LG said to be prepping 16:9 LCD panels for low-cost laptops

16:9 LCD panels designed for computer use aren't exactly all that uncommon, but this latest batch announced by LG will likely generate a bit more interest than most, especially given that they're apparently intended specifically for use in low-cost laptops. According to DigiTimes, LG will first roll out a standard 16:10 aspect ratio, 8.9-inch panel with a resolution of 1024 x 600 in August, which will then be followed by a 16:9, 10.1-inch panel with a 1024 x 576 resolution in October, and finally a 9.4-inch panel of unspecified resolution in April of 2009. Making things even more interesting is that some unspecified "industry sources" say the panels are "expected" to be adopted by Acer and HP for use with their low-cost laptops, and possibly Asustek as well, which will no doubt add plenty of fuel to the next round of Eee PC rumors.

[Via Electronista]

[Doug @ Apr 18th 2008 1:05PM]

Does it come with a flux capasitor?

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 1:12PM]

Uh, since when do laptop screens come with fictional parts from a time-machine movie from the 1980's?

[phanbouy @ Apr 18th 2008 1:14PM]

either way, just make sure you always use a Dr. Evil voice and air quotes when saying "Tiiiime Machine"

[phanbouy @ Apr 18th 2008 1:15PM]

btw, lowest, your name is now strangely obsolete. i think it's really anticlimactic now that there's only 1 degree of high or low you can be here!

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 1:22PM]

They messaged me and said the ranking change was because of my name.

No, seriously. They did. I swear..

[phanbouy @ Apr 18th 2008 1:23PM]

the irony was too much for them eh?

[Bobs @ Apr 18th 2008 2:00PM]

They didnt have to take away our highest rank either, how about numbers? so we dont hurt people's feelings on the internet, have it go down to -10, thats 10 down voters, and all the way up to 150, when it turns the background of the post gold and shows epic next to the number.

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 2:02PM]

Bob, your avatar has always scared the shit out of me, but I think you have a great idea here, except I think there should be no limit on the votes, it should simply show how many down votes or up votes ya got.

[phanbouy @ Apr 18th 2008 2:05PM]

youtube rankings ftw

[packetsniffer @ Apr 18th 2008 2:43PM]

I hadn't realized they'd taken away "Lowest" and "Highest". WTF, Engadget?

Well I guess it's probably Weblogs Inc's decision, so WTF, Weblogs Inc?

[Bobs @ Apr 18th 2008 3:12PM]

@packetsniffer
No, its the internet's fault, WTF INTERNET?
@Lowest Ranked
My job here is done, but ill continue doing it anyways

[Homeboy @ Apr 18th 2008 1:13PM]

10.1 screen's are already small enough, and a 16:9 aspect ratio as opposed to 16:10 doesn't exactly improving internet browsing experience.

[Derbeste @ Apr 18th 2008 1:18PM]

Just turn your laptop sideways. hehe

I'd love a 16:9 screen for both movies and gaming.

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 1:23PM]

16x10 would be better for movies because you get room the player controls on the top or bottom without distorting the movies aspect ratio.

[Derbeste @ Apr 18th 2008 1:28PM]

But how often would you need the player controls visible while watching a movie full screen?

You can just have the controls appear and disappear leaving the full screen visible for the movie with no black bars.

I'd rather have the black bars be gone for 2 hours and deal with distortion for all of 20 seconds when I use the controls.

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 1:36PM]

Thats why they invented Televisions about 350 years ago. Because laptops were too small for them to watch their Blu-Ray discs on.

[Ryan Karolak @ Apr 18th 2008 1:48PM]

Simple solution: crop

Cropping for 16:10 to 16:10 doesn't take that much out of the picture. In addition you have a screen better for desktop use and gaming.

[rv @ Apr 18th 2008 4:57PM]

1024 x 576??
WTF? 576p? No thanks

[Valgas @ Apr 18th 2008 1:43PM]

The next year and a half should be pretty interesting for those of us looking for some nice low cost subnotebooks.

[Lowest Ranked @ Apr 18th 2008 1:48PM]

You just summed up the article in one sentence.

Engagdet needs to hire you.

[TIMMAH! @ Apr 18th 2008 1:51PM]

That 1024x600 res sounds an awful lot like the 8.9" panel that's in the Eee PC900.

[Raptor007 @ Apr 18th 2008 1:51PM]

576 lines of vertical resolution? Ugh, that'd be even worse than the 800x600 laptop I used in 1997. No thanks.

These guys must really like scrolling...

[FGL82 @ Apr 18th 2008 2:11PM]

Quick question: why the heck do "wide screen things and products" come in 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios? Why don't they decide already which one is the "normal" one?????

[Stranger @ Apr 18th 2008 2:41PM]

16:10 vs 16:9 comes down to legacy. The movie industry has been using 16:9 or wider while the computer industry traditionaly has been using a 4:3 aspect ratio as 320*240, 640*480, 1024*768 and 1600*1200. 16/10 = 1.6 while 4/3 = 1.3333333.... Now the magic, 1.33333... * 1.2 = 1.6. It's easier to do a conversion 4:3 -> 16:10 as compared to 16:9 since it's just to multiply with 1.2.

