Where are the good, smaller panels?

V

Valnar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
4,310
I don't know if the users are influencing the reviewers and the reviewers are influencing the manufacturers, but I'm sick of reading these reviews of 22" 1680x1050 LCD's where their last comment says the resolution should be higher. IMO, it should not.

As someone who looks at text all day, a pixel size of 0.28 or better is desirable. I've read several professional and user reviews of the Dell 2209wa and HP LP2275w and in the list of "cons" they state the resolution is too low. They'd love to see a 1920x1200 or worse, a 1920x1080 16:9 panel. This kind of talk ruins it for those of us who don't want these ridiculous resolutions or widescreens, but still want a high-end panel. And for someone who occasionally games, it would force me to buy a better video card to handle the native rez. I would love a good 19" or 20" S-IPS/S-PVA panel choice with 1400x900 since that would give a pixel size of 0.284 or better. In order to get a non-TN panel these days, I have to step up to a 1680x1050 resolution, which for me means I don't want it smaller than 22" and that gives a pixel size of 0.282.

I personally like the real estate space of a 4:3 LCD, but those have fallen by the wayside. The only way to get a decent 4:3 panel is to get it with a rez of 1600x1200, and that also puts the text too small. I rather like the uncommon resolution of 1400x1050. It's a shame they only ever made a low-end TN panel for it. To me, that is perfect on a 20" screen.

I have an excellent Hitachi 19" CRT now and I go between 1152x864 or 1280x960. Text is perfect, but I know the monitor won't last forever. I would never run my CRT at 1600x1200, even though it could.

I can't be the only person that hates squintavision. Why can't the manufacturers put R&D into the smaller panel segment with bigger pixels, instead of relegating it to low end TN panels (or ridiculously expensive & slow professional LCD's)?

/rant off
 
hold ctrl, scoll up

But seriously, you must be the only person I've ever heard of clamoring for BIGGER pixels. Most people want smaller. My brother just got a 17" laptop with 1920x1200 native, and it looks amazing for graphics and gaming. Sure there is the readability consideration, but with modern browsers and OSes that's really not an issue, just adjust accordingly.
 
Last edited:
I, myself, wouldn't mind seeing more higher resolution displays in smaller packages... actually, I wish LCD's scaled to other resolutions period. 1680x1050 isn't bad, but it's not great either
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
hold ctrl, scoll up
Click to expand...

Well, some things don't scale well in a browser. It also softens the pictures. And some programs don't have that option.

Let me ask you, why do you NEED a higher resolution? I can understand the desire, I'm with you on that. But as an office worker, I have solid reasons for wanting text bigger.
 
I actually agree with Valnar because I prefer larger pixels.

A partial answer to the issue brought by Valnar is that simply reviewers have to criticise something (believe me, I know what am I speaking about), they can't just say only good things. And the resolution is one good point to say something about. This is especially important amongs lame reviewers, who actually don't know what "gamma-shift" is or why wide-gamut is a pain in the... brain for most users.

Larger resolution is cool for larger monitors and I'm happy with my NEC 2690 @ 1920x1200, however at work I find my 19" 1280x1024 monitor OK. If I whine enough I could get a second one or exchange for 22" TN-wide-gamut Dell crap, but I don't want that.
 
Valnar said:
Well, some things don't scale well in a browser. It also softens the pictures. And some programs don't have that option.

Let me ask you, why do you NEED a higher resolution? I can understand the desire, I'm with you on that. But as an office worker, I have solid reasons for wanting text bigger.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to come off like a jerk, it just seems to me that between modern OS options (this excludes XP) and modern browser options, it's not too much trouble to make things readable. I actually find Firefox 3 and Chrome's zoom to work very well both ways. Even the scaled images don't look all that bad to me.

That said, I don't begrudge you your preferences. Variety is good. It's just surprising to me because wanting bigger pixels is definitely not the trend. I will say I strongly agree on 16x9 screens - the sudden rush to take away even more of our vertical landscape is really puzzling and annoying to me.
 
I agree with the OP. I'm using a couple of .27mm pixel pitch monitors, and I find it a little small but tolerable.

