Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)?

Thanks for the reply. Very helpful. You last comment about getting a
23" wide screen to attempt to maintain the vertical size was something
I was thinking of. I was looking at the 22" Samsung as it's only $30
more than the academy ratio model I am looking at now, however seems a
bit slower. 5ms as opposed to 6ms. Then of course the 24" monitor
costs a grand so that is not an option.

rjn wrote:
> JR wrote:
>
> > I am looking at a Samsung 204B monitor for my PC.
>
> 1600x1200
>
> > The widescreen version 204BW
>
> 1680x1050
>
> > ... is $287.95 and the standard 4:3/5:4 version is $359.99.
> > Quite a difference and not the way I would think.
>
> Without considering market trends, the 16:10 has only 92%
> of the total pixels of the 4:3. In general, a wide LCD of nnn dpi
> will have only 94% of the pixels of the 4:3 at nnn dpi.
>
> This particular wide is also slower, and has lower contrast
> compared to its academy ratio companion.
>
> Wide may be cheaper to ship as well, being 2 lbs lighter
> and a likely 6in smaller in girth at the carton. All the
> carriers charge by "dimensional weight" now.
>
> > I was assuming the standard 4:3 monitors would be cheaper.
>
> Probably were until recently.
> May still be with some brands.
>
> > ... however this price gap disturbs me.
>
> A quick look at newegg suggests it isn't as profound for
> other brands with comparable wide v. academy models.
>
> Where the LCD is in its life cycle influences prices
> dramatically. I can now buy a 2560x1600 30in display for
> what I paid for the discontinued monitor I'm posting this on.
>
> > I am not comfortable with the lost vertical usable space,
>
> Yep. For same dpi and diagonal inches, the 16:10 vertical is
> only 88% of the 4:3 model. For a nominal 20in LCD,
> you need almost a 23in wide model to keep the same vertical
> pixel count.
>
> --
> Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
> http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
> NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)? 

JR wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. Very helpful.

Keep in mind that if you are moving from a CRT to
and LCD, you get an inch for free, because CRT
call sizes were bottle dimensions, and useable
phosphor region was usually at least an inch smaller.
LCDs spec actual visible pels.

> ... however seems a
> bit slower. 5ms as opposed to 6ms.

You won't be able to detect that difference (if
the mfr's claims are accurate).

> Then of course the 24" monitor
> costs a grand so that is not an option.

HP and Samsung are now in the $800 range for 24W.

The loss-of-vertical penalty is even higher on TVs,
which for reasons mysterious to me are 16:9 where
computer monitors tend to be 16:10. I figure that to
replace my ancient Sony 32XBR, even allowing for
the free inch, I'll need a 38in LCD. Fortunately, that's
getting to be the sweet spot of the TV market, and 40s
will be free premiums in boxes of breakfast cereal by
this time next year

.... but not with 100% gamut LED backlight and full
1920p, I'll bet

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)? 

Based on your input I started thinking that perhaps I should go with a
19" monitor instead of 20" as it will be larger than what I am using
now with my 19" CRT and a lot cheaper. Unfrotunately it looks like
most of the 19" LCD monitors have a max resolution of 1280x1024 where
the 20" ones I'm looking at are 1600x1200.

Now from what I've been told any resolution other than a LCD's max
resolution or half it's resolution will return blurry text. Current
CRT is set to 800x600 which is a perfect half of the 20" monitor and
would be idea. If I would go with the 19" half would be 640x612 which
is a majorly small resolution.


rjn wrote:
> JR wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply. Very helpful.
>
> Keep in mind that if you are moving from a CRT to
> and LCD, you get an inch for free, because CRT
> call sizes were bottle dimensions, and useable
> phosphor region was usually at least an inch smaller.
> LCDs spec actual visible pels.
>
> > ... however seems a
> > bit slower. 5ms as opposed to 6ms.
>
> You won't be able to detect that difference (if
> the mfr's claims are accurate).
>
> > Then of course the 24" monitor
> > costs a grand so that is not an option.
>
> HP and Samsung are now in the $800 range for 24W.
>
> The loss-of-vertical penalty is even higher on TVs,
> which for reasons mysterious to me are 16:9 where
> computer monitors tend to be 16:10. I figure that to
> replace my ancient Sony 32XBR, even allowing for
> the free inch, I'll need a 38in LCD. Fortunately, that's
> getting to be the sweet spot of the TV market, and 40s
> will be free premiums in boxes of breakfast cereal by
> this time next year
>
> ... but not with 100% gamut LED backlight and full
> 1920p, I'll bet
>
> --
> Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
> http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
> NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)? 

JR wrote:

> Based on your input I started thinking that perhaps I should go with a
> 19" monitor instead of 20" as it will be larger than what I am using
> now with my 19" CRT and a lot cheaper.

A 21in or 22in wide would have about the same vertical size
as the useable phosphor on your 19crt.

> Unfrotunately it looks like most of the 19" LCD monitors have
> a max resolution of 1280x1024 where
> the 20" ones I'm looking at are 1600x1200.

You need to brush up your trig and get into monitor math.
Learn how to translate call sizes, aspect ratios and raster
sizes into dpi, or dot pitch mm.

Depending on your eyes and viewing distance, anything
near and over 100 dpi may result in uncomfortably
unscalable tiny screen objects (like fixed system fonts).

More pixels is not always desireable on LCD, whereas on
CRT, you generally wanted the finest triad pitch you could
afford.

> Now from what I've been told any resolution other than a LCD's max
> resolution or half it's resolution will return blurry text.

It is suboptimal, as is feeding an analog signal to an LCD.

I feed my LCD with DVI from one PC and HD15 analog
from another, both at the display's native raster (which
is close to 100dpi). I can tell which connection I'm using
just by the image quality.

> Current CRT is set to 800x600 which is a perfect half of
> the 20" monitor and would be idea. If I would go with the
> 19" half would be 640x612 which
> is a majorly small resolution.

If you need a coarse res, go for a high res/small dot pitch (dpi)
and run at exactly half res.

You could also consider staying with CRT for a while.
Used units in good shape are dirt cheap, even
Sony GDM-FW900s (24W).
Need a strong desk, tho. 100 pounds.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
 >> Stay informed about: Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)? 

They cut a long piece of glass to make the screen,
and you get more out of it with shorter screens.

"JR" <jriker1 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165789355.966143.225230@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>I am looking at a Samsung 204B monitor for my PC. The widescreen
> version 204BW is $287.95 and the standard 4:3/5:4 version is $359.99.
> Quite a difference and not the way I would think. I was assuming the
> standard 4:3 monitors would be cheaper. Any explanation on why this
> is? I want to buy the standard one as the widescreen I am not
> comfortable with the lost vertical usable space, however this price gap
> disturbs me.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why Widescreen LCD cheaper than 4:3 (5:4)?