Why flat panel monitors at so low resolution?

[Phade]

Hey All,

I was just looking (well, drooling) at flat panel monitors and something just occurred to me. I have a laptop with a 15" screen that runs at 1600x1200, but for some reason, I can't find any 15" or even 17" flat panel monitors that will run at that resolution. Why not? I figured it would be just as easy to plop the screen I'm looking at onto a stand rather than attach it to a laptop. Anyone out there know the reason?

The way I figure it, if the screen is 1/3 the cost of the entire laptop, there should be some 15" flat screens out there capable of running 1600x1200 for about $600 or so.

Phade.

[trythil]

There's no real technical reason why 15" 1600x1200 LCDs can't be produced. My guess is that the dominance of 1024x768 15" LCDs (or so it seems that that's the way it is) is due to market tendencies than anything else.

One example of a 15" 1600x1200 LCD that you may be interested in is the Princeton Graphics SENergy561. The prices I've seen for the thing are in the high $400s.

[Phade]

Hey,

But why would an inferior product (low resolution) dominate the market when a higher quality product (high resolution) can be created for the same price and availability?

Phade.

[trythil]

Hey,

But why would an inferior product (low resolution) dominate the market when a higher quality product (high resolution) can be created for the same price and availability?

Phade.

Because 1024x768 LCDs can be found in the low $200 range, and a lot of people don't want to shell out the almost $300 extra for a display device? I mean, I wouldn't...

[trythil]

Hey,

But why would an inferior product (low resolution) dominate the market when a higher quality product (high resolution) can be created for the same price and availability?

Phade.

Because 1024x768 LCDs can be found in the low $200 range, and a lot of people don't want to shell out the almost $300 extra for a display device? I mean, I wouldn't...

A couple other points:

17" CRTs that do higher resolutions than 15" LCDs go for only slightly more than the cheapest 15" LCD, and more often than not you get better display quality from that CRT.

Most users don't need 1600x1200 (remember, with an LCD, you usually want to run it at its native resolution, because scaling looks like crap). You also get more viewing area with an LCD,so 1024x768 is a lot bigger on an LCD than it is on a CRT. For most people, that's enough.

[Phade]

Hey,

If that were true, why would 1600x1200 laptop LCDs be popular?

Phade.

[FurryCurry]

I don't recall all the details of LCD manufacturing, but I suspect that much as chip makers have to upgrade and replace equipment to make smaller and smaller features on their chips, LCD makers need to do the same thing to produce sufficient quantities of "good" panels at a given resolution.

If that is so, they are probably selling most of their "premium" production to laptop makers because they can charge them more and there is less difficulty passing the extra cost along to buyers of high-end laptops, which is where you'll find those sorts of displays.

I just got a laptop with a 1600x1200 screen myself, and I love it, but that's the limit of useability for my aging eyes.

Chances are, we'll see more high res displays at a variety of sizes as manufacturers replace and upgrade their equipment and facilities.

I do know that the higher the resolution in a given space, the harder it is to make panels with few enough defective pixels to be considered saleable. Maybe they just can't make enough at the moment, or are content to sell their current models as long as the public keeps buying? It does give them a place to go when the current market saturates...

Just a few ramblings from me while I'm half asleep...

Heeeereee, coffee coffee coffee.....

[alternatefutures]

I would guess the reason is the native resolution of LCDs. Most people like their resolutions for desktop monitors in the 1024X768 range (the people who run at 800X600 do not count, as they just haven't found out how to adjust display settings yet). Although a 1600X1200 can perfectly handle 800X600 it cannot handle 1024X768 without blurring. Since the prime marketing strength of LCD displays is their crispness and since you will almost never find a monitor running at 1600X1200 resolution in, say, a Best Buy, it makes sense from a buisness standpoint to optimize your monitors for that resolution. Meanwhile, on laptops, the reason people use LCDs is their portability, not image quality, therefore you find 1600X1200 displays. 'Course, I'm just talking out of my arse on this one. I'm only interested in the +19" variety.

[Phade]

Hey,

Hmmm. Is the image quality of a 1600x1200 LCD worse than a 1024x768 LCD? I know the one that I have here is much better than any CRT I've seen. Also, if they can pack that much resolution into a 15" frame, the 17" and 19" LCDs should have much higher resolution than 1600x1200, right?

Phade.

[klinky]

I would think a 1600x1200 15" LCD screen would make things look tiny. Since LCDs are a grid array you still have to pack 1,920,000 pixels into a little 15" screen.

I am guessing that there is more of a demand for that type of display in the portable market. I wouldn't be surprised if Granny Johnson took a look at your LCD and said "everything is TOO small". Making a LCD with less pixels = less money and many users aren't going to be needing 1600x1200 native res on their LCDs. So why spend the extra money.

Latpop users on the other hand, demand a better screen because you can't swap your screen once you get it and no one wants to lug around a CRT. Plus laptop users are usually paying ALOT more then what they would pay for a comparable desktop counterpart. One more thing is I just read that laptop sales have been much higher then desktop sales, within the last year.

If you don't mind me asking what model is your laptop ?


~klinky