Printable View
I can get a laptop with a 15" screen and a res of 1920 x 1200 odd but to get this in a desktop form I have to get a 23" screen, why has no one relesed higher res lower size screens? a 17" 1600 x 1200 screen sould be great, small factor so good for lans without having to go to a crappy 1280 x 1024.
Give us High res TFT's!!111
yup, seconded.
especially now we have the likes of 7800GTXs which can display games at playable rates on stupid res's
agreed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
I have a 19" (1280 x 1024) and I would prefer to run it @ 1600 x 1200 to match my CRT I have at home :D
High Res FTW as Platinum would say ;)
Just got my laptop and its a 15" widescreen with a 1680 x 1020 screen and its amazing, the picure is awsome,makes my 20" dell screens look pretty poor :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishey
Now? We always have had.
Maybe needs graphics turned down a little more to make up for it but its worth it. I played doom3 and hl2 both on my 9500np with a 21" crt @ 1600*1200.
I think he meant now we have the ability to play with more eye candy at high resolutions, with frame rates that woud be considered respectable by everyone.
http://www.iiyama.us/default.asp?SID...=2714&SPCAREA=
high enough res for you?
i have the 2405FPW my x850xt and i get jerky frame rates @ 1920x1200 on certain games
nice response time I see :oQuote:
Originally Posted by directhex
50 (62 at ISO 13406-2) msec
Where exactly have you seen these laptops? A lot of sites quote them with a max supported resolution which is actually the max you can run an external monitor at, id be amazed if anyone made a 1900x1200 15" panel, not just because it would be so sweet, but also because it would be amazingly impractical as far as readability goes, microscope anyone?
dell laptops have had them for ages, on their high-end modelsQuote:
Originally Posted by herulach
Thats what i meant, and if its widescreen its probably a similar dot pitch to a 1280x1024 17".Quote:
WXGA maximum resolution of 1280x800 pixels, 16.7 million colors (The M70 graphics chipset supports up to 1920x1200 pixels with external monitor, 16.7 million colors)
Edit: Stand corrected, should have read the next paragraph on dells website. Although i think they probably arent gonna be up there as far as the response times go.
my laptop has a res of 1680 x 1020
We have these on the Latitude D810s in use by our project planners (Gantt charts take up a shedload of real estate) and they're also used by architects who are required to be mobile. As far as readability goes, no complaints thus far, but they can always use large fonts and icons. And they look FABULOUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by herulach
I've had a Sony laptop for three years with a 1600x1200 res...of course, I think that's why I now need to wear glasses, but that's not the point dammit!!
Is that one of the big 16" Vaios? Our Accounts director has one, beautiful screens.
You can convert a laptop LCD to DVI using a convertor, cost around $100 IIRC
Yeah, Viao...wonderful machine...took it round the world with me, hell of a weight, but got a great Tumi backpack that seemed almost built for it. The screen was just amazing, wonderful colours, great brightness levels, and of course that resolution...the desktop space was just incredible. Trouble is that the models had a tendency to burn out their RAM fittings, so now it just sits on my shelf. It still works, but I'm saving it for emergencies in case the other fitting burns out...there was supposed to be a fix for it, but I lost all the details :(
I just can't figure how Sony can build something like that for a laptop, but can't match it for it's desktop monitors.
I've got a 1920x12000 WUXGA running on a 15.4" screen and I love it. Personally, I don't understand why desktops are lagging behind so much.
I wonder whether a crossover adaptor to switch between DVI and the connection laptops have for their screens is available? If so, it would be possible to buy a replacement high definition screen for a laptop and use it on a desktop (by making a frame to hold it in)?
Interesting question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
Here my stab at an answer: ergonomics.
And magnifying glasses, and the difference in distances between the user and a laptop screen (they're much closer) and a desktop TFT (they're further away). And also if you had say, 1920x1200 on a size of desktop TFT that would actually allow you to read text, the screen would either have to be huge (20"+), or you'd had to be so close to it that you'd constantly have to swivelling your head left right, up down etc etc. Cricked neck in no time.
Anything higher than 1078x768 on a 15" screen, whether laptop or desktop is truly hideous.
Well, david, the last statement is purely personal opinion, and having used laptops with 14" screens at 1450x1024 and WUXGA 15.4" screens (1920x1200), I'm afraid I disagree. A high quality high res TFT produces very legible text, and from what I've seen looks significantly less grainy - a 15" 1600x1200 display, for instance, can look great, and an XGA 15" can look very grainy by comparison. Also, one can derive many benefits in terms of image resolution even if one uses large fonts and icons, as any of our project planners or architects would tell you, so even if you're magnifying the text, that doesn't mean that you're wasting the resolution. Photos, architectural drawings, hell, any sort of graphics work, they all benefit.
Also, having observed all my laptop users and desktop users I can state that the most common scenario for laptop use is on a desk, with no more than a few inches difference in the distance from eye to screen than with desktop users.
