Display Standard - Veritas et Visus

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Veritas et Visus Display Standard February 2009 By 2004, the notebook PC market had adopted the 16:10 aspect ratio as a general standard – standardized early on through the efforts of the Standard Panels Working Group (SPWG) at 12.1-, 14.1-, 15.4-, and 17.0-inches, all at a 16:10 aspect ratio, at a variety of pixel formats – 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900, and 1280x800. Until recently, the vast majority of all notebook PCs are sold with wide aspect ratio displays, and most all of them are at a 16:10 aspect ratio. The notebook PC market transitioned from displays at a 4:3 aspect ratio to displays at a 16:10 aspect ratio – with experiments at various formats during the transition process. Interestingly, the geometry of the formats results in a situation where the smallest diagonal results in the largest total surface area. On October 21, 2008 Samsung announced plans to introduce LCD panels designed for notebook PCs at a 16:9 aspect ratio. Samsung announced two versions, one at 16.0-inches and the other at 18.4-inches. According to the Samsung press release, “these new panels allow notebook users to optimally view high definition movies, digital TV and next-generation gaming, all of which were designed for a 16:9 aspect ratio”. 16:10 vs. 16:9: Each of the primary LCD manufacturers has now introduced 16:9 panels for both the notebook PC and LCD monitor markets. The market research firm DisplaySearch has been actively predicting a rapid transition from 16:10 panels to 16:9 panels. The DisplaySearch analysis cites several “driving forces behind the fact that 16:9 panels become more popular eventually”: � 16:9 provides better economic cut (panelization) in existing TFT LCD fabs. � 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio. � The widespread adoption of high definition in the consumer entertainment sector will help end users readily adopt the new products with the wider aspect ratio. � The new 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products. Based on these explanations, DisplaySearch has justified forecasts for a rapid transition to 16:9, as depicted in the transition charts to the right, (which DisplaySearch presented in late 2008). While I very much respect the market research conducted by DisplaySearch, I should point out that in the area of aspect ratios, the company does not have a good track record. In 2001, for example, DisplaySearch was predicting that 1/3 of the LCD TV market would still be shipping at 4:3 aspect ratios. (By 2004, virtually 100% of the market was at 16:9). Less than two years ago, DisplaySearch was not predicting that notebook PCs or LCD monitors would be shifting to 16:9, and in fact they were comparatively bearish about the transition from 4:3/5:4 to 16:10. (See charts from March 2007): DisplaySearch’s predictions about the transition from 4:3 and 5:4 panels, to 16:10, to 16:9 panels – notebooks on the left; monitors on the right. 8
Veritas et Visus Display Standard February 2009 DisplaySearch’s forecasts about wide aspect ratios have historically been well behind the actual transition – even though the arguments favoring wide solutions were quite compelling. Compare the above charts to those on the previous page… DisplaySearch is now being uncharacteristically bullish about the transition from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratios, despite the fact that the arguments favoring such a transition are rather weak. (On the left is DisplaySearch’s March 2009 forecast for notebook PCs by aspect ratio; on the right is the forecast for LCD monitors by aspect ratio). The two most compelling arguments favoring 16:9 over 16:10, according to DisplaySearch are related to substrate optimization and to the prevalence of 16:9 content. Let’s consider these two arguments for a moment: The argument about substrate optimization is interesting. If you consider the following optimization charts, it’s easy to conclude that 16:9 panels offer superior optimization. And of course if more panels can be cut from a single motherglass, the overall manufacturing costs will be reduced, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, this analysis forgets that the 16:9 panels are considerably smaller than 16:10 panels with the same diagonal measurement – 16:10 panels are more than 5% larger in total surface area. In other words, a 17.0-inch panel in a 16:10 format is equal to a 17.434-inch panel in a 16:9 format. The optimization charts become much different if surface area is considered rather than diagonal size. Substrate optimization charts based on panel size forget the geometries associated with total surface area. 9
Page 1 and 2: Display Standard Veritas et Visus F
Page 3 and 4: Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 7: Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 59 and 60:
Veritas et Visus Display Standard F
Page 61 and 62:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?