Monitor 27'' with 1920*1600 and thin bezel ?

[jujuvivi]

Since the beginning of computers, their resolution never stopped to improve.
1920*1080 was a great achievement ... 5 years ago.
Even a small tablet can offer now much better than that (iPad3: 2048*1536).
And test prove that the latest GPUs stay unexploited at such resolution (not mention CrossFireX and SLI)
It is time to think bigger!

I know 1920*1200 exist but it's only marginally better,
and 2560*1600 or 2560*1440 are just way too much $$$.

We also know that a more square ratio is better adapted for computers:
web surfing, Email, Office, Development...

So, while keeping with an incremental 'easy' step,
I believe a monitor with a resolution of 1920*1600 looks perfect!
You can still play movies in full HD if you want!

Now, if you add to it a thin bezel for its largest sides (1920),
you get a screen that can easily extend to 3 by adding 2 cheap standard 1920*1080 on both sides.
And you get:
Vertical: 1920
Horizontal: 1080 + 1600 + 1080 = 3760
A ratio close to 2/1 with more than 7.2 Million pixels for gaming!

Interestingly, the height of a 27'' (1920*1600) will be similar to the one of a 23.6'' or 24'' (1920*1080) monitor, while the height of a 26'' (1920*1600) is close to the one of a 23'' (1920*1080).

Compare to the 5 vertical monitors of 1920*1080,
it's much less bulky and has twice less bezels to deal with (2 instead of 4).
The center of the config, which is the most important, is also cleaner.

Why couldn't Samsung, LG and others create such new standard?
Technically, it doesn't look so difficult...

 

[jaguarskx]

There is no demand for such a monitor. 1366x768 became a standard for monitors because of the development of EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV) which was a stepping stone to HDTV. I suppose 16:9 aspect ratio seemed ideal since most movies would fit that resolution without having to deal with black borders. 2.35:1 aspect ratio is somewhat commonly used in movies, but such a wide aspect ratio would mean that movies not shot in that aspect ratio or wider (2.4:1) would need black borders on the sides. Thus, 1920x1080 aspect ratios of HDTVs created a market for 1920x1080 monitors. Since more 1920x1080 screens could be cut from a pane of "LCD" glass used to make monitors compared to 1920x1200 screens, the cost per unit decreases making 1920x1080 monitors cheaper to manufacture than 1920x1200 monitors. Thus, those monitors became more popular than the old standard 1920x1200 resolution. So, in other words, media has driven the popularity and demand for monitors with 1920x1080 resolution.

Can display manufacturer make a 1920x1600 resolution monitor? Sure. But what is going to drive the demand for such a monitor? What about a 2048x1536 resolution monitor? Sure, it can be done as well. But why? If the is no demand, then there's no reason to make them. Even if they do, the production batch will be so small (due to non-existent or very low demand), that the cost per unit will far exceed the cost to manufacture the larger and more common 2560x1600 resolution monitors.

If you want a boutique / exotic resolution monitor, then you need to be able to pay boutique / exotic prices.

 

[jujuvivi]

Thanks for your answer jaguarskx.
I know very well why 1920*1080 became so popular and have nothing against it, I bought one in 2008 and loved it. But now, we arrive in 2013, and we are still stuck with this resolution!

You ask:

But what is going to drive the demand for such a monitor?

Well, I thought I explained it:
- 50% more pixels (3M instead of 2M)
- A fixed aspect ratio (6:5) much better adapted for computer (while still being compatible with full HD movies)
- Extensibility as you can match it vertically on both sides with standard 1920*1080 monitors (or horizontally with 1600*900)
- GPU that can already exploit it

Your example of 2048x1536 resolution monitor doesn't have all these advantages, although it has been done for iPad3.

Please, how do you know there is "no demand" for such 1920*1600 monitor ?

About cost:
Being a 3 million pixels, it will be a much smaller step than the 4 million pixels of 2560*1600. So the price will be much lower. Indeed, after several years, we can still see that 2560x1600 cost a fortune!
It's the first time that constructors double the resolution from one generation to the next! I don't understand, there is plenty of room between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Monitors aspect ratio have always changed by the past (4:3, 16:10, 5:4 ...) and handled devices have their own too.
People would love a $600 27'' 6:5 1920*1600, and the price could go down rapidly...

 

[bystander]

While that resolution may seem appealing to you, I doubt very much that there would be a lot of people wanting them, which would mean the prices would not drop.

Take a look at the 1920x1200 screens. They are larger in the direction want, they were the only LCD's available at 1920 width at first, yet they still are not popular in the main stream today. 1080p is too cheap to pay for the extra height.

 

[jujuvivi]

1920*1200 didn't sold a lot at the beginning because they were very expensive, few items on the market and most GPU couldn't follow at the time. Then of course, after 1920*1080 became the standard, 1920*1200 didn't have its place.

But this is a very different story for 1920*1600 (50% bigger, excellent flexibility for multi-screens, strong enough GPU...).

Plus, although I don't own one, everyone I read having a 1920*1200 really loves these 120 extra pixels vertically. 520 pixels can only make us happier!