Display timewarp

[time]

So WTF has happened to LCD technology, that here we are, in 2010, with much the same number of f**king display lines as we had in 2004, or even earlier? What's the point in hex-core CPUs if we can't even buy a reasonable display?

FFS, we've actually gone backwards, 1920x1200 used to be an aspirational resolution - now you're mostly limited to 1920x1080, regardless of physical size.

 

[LunarMist]

Yeah, it really sucks. I'm holding onto an old 1200x1600 that is dying.
Display conmpanies like to rip off the public.

 

[BingBangBop]

Total BS.

You can buy higher resolution displays if you are willing to pay the price. You just don't want to pay the price.

There are lots of 20"-24" 1920x1200 and then if you want higher there are several 30" 2560x1600 They just cost more than the cheaper 1920x1080 ones.

 

[Santilli]

I'm with Time on this one. It looks like some SERIOUS corporate colusion/monopoly price fixing. 270 bucks for a Samsung 21.5"? WTH? And, that was a deal at the time.

If you want a slide rule, look at what's happened with TV's in the same time period...

 

[Stereodude]

I'm with Time on this one. It looks like some SERIOUS corporate colusion/monopoly price fixing. 270 bucks for a Samsung 21.5"? WTH? And, that was a deal at the time.

Or maybe they've hit the bottom in terms of price. Groceries aren't getting cheaper yet I don't believe there's a corporate collusion / monopoly price fixing scheme going on there.

 

[time]

From Newegg, May 26th 2010:

26x 20" monitors
21x 21.5" monitors
33x 22" monitors
31x 23" monitors
12x 23.6" monitors
34x 24/24.1/24.6" monitors

Of these 157 monitors, 12 are 1920x1200 but at least one is no longer available. In 123 20", 21", 22" and 23" models, there are none with 1920x1200 pixels. Those are all 24" models released at least two years ago.
3 are $300-$400, 2 are $400-$500, 1 is $500-$600, 5 are over $600.
The newer 1920x1080 versions are all under $300.

So, is it "Total BS"? Just 7% of all the monitors in the 20-24" range are 1920x1200. They're all legacy models and it's true that they cost more.

 

[BingBangBop]

I can't see how 7% of all monitors are offered in 1920x1200 matters to your original premise. All it takes is a single available monitor to make your original hypothesis total BS. As long as there is even one available for purchase then that resolution is buy-able if you want it bad enough to pay for it. That's what makes your original statement total BS.

The 7% vs 93% is just the market place operating giving what people are demanding. If more people wanted a higher resolution and were willing to pay the price for it, more companies would sell them at cheaper prices so that they could maximize their profit.

P.S. I suspect the reason most people want 1920x1080 over 1920x1200 is that 1920x1080 is what is required for HD video. They don't need more, so why pay more. Then economies of scale hits the fan and suddenly there are lots of 1920x1080 monitors at cheap prices and the few people that want better have to pay far more thus limiting resolution growth.

 

[Sol]

I think it's a combination of economies of scale and maximising profits. 1080 is a headline number, it lets you stick "Full HD" on your product and let's face it you can't get any more HD than Full HD right? So anything over 1080 is a niche product for the people who realise that full HD still isn't actually all that HD so it's going to cost more right off the bat, because it can.
Higher resolution is going to cost a little bit more to make anyway (quality of materials, defect rates etc) and then finally pile on the fact that everyone is making mostly 1080 panels and they're going to get all the benefits of economies of scale, making them cheaper and everything else relatively more expensive. These things aren't processors after all, you don't just make the highest resolution screen you can and then bin them down the line.

Mostly I think it's that most people want bigger and cheaper more than they want higher resolution and the manufacturers aren't exactly going to turn down their money...

 

[ddrueding]

I think Sol has this one nailed. Most people are perfectly happy with 1080. If you want more, you can get it for a price.

