BribieG Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Until now, 'larger', i.e. 32 inch and above LCD TVs have tended to be 1366 x 768 pixels, as are the HD 'ready' plasmas. Recently there has been a rash of cheap little LCDs onto the market with rather strange sounding pixel dimensions. For example, Big W is curently selling 48 cm and 38 cm (about the size of computer monitors) HD televisions with resolutions of 1440 x 900 pixels from under $300, as are Target and Dick Smith / Tandy. Something doesn't seem to stack up here. Why such a 'strange' pixel ratio? If you do the arithmetic that means that: 1366 x 768 = 1,049,088 pixels on screen 1440 x 900 = 1,296,000 pixels on screen In fact if you look at the 900 pixels of vertical resolution and compare that to 1080, heck the little buggers are almost there! Put it yet another way, if you put 4 of these screens together you would end up with something about the size of a 40 inch Bravia for about $1200. (I realise that things don't work that way for some reason) However, is there any reason why we aren't seeing any 'enhanced pixels' larger screens, or are these smaller TVs just 'opportunistically' derived from existing stock, perhaps widely available as WS computer monitors, or what?
Owen Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 HD resolutions are not required or even useful on a 38 or 48cm TV. 720x576 or similar is heaps unless you are going to sit on top of the damn thing. 1366x720 or similar would be extreme overkill.
PanaSung Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Isn't 1440x900 16:10...? It would seem that these are dual purpose screens, ie, PC and TV, but favouring the PC more.
Owen Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Everything is scaled so it makes little difference what the pixel aspect ratio is.
AndrewWilliams Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 A friend of mine recently bought a laptop with a 17" WUXGA screen that has a resolution of 1920x1200. The text is so tiny that you almost need to wear binoculars to read it. My laptop has a 15.4" screen with a lowly 1280x800 resolution but the pixels are the perfect size to be able to be distinguished from normal laptop viewing distance. I almost bought a 1680x1050 laptop but I'm glad I didn't. They do have their uses though....CAD maybe.
jokiin Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 The panels are the same as supplied to the PC industry (where the volume is) which is what has helped deliver the higher res and lower cost of these units, they actually provide a pretty good picture, particularly as Owen pointed out if you sit on top of them. I have one of them on the end of my computer desk (19" WS) if I had a bigger size or lower resolution it wouldn't work as well for my situation.
Skiller Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 A friend of mine recently bought a laptop with a 17" WUXGA screen that has a resolution of 1920x1200. The text is so tiny that you almost need to wear binoculars to read it. Yer I have one of them too, personally tho I still find it too pixelated and the text a bit too big I think would be happier with 2560x1600, but it's still very good and beats the s**tty 1280x1024 17" I use at work by a s**tload. Needless to say I'm a little dissapointed in 1920x1080 being called "high def" on 42" screens, for watching TV it's plenty but I also spend ALOT of time on my current TV playing games and I'd also be hooking up an HDTV (when I get one, hopefully in a week or 2) to my laptop or HTPC alot. Also I find the 16:10 ratio quite good, it give plenty of screenspace to both 16:9 and 4:3 sources, and the extra height is invaluable when coding
AndrewWilliams Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 42" screens generally aren't designed for coding nerds to have on the desk in their bedrooms, they're generally sold as lounge room TVs. Maybe there's a niche market for large, high resolution screens but most people that are that way inclined just use 2 screens with their PC.
Recommended Posts