LCD monitors are great. No question. They’re thin, can be moved around easily, don’t use much electricity, don’t produce static when turned on or off, have a crisp picture that stays crisp, and so on.
However there is one failing of LCD monitors and a big one at that. It’s a lack of vertical resolution.
I’ll explain.
Let’s say you want a monitor that has a 2048-pixel-wide resolution. Yes, this is an insane amount of pixels. How big, as in physically big, do you have to go with an LCD to get this?
The answer is 21 inches.
However, at that size you only get 1152 pixels on the vertical within a reasonable price range – and those are 23-inchers. The monitor is really wide, but seriously short. Bear in mind that is only 72 pixels taller than a 1680×1050 resolution. Like I said, short.
Now let’s say you want something with some true vertical resolution, as in 2048×1536. That’s proper.
That will cost you $4,400 to get it with LCD. You literally pay an extra four thousand dollars for those extra 384 vertical pixels.
Now let’s compare this to the good ol’ CRT – which is really hard to come by these days.
You can get a 21-inch monitor that will support a true 2048×1536 resolution. I found one on eBay for just $600. It’s used because I could not locate a new one.
(Note: If you know of any vendor that does sell these new, please feel free to post a comment with a link as I’m sure there would be some interested parties.)
Who needs crazy resolutions like this?
Programmers love having this kind of screen real estate. You can fit so much stuff on-screen that there is no need for a secondary monitor.
If you’re wondering, "How could anyone read anything at that resolution?" Trust me, programmers can and do routinely.
You simply cannot get the vertical resolution of those old huge 21 and 22-inch CRTs on modern LCDs. Not without paying several thousand dollars for it, anyway.
To answer the question: Did we lose resolution with LCD? Unquestionably, yes.
Hopefully someday the LCD monitor manufacturers will wise up and give us some decent vertical resolution at an agreeable price.
And no, buying an LCD that turns sideways is not the answer because then you lose a ton of horizontal real estate. What the monitor manufacturers need to do is start making taller monitors and not wider. We’ve got enough wide to go around already and don’t need any more. We need height.
For those that would say, "Well, just get a 2560×1600 LCD! Problem solved!" No, problem not solved. The monitor is physically too large. You’re going to have a 26 or 30-inch behemoth on the desk. That’s not practical at all. Maybe fun and cool, but not practical.
Wide is great, but don’t you wish sometimes you had an extra 300 or so pixels at the bottom? I know I do.
Real-world monitor resolution considerations for those of us on a budget
The two best resolutions that give you the most usable vertical space within a reasonable price are:
- 1680×1050
- 1280×1024
Why is vertical resolution so important? Because you scroll less.
My advice: Don’t buy anything under 1000 pixels on the vertical. Not unless you like scrolling a lot.
It’s totally true, everything, even laptops, have become challenged vertically. To get enough screen estate I’ve ended up with three monitors, so it’s all side by side, but I’ve adjusted well enough.
It’s a very good point though, we want height! We don’t want to just watch widescreen DVDs on them!
As my monitors have grown, I’ve gone from 1440×900 (is that what it was? It’s been awhile) to 1680×1050 and now 1920×1080, I haven’t minded the widening. I don’t think I’ve ever sat there and said “wow, I wish this monitor was taller”. Sure, some day I’d like to get a 1920×1200, but I don’t think so much about the height, just the total area.
Reasonable price is relative. I got a 24″ Sceptre 1920×1200 monitor for $210 (2008 Black Friday deal). Scour the hot deal sites and I am sure one will pop up somewhere. If you are looking to buy locally, best wishes – unless you have a TigerDirect, Fry’s, or other local PC warehouse around.
I like big monitors–unless you use a tiny, tiny desk, even a 32″ monitor will fit. To get a comfortable 1.3 to 1.6 to 1 viewing ratio, a 24″ monitor at the back of a 32″ desk is no problem, maybe even a 26″ or 32″ for a bigger desk or if you sit up straight.
I never understood why people would worry about an LCD monitor taking up real estate on a desk–holding up the LCD monitor, mouse, and keyboard is the primary function of a modern desk. It is like people who don’t park their car in the garage–what is in your garage that is more important and valuable than the $30,000 car in your driveway. Same thing with a monitor on a desk–what is more important on your desk than you monitor?
The OP seems to be confusing “supported resolution” and **actual vertical pixels**
There is a world of difference.
One just makes everything smaller on the same luminescent screen – the other is a physical increase in the number of points of light making up the image.
One is tragically bad for your eyes over extended periods of time .. the other is not.
If you want awesome vertical resolution, get two budget wide-screen monitors and place them side by side, in portrait alignment. Configure the adapter accordingly. This will give you anywhere upto 1920 or so high, for a few hundred dollars.
Please, go back to a CRT after years of LCD and you’ll freak out at the apparent softness, and godawful flicker at that res.
I am a programmer, and I TOTALLY agree.
At the office, I insisted on 4:3 monitors. About a year ago, I bought 2 @ 19″ LCDs and use them in dual mode. Much rather have that than any wide monitor combination.
This widescreen stuff is great for TV/movies. I never understood why that had to apply to monitors as well…
I slightly Disagree. 23 Inch LCDs cary a resolution of 1920 x 1080 wich I think is great. Cnet just did this comparison on them.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3174_7-6662003.html?tag=mncol;txt
Some are cheap also.
That’s a pretty roundabout way to say that you do not agree with the fashion for widescreen aspect ratios.
I don’t know many programmers that would say that having high resolutions is that important to them, while they are pretty much essential in CAD, 3D and graphic design.
The debate is missing some reality. No you did not lose resolution. An LCD as a digital device has hard, real pixels. The crt’s with scanning electron beam was essentially analogue and capable of appearing to support resolutions that were not reflective of real pixels. Hence the soft blurry pictures at high resolution.
The problem isn’t so much on resolution but because when they make the LCD screen they also go for wider aspect ratio. Instead of regular 4:3 they go for 16:9 or 16:10. These monitors are great for movies but not for anything else. If I can have it my way I would want a monitor with a 1:1 aspect ratio. Yes a square monitor. We often work on documents that have a 5:4 ratio in landscape and 4:5 in portrait mode. A square monitor will treat both equally and the extra space can be used for tool bars. If you work on a portrait document you would put the toolbas on the sides. If you work on a landscape document you would put them on top or under your document. A square monitor also has the largest area for a given diagonal size.