Why are there no 2560 wide TN panels?

[lehtv]

Does anyone know? Is there a technical reason for it?

You'd think that the gamer market would appreciate higher-than-1080p resolution displays that were less expensive than IPS panels

 

[smackababy]

This I would be interested in. A 2560x1600 (or even 1440) 120Hz monitor.

 

[lehtv]

That'd be ridiculously expensive though, probably the same as 2560 wide IPS panels if not more. I think the explanation for why we don't have those is pretty easy - both the high resolution and the high refresh rate markets are very small compared to the 60hz 1080p market, and when you combine the two into a single display you have a target market that's so small it's not worth putting any effort into. You say you'd be interested in a 2560x1600 120hz monitor, but would you be willing to pay $1200 for it?

I'm more concerned with the question of why don't manufacturers make 2560 wide 60hz TN panels that would be much cheaper than IPS panels.

 

[Yuriman]

I can guess that in part, it's due to viewing angles. Even the better TNs would have color-shift at the sides at a normal viewing distance on a panel as large as 27" or 30".

 

[lehtv]

27" 1080p TN panels are rather commonplace, and the one I'm using has quite good viewing angles, better than my 22" Samsung. So why aren't there any 27" 2560x1440 TN panels?

 

[pandemonium]

I've also been looking for one. I'd like to finally make the leap from my CRT to a 1440p 27" LCD, but anything in that range is a larger investment than I'd like to make right now. (And my CRT is still working really well and simply won't die! The only disadvantage is the smaller screen size @21".)

 

[Throckmorton]

That'd be ridiculously expensive though, probably the same as 2560 wide IPS panels if not more. I think the explanation for why we don't have those is pretty easy - both the high resolution and the high refresh rate markets are very small compared to the 60hz 1080p market, and when you combine the two into a single display you have a target market that's so small it's not worth putting any effort into. You say you'd be interested in a 2560x1600 120hz monitor, but would you be willing to pay $1200 for it?

I'm more concerned with the question of why don't manufacturers make 2560 wide 60hz TN panels that would be much cheaper than IPS panels.

$300 isn't cheap enough? Come on guys, this is the one area where the better technology is prevailing, and you guys want TN "options" which will probably end up taking over just like they did every other segment of the monitor market. Just try to find an IPS 20" monitor. It's impossible because consumers are dumb and will give up quality to save $5. STFU and enjoy good color and viewing angles. If you can't spend $300 for a Catleap, buy a used one. Stop trying to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[smackababy]

$300 isn't cheap enough? Come on guys, this is the one area where the better technology is prevailing, and you guys want TN "options" which will probably end up taking over just like they did every other segment of the monitor market. Just try to find an IPS 20" monitor. It's impossible because consumers are dumb and will give up quality to save $5. STFU and enjoy good color and viewing angles. If you can't spend $300 for a Catleap, buy a used one. Stop trying to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Quality of what? Response time? Input lag? Some people care more about smoothness than being able to view my monitor upside down and 176 degrees to the right. I couldn't care less about viewing angles because like most normal people I sit in front my monitor, not some strange "need more than 30 degree" stupid posture.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Quality of what? Response time? Input lag? Some people care more about smoothness than being able to view my monitor upside down and 176 degrees to the right. I couldn't care less about viewing angles because like most normal people I sit in front my monitor, not some strange "need more than 30 degree" stupid posture.

Honestly monitors don't ghost like they did in 2001 anymore, so even if it's an IPS or PVA panel, they're decent. I've used TN panels, and unless you game 24/7 and are so sensitive about any amount of input lag response time, I'd rather have a panel where you can see actual colors and not strain your eyes and crap.

I know TN panels have come a long way but my last TN panel in 2005... man. Colors were washed out, they tried to brighten the panel just to get punch, but that just ends being way too bright. It's crap. Might as well see in black and white because my colors are all distorted.

But it's unfortunate. Some people just do want to have cheap crap and don't care about quality. Why else do you think there are so many low end budget Android tablets? 60% of them run like crap. The flagship models are the only ones worth caring about.

 

[lehtv]

$300 isn't cheap enough? Come on guys, this is the one area where the better technology is prevailing, and you guys want TN "options" which will probably end up taking over just like they did every other segment of the monitor market. Just try to find an IPS 20" monitor. It's impossible because consumers are dumb and will give up quality to save $5. STFU and enjoy good color and viewing angles. If you can't spend $300 for a Catleap, buy a used one. Stop trying to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Please don't derail the thread, this isn't about how great the cheap Korean factory reject IPS panels are. Can you tell me why there aren't 27" 2560 wide TN panels? Certainly not because cheap IPS panels are so commonplace.