Well, maybe I'm talking out my ass bit it sounds resonable, don't you think?

[Raptor007 @ Apr 18th 2008 2:41PM]

They already have. 16:9 for HDTV, 16:10 for widescreen PC.

Frankly, I think PCs should stick with 4:3. Most PC business tasks involve web browsers, word processors, or image editors. None of these benefit from widescreen. Neither does gaming.

I am thankful that we're seeing less of 1280x1024 these days; it was a dumb idea to diverge from the standard 4:3 to that 5:4 nonsense. 1600x1200 is my personal favorite resolution.

[crycry @ Apr 18th 2008 2:45PM]

just like everything else different groups came up with different standards. 16:9 is the TV standard, created in 1984. 16:10 is the computer standard and it might have something to do with being able to show a4 pages side by side on the screen, or that's what I could get from wikipedia.

@MarkL they've been shooting tons of HDTV 16:9 for a while now and that catalogue will only grow as time goes on.

[FGL82 @ Apr 18th 2008 2:46PM]

I completely agree, PCs should have sticked with good old 4:3. 1280 x 1024 just makes my scumm vm games look weird =P

Anyways, thanks for explaining and I would chose 16:9 over 16:10. as I'm not too fond of widescreen itself, I would rather have the less wide screen possible if it is to become the standard for the future...

[crycry @ Apr 18th 2008 2:46PM]

that's what happens when you walk away from a post you were writing.

too slow

[Raptor007 @ Apr 18th 2008 2:47PM]

@Stranger

You're right that it's an issue of legacy, but really it's a matter of finding a common ground between cinema's 2.40:1 and TV/PC's 4:3 (1.33:1). They're trying to find an aspect ratio that can be used for both.

They generally stick with 16:9 on HDTV because movies are the most important focus for such displays. Most PC tasks tend to need a lot of vertical scrolling, so 16:10 was a slightly better fit there. (As I said before, I think 4:3 is still much better suited to this task.)

[Raptor007 @ Apr 18th 2008 2:50PM]

@FGL
16:10 is actually "less wide-screen". Aspect ratios are denoted horizontal:vertical.

A better way to think of it is division:
4/3 = 1.333...
16/10 = 1.6
16/9 = 1.777...

16:10 is closer to 4:3 ("less wide") than 16:9.

Hopefully you still have the option of 4:3 from some laptop makers. I know you can still get 4:3 desktop monitors. Check out the Samsung 204B, a very nice 1600x1200 LCD.

[FGL82 @ Apr 18th 2008 3:04PM]

of course raptor, you are completely right, my bad

[crycry @ Apr 18th 2008 2:56PM]

@Raptor007 Actually HDTVs are 16:9 because that's the aspect ratio of HD video and has been for a very long time. Sure, they show movies in HDTV but those are shot on film (for the most part, and so are some TV shows but I digress) in several different aspect ratios. They're not related.

[RichardBronosky @ Apr 18th 2008 8:14PM]

[quote=Raptor007]
Frankly, I think PCs should stick with 4:3. Most PC business tasks involve web browsers, word processors, or image editors. None of these benefit from widescreen. Neither does gaming.
[/quote]

Aghh, no! High-res 16:10 is great fro business tasks! I can have a web browser and a terminal window at comfortable sizes side by side on a 1920x1200 LCD. I used to have to have 2 displays to work effectively, but now it can be done with 1. I agree that 4:3 is optimal for a browser window, but I don't want a browser window full screen on a 27 inch LCD. I also love that when I am developing I can rotate the LCD to 10:16 and have plenty of lines of code visible.

It is really hard to make good use of a huge 4:3. Graphic applications are the only thing that still lends itself to that.

[Mark L. @ Apr 18th 2008 2:10PM]

16:9 is just as bad as 4:3 with all of those repeating decimals. Why is this being adopted? It's not like movies are filmed in that resolution anyways (I think it's 2.35:1 that they film in, which is much narrower and still requires cropping). 16:10 is "widescreen" too if you're just concerned about being bought by labels and it's probably better for your peripheral vision to get the most out of what you see.

[pscs @ Apr 18th 2008 2:41PM]

Okay, so the bigger screen has less resolution!?

[teslasnp @ Apr 18th 2008 3:24PM]

is that a question?

[Juice Daddy @ Apr 18th 2008 3:26PM]

yea... that's basically what their doing...

pretty stupid imo


1024x600 vs. 1024x576... yea....

[phanbouy @ Apr 18th 2008 3:27PM]

boy, pa! shaving off 24 lines of resolution's gonna help make them laptops cheap!

[PaulLiu @ Aug 27th 2008 7:47AM]

576 sucks.

Some games use fix resolution 800x600 and they cannot be played on 1024x576.
And most applications are designed for 1024x768, thus 1024x600 is already hard enough to use. 1024x576 absolutely sucks.