New LCD screens rumor

vetch

This was on XLR8yourmac.com yesterday in case people missed it.

------------------------------------





LCD Panel Press Release Hints at Larger Cinema Displays:



" Mike:

I know you don't run a "rumors" site, but this information (arrived at with no inside information -- just keeping up with display technology) might be of interest to your readers...



I have no confirmation, but it is very likely that LG-Philips has manufactured the LCD panel found in the 22" Cinema display. Many of the specifications match. That panel is referenced here:

<a href="http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=86"; target="_blank">www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=86</a>



There is a recent press release dated October 17, 2001, that describes three new lcd panels from LG-Philips, two of which seem to be likely candidates for new Cinema Displays:



17W - 1280x768 (5:3 {16:9.6} aspect ratio)

"Volume production of the 17W will begin by late this December."



23W - 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect ratio)

"The 23W is slated to begin mass production in late January 2002."



Probably most interesting in the description of the 23W display is the sentence:



"As an added benefit, the 23W can also fit into the footprint of some existing 22-inch monitor designs, significantly reducing the system integration costs for OEMs."



Just how many "existing 22-inch monitor designs" (with a wide aspect ratio) are out there now? I think the Apple 22" Cinema display is probably it.

<a href="http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/news/n_cozy.html?idx=385"; target="_blank">www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/news/n_cozy.html?idx=385</a>



That press release is on Yahoo too, so it's not likely that's it's going away: biz.yahoo.com/prnews/011017/sfw024a_1.html

robert"



(Robert is the author of Supercal, an LCD/CRT/Projector visual screen calibration utility noted in this Dec 10th news page.)

. I've heard a previous rumor about the 22" Cinema being end of life to make way for a larger Cinema display (many were hoping for a 24" screen).

bigc

A 30" too!

vinney57

I think Samsung make Apple's LCD monitors. Also DVI/ADC cannot drive over 1600 x 1200 due to interference problems (or at least it is not certified to do so)

apple.otaku

I thought LG-Phillips made the LCD for the Cinema Display while the rest were made by Samsung. It seems that LG-Phillips makes one that is 22" with a 300:1 contrast ratio which matches the Cinema Display. Samsung makes one that is 21.3" with a 350:1 contrast ratio which does not match the Cinema Display. Anyone know anything more? This is exciting. Finally a Cinema Display I can afford?



[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: apple_otaku ]</p>

vinney57

Oh OK, you could be right. The resolution problem remains however. If Apple have found a way of getting around the DVI limitations (some proprietry ADC stuff?) then the 1920 wide monitor would be a very big deal indeed for HiDef video and film editing.

matsu

1920 width seems like a natural evolution of the display. Aren't there a couple of different DVI standards? DVI-I, and DVI-D or something like that.



Another possibility is the use of regular VGA with some kinda circuitry to reduce/remove the shimmer present on some earlier analogue input LCD's.



1920x1200 even leaves a little sliver of screen at the bottom for menu bars, sequence, tracking etc... Probably the perfect display for high res HDTV and film work.

apple.otaku

[quote]Originally posted by vinney57:

<strong>Oh OK, you could be right. The resolution problem remains however. If Apple have found a way of getting around the DVI limitations (some proprietry ADC stuff?) then the 1920 wide monitor would be a very big deal indeed for HiDef video and film editing.</strong><hr></blockquote>



ADC II

xool

[quote]Originally posted by apple_otaku:

<strong>



ADC II</strong><hr></blockquote>



Now that's thinking outside the box! I concur. Unless its GigaWire! :eek:

matsu

The only info about DVI that I could find on the net says that the standard alows for greater than 1280x1024. As I remember it, an earlier standard allowed up to 1280x1024, and DVI doubles that standard. If that means twice the resolution, we have a maximum of 2048x1280, or something thereabouts. I don't think the panel would exist if manufacturers didn't have a method of driving it ready to go. It'd be awfully hard to sell, otherwise.



That 17" panel is intriguing. I don't see why anyone would buy it over a 4:3 17" panel. At 1280x768 you give 25% of your screen real estate compared to a 4:3 1280x1024 panel. Just to get widescreen??? Watch video with letter boxes, and use the extra space for everything else. It makes no sense... Unless, it's priced against current 15" models! Roughly the same height, just a tad wider. Currently, I can buy a 15" panel for 549-599 Canadian, if this panel came close in price (say $100 more) I'd certainly go for it, as the next size up -- true 17" screens @ 1280x1024 -- are currently 300-400 dollars more.



It all depends on how the glass is produced. A 4:3 17" is bigger in two dimensions, so you always get less panels per production run. But, this wide 17" may only be bigger in one thus, depending on how the panels are oriented, a slight increase in the width of the fab might yield the same number of panels per production run as when 15" panels are fabbed. Or at least it might be close enough to keep prices closer to 15" panels than 17" panels.