Also, there's nothing wrong with TN as a technology. It is less expensive to manufacture. People are indeed fine with TN panels, not because they're stupid and can't see how awesome IPS panels are, but because TN panels do the job adequately for less. So why aren't there 2560 wide TN panels?

 

[kevinsbane]

Quality of what? Response time? Input lag? Some people care more about smoothness than being able to view my monitor upside down and 176 degrees to the right. I couldn't care less about viewing angles because like most normal people I sit in front my monitor, not some strange "need more than 30 degree" stupid posture.

Input lag is independent of panel type. Response time is better on tn, but it's not as big of an advantage as you might think from the numbers.

I moved to IPS panels for all my personal (and work) screens because I got tired of having a noticeable colour shift from the top of my screen to the bottom. It got to the point where I was wondering to myself... why did they put a gradient on this webpage? It looks like garbage. Oh wait... it's not a gradient, it's a solid colour; it's just my screen is tn and thus is terrible for showing uniform colours like that. Even leaning back in my chair was enough to shift the gradients and the colours. And that was only on a 1680x1050 screen 22" screen. You'd get even worse problems on a 30" or 27" screen.

Actually, the reason probably has to do with the fact that Apple didn't do it. No seriously. 30" 2560x1600 only got started in mainstream because Apple wanted to do the 30" ACD, and so pushed for it; the rest of the consumer market followed suit afterwards. Similarly, the 27" market only started when Apple ordered and funded it with the 27" ACDs. Naturally, Apple being Apple, they wanted a good consumer experience; thus the use of IPS instead of TN on such a large screen size.

Seeing as how you would need machines dedicated to making 27", 1440p panels, someone would have to take the risk of funding the development of a separate assembly line. Who has the clout and financial backing to do that, and yet manage to sell enough panels to keep prices down? Apple... Dell... HP... And they already have successful premium IPS screens in that size and resolution already, so why cut into those profits?

That's my speculation.

 

[Subyman]

I don't see the market for them. 27" 1080p tn panels are already $399. Step up the resolution and create a new manufacturing process would make the 1440p tn cost at least as much as the 1080p 27" 120hz monitors at $599 to $699. The hp 27" ips sits at around 699 to 799 and doesn't sell like crazy.

120hz found a market for a premium price due to 3d marketing and the video card manufacturers getting behind it. 1440p doesn't have that push from buzz or companies.

You also have to remember that 1080p is a hot word. People know 1080p as high resolution, hd. The informed buyer that wants 1440p or even knows about it, will probably be willing to pay a bit more for the ips panels. Pretty much, the market that 1440p attracts is higher end and likely wouldnt benefit from trying to cut the price a few percent with tn tech.

 

[Throckmorton]

Quality of what? Response time? Input lag? Some people care more about smoothness than being able to view my monitor upside down and 176 degrees to the right. I couldn't care less about viewing angles because like most normal people I sit in front my monitor, not some strange "need more than 30 degree" stupid posture.

Input lag doesn't have anything to do with the panel tech, only response time. Unless you can see ghosting, the response time is good enough.

And I bet you would care about viewing angle when your screen is 27". I can see the color shift on my 24" TN panels at work. Measure the angle from your eyes to the edges of a 27" monitor. It's probably more than 30 degrees, and it would definitely be enough to cause noticeable color shift. Remember, the 27" 1440p monitor will be closer your face than a 27" 1080p.

 

[VirtualLarry]

IThe informed buyer that wants 1440p or even knows about it, will probably be willing to pay a bit more for the ips panels. Pretty much, the market that 1440p attracts is higher end and likely wouldnt benefit from trying to cut the price a few percent with tn tech.

This, 100%.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its market segregation based on need. Those people who want higher quality images, higher pixel density than the average tend also to want better colour fidelity. TN has always been about cheap and 1080p means that they can churn out lots and lots of them at the same resolution and ratio and most people will be happy.

What I want is the colour fidelity of IPS combined with 120Hz and ideally at 16:10 (1920x1200).

 

[Throckmorton]

Its market segregation based on need. Those people who want higher quality images, higher pixel density than the average tend also to want better colour fidelity. TN has always been about cheap and 1080p means that they can churn out lots and lots of them at the same resolution and ratio and most people will be happy.

What I want is the colour fidelity of IPS combined with 120Hz and ideally at 16:10 (1920x1200).

Too bad we'll never go back to 16:10. HP had a laptop with a 1920x1200 IPS screen, but after one generation they downgraded it to 1920x1080. But it's "1080p"!