LG.Philips unveils 20.8-inch QXGA LCD for the medical realm

Although we're sure clever consumers could put a 20.8-inch QXGA (2,048 x 1,536) display to good use, LG.Philips' latest is aimed squarely at the medical market. Deemed the "highest resolution panel of its size," this unit also touts a 600 candela brightness and In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology that enables doctors, nurses and curious onlookers to see imagery in exceptional detail. The panel isn't set to enter mass production until the first half of next year, but those hanging out at FPD International in Japan can reportedly catch it on display right now.

[Via FarEastGizmos]

[apeguero @ Oct 24th 2007 1:16PM]

I suspect this LCD will be expensive but, is a resolution like this one doable and affordable in 24", normal, consumer LCDs?

[Josh Warner @ Oct 25th 2007 2:52AM]

Yours is a great question, and one which should really be addressed. Personally I want 1920x1200 resolution in a 20" or 22" screen, but nobody will squeeze this in.

Laptops can be bought with 15.4" widescreens that have this resolution, so why desktop monitors cannot stand to have a slightly more cramped dot pitch is a real conundrum. The dead pixel / failure rates from the LCD fabs have got to be nearing zero by this point, since they have been in production for so long, so what gives?

[Satish @ Oct 24th 2007 1:27PM]

Is that a skull of human or monkey?

[Blackster @ Oct 24th 2007 1:30PM]

look at the teeth and headform.

should be pretty clear ;)

[THL @ Oct 24th 2007 2:19PM]

Now, I'm no expert on simian anatomy, but if there's one thing Dr. Zaius has taught me is that we should be careful throwing around potentially-offensive terms such as "monkey". It very well may be an ape. Just sayin'...

[gm76 @ Oct 24th 2007 4:59PM]

> Is that a skull of human or Dubya Bush?

Fixed.

[stitifier @ Oct 24th 2007 2:53PM]

I've never seen an X-ray that was able to see soft tissue like that... or a CAT scan/MRI that was able to put in those delicate light and shade patterns on a 3-D image. If they're going to pitch these at medical professionals, they could at least not insult their intelligence.

[Mike @ Oct 24th 2007 3:03PM]

MPR (multiplanar reconstruction) of a CT. Probably a higher end 128 or 256 slice CT.

[Mike @ Oct 24th 2007 2:58PM]

Candela power.. that's one of the kickers..the resolution and the performance of light, dark, and grey are very important, and it's FDA approved no doubt. Has to have the ability to be calibrated etc.. most consumer based monitors will pass for the stat reads (ER), but final reads require a very high end monitor, the ACR has the specs in full detail if you care to search it out. BTW, a pair of medical grade monitors will generally run 6-20K and that often doesn't include the super high end video card which can run from 1.5-5K... The prices are high, but really, do you want your physician reading your X-Ray, CT, or MRI on anything but the best?

[apeguero @ Oct 24th 2007 3:37PM]

I expected the price to be high. No doubt. It's very sensitive equipment. I never questioned that.

What I would like to see is for some of that technology to make it's way to consumer LCDs (at consumer prices) where your typical 24" screen can display at resolutions higher than the typical 1920x1200 we see today.

[Wwhat @ Oct 24th 2007 5:34PM]

If the medical staff can cure you it's alright isn't it? I mean why have 10Kx10K pixels when a simple zoom brings more clarity, or a simple filter brings out abnormalities.
You need to manage your budget and not simply go for the most expensive pointless equipment when slightly lesser will do when it leaves your budget open for more coverage in other areas say.

[apeguero @ Oct 25th 2007 12:43AM]

I don't get your point. I'm asking a simple question in this blog which is why the Display manufacturers have stuck on 1920x1200 resolution on 24, 27, and 28 inch LCDs. If I want higher resolution than that then I have to go for a 30" LCD which is twice the price. I don't want a screen bigger than 24". I also cannot live with 1920x1200 resolution. Why is it if I ask why Display manufacturers cannot give us consumers (non Medical pros, standard Joes) a higher res 24" I'm all of a sudden dissing people that could save my life? There's no need for smart ass responses like that. I'm not questioning what kind of equipment Medical staff get. I'm asking why...nah, I'm not going to repeat my question.

[MarcV @ Oct 25th 2007 9:38AM]

Can you see what I'm thinking?!

[dataminer49er @ Oct 24th 2007 4:07PM]

This is your brain on Engadget.

[Jason Hofmann @ Oct 24th 2007 5:48PM]

It is interesting that they should call it "highest resolution panel of its size", as I don't know of many 20.8" monitors!

That being said, I do know of the IBM T221/Viewsonic VP2290B. They are based on the same panel, which is a '22.2" inch wide (16:10) LCD monitor with 9.2 million pixels arranged in stunning 3840x2400 (QUXGA-W) resolution, contrast ratio of 400:1, brightness of 235 cd/m2, and viewing angle beyond 85 deg in all directions'

[01 @ Oct 24th 2007 6:29PM]

I totally thought there was going to be a crayon lodged in there somewhere....

[The ZeroCorpse @ Oct 24th 2007 6:54PM]

Is it telling that I can't look at a side-profile X-ray anymore without imagining a crayon up the subject's nose?

[,,|,, @ Oct 27th 2007 4:05AM]

They're insulting us...neither is that image real. Soft tissue is too well defined and shading is really nice...if not fake.Pituritry gland and infundibulum are bloody huge. Tho proove me wrong, i haven't seen a x-ray image fused with a MRI or CT of a monkey before...