I bought a 20" 1600x1200 monitor recently for $300, with .255mm pixel pitch, and found it too small. A 21.3" 1600x1200 monitor with .27mm pixel pitch would have been at least $800, an extra $500 for 1.3 inches! Ended up getting the LCD2490WUXi.

it just seems to me that between modern OS options (this excludes XP) and modern browser options, it's not too much trouble to make things readable.
Click to expand...
I know in XP you can increase the dpi to increase the font size (which might screw up the UI in certain apps), but you are excluding XP, so what can you do in Vista to deal with the problem?

I've heard the upcoming new version of the Mac OS may have "resolution independence" which is supposed to deal with the problem.
 
delerious said:
I've heard the upcoming new version of the Mac OS may have "resolution independence" which is supposed to deal with the problem.
Click to expand...

You know that's funny, I remember hearing something similar... feels like it was a long time ago.

Vista and 7 still have DPI scaling as far as I know. I don't think it's labeled as such, but that's what it is. 7 has custom scaling up to 300% (not sure if Vista has that part or not)
 
Valnar said:
I can't be the only person that hates squintavision. Why can't the manufacturers put R&D into the smaller panel segment with bigger pixels, instead of relegating it to low end TN panels (or ridiculously expensive & slow professional LCD's)?
Click to expand...
They do. The NEC EA191M (PVA, 19", 1280x1024, 0.294mm pixel pitch) seems to fit your needs perfectly, and it is available for around $300, which is not ridiculously expensive.

Yeah, $300 is not exactly cheap, but since you are in a niche market (lower volume = higher unit price), you have to pay to get what you want.
 
chklin said:
They do. The NEC EA191M (PVA, 19", 1280x1024, 0.294mm pixel pitch) seems to fit your needs perfectly, and it is available for around $300, which is not ridiculously expensive.

Yeah, $300 is not exactly cheap, but since you are in a niche market (lower volume = higher unit price), you have to pay to get what you want.
Click to expand...

Thanks.... I felt I put in a lot in my original post, so I didn't want to clutter it up any more. I actually have an adversity to non-square pixels for a variety of reasons. I wish the "standard" for those 4:3 monitors were 1280x960 instead. I have a need to fire up older operating systems every now and then, going back to DOS. This is my main reason for using a CRT. If I could get a square pixel 19" 4:3 LCD that can scale all those odd aspect ratios, and was a S-IPS panel, I'd be in Heaven.

Sabrewulf165 said:
I didn't mean to come off like a jerk
Click to expand...
No you didn't. I probably did though. Sorry about that.

However, it is hard to argue though - as they increase the resolutions to 1920 and beyond, that doesn't help those of us who just want cool and quiet PC's, yet still enjoy the occasional game. I shouldn't need a $300 video card just to get by. I don't mind those high resolutions on very big panels. I just think the breakpoint they use in their decision making is a little low.

You know, nobody complains at the measly 1920x1080 resolution of their 52" HDTV's. I have a hard enough time reading the text from my couch at that rez. :)
 
Valnar said:
Thanks.... I felt I put in a lot in my original post, so I didn't want to clutter it up any more. I actually have an adversity to non-square pixels for a variety of reasons. I wish the "standard" for those 4:3 monitors were 1280x960 instead. I have a need to fire up older operating systems every now and then, going back to DOS. This is my main reason for using a CRT. If I could get a square pixel 19" 4:3 LCD that can scale all those odd aspect ratios, and was a S-IPS panel, I'd be in Heaven.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that the NEC has square pixels. The physical display has 5:4 aspect ratio, and the 1280x1024 resolution is also 5:4. You get square pixels when physical apsect ratio match H/V resolution ratio.

With 1:1 pixel mapping or aspect-ratio scaling (which I don't know if the NEC supports), you get 1280x960 resolution with 4:3 input signals (black bars above and below). And I am sure DOS screens look pretty much the same on TN, VA, and IPS monitors.

I don't know any 19" 4:3 LCD monitors that use IPS panels, and I don't think there is much of a market. Getting one custom-made will probably run you a couple millions of dollars.
 
