy?

Lack of market at its pricepoint.

This is EXACTLY my point! There WAS a market for $850 21" monitors in 2000. There should STILL be a market for at least $650 monitors now, but there isn't unless you want LCD (please don't turn this into LCD vs CRT)

 

[GreatDaleness]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Whatshisface is right, a projector would be right up your alley.

I thought graphics grade projectors still ran for around $4000+

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: GreatDaleness

Originally posted by: Nebor
Whatshisface is right, a projector would be right up your alley.

I thought graphics grade projectors still ran for around $4000+

Saw one in the best buy ad for $1000 that did 1024x768.

 

[GreatDaleness]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: GreatDaleness

Originally posted by: Nebor
Whatshisface is right, a projector would be right up your alley.

I thought graphics grade projectors still ran for around $4000+

Saw one in the best buy ad for $1000 that did 1024x768.

Needs to do at least minimal levels of a normal, cheap 20" viewable monitor. By that I mean 1600X1200 at 85 hz in 32 bit color without looking like a$$.

 

[rbV5]

This is EXACTLY my point! There WAS a market for $850 21" monitors in 2000.

What do you suppose a 19" value monitor was going for in 2000? It is not a linear jump. If there was a market at the pricepoint they could sell them for, there would be models available.

 

[chizow]

Your best bet is to wait a little while for one of those HDTV LCDs that Samsung/Sharp etc. have been making. I read somewhere that Sony is entering into a joint venture with Samsung to build HDTV LCDs next year. Thing is, they're really expensive atm (~3x as much for a similar VIS LCD) and their resolutions aren't quite up to snuff as a standard LCD.

If money isn't an object put your money where your mouth is...... 😉

Another nice choice ~$1000 is the Samsung 213T 21.3" VIS LCD.....saw that beast in Best Buy today....puts my 1900FP to shame. 🙁

Chiz

 

[beatle]

Originally posted by: rbV5

This is EXACTLY my point! There WAS a market for $850 21" monitors in 2000.

What do you suppose a 19" value monitor was going for in 2000? It is not a linear jump. If there was a market at the pricepoint they could sell them for, there would be models available.

A value 19" was around $300-350 in summer/fall of 2000. I remember I paid about $450 for my Hitachi CM772. Hitachi, one of the higher end display manufacturers doesn't even make 21" CRTs now. In fact, they don't even make really high end 19" monitors anymore. Their horizontal dot pitch is smaller now @ .20mm, but the refresh rates are lower. The CM772 will do 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. Hitachi's flagship 19" CRT, the CM721F, only does 1280x1024 @ 85Hz.

Many manufacturers are putting their R&D dollars into LCDs. Many consumers don't care that a CRT has vastly superior color saturation, no lag, and a much much lower price per square inch. 🙂 They just want a "cool" LCD. I'm waiting until I can get a good quality 19 or 20" LCD for $500 or less, then I'll jump on the bandwagon. 🙂

 

[sharkeeper]

Here is a big monitor! 😛

If money isn't an object put your money where your mouth is......

This is even better.

Cheers!

 

[vegetation]

CRTs were just way too big for anything over 20". I even remember my first 20" CRT purchased back in '93 -- it was a huge 'muther that doubled as a furnace. If I'm not mistaken, major geometry issues with CRTs as you get bigger in size, combine that with high shipping and inventory control issues, it's just not cost effective for the manufacturer. TVs are different since you don't have people bringing them back to the store just because of a tiny bit of geometry issues. I remember having to exchange my Sony trinitron 19" three times before I found the one that didn't have a hint of flaw in it.

 

[tjaisv]

I'd like to have a bigger monitor. The bigger the screen size the better. But i don't want to pay a thousand bucks for it, that's ridiculous.

 

[WRXFanatic]

here you go man....only 20k!

http://reviews.designtechnica.com/firstlook21.html

 

[Gunbuster]

my random guess is that to get proper geometry on a 27" screen doing 1600x1200 the glass and kit would weigh in at 150-200 pounds.

something that big and heavy would be a damaged is shipping nightmare