Of course the pessimist in me says that, companies will price the panel in line with 4:3 17's because marketing says it's cool to have a wide-screen, and the prices will stay up cause stupid consumers will buy them. I hope not!

vinney57

[quote]I don't think the panel would exist if manufacturers didn't have a method of driving it ready to go. It'd be awfully hard to sell, otherwise. <hr></blockquote>

Well of course they have a method of driving it, its called a VGA cable..duh...I'm talking about driving it digitally. If you check out the specs of the Samsung 24" for instance, that will go to 1920 wide but can only be driven from the DVI input at a max of 1600.

vinney57

Also the IBM 'Super Monitor' needs 4 DVI connections to drive it.



If Apple can connect a monitor at higher than 1600 x 1200 with "ADCII" then they are ahead of the industry curve....which would be cool.

junkyard dawg

LOL, Apple always needs to have the biggest LCD display. If Apple Computer, Inc, were a man, then he would have a real tiny prick.

he he.

matsu

Actually, according to their web page the samsung 24 will only go up to 1280x1024 digitally over DVI. This is interesting because DVI is supposed to supply twice the bandwidth of an earlier digital spec that used the same signalling but a physically different connector. Could Samsung be using the old signalling bandwidth hence the top resolution of 1280x1024?



OK, I'm thoroughly confused. All the info about DVI that I can find suggests that it has just enough headroom to clear HDTV and above resolutions, but a couple of reliable people indicate that 1600x1200 is the limit. Anyone got any links to an official catalogue of the spec. All I can find is "over 1280 x 1024" for DVI??? ATI's RAdeon Mac Edition page doesn't distinguish between max DVI and max VGA resolutions it just says 1920x1440 for 32bit 2D and 1600x1200 for 32bit 3D.



Is it a matter of implementation? ie. the spec has enough headroom but no one has implemented it yet.



Someone must know, anyone?

matsu

BTW the Samsung 24" is <a href="http://www.samsungusa.com/ppg/tftover.htm"; target="_blank">here.</a>



The PDF says the same, so I don't think it's a typo. But perhaps there is a newer display.

eugene

Matsu, it's a matter of proportions. First of all, 1280x1024 is not a 4:3 ratio. It's 5:4.



I calculated the size of a 16:9.6 17 inch diagonal LCD and the thing would be ~14.577 inches wide and ~8.746 inches tall. That's ~127.5 square inches of real estate.



5:4 17 inch LCDs are ~13.275" x ~10.62" = ~140.975 square inches.



Let's assume there's a set price per inch of screen real estate. At $999 and ~140.975 square inches, that's $7.086 a square inch. A screen measuring 127.5 inches would be around $903.51. Of course, manufacturing costs would be down since the 17 inch ASD's introduction. This screen could go on sale for maybe $699 in this economic climate, supplementing Apple's current line-up. Apple's LCDs are in dire need of price reductions. 15 inchers are going for well under $500 now.

matsu

absolutely, the Apple displays ('cept for the 22) are all too expensive. Figure that I can buy equivalent display sizes for canadian dollars at par to what Apple charges their American customers and that difference is just too big, even for Apple.



As far as the 4:3 or 5:4 thing goes, I think the display may actually be 4:3, it's just that the pixels aren't square, they're just slighty squished rectangles. When you run your CRT at 1280x1024, the aspect ratio doesn't change, the CRT just draws the pixels slightly squished in the vertical plane. Everything still looks square because your computer corrects the geometry. If you notice, most of the standard screen resolutions correspond to a 4:3 ratio with square pixels.



320 x 240

640 x 480

800 x 600

1024 x 768

1152 x 864/870 depends on card and monitor

1280 x 1024 *** for some reason they stuck this in instead of a square pixel 1280 x 960 ???

1600 x 1200

1920 x 1440

2048 x 1536



All these ratios are drawn on a 4:3 screen. And most but not all of them would yield square pixels(same height and width) but not all of them.



I checked Apple's page, but I couldn't find the physical dimensions of the screen, only the whole case.



Anyone got a 17" LCD screen they can measure for height and width? I'd like to know if it's 4:3 or 5:4 -- physically, not the pixel ratio.

clive

Matsu, you can't change the shape of pixels on LCDs like you can CRTs.



All tht counts in this arena is number of pixels, actual screen size is mostly irrelevant.

discstickers

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>As I remember it, an earlier standard allowed up to 1280x1024, and DVI doubles that standard. </strong><hr></blockquote>



This doesn't double the dimensions, it doubles the theoretical area.

ghost_user_name

I checked Apple's page, but I couldn't find the physical dimensions of the screen, only the whole case.



I know that their displays are 2 inches thick.

bozo the clown

The Cinema Display is native at 1600x1024, so the DVI standard can go at least that high.

matsu

[quote]Originally posted by Clive:

<strong>Matsu, you can't change the shape of pixels on LCDs like you can CRTs.



All tht counts in this arena is number of pixels, actual screen size is mostly irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Right. I'm saying I think the pixels may be slightly rectangular to begin with. Naturally for an LCD, they cannot change dimensions.