Valnar said:
I actually have an adversity to non-square pixels for a variety of reasons. I wish the "standard" for those 4:3 monitors were 1280x960 instead. I have a need to fire up older operating systems every now and then, going back to DOS. This is my main reason for using a CRT. If I could get a square pixel 19" 4:3 LCD that can scale all those odd aspect ratios, and was a S-IPS panel, I'd be in Heaven.
Click to expand...

There are no non-square pixels on any monitor - only plasma TVs (that I know of) have had a history of rectangular pixels.

The monitors with 1280x1024 are 5:4 so the monitor itself is more 'squarish' than 4:3. I see where you come from and personally I'm not that fond of the 5:4 aspect ratio but 5:4 isn't all that different from 4:3 and on a 1280x1024 19" LCD the pixels would be larger than your 19" CRT with 1280x960.

My preference is high resolution - and for me theres no imaginable limit to that (one of my biggest gripes with LCDs are the low resolution compared to (some) CRTs). And in my opinion there is no need at all to play games at native resolution. But thats me.

But I agree with you that widescreens get too much attention. I actually prefer widescreens but they are not that well suitable as secondary displays and it's getting quite hard (or expensive) to find decent 4:3 monitors - thats even if you don't mind high resolutions.

In the end I think that there should be no reason for anyone not to want a super-high resolution. The OS should handle the scaling perfectly, and in time that will probably happen. I thought we were promised this in Vista, oh well...
 
brumwald said:
There are no non-square pixels on any monitor - only plasma TVs (that I know of) have had a history of rectangular pixels.

The monitors with 1280x1024 are 5:4 so the monitor itself is more 'squarish' than 4:3. I see where you come from and personally I'm not that fond of the 5:4 aspect ratio but 5:4 isn't all that different from 4:3 and on a 1280x1024 19" LCD the pixels would be larger than your 19" CRT with 1280x960.
Click to expand...

I think the issue with 5:4 is it doesn't translate to other standard PC ratios like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc when scaling to those. 'Not that I do that often, but 5:4 does force me to use an operating system that scales correctly for me. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that's what I've read.
 
Valnar said:
I think the issue with 5:4 is it doesn't translate to other standard PC ratios like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc when scaling to those. 'Not that I do that often, but 5:4 does force me to use an operating system that scales correctly for me. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that's what I've read.
Click to expand...
Well, if you totally absolutely must see your DOS screen on a VA or IPS monitor... then I don't think I can help you.

Would be much easier to buy an old 4:3 TN monitor off craigslist specifically for that purpose. I mean, c'mon, what do you do on these old systems that make TN so utterly unacceptable?

PS. In case I did not make it clear; I was suggesting that you get an extra 4:3 TN monitor just for working with the old systems, and use an EA191M for XP/Vista/Linux use.
 
Last edited:
chklin said:
Well, if you totally absolutely must see your DOS screen on a VA or IPS monitor... then I don't think I can help you.

Would be much easier to buy an old 4:3 TN monitor off craigslist specifically for that purpose. I mean, c'mon, what do you do on these old systems that make TN so utterly unacceptable?
Click to expand...

Nothing important except fixing old PC's. But it has to be acceptable to me in XP/Vista/Linux too without small fonts.

Yah, another CRT seems to be in my future.
 
Valnar said:
I think the issue with 5:4 is it doesn't translate to other standard PC ratios like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc when scaling to those. 'Not that I do that often, but 5:4 does force me to use an operating system that scales correctly for me. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that's what I've read.
Click to expand...

If the monitor supports correct aspect ratio scaling (or 1:1 if you prefer that) then you'd get black bars (regardless of which OS you are running) when using 4:3 resolutions.
 
Correct, my mistake. It's square pixels, but not a 4:3 display. So I assume any non native resolution, like 1024x768 will be slightly skewed?
 
Valnar said:
Correct, my mistake. It's square pixels, but not a 4:3 display. So I assume any non native resolution, like 1024x768 will be slightly skewed?
Click to expand...

Depends on how the monitor handles scaling.
You might have the option to either display it 1:1 pixel mapped or with correct aspect ratio (resulting in a 4:3 image but with black bars to match the 5:4 display).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top