which monitor has high resolution?

J David Ellis <nos....TakeThisOut@home.org> wrote:

> Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200
> 19" (diagonal) display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23"
> flat-panel computer monitor that has no less pixel density
> than the E1705. Does any manufacturer offer one?

1920 on a 19in is 119 dpi, which is well beyond the 100 dpi
threshold of "unusable" for Windows users, due to assumptions
made by Mr.Bill long ago, and hard-coded into too many
legacy apps, icons, bit-mapped system fonts, etc.

1920 is also as high as single-link DVI can go without
tricks that no one wants to use so far. Tolerable LCDs
with dual-link just only hit the market two weeks ago.
See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.

Consequently, the market for large >100 dpi tends to be fairly
specialized, is way above 100 dpi, and is always at least dual-link.

The legendary 22in 3840x2400 IBM T221, still available as
some obscure Toshiba model number, is 200 dpi quad-link.
It's also the price of a mid-size car.
<http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/23/toshiba-mpixel-
lcd-recycling>

--
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: which monitor has high resolution? 

On or about Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:31:54 -0800 did J David Ellis
<nospam RemoveThis @home.org> dribble thusly:

>Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200
>19" (diagonal) display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23"
>flat-panel computer monitor that has no less pixel density
>than the E1705. Does any manufacturer offer one?

That's the highest resolution you're going to see until you go to 30",
where it's 2560x1600. So, any larger widescreen monitor is going to
have larger pixels than you currently have, though it's likely you
won't notice unless you try.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"J David Ellis" <nospam RemoveThis @home.org> wrote in message
news:YKKdnfW4WekT7tbanZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@sti.net...
> Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200 19" (diagonal)
> display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23" flat-panel computer monitor that has
> no less pixel density than the E1705. Does any manufacturer offer one?
> --David

It is difficult enough now even to find a 22" desktop monitor at 1920x1200
(Lenovo's L220x) or 23" (Apple's M9178LL/A), never mind a higher density
monitor at that size. What you are looking for did exist, but it was not
cheap, especially not early on. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221, IBM produced the T220 and later the T221
in 2001, which are WQUXGA (3840×2400) resolution and 22.2". There is a user
group at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IBM_T2X_LCD/. Rebadged versions
were produced by Iiyama, ViewSonic and IDTech. They are no longer for sale
new, but there are some used models available.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

J David Ellis wrote:

Thank you Messrs. Quigley, Ruskai and Niland for your
thoughtful replies, and the bad news.

You've pushed this hi-res neophyte's education forward
considerably.

--David
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

rjn wrote:

>J David Ellis <nos....TakeThisOut@home.org> wrote:
>
>> Currently using a Dell Inspiron E1705 that has a 1920x1200
>> 19" (diagonal) display. I'd like to buy a 22" or 23"
>> flat-panel computer monitor that has no less pixel density
>> than the E1705. Does any manufacturer offer one?
>
>1920 on a 19in is 119 dpi, which is well beyond the 100 dpi
>threshold of "unusable" for Windows users, due to assumptions
>made by Mr.Bill long ago, and hard-coded into too many
>legacy apps, icons, bit-mapped system fonts, etc.
>
>1920 is also as high as single-link DVI can go without
>tricks that no one wants to use so far. Tolerable LCDs
>with dual-link just only hit the market two weeks ago.
>See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.
>
>Consequently, the market for large >100 dpi tends to be fairly
>specialized, is way above 100 dpi, and is always at least dual-link.

It's a CRT, but monitors made with Sony's FD Trinitron tube (such as
the F500 and F520) can do 115 dpi (25.4/0.22=115)
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"chrisv" <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ommtk3t91m5urac9ultcju4p0nvft6q6in@4ax.com...

> It's a CRT, but monitors made with Sony's FD Trinitron tube (such as
> the F500 and F520) can do 115 dpi (25.4/0.22=115)

Based solely on the dot (or in this case, stripe) pitch,
you would think that, but on a CRT the resolution capability
is generally limited by the beam (spot) size and video amplifier
bandwidth/risetime well before you reach the pitch limit.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

chrisv <chr... DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:

> It's a CRT, but monitors made with Sony's FD Trinitron tube (such as
> the F500 and F520) can do 115 dpi (25.4/0.22=115)

Sony actually built and demo'd (at COMDEX) a .15mm
dot pitch Trinitron. That works out to 169 dpi, plus or
minus the Myers derating factors. They demo'd it with
static images. Windows would have been microscopic.

Sony never released the .15, due, in large part I suspect, to
the Windows icon fixed-font problem, which was even more
severe back in the COMDEX era.

Do not go beyond 100 dpi unless you've already spent
some time there on the intended platform.

"Photo quality" is roughly considered to be 200 dpi 24-bit.
If the OS/app issues can be resolved, 200 might be an
attractive monitor resolution in some future not nearby.

--
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: which monitor has high resolution? 

Mike Ruskai <BUTthann....RemoveThis@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:

> >See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.
>
> Just what do you claim is intolerable about the 30" panels that have
> been on the market for more than a year, some even two?

As I said in the referenced thread, titled:
" LCD: what's going on at 30in 2560?"

What are the issues?
1. DVI-D only - no VGA or analog TV
2. Dual link DVI only
3. No scaler, even for digital
4. No HMDI either
5. No on-board setup controls

Obviously, some people are tolerating this.
And some are not, as the Inq rant mentioned
in the thread confirms. Personally, I wouldn't
buy one, and now that Dell's 3rd try has fixed
these problems, these 30inchers with issues
are apt to vanish from the market.