 

[Chewy509]

I don't really see the standard TFT LCD monitor as a major issue, the issue I see is on laptops. Go back 3yr, and most 15-17" laptops had 1680x1050 displays. Today, it's the minority that have that res or above. (most 15" are 1440x900 today). Even fewer have FullHD displays? (Out of 210+ laptops listed on newegg only 10 have 1080p screens).

Anyway, anyone know anyone selling an old IBM T221 monitor?

PS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

[LunarMist]

Except that there are no new 4:3 displays, such as 1200x1600 21".:???:

 

[time]

Which were ideal for multi-monitor setups.

 

[ddrueding]

I would argue that widescreen in portrait are ideal for multi-monitor setups.

 

[LunarMist]

The clear human vision range is not wide screen, hence much of the problem. The other part of the problem is that many photos and text are vertical. Anything less than 1200 pixels is annoying. I'd be happy to run a 1200x1920 display at 1200x1600 if that were possible.

 

[time]

most 15" are 1440x900 today

Actually, it's much worse. The newer ones are now 1366x768.

I expect to have to compromise on lines in a sub-compact notebook, but not on a 15.6" screen!

To put that into perspective, a 16:9 15.6" panel is the same height as a 16:10 14.4" panel or a piddly 4:3 12.7" panel. So can anyone tell me why it's a good idea to need a 50% bigger panel to display the same number of lines at the same size, in a device where weight and power are critical?

 

[time]

I would argue that widescreen in portrait are ideal for multi-monitor setups.

But only with non-TN panels, given their polarization. Two or three non-TN panels adds up to a very expensive solution.

Also, I'd suggest that 2160x1920 isn't necessarily an improvement over a single 2560x1600 30" monitor. I reckon it would be best with a trio (3240x1920) rather than a pair.

 

[sechs]

I would argue that widescreen in portrait are ideal for multi-monitor setups.

Not everyone can afford three monitors....

 

[ddrueding]

Two is enough in most cases. And if it isn't that important, just get a single and take it vertical. My home machine is like that all the time.

 

[Chewy509]

Not everyone can afford three monitors....

Not to mention desk space... (3x 30" widescreen).

Actually, it's much worse. The newer ones are now 1366x768.

Now that's bad...

 

[jtr1962]

I'm curious as to why monitors haven't increased pixel count so that they display at 300 dpi or better. We're still stuck at ~100 dpi when today's PCs can easily handle displays with much higher resolution. The goal should be to have the pixel size roughly equal to the eye's resolution at the normal viewing distance. I don't give a rat's behind about wide-screen format, either. Where are the 4800x3600 22" to 24" displays? Or if you really must go widescreen, then 5760x3600. I'm sure we have the techology to do this for not much more than current low-resolution displays. Display cost is more related to screen area than anything else. F*ck 1080 or even 1200 display lines when we should have over 3000.

Despite gimmicks like sub-pixel rendering, pixelation of text is still noticeable on current displays. Also, you can't really render very tiny text readable, even though it would be readable at that size in print.

I really see no point to buying another monitor, ever, unless it's a significant improvement over the 1280x1024 I'm using. Thus far nothing offered has significantly smaller pixel pitch. I can't believe this is something not enough people care about to encourage mass production of high-resolution monitors at reasonable prices.

 

[LiamC]

With all due respect.
1. Granted, large pixel count (for arguments sake, by this I mean > Full HD) are purchasable, but only for an inflated cost.
2. The manufacturers have gradually changed aspect ratios, from 4:3 -> 5:4 -> 16:10 to 16:9. There is where slick marketing has come into play. My assertion: People did not want this (source, many forum posts on just this issue). So my assertion should be prefaced with "some". These people I will also assume had some inkling of what the resolution change would mean, so lets call them "knowledgeable".
3. Marketers got to work with things like wide-screen, HD and even simple 19". Would you buy a 19" screen or a 17" screen? Bigger is better right? E-peen anyone? Of course I expect nobody here to fall into such a simple trap. Resolution, aspect ratio, etc. etc.
4. Computers have become commodity. This next is said tongue in cheek--I practice no form of elitism. Unfortunately, the intelligentsia meets the great unwashed, and there are more of them than the former. Big numbers, emotive slogans won. The manufacturers applauded because it's cheaper to make a 19" 16:9 display than a 4:3. And don't get me started on TN panels. Capitalism won out tovarishch.
And why hasn't pixel density gotten better? Because it is not in the manufacturers interest. Higher pixel densities cost more to make. So in effect, after driving out the smaller players, and then consolidation amongst the rest, we have in effect, if not actual, a cartel or oligarchy.