No, I think the reason has far more to do with market segmentation and cost. If you look at most laptops that sport high resolution panels, they're expensive, and a goodly part of that additional expense is that high res TFTs cost more than low res ones. If you translate that over into the desktop arena, you WANT your entry level panels to be no more than, say, £150 for a 17" screen. People will pay that for a monitor, and it's not THAT long since that was the price for a 17" Diamondtron/Trinitron. However, there's no way you'll hit that price point if you're shooting for a 1600x1200 display; the panel would simply cost too much to produce. You also want to bear in mind that a large segment of your potential market will be playing 3D games, and cards that will run 1600x1200 for the latest titles are still at the upper end of the market (especially once the AA/AF whistles and bells are enabled). So they'd have to be running their games interpolated down from the panel's native resolution to the resolution that their stuff will run acceptably at. And interpolated resolutions on TFTs are crap. So, you make your panel to fit your market segment; you give them a 17" screen because that's a familiar size, you up the res to SXGA from XGA which gives them a little bit of extra clarity and real estate and still keeps things within the performance range of the card that they'll likely be using. As you go up your range, you can up the price and make the panel bigger, since if they're buying further up toward the 20" range, they'll be more likely to afford a machine that WILL run HL2 or whatever at that 1600x1200 res. If it were ergonomics based, then the resolutions would scale more linearly, since if you could handle 1280x1024 at 17", you could handle 1450x1080 at 19"; there'd be a more linear progression as screen sizes went up to 20"+. In fact, the 19" market is looking for similar actual performance to the 17" market, just with a slightly bigger screen.
I think you make some interesting points, particularly about market need and segmentation. I agree with some although certainly not all of what you say.
14" screens at 1450x1024 and WUXGA 15.4" screens (1920x1200), I think are truly hideous and far ideal in terms of usability. Trying to navigate precisely using a trackpad, on a 15.4" screen (1920x1200) is an exercise in frustration and reduced productivity, necessitating zooming in and out and resizing when precision work is required.
Having said that, I think you're absolutely right to say that existance of a 15.4" screens (1920x1200) is driven by market needs. Doing any sort of professional work using Photoshop, Macromedia, Microstation etc would be an exercise in futility at 1078x768. Hence the emergence of 15.4" (1920x1200) screens. But no architect or designer that I know would prefer 1920x1200 on a 15.4" as opposed to something larger.
As for the rest of your post, my ADD has set in ;)
Here you go, mate:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/images/pharma_ritalin-m.jpg
erm just make the text bigger? the higher res gives a much better picture imo
There is one more factor to consider - and that is the gaming end of things
For ages, as we (green + red) produced more horsepower -> CRT screen resolutions went up (and became more affordable)
Our engines led nice productive lives cranking out more and more 'dots' on each screen and then then working overtime to maintain refresh rates
Throughput was everything
However, then the customer decided - for some bizarre, inexplicable reason - that they had enough of 46Kg desktop displays...
...and there was a total market move toward TFT products
Initially, the 'cool' factor was enough to mask little things like poor response times, ghosting and tiny viewing areas etc
However, from the graphics point of view - this 'pause' around 1600x1200 allowed developers to spend more time on each pixel - dramatically improving the visual quality of games
Then the market matured - customers became 'learned' - and the TFT boys had to raise their game - increase quality and drop prices
Globally, the decision to define 'HD Gaming' will have a major impact
Developers (specifically game artists) now know that the target res will be 1920x1200 and that (from Xmas this year onward) they won't even have to consider 'dumbing down' the visual content for consoles because the new kit coming through is able to 'live' in the same space as high end PCs
Given that there are no real technological drawbacks...
...the real question here will be...
...when can I order a 24" 1920x1200 screen off the web for £399 ?
(maybe $599)
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrzej
Nice explanation there tho.
What defines the base cost of TFT's though?
Lots of product prices can be directly varianced according to oil, and with oil hitting an all time high (>$62 p/b) surely this will make it harder for manufacturers to drive down costs unless they make it more efficient, and if they can't drive down costs, then companies will find it harder to sell the larger res monitors so the cost will go up?
I was on a plane back from Prague onceQuote:
Originally Posted by Dougal
Sitting next to me was a great guy - fantastic sense of humour - one of Sony's top monitor engineers in Europe
Basically, it is his role to train other engineers on new technologies
I asked him why Sony appeared reticent in pushing their own TFT technology
His reply after cracking me a cheeky grin ?...
"They never invested because they thought it was a fad - something that would act only as a stepping stone to the next technology"
He never went into detail, but indicated that there was something 'cool around the corner' as far as screens go
That leaves me thinking that, soon after the HD revolution hits with Xbox 360 this Christmas...
...we could start to hear rumblings about 'nice price' big screens ;)
Just happened to be sitting next to him? On the way back from a top secret graphics conference ;)
Its a global graphics conspiracy! :shocked2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougal
:shocked2::shocked2::shocked2::shocked2::shocked2::shocked2:
!we wuz spotted!
My eyes are everywhere, and I even write stuff which don't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrzej
Ah the modern world of tech.
So when can I have a play.
Wasn't too impressed with the PS3 tbh.
OS seems a bit pap.
I dont want big screens lol, I want high res small portable screens, 1680 x 1050 17" screen please :D