Why only 1050 ?

Associate
Joined
18 Sep 2007
Posts
572
Just a quick question, just browsing through the LCD section of the overclockers site and I notice that only a couple of the monitors go above a vertical resolution of 1050 untill u reach the 24" models.

Why?

Is this simply the maximum for a widescreen monitor at that size?

The only model that seems to go above it is the Dell Ultrasharp at 1600:1200 but you really pay the price with a 16ms response time.

The reason i wonder is becuase i see all this talk of getting the best resolutions possible but if the monitors available cant go above 1050, what's the point?
 
mostly with lcd's its very expensive, with much lower yields to have too high a pixel density, so basically you don't hit 1920x1200 till you hit 24", as it gives them standard batches they can make and cut them to different sizes. if you make 20" screens at 3 different resolutions, you need to run 3 different manu process's on the panels. where as if you run a 17", a 19" and a 22" all with the same pixel density, you make one type of panel, and cut it at different sizes for different screens which ends up being a lot less effort.

it is rather stupid as you can clearly see, from laptop screens, that you can of course make 1920x1200 screens at a smaller size, and same for 1680x1050 being available at 15" on laptops. its just a pain in the behind really as personally, i like my high resolution. i always used 1600x1200 on my 19" crt, my first 17/19" tft's were for second computer, and only replaced the crt with a 20" 1680x1050, and while it feels ok, its still quite a bit less resolution vs size.
 
Back
Top Bottom