What you really need is a disruptive technology to come to the fore.

 

[Chewy509]

Where are the 4800x3600 22" to 24" displays? Or if you really must go widescreen, then 5760x3600..

The IBM T221 I linked to has a native res of 3840×2400 for a 20" panel. (200dpi). It targetted at Medical, CAD/CAM and Defense industries, and had an initial retail of $15K (in 2001). The main problem was that DVI simply doesn't have the bandwidth to handle that res, so it used 2x DVI (with each DVI connection requiring a minimum of dual TDMS connections for bandwidth reasons). I don't believe there are any mainstream LCD panels that are made for that high DPI anymore.

And let's not forget that MS Windows still likes to have a 72dpi display. Any higher and the rendering engine goes to crap. I've only seen UNIX workstations handle high DPI's with ease...

 

[Pradeep]

The other issue with the T221 is that at full rez, it was limited to 48Hz (fine for medical imaging and CAD, but not ideal for gaming). Of course at quad HD resolutions just getting a solid 48Hz for gaming would be a challenge.

 

[Pradeep]

Apparently there's two models, the DG5 which does 48Hz and a cheaper DG3 model which only does 20 Hz.

 

[Stereodude]

And they both suck! They have all sorts of problem with lines going out, etc, etc, etc...

 

[time]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, LiamC.

Chewy, how's this for a what if:

Instead of a 1440x810 14" display, you could have a 1440x1080 15.3" display using the same size pixels but with a full third more lines, that fits in the same form factor notebook!

Consumer-driven my ass.

The iPad may be too small in the first incarnation, but with a rotatable 4:3 display, I think Jobs is on the right track. You get 1024 or 768 lines in a 9.7" screen. 1024 lines already kills almost all laptops, let alone subcompact ones.

An iPad with a 13.3" panel could display 1400x1050, yet be still about Letter or A4 size. 1400 lines in that form factor would be simply awesome. But only in my dreams, apparently.

 

[Sol]

Consumer-driven my ass.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that consumers demanded wide screen and shitty resolutions and manufacturers delivered. I'm saying consumers demanded bigger, cheaper screens and didn't concern themselves with what else they were getting. I totally agree that wide screens were mostly or entirely the manufacturers idea and pixel density was just something they managed to collectively keep out of the spotlight.

What I am saying is that not all the blame can be laid at the manufacturers feet. If they could make and sell higher resolution displays in large enough quantities to get the same economies of scale they get with what they're making now, then they probably would (assuming the % profit remains the same). But I think they'd struggle to convince enough people to pay the extra money.
In some ways it's a chicken and egg problem* in that economies of scale are needed to get the price down and a price drop is needed to get the scale. But that's hardly a new problem in manufacturing and I'm sure there are people paid much more than I am who have assessed the risks and concluded that they're not worth taking.

*Ignoring for the moment that the chicken and the egg problem is not, itself, a chicken and egg problem...

 

[sechs]

Two is enough in most cases. And if it isn't that important, just get a single and take it vertical. My home machine is like that all the time.

And people call me weird for putting the task bar at the top of the screen.

 

[ddrueding]

That is weird. The way to combat widescreen uselessness is to put all your menus, toolbars, and tabs on the sides; maximizing vertical space for content.

