External 14.1 inch 1400x1050 monitor for T42p

Message

dharma · #1 Post by **dharma** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:29 am

I have a T42p with a 1400x1050 display.

For a dual display, I would like to buy a exetrnal 14.1 inch LCD
1400x1050 monitor to work with my T42p. I can't seem to find
one on the shelves.

If you know of anybody manufacturing such devices, can you
please post the details.

thanks,

cerebral_mamba · #2 Post by **cerebral_mamba** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:08 am

Would be hard to get that. Even 17" LCD generally only come with 1280x1024 resolution, unless u go for a very expensive one. Have you explored Presentation manager. You can create a new profile with extented desktop.. that way you can give seperate resolutions and color settings for the Thinkpad and external LCDs

#3 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:24 am

There doesn't seem to be any such animal. I tried numerous searches but only found this resolution in laptop and projector displays. I did not find this resolution in a monitor of any size. The following article from Wikipedia seems to support this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SXGAPlus

If you click on the different resolutions at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, you can learn some more about them. For instance SXGA resolution (as opposed to SXGA+) is 1280x1024, and is common in LCD desktop monitors - 17" on up.

#4 Post by **RonS** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:24 pm

I'm fairly certain that stand-along 1400x1050 displays don't exist. I've been following this for a long time and I've been keeping my eyes open for one. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you absolutely must have exactly 1400x1050 resolution, one way is to get another (old, cheap, used) notebook computer with that resolution, and run MaxiVista to extend your desktop to the other computer. For everyday tasks, it would perform just fine. But it wouldn't be my choice for gaming.

davidspalding · #5 Post by **davidspalding** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:09 pm

AFAICS the flat panel market has been driven by dropping price points. So it makes sense that a fancy, high pixel count panel like can be afforded in a first class laptop wouldn't sell in a OTS (off the shelf) LCD display.

IR0NMAN · #6 Post by **IR0NMAN** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:18 am

Can I ask why you want a 1400x1050 LCD instead of a 1680x1050 LCD (such as the Dell 2005FPW)? I'm just curious...

greghead · #7 Post by **greghead** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:32 pm

Can I ask why you want a 1400x1050 LCD instead of a 1680x1050 LCD (such as the Dell 2005FPW)? I'm just curious...

One reason is the aspect ratio is different. For example do you want circles that are truly circles, as opposed to squished ovals.

I'm looking at this now and the only 4:3 aspect ratio monitors seem to be the 1600x1200 ones. For instance, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1409385,00.asp.

davidspalding · #8 