NEC just kicked out five new professional
MultiSync monitors which do their best to mimic the specs of their
25.5-incher out since January. Of course, any MultiSync panel is interesting, especially the new 22-inch LDC233WXM (¥56,500 / $473), 20-inch LCD203WXM (¥41,500 / $348), and 19-inch LCD193WM. However, as
Samsung told us yesterday, it's all about the 24-inch now. No LED back-lighting here folks, but NEC's (¥186,900 / $1,566) LCD2490WUXi does pack the same H-IPS LCD panel, 12-bit look-up tables, and embedded circuitry found in its bigger brother. Likewise, it brings a 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA) resolution, 800:1 contrast ratio, 400cd/m2 brightness, and 178-dgree viewing angle only with additional jacks this time: 3x DVI-D (HDCP), 1x DVI-I (HDCP), and 1x D-Sub15. The lesser spec'd (¥129,800 / $ 1,088) LCD2470WNX sports a 1920 x 1200 pixel, 24-inch S-PVA LCD and 2 HDCP-enabled DVI-D jacks with a D-Sub15 thrown in for grins. All hitting Japan on April 24th. Check the entire lineup after the break.
posted Apr 12th 2007 9:01AM
Who cares? Why are monitor manufacturers intent on lowering resolution back down to the 100 dpi range after so many years of doing better? There's no reason to keep increasing display size standards without increasing pixel counts to keep pace. Is WUXGA all the industry is going to offer us?
Virtually all monitors employ an approximately 100dpi pixel pitch. The smallest monitor size that employs 1600 x 1200 resolution is a 4:3 20" panel, which works out to 100dpi. The smallest 16:10 panel that employs 1920 x 1200 is 23", which gives you 98.44dpi. You can jump to 2560 x 1600 resolution at the 30" 16:10 widepanel size, which gives you 100.63dpi. That's about the highest value you can find in any manufactured mainstream panel. Where are the > 100dpi panels that manufacturers have been doing for years??
The smallest monitor that does 1600x1200 today may be 20", I don't know, but there have certainly been smaller ones in the past. It used to be that you could do it on some 17" montitors and any 19" could do it. Likewise, 1920x1200 may work out to be 23" but there used to be 22" monitors that did it. Now the size is 24" and NEC has the 25.5" with that resolution. That's the whole point. The trend used to be larger, higher resolution monitors. Now it's just larger monitors.
Of course, laptops have much higher resolution displays. It used to be easy to get 1920x1200 on a 15.4" display. It's harder now, maybe impossible, and even 17" laptops are not always WUXGA. It is easy to use 130+ dpi on the desktop and 150+ dpi on a laptop, yet the trend is away from those resolutions when it should be toward them. The 30" display should be 3840x2400, a standard that has existed for years, instead of the measly, grainy 2560x1600 it delivers. I bought one and sold it because it looked terrible.
Hopefully Apple will invent high resolution displays so we can all have them again. If DVI didn't have a cap at 1920x1200 we'd see more progress.
The 133dpi 15" UXGA screen on my T42p is no longer available on Thinkpads. Last I checked, HP had some business laptops that had 15" UXGA screens (with blue pointing sticks), but the page was quite hard to find on their site, had obvious errors in the specs/prices of their different models, and basically made it clear that they don't ship, well, any of them.
I think there's still a Latitude D with a high-dpi 15" available.
In 2002 a friend got a Dell with, IIRC, a 14" UXGA screen. Amazing!
Then the other day Engadget informs us that the 200dpi Axim palmtops are discontinued. Boo!
The Apple iPhone may be the highest dpi TFT display when it ships (160). At least that I know of.
This is all such irony considering that WPF/Avalon finally delivers a vector-based API.
-Carl
Hm, nope. The Meizu M8 is supposed to have a 3.3" 720x480 screen.
I wonder what sort of panel the 22" model uses. I don't know of any 22" model with something else than a TN panel, and the 20" sounds too cheap to have something better aswell. But what's pro on the monitor then, except for the brand/name?