Prev: Using a USB stick for backups
Next: PCI configuration registers(BARs)
From: cga2000 on 28 Nov 2007 21:41
Does anyone make hi-res LCD displays?

It appears that except for laptops, most LCD displays sold nowadays have
the same mediocre resolution--basically equivalent to 1024x768 on a 15"
screen .. That's about 90 dpi (!)

So you go tho the store .. you buy a 15" monitor and you get your
1024x768 pixels .. you buy a 17" or even a 19" monitor you get the same
mediocre resolution plus the few extra pixels to make up for the
additional screen size .. 1280x1024 in "wide mode", maybe? With a
21-22" inch and double the price you might then graduate to something
like 1650x?? same resolution of course .. etc.

What I had been looking for was something of manageable size .. 15-17"
or thereabout .. that doesn't use up too much space -- or power .. that
I don't have to position on Joe's lawn across the street .. unless I
absolutely need to count the all-too-visible pixels .. something that's
small enough I don't have to twist my neck right left up down to see
everything that's on-screen .. simply something that provides what
laptops designed ten years ago or so offered.

Does someone have an explanation as to why even cheap digital cameras
currently boast five-six megapixels when even the larger consumer-grade
LCD monitors cannot even display half that many?

How does this make sense?

Pure speculation on my part, but I'm beginning to think that display
manufacturers & vendors came up with the clever idea that consumers will
spend anything for that high they get when they finally open the
oversized cardboard box and wrestle a 32"-inch+ display out of it (yeah,
much bigger than Joe's across the street..) and have therefore all
jumped on this marketing ploy in order to improve their bottom-line.

My understanding -- I'm obviously not an expert, just curious.. is that
it works a bit the same with LCD's as when you sell diamonds: Twice
bigger ten times dearer.

Personally, what I was in the market for was something that provides 200
dpi or better .. something with the quality of the very low-end printers
of yesteryear .. something markedly better than my 7-year old SXGA+ ..

I mean .. 7 years after .. Am I really asking for the moon?

Apart from the better laptops (ie. the grossly overpriced ones) ..
there does not seem to be anything nowadays that even comes close to
such capabilities.

Heck, I just took a peek .. it seems even the resolution of my cheap
cell phone is better than any of the "monitors" I have seen demo-ed at
the local stores.

So if the technology is there why can't I have it?

:-(

Pointers .. thoughts .. suggestions .. opinions .. anybody?


From: Chris Cox on 29 Nov 2007 01:16
cga2000 wrote:
> Does anyone make hi-res LCD displays?
>
> It appears that except for laptops, most LCD displays sold nowadays have
> the same mediocre resolution--basically equivalent to 1024x768 on a 15"
> screen .. That's about 90 dpi (!)
>
> So you go tho the store .. you buy a 15" monitor and you get your
> 1024x768 pixels .. you buy a 17" or even a 19" monitor you get the same
> mediocre resolution plus the few extra pixels to make up for the
> additional screen size .. 1280x1024 in "wide mode", maybe? With a
> 21-22" inch and double the price you might then graduate to something
> like 1650x?? same resolution of course .. etc.

There are some 22" WUXGA (1920x1200) resolution monitors out there from major
manufacturers (google for them). You can also google for folks
that have used the laptop screens as monitors (some assembly
required of course). My Dell M70 has a 15" 1920x1200 panel in it
(for example).
From: ray on 29 Nov 2007 11:33
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:41:33 +0000, cga2000 wrote:

> Does anyone make hi-res LCD displays?
>
> It appears that except for laptops, most LCD displays sold nowadays have
> the same mediocre resolution--basically equivalent to 1024x768 on a 15"
> screen .. That's about 90 dpi (!)
>
> So you go tho the store .. you buy a 15" monitor and you get your
> 1024x768 pixels .. you buy a 17" or even a 19" monitor you get the same
> mediocre resolution plus the few extra pixels to make up for the
> additional screen size .. 1280x1024 in "wide mode", maybe? With a
> 21-22" inch and double the price you might then graduate to something
> like 1650x?? same resolution of course .. etc.
>
> What I had been looking for was something of manageable size .. 15-17"
> or thereabout .. that doesn't use up too much space -- or power .. that
> I don't have to position on Joe's lawn across the street .. unless I
> absolutely need to count the all-too-visible pixels .. something that's
> small enough I don't have to twist my neck right left up down to see
> everything that's on-screen .. simply something that provides what
> laptops designed ten years ago or so offered.
>
> Does someone have an explanation as to why even cheap digital cameras
> currently boast five-six megapixels when even the larger consumer-grade
> LCD monitors cannot even display half that many?

