Widescreen LCDs to cater for 90% of market by 2011
NEC expects more than 90 percent of all desktop LCD display shipments to be widescreen by the end of 2010, but said that it's likely to adopt both 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios depending on the usage model.
Birgit Sommerer, European product marketing manager for NEC’s LCD display division, also said that approximately 50 percent of NEC’s display shipments today are already wide-format LCDs.
Despite this industry shift, Sommerer said that NEC still plans to offer solutions for those that require standard 4:3 displays. She didn’t elaborate on what or how many 4:3 displays we can expect to see in NEC’s range in the 2010/2011 timeframe, but I think it’s fair to say that choices will be more limited than they are today – it’s all going to depend on demand.
During a conversation I had with Simon Jackson, vice president of NEC Display Solutions for Northern Europe, I was told that we may get to a point when 4:3 displays are wiped out completely, but he doesn’t see that happening for a long time. Jackson explained that there’s still a significant demand for 4:3 LCDs in a lot of markets and it’s going to take some markets a good few years to even think about switching, if indeed it is the right choice for them.
NEC isn’t the only display manufacturer we’ve spoken to recently that’s making a huge push towards a product range dominated by widescreen displays, as BenQ unveiled its first 16:9 desktop LCDs just last week.
However, unlike BenQ, NEC doesn’t believe that 16:9 aspect ratio displays will overtake 16:10 and dominate the widescreen LCD market. Instead, the company feels that it’s a matter of using the right tool for the job – in usage models where a 16:10 aspect ratio is desired, it’ll be used. With that in mind, displays will be used when that aspect ratio makes the most sense in the usage scenario.
Therefore, I suspect we’ll be seeing a combination of 16:9 and 16:10 displays from NEC over the next three years or so. For example, 1,920 x 1,080 may be a better resolution for a 22-inch display than 1,680 x 1,050 and it won’t cost the company much more to manufacture and in fact, over time, it could end up being cheaper than the lower-resolution 16:10 panel.
At 24-inches and above though, 1,920 x 1,200 makes the most sense because you’re not losing pixels for general desktop usage (or gaming), and you’re still able to watch video without overly huge black bars at the top and bottom. There’ll be a 60px black bar at both top and bottom when you’re watching 1080p footage – that’s fine by me, because this downside isn’t going to outweigh the benefits of having those extra pixels for the other uses I have for my PC.
What do you think about widescreen displays becoming more prevalent in the market? And given that, which aspect ratio do you think suits your needs the best? Let us know in the forums.
Previous Article
17 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replya thoroughly unscientific explanation of the rationale behind widescreen monitors for roshan
i love my 24" widescreen, but i really wish my netbook had a 4:3 screen. 600px is just too short.
Mmm, a 30" wide flanked by my current 20" and 17" 4:3 screens would work quite nicely. I've no idea what I would do with the space, but it'd do quite nicely.
as of now I have a widescreen monitor and a 4:3 crt as my secondary, it's the best of both worlds
widescreens are narrow screens when turned on end.
But perhaps someone should market a screen as narrow, then users have the option to turn it.
Unless you're playing Bioshock. Then it's just a 22" with reduced height.
Wide screens are better when editing pictures from SLR cameras.
For web surfing, reading and writing a WS is pretty much a waste as you will in most cases need more height than width.
I don't see the point of having WS screens on laptops, though. They are useless for gaming and editing pictures (Yes, they are useless. I don't care if it's called a "gaming laptop" or not. It's still shite!). Also, many models come with low resolution screens, which make most web pages feel cramped.
I don't plan on buying an LCD for years anyway ... unless they can manage to get rid of all the lag and be as fast as my P95F is
and NO , they're not. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that nobody else can see the lag on LCD's
The real benefit is when youâre working on two documents at once or youâre doing some coding. In Visual Studio there are heaps of tools that I have docked around my code window. If I had the same number of tools and I didn't have widescreen my coding area would be very small, but as it is I still have more code viewing area than a lot of other people I know. Visual Studio lets you have the tools slide in from the side when you want them instead of docking them there which is what a lot of other people do. The problem with this is that it takes longer to get at what your after as you first have to make it slide in. The widescreen is great for this.
My XPS laptop also has a 1920 X 1200 resolution. Itâs only a 17" screen, but I can still read it. It has all the same advantages for me as the 24". And you honestly can't tell me its crap for gaming because up until Crysis it played everything I ever tried at 1920 X 1200 on high settings quite well and its over two years old now.