Small, High-Resolution LCD Monitors? 370
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?"
Killing desk space? (Score:4, Insightful)
check newegg (Score:4, Insightful)
seriuosly. that power search link on the right hand side of their site isn't there for nothing.
One thing I hate (Score:4, Insightful)
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
LCDs don't take that much desk space. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. :)
Re:One thing I hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Killing desk space? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people work 8 hours a day on monitors <20"
Re:Use the Google (Score:2, Insightful)
or to put it another way: just fucking google it [justfuckinggoogleit.com]! :)
(Actually, if I were to pick nits, I would point out that going to "goggle.com" may not be quite as productive--in fact, after a quick skim of that site, I might advise carefully avoiding it if you're running windows.)
Aim Big (Score:2, Insightful)
I have two 2048x1536 20 inch CRTs on my desk right now. You can get them dirt cheap ($100) if you look around. Even with their age, size, and proximity to each other the only real problem I've had is a bit of a convergence issue; usually nothing you can't fix with in a weekend with a little tinkering. For quality a good CRT is still the way to go, at least until SED and FED displays hit the market.
Pixel density is the key factor (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [veritasetvisus.com] 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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
Your whole argument is invalid (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you keep your LCD further away from you than you would a crt? Do you put things behind your LCD? If the answer to those is "no" then you could use a 100lb trinitron and you wouldn't be "killing any space" more than you would with a 5lb LCD.
If you want a decent resolution you're not really going to find it without getting a CRT or a VERY expensive LCD. The widescreen virus has infected everyone and shutdown their brains and now people think that they're better off with lower resolutions that old giant CRTs had in 1998.
Re:Killing desk space? (Score:5, Insightful)
I forgot to mention - if you use a desk bracket, and you really value your vertical resolution, you can also mount your monitors on it sideways, so you the monitor(s) are in portrait mode. most video cards support rotating your monitors, so this gives you an excellent way for looking at single page portrait documents, or more code than you should ever have in a single function all at once.
Re:The panels are in laptops, but not desktops. (Score:3, Insightful)
the further you are from the display likely the larger the pixels you want.
That's true for television, where the input is assumed to be a photographic image no bigger than 1920x1080 pixels. But for text on a PC, you want a higher DPI screen, and then you can use the operating system's DPI setting to put more pixels in each point. The text doesn't get smaller; it just gets sharper, much like the text on a device with an electronic paper display.
Re:One thing I hate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Killing desk space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that's why they need glasses....
Re:I read the "answers", now I feel for you.. (Score:1, Insightful)
While we're at it, it's even hard to find CRTs like this.
I retired an old CRT that did 1600x1200x72Hz on analog VGA. Finally died with a bit of smoke. I got a great replacement that does 1600x1200x85Hz, and that handles 1920x1440x72Hz, but its analog VGA cable is built into the monitor, and cannot be (easily) replaced. The cable is noticeably thinner and more flexible than the 10-year-old "good" VGA cable I was using on the old monitor. Every vertical line has a minor analog ringing/echoing/ghosting artifact beside it.
One of these weekends, I'm going to attack it with a soldering iron so I can once again use a properly shielded cable. There's nothing wrong with the monitor. I looked it up - it was a high-end monitor in its day a few years ago - yet they still chose to "save" $1.00 by using a cheap cable integral to the monitor. I hate to go all tinfoil here, but you'd almost think they were trying to force everyone to flat panels.
(I don't have anything against flat panels either, but it drives me nuts that I can't get 100+ pixels per inch in flat panel form, when my eyes, on a suitably-calibrated CRT with a suitably-narrow dot pitch, can make use of 110-120ish. I paid $0.00 for this CRT, someone who ran it at 1280x1024 and who didn't know how to adjust its convergence was throwing it out!)
Re:HD Capable (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Syncmaster (Score:5, Insightful)
Very first link is a KDS K-726MWB 17 inch WIDE SCREEN LCD 1400 X 1050 0.291MM 500:1 8ms (Black) [eworldsale.com] 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?
Re:HD Capable (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not increase your DPI, so you still have a sharp image with big letters?
Re:Syncmaster (Score:3, Insightful)
Might I add that most LCDs are going to take up less space than your current CRT. What you loose in width by having, say a 24" screen, you're going to gain so much depth.
Windows Users (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't make smaller, higher resolution screens for the desktop, because the average Windows user will start complaining that their screen space is being "stolen" or something equally idiotic. Similarly the laptop LCDs have to be tiny 160dpi postage stamps, because that's what they've been trained to think is correct.
Some idiot will mod this off-topic, but .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Syncmaster (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.