For years widescreen computer displays have used 16:10 panels, whereas consumer electronics utilized 16:9 panels. However, DisplaySearch market research firm predicts that personal computers will also utilize 16:9 panels eventually as 16:10 panels will vanish into thin air.
“In the near future, panel makers will take necessary phase-out tactics on the existing 16:10 LCD panels in order to drive the market to 16:9 panels. Panel makers did it for square panels, and they know how to do it again. Notebook PC and LCD monitor product planners and marketers must plan for the transition now to assure a smooth roll-out of products over the next four years and sufficient panel availability,” said DisplaySearch’s David Hsieh, Vice President, Greater China Market.
The transition may confuse individual consumers and leave IT managers distinctly unenthusiastic, since they will be faced with a 16:9 transition shortly after managing the transition to 16:10 widescreen. When the 16:9 panels become available there will be an overwhelming number of different types of panels in production: over 50 notebook panels and over 45 LCD monitor panels. Legacy video processors will complicate the transition further.
Nevertheless, none of this will stop the transition from happening. DisplaySearch projects that by 2012, 16:9 penetration will reach 90% of notebook PC panels and 67% of LCD monitor panels.
Forecast of 16:9 panel penetration in the notebook PC (left) and LCD monitor markets (right)
According to DisplaySearch, there are 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.
Comments currently: 12
Discussion started: 07/04/08 12:45:09 PM
Latest comment: 07/08/08 03:41:27 PM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-9]
1.
This news is total garbage.
>The transition may confuse individual >consumers and leave IT managers distinctly >unenthusiastic, since they will be faced with a >16:9 transition
Why would IT managers care about difference between 16:9 and 16:10 screens?! Its totally irrelevant to 99% of IT.
>16:9 products provide higher resolution and >wider aspect ratio.
Higher resolution?! Why would different aspect ratio mean higher resolution?! Display research firm should at least know difference between aspect ratio and resolution. Pathetic...
[Posted by: BorgDrone | Date: 07/04/08 12:45:09 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
I agree. If I was in the IT department, I care more the amount of vertical work space. A ratio 16 by 10 provides more work space than a ratio of 16 by 9. Yes marketers needs to do more math instead of doing fancy math to fool people into thinking lower numbers are better.
A 16 by 9 ratio screen looks like the following.
1920 X 1080
A 16 by 10 ratio screen looks like the following
1920 X 1200
See the difference marketers. You are wrong.Sure while playing a movie, I will see 60 pixels of negative space on the top and the bottom. Though the extra 120 pixels comes in handy to provide the same work space that a 16 by 9 ratio screen gets that is taken up by title bars and task bars.
Sure marketers can fud the numbers to relate 16 by 10 as 8 by 5 to make 16 by 9 seem bigger.
[Posted by: linuxnerd | Date: 07/04/08 05:46:00 PM]
2.
I'm too puzzled by "16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio". What does resolution have to do with aspect ratio? As for "wider aspect ratio", indeed a winning property. :) They could also argue that the number 1.777... is much cooler than plain ol' simple 1.6 because it continues forever.
[Posted by: shae | Date: 07/04/08 01:07:17 PM]
3.
That's sth shows Sony is always ahead in the market
Sony introduced the 1st 16:10 PC notebook, the VAIO TR1 in 2003
2 yrs later, Sony introduced the 1st 16:9 notebook, the VAIO TX, in 2005. The same product was also the 1st notebook featuring LED backlight LCD.
Today, other manufacturers still "planning" for 16:9 only.
[Posted by: 2012? Isn\'t it really late? | Date: 07/04/08 08:54:58 PM]
4.
Don't forget the real driver behind this:
With 16:9 companies can advertise smaller screens with the same diagonal.
[Posted by: Slackstick | Date: 07/05/08 05:48:30 AM]
+ expand thread (2 answers)
- collapse thread
Exactly. Hence the article mentioning that LCD Fabs prefer 16:9 because they are more economic "cuts".
We can have a 20" 20:2 ratio LCD but it'll still have far less screen real estate than a 20" SQUARE (4:3, or 5:4/1280x1024) Monitor.
The thinner this damn rectangle "widescreen" aspect gets, the less space we'll have. Come on, 4:3, to 16:10, and now 16:9? Whats next? 2.54:1?
Widescreen is one of the major reasons why I've held on to my 22" CRT (2048x1536). I love my vertical resolution. LCD's need to be 24" or over to meet the physical vertical size of my 22", and the LCD's need to be like 28" just to be higher resolution than my CRT...
sigh.. We need better display technologies. LCD's have hit their technological limit.
[Posted by: MonkRX | Date: 07/06/08 05:21:30 PM]
It seems to be more the market that is not wanting higher resolution displays. I also held on to my 22" CRT until I got my 30" Dell 3007WFP for much the same reason.
The thing is my laptop has a 15.4" 1920x1200 screen. Most people who've seen it don't like it - text is too small for them and they generally prefer 1440x900. The technology is already there to build a 22" LCD with 2560x1600 resolution, but it seems no one (except us I guess) wants such a thing!
[Posted by: AndyC | Date: 07/07/08 03:13:43 PM]
5.
There are always people out there willing to spend some $$ on the newest and coolest tech available. I wouldn't blame the manufacturers for taking care of that money :) That's how it's always been with all kinds of electronics...
[Posted by: nx | Date: 07/05/08 12:08:17 PM]
6.
The _real_ reasons for having 16:9 aspect ratio are:
1) match HDTV resolutions (480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc)
2) match widescreen DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray resolutions
3) come closer to the (very wide) aspect ratio of movie theaters, so the movie doesn't have to be as distorted when converted to home video
16:9 ratio is great because it is true widescreen, unlike the pretender "16:10". But the reasons provided for it in this article are total garbage.
[Posted by: x | Date: 07/06/08 02:58:31 AM]
7.
Yeah, xbit people, when a press release contains something obviously wrong it's good to call them on it, and we'll appreciate reading about it.
Not a fan of widescreen myself, since the TV I watch and games I play are very often in 4:3, and it's sub-optimal for text/internet (unless you have a huge display). Don't really care though, adjusted to stretched images a long time ago, and I'm far too addicted to net surfing to let an aspect ratio slow me down.
[Posted by: sanity | Date: 07/06/08 06:48:38 PM]
8.
"16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio"
Well depends what size you make it - you could make a 16:9 screen with fewer pixels i.e. less resolution duh!
For example, my Dell 2405 is 1920 x 1200 which is higher resolution than all 1080p TVs which are 1920 x 1080.
You would think that the guys at 'DisplaySearch' would understand that...
[Posted by: Noli | Date: 07/08/08 08:11:34 AM]
9.
they have contentment producing a product that is not yet perfected yet want to produce another buggy
[Posted by: teckadikt | Date: 07/08/08 03:41:27 PM]
[1-9]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Slashdot
