Display Standard - Veritas et Visus

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Veritas et Visus Display Standard February 2009 Another uncertainty about whether 16:9 is optimized versus 16:10 is that the comparison assumes existing diagonal sizes for 16:10 panels versus newly optimized diagonal sizes for 16:9 panels. It’s entirely possible that larger substrate sizes and new manufacturing technologies will enable 16:10 solutions to enjoy better optimization at larger diagonal sizes. To be a fair comparison, the analysis should identify optimized substrate calculations for both 16:10 and 16:9 solutions – rather than limiting the comparison to existing 16:10 panel sizes. The argument that 16:9 panels are optimal because of 16:9 content is accurate – but highly misleading. In fact, the fast majority of PC-content is better suited for 16:10 solutions. One purpose for going to wide aspect ratios, for example, is to conveniently enable two-page viewing of documents on a single screen. A 16:10 screen enables this quite well, while a 16:9 screen forces the images to shrink to a much smaller portion of the screen. The tradeoffs here are shown in the below image. Note that these tradeoffs are worsened if we shift from letter-size documents to A4-size documents. On the left is a 16:10 display with facing pages; on the right, you can see that the lower height of a 16:9 panel shrinks the size of the pages, while adding unused space on the right and left. The advent of TV tuners in notebook PCs, software titles in HD formats, and the increasing availability of HD- DVD/Blu-ray titles, may be a more prevalent usage model for the notebook PC than is the need to optimally see two pages side-by-side in a Word document. But it stills seems presumptuous to suggest that the primary purpose of PC displays is to watch Blu-ray titles and HDTV shows. And even if a PC is to be used primarily as an entertainment device, it’s worth noting that DVD titles (3:2 format), classic movies, (4:3 format), and SDTV titles (4:3 format), are more optimally viewed on a 16:10 panel than on a 16:9 panel. And even considering Blu-ray, it should be noted that most movie titles are not presented at a 16:9 aspect ratio – but rather at an even wider aspect ratio, such that the claimed optimization for Blu-ray is relegated primarily to made-for-TV shows, and not Hollywood releases. It seems highly unlikely that the introduction of 16:9 panels will be deterred at this point. It seems that the primary reason for this is that each of the LCD makers has decided to 10 The top image shows two side-by side pages in a Word format on a display with a 16:10 aspect ratio. The bottom image shows how the loss of vertical height in a 16:9 aspect ratio reduces the size of the pages. It’s considerable and will certainly negatively impact the productivity gains afforded by wide aspect ratio solutions.
Veritas et Visus Display Standard February 2009 establish its own unique lineup of 16:9 solutions, (using both different diagonal sizes and even different pixel formats). There is a perception that such differences enable the LCD manufacturer to differentiate their products – and allow them to charge higher prices. Possibly, that differentiation can be extended to the PC brand – enabling them also to charge higher prices. I personally submit, however, that the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 are so minor as to not provide any meaningful ability to differentiate beyond that of simple specsmanship. Interestingly, 16:9 panels are currently being sold at premium prices as compared to 16:10 solutions, a fact that flies in the face of the initial claims that 16:9 panels enjoy better substrate optimization. There are at least three explanations for the premium prices: � 16:10 solutions still enjoy higher volumes and the subsequent advantages associated with economies of scale and lower component pricing. If the transition from 16:10 to 16:9 does occur, these costs will eventually inverse. � Because the new 16:9 panels do not enjoy industry-wide standardization, the “differentiation” that is touted as an advantage, also serves to keep pricing high – both because overall volumes are decreased, and because the opportunity to use interchangeable panels from multiple manufacturers negatively impacts pricing negotiations in favor of the LCD manufacturer. � Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it seems that the LCD makers are struggling a bit with their “optimized” solutions, suffering from lower yields than they’d initially expected. This might be due to the fact that utilizing larger substrates that were originally designed to manufacture large-area panels for LCD TVS are not so conducive for the production of smaller notebook and monitor panels. What makes sense for me personally is for the PC industry to stay consistent with a 16:10 aspect ratio rather than adding yet another variable that will confuse the consumer and confound the supply chains. Given the broad range of 16:9 solutions already announced, it appears that the industry will go through another transition – this time one that is really quite meaningless. Already, panel manufacturers have started preparing no less than 20 different notebook panels and 19 different monitor panels in a 16:9 aspect ratio in at least seven different pixel formats. In the notebook space, it’s remarkable that none of the pixel formats is even in the 1280x720 format that is dominant in HDTV broadcasting – meaning there will be some level of upscaling and its resultant loss of quality. The many pixel formats also create problems for video controller manufacturers and will certainly result in consumer confusion as more and more resolution acronyms are invented to describe these slightly differentiated formats. Of particular note is that the proposed 31.5-inch panel at 1920x1080 is only 70ppi, while the 32.0-inch panel at 2048x1152 is only 73ppi. Such low pixel densities have not been seen in the PC space in more than a decade and simply cannot be considered a step forward. Clearly, such low resolutions are not being designed for desktop applications and as such should probably not be described as monitor alternatives. I personally believe that the claimed advantages of introducing 16:9 panels into the PC industry are largely unproved – and that numerous disadvantages of the 16:9 solutions are really to the detriment of the PC user. The 16:10 aspect ratio was developed with the intent of best supporting the PC user. Alternatively, the 16:9 aspect ratio was originally designed as a compromise solution for the then-non-existent HDTV market. You pick. 11 16:9 Notebook Panels 16:9 Monitor Panels Size Resolution Size Resolution 10.2 1024 x 600 15.0 1280 x 720 11.1 1366 x 768 15.6 1366 x 768 11.5 1366 x 768 17.0 1280 x 720 13.3 1366 x 768 18.4 1366 x 768 13.4 1366 x 768 18.5 1366 x 768 14.0 1366 x 768 20.0 2048 x 1152 14.1 1366 x 768 20.1 1600 x 900 14.5 1366 x 768 21.5 1920 x 1080 15.0 1366 x 768 23.0 1366 x 768 15.4 1920 x 1080 23.0 1920 x 1080 15.6 1366 x 768 23.0 2048 x 1152 15.6 1920 x 1080 23.6 1920 x 1080 16.0 1366 x 768 24.0 1920 x 1080 16.0 1680 x 945 25.0 1920 x 1080 16.0 1920 x 1080 25.6 1920 x 1080 17.2 1600 x 900 27.0 1920 x 1080 17.3 1920 x 1080 27.0 2048 x 1152 18.4 1366 x 768 31.5 1920 x 1080 18.4 1680 x 945 32.0 2048 x 1152 18.4 1920 x 1080
Page 1 and 2: Display Standard Veritas et Visus F
Page 3 and 4: Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 9: Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 61 and 62:
Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
show all

Display Standard - Veritas et Visus

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?