A sensor for taking pictures differs from a display device - different
technolog - you're comparing apples to oranges.

>
> How does this make sense?
>
> Pure speculation on my part, but I'm beginning to think that display
> manufacturers & vendors came up with the clever idea that consumers will
> spend anything for that high they get when they finally open the
> oversized cardboard box and wrestle a 32"-inch+ display out of it (yeah,
> much bigger than Joe's across the street..) and have therefore all
> jumped on this marketing ploy in order to improve their bottom-line.
>
> My understanding -- I'm obviously not an expert, just curious.. is that
> it works a bit the same with LCD's as when you sell diamonds: Twice
> bigger ten times dearer.
>
> Personally, what I was in the market for was something that provides 200
> dpi or better .. something with the quality of the very low-end printers
> of yesteryear .. something markedly better than my 7-year old SXGA+ ..
>
> I mean .. 7 years after .. Am I really asking for the moon?
>
> Apart from the better laptops (ie. the grossly overpriced ones) ..
> there does not seem to be anything nowadays that even comes close to
> such capabilities.
>
> Heck, I just took a peek .. it seems even the resolution of my cheap
> cell phone is better than any of the "monitors" I have seen demo-ed at
> the local stores.

I doubt it. You're confusing the sensor used to take pictures with the
display mechanism. Cheap cell phones usually have a display with fewer
than 640x480 resolution.


>
> So if the technology is there why can't I have it?
>
> :-(
>
> Pointers .. thoughts .. suggestions .. opinions .. anybody?

From: Wolfgang Draxinger on 29 Nov 2007 13:47
ray wrote:

> I doubt it. You're confusing the sensor used to take pictures
> with the display mechanism. Cheap cell phones usually have a
> display with fewer than 640x480 resolution.

I think you misunderstood the OP: He doesn't request something
technologically impossible. In fact, the technology he wants has
been around for years: Mediocre sized (19" e.g.) TFT panels,
that have 1920x1400 pixels resolution, e.g.

Take my Laptop for example: That one has a 1400x1050, 15" TFT
screen. OTOH, next to that there's a 17" Desktop TFT with merely
1280x1024 pixels. Had I thrown in a few bucks more, I'd have got
a 19" TFT instead, but that one would've had 1280x1024 pixels,
too.

My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that.
That stupid OS is unable to scale UI fonts to the physical
dimension. It's always 9 pixels high and I think people were
just complaining, that the fonts on their screen become too
small to read, if they connect a high resolution TFT to it. You
can of course switch to a "high resolution" mode, where bigger
fonts are used, but 90% of the applications will then be
unusable, as all UI elements have been placed by the pixel, and
not flexible layout containers, like we are used to use in GTK
or Qt, thus resulting in clipped text, or overdrawn controls.

Wolfgang Draxinger
--
E-Mail address works, Jabber: hexarith(a)jabber.org, ICQ: 134682867

From: ray on 29 Nov 2007 15:20
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:47:11 +0100, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

> ray wrote:
>
>> I doubt it. You're confusing the sensor used to take pictures
>> with the display mechanism. Cheap cell phones usually have a
>> display with fewer than 640x480 resolution.
>
> I think you misunderstood the OP: He doesn't request something
> technologically impossible. In fact, the technology he wants has
> been around for years: Mediocre sized (19" e.g.) TFT panels,
> that have 1920x1400 pixels resolution, e.g.
>
> Take my Laptop for example: That one has a 1400x1050, 15" TFT
> screen. OTOH, next to that there's a 17" Desktop TFT with merely
> 1280x1024 pixels. Had I thrown in a few bucks more, I'd have got
> a 19" TFT instead, but that one would've had 1280x1024 pixels,
> too.
>
> My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that.
> That stupid OS is unable to scale UI fonts to the physical
> dimension. It's always 9 pixels high and I think people were
> just complaining, that the fonts on their screen become too
> small to read, if they connect a high resolution TFT to it. You
> can of course switch to a "high resolution" mode, where bigger
> fonts are used, but 90% of the applications will then be
> unusable, as all UI elements have been placed by the pixel, and
> not flexible layout containers, like we are used to use in GTK
> or Qt, thus resulting in clipped text, or overdrawn controls.
>
> Wolfgang Draxinger

What I derived from the OP was that he was looking for a several megapixel
desktop disply - I could certainly be wrong.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Using a USB stick for backups
Next: PCI configuration registers(BARs)