 

[LiamC]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that consumers demanded wide screen and shitty resolutions and manufacturers delivered. I'm saying consumers demanded bigger, cheaper screens and didn't concern themselves with what else they were getting. I totally agree that wide screens were mostly or entirely the manufacturers idea and pixel density was just something they managed to collectively keep out of the spotlight.

What I am saying is that not all the blame can be laid at the manufacturers feet. If they could make and sell higher resolution displays in large enough quantities to get the same economies of scale they get with what they're making now, then they probably would (assuming the % profit remains the same). But I think they'd struggle to convince enough people to pay the extra money.
~~snip

You can't ignore manufacturing cost, because a higher pixel density (resolution) is inherently more expensive--defect density, bell curves etc. More pixels, more chance of defects. The manufacturers are driven to minimise BOM costs. That measn no high res displays for you. You can buy 'em, but because they don't meet consumer price points, you don't get economies of scale, so you pay through the nose.

 

[LiamC]

That is weird. The way to combat widescreen uselessness is to put all your menus, toolbars, and tabs on the sides; maximizing vertical space for content.

All my wide screens have the Task bar on the left...

 

[Chewy509]

The other issue with the T221 is that at full rez, it was limited to 48Hz (fine for medical imaging and CAD, but not ideal for gaming). Of course at quad HD resolutions just getting a solid 48Hz for gaming would be a challenge.

Very true. But most other LCDs developed in 2001 (which was the year the T220 was released), had a strict 60Hz limit (and the that includes the expensive 15" 1024x768 displays as well).

If they decided to continue to develop the hig DPI monitors, they should have the same or very similar performance as the models being released today.

@Time, I agree 100%. Higher vertical res is a lot better than width. The default panel arrangement with GNOME is to have a panel top AND bottom, stealing 2x 24 pixels from your vertical res! (Something I quickly change). ** In GNOME the taskbar/startmenu bar is called a panel.

PS. Bring back the 4:3 LCDs!

 

[sechs]

That is weird. The way to combat widescreen uselessness is to put all your menus, toolbars, and tabs on the sides; maximizing vertical space for content.

Helpful, perhaps, but not a solution -- particularly for the other screen.

 

[LunarMist]

All apps don't work like that either. :salut:

 

[ddrueding]

Office 2003 can handle it OK, and there are a number of firefox plugins that will put your tabs along the side (very useful).

 

[time]

I would argue that widescreen in portrait are ideal for multi-monitor setups.

I have just the thing for you:

5760x2160 pixels works around the problem of insufficient vertical space in a single 16:9 monitor ... and only a single Display Port required.

Samsung MD230X6

 

[ddrueding]

You are almost as good at spending my money as my wife...

Edit: But that still has the horizontal bezel right down the middle...I still think 5 16:9 in portrait is the winner.

 

[Stereodude]

Has anyone ever benchmarked the performance hit the graphic card takes when driving a monitor that's rotated 90 degrees? There would have to be some major black magic going on for there not to be a measurable drop since it requires reading data out of the memory in an unoptimized manner.

 

[ddrueding]

Has anyone ever benchmarked the performance hit the graphic card takes when driving a monitor that's rotated 90 degrees? There would have to be some major black magic going on for there not to be a measurable drop since it requires reading data out of the memory in an unoptimized manner.

If it was only optimized for landscape, would it not also only be optimized for a single resolution? That doesn't make sense to me. I haven't run the benches, but I don't think there would be a hit.

The main cost I see is having to go with better LCDs, so the horizontal (now vertical) viewing angle is acceptable.

 

[Stereodude]

If it was only optimized for landscape, would it not also only be optimized for a single resolution?

No, Memory typically will put several bytes or words worth of data on the bus while only requiring one address setup operation. Typically this means you store sequential horizontal pixel data in order. So when you want to read it you get high bandwidth with minimal setup operations. However, when you want to read the data in a different manner, say for example vertically, you need a setup operation after every byte or word since you're not interested in the data in the following byte or word. This makes the effective memory bandwidth much less because there are many times more setup operations.