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

[JR]

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.

Thanks for any insight.

JR

 

[rjn]

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.

 

[JR]

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]

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 :-(

 

[JR]

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]

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.

 

[Eric Gisin]

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