--
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: which monitor has high resolution? 

On or about Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:36:36 -0800 (PST) did rjn
<email4rjn DeleteThis @yahoo.com> dribble thusly:

>1920 is also as high as single-link DVI can go without
>tricks that no one wants to use so far. Tolerable LCDs
>with dual-link just only hit the market two weeks ago.
>See the "what's the deal at 30in 2560" thread here.

Just what do you claim is intolerable about the 30" panels that have
been on the market for more than a year, some even two?
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"rjn" <email4rjn RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2371aba8-940c-4c5c-b3aa-5ea27be85c37@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> What are the issues?
> 1. DVI-D only - no VGA or analog TV

Ignoring the scaler question for the moment....

2560 x 1600 @ 60 Hz is at least a 270 MHz pixel rate,
given an LCD-reasonable amount of blanking time.
You REALLY don't wanna try that over a VGA...

> 2. Dual link DVI only

Ditto; single-link DVI tops out at 165 MHz, 8 bits/color.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"Bob Myers" <nospample....DeleteThis@address.invalid> wrote:

> > What are the issues?
> > 1. DVI-D only - no VGA or analog TV
>
> Ignoring the scaler question for the moment....
>
> 2560 x 1600 @ 60 Hz is at least a 270 MHz pixel rate,
> given an LCD-reasonable amount of blanking time.
> You REALLY don't wanna try that over a VGA...

Hitting the max res of a 2560 over VGA is not the point.
The point is being able to hook it to any arbitrary old PC,
at any res, and get something on the screen.

I presently have a Windows PC driving my 23in LCD at
1920x1200 over DVI, and a Linux PC driving the VGA
port at 1920x1200 analog. If I replaced this LCD with a
2560, I'd want something similar, even 2560 on DVI-DL
and 1920 on analog. Can't do that with the pre-Q4-07
30in 2560s.

> > 2. Dual link DVI only
> Ditto; single-link DVI tops out at 165 MHz, 8 bits/color.

It could go higher than 1920 at lower frame rates.
Given that refresh flicker is not an issue on LCD,
a 30Hz rate would be fine for many apps (DTP, CAD),
but the graphics card makers don't seem to be inclined
to emit below 60.

And all of this is pretty much moot, now that the tech
has caught up with obvious expectations.

--
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: which monitor has high resolution? 

"rjn" <email4rjn.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30264965-ff15-4cb0-bb8a-21c5e1cfeafe@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> > 2. Dual link DVI only
>> Ditto; single-link DVI tops out at 165 MHz, 8 bits/color.
>
> It could go higher than 1920 at lower frame rates.
> Given that refresh flicker is not an issue on LCD,
> a 30Hz rate would be fine for many apps (DTP, CAD),
> but the graphics card makers don't seem to be inclined
> to emit below 60.

Well, actually going much below 60 doesn't really
work all that well on most LCDs. Flicker as we knew
it in CRTs isn't an issue, but there ARE some timing
concerns within the LCD that cause most manufacturers
to limit the native rates of the modules themselves. On
just about any LCD monitor in production today, if the
input frame rate is off from 60 Hz by more than a few
Hz, there's a frame-rate conversion being done. Some,
but by no means all, LCDs (and by this I mean the
panel or module itself, not the complete monitor) might
get down to 50 Hz on their own, but it's really rare to
see something that will work much below that. The one
exception I can think of off the top of my head was that
9.2 MPixel LCD that IBM did a few years back - that
one had a native rate of somewhere around 45 Hz, as I
recall, just because there was no good way to ship around
that much video at anything faster.

Bob M.
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution? 

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease.DeleteThis@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:finvee$b82$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "rjn" <email4rjn.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:30264965-ff15-4cb0-bb8a-21c5e1cfeafe@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > 2. Dual link DVI only
>>> Ditto; single-link DVI tops out at 165 MHz, 8 bits/color.
>>
>> It could go higher than 1920 at lower frame rates.
>> Given that refresh flicker is not an issue on LCD,
>> a 30Hz rate would be fine for many apps (DTP, CAD),
>> but the graphics card makers don't seem to be inclined
>> to emit below 60.
>
> Well, actually going much below 60 doesn't really
> work all that well on most LCDs. Flicker as we knew
> it in CRTs isn't an issue, but there ARE some timing
> concerns within the LCD that cause most manufacturers
> to limit the native rates of the modules themselves. On
> just about any LCD monitor in production today, if the
> input frame rate is off from 60 Hz by more than a few
> Hz, there's a frame-rate conversion being done. Some,
> but by no means all, LCDs (and by this I mean the
> panel or module itself, not the complete monitor) might
> get down to 50 Hz on their own, but it's really rare to
> see something that will work much below that. The one
> exception I can think of off the top of my head was that
> 9.2 MPixel LCD that IBM did a few years back - that
> one had a native rate of somewhere around 45 Hz, as I
> recall, just because there was no good way to ship around
> that much video at anything faster.
>
> Bob M.

Fully agree with Bob - The panel makers are still king, and
the rest of us, whether integrators, solution providers, resellers,
or whomever, are stuck with their decisions. To make it a bit
worse, the panel companies seem to take pride in how well they
can "drive the market", as opposed to listening to the market
needs.

NGA
 >> Stay informed about: which monitor has high resolution?