LCD panels are manufactured from large sheets of glass. What the manufacturers want to do is get as many panels out of one sheet as possible. Anything that doesn’t become a working panel is scrap, and scrapped glass costs money. From what I’ve been told, it’s more efficient to cut 23-inch panels than other sizes slightly smaller and slightly larger. Less glass is wasted.
This equation apparently shifts a bit as new assembly lines come into play, and the dimensions of the glass sheets used to build panels get bigger. But that seems to be part of the equation currently. That’s also why you see slight variations in size – different plants may use different size sheets for building displays. So you’ll see oddball sizes, like 23.6 inches or 21.6 inches (diagonal), rather than even 24 inches or 22 inches.
Despite all this low cost wide screen goodness, I’m still astonished at how many people resist wide screen displays. Most games are going to HD resolutions and above. HDTV is wide screen. Movies are wide screen. Yet I still get comments from readers and see inflamed forum posts across the web arguing that 4:3 aspect ratio is better. Some folks are still mired in the old NTSC days, I suppose. The only valid argument I can see for something like a 20-inch 4:3 or 5:4 display is desk space. I still have a couple of 20-inch LCDs that offer 1600×1200 resolution, and I can sympathize a tiny bit with the desk space argument – but only a tiny bit.
Consider the numbers. A Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP is 17.5 inches wide, including the bezel. The Asus VH236H is slightly more than 21.5 inches wide – roughly four inches wider. In terms of actual screen real estate, the 2007FP is 192 square inches while the Asus offers up 230.3 square inches. The 23-incher also wins in the pixel count department: 1920×1080 is just over two megapixels, while 1600×1200 falls a little short of that mark, at 1.92 megapixels.
So really, unless you’re seriously space constrained, get a wide screen display. Once you’ve lived with it awhile, you’ll never go back.
Of course, this is only an issue with an increasingly small segment of die-hards.
Having said all that, we may not see rapid drops in LCD pricing for some time. Even during the recession, the sales of LCD HDTVs were pretty robust, with China soaking up much of the capacity. The US still saw a lot of LCD HDTVs sold, though, as the digital transition took effect. That all means that LCD manufacturing is somewhat capacity constrained, and some plants have been repurposed away from building PC displays to make more HDTV panels.
Even so, it’s clear that wide screen, 1080p LCDs are the new mainstream. If you’re still clinging to your old 19-inch CRT, it’s time to send it to the recycling heap. LCDs these days offer up great image quality, lower power usage (and hence, lower cost of ownership) and less desk space. If you’re living with an earlier generation 19-inch, 1280×1024 LCD panel, it may also be time to rethink that, and move to wide screen.
Pages: 1 2
Loading tweets...
5 comments
1 ping
Mark
August 13, 2009 at 1:16 pm (UTC -7)
I’m one of those people you’re talking about….
I still use a CRT, and have yet to buy an LCD for any computer. Why?
Well, in my case the main barrier to entry is simple laziness. I’ve got two old CRT’s which still work, although one is limping a bit, so I don’t have a compelling need to change.
Assuming for the moment that something does change, however, I still might not buy into an LCD, for the following reasons:
1) I know I can get a cheap/serviceable LCD, but that’s not what I want or need. What I want/need is a display that gives me very clear text, because I spend a lot of time writing on my computer. I know from long experience that a CRT will give me what I want, and I’ve also seen plenty of instances where the native resolution of a given LCD constricts my choices — or actually makes text hard to read.
2) The ubiquity of LCD’s means that CRT’s are looked at as dinosaurs. Such that you can find these dinosaurs on Craigslist for a song — and here I’m talking about very, very good CRT monitors, which may have cost $500 or more when purchased new. Provided they have no issues, these monitors are a steal on their own, but when compared to the cost of similar-performing LCD’s it’s no contest.
Having said all that, I’d love nothing more than to buy one or two of those awesome displays you own (NEC LCD3090WQXi), but I can’t justify the cost. Obviously I’ll be having to take the leap at some point, but the price/peformance graph still favors old CRT’s for me.
Loyd Case
August 13, 2009 at 1:50 pm (UTC -7)
LCDs, on average, have much sharper text than LCDs, assuming you run them at native resolution. This is made even better if you use Windows, and turn on ClearType. Oh, and connect via DVI, HDMI or some digital connection, not via analog VGA.
BTW, there is a middle ground. You can pick up a very good 1920×1200 24-inch display that’s better than most TN panels. Look for an S-PVA or H-IPS panel. They’ll cost between $400 and $700. For example, an HP 24-inch H-IPS display is $535 at Newegg.
Mark
August 13, 2009 at 6:44 pm (UTC -7)
Loyd,
Thanks for the reply, and in particular for clearing up my misconception about the legibility of text on LCD’s. I know we live in the age of video supremacy (if not ADD inanity), but there’s still little that’s more important than the ability of a display to present clear text. As soon as I have the dough, I’ll be making the move.
Markeyse
August 15, 2009 at 11:14 pm (UTC -7)
Yea just like people are still saying that old LPs sound better. The last thing I like to hear is scratching and pops from the music, as well as the limited frequency response from them. Same with LCD’s. I got a cheap 22″ Hannspree right now, and couldn’t be happier. I am looking to upgrade it because of better LCD’s for a cheaper price, but the fact of the matter is especially when people is saying that their old tech is better, once the new tech matures, it is usually better. I think that lot’s of people are afraid to not just approach technology, but to approach change in general. I don’t always like it myself, but at least with tech, bring on the new stuff!
Jobney
August 17, 2009 at 10:49 pm (UTC -7)
I like my 16:10 1920×1200 24″ Dell LCD. It’s also nice to be able to run games in 1600×1200 if I need to with no filtering. Since most movies are wider then 16:9 I’m not seeing the user side benefit besides cost from this ratio (16:9) not counting the console gamers. It looks as if this choice of 16:9 mostly benefits the manufactures. I hope they don’t discontinue the 16:10 PVA monitors. I hate the color shift on the TNs. I’ll give up a few NS of speed for a better picture.
1080P LCD Monitors: the New Mainstream « All Topics « Improbable … | appreviewers.co.cc
August 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm (UTC -7)
[...] the rest here: 1080P LCD Monitors: the New Mainstream « All Topics « Improbable … 1 Monitors all-topics aspect-ratio bright-future digital-media facebook gaming general-tech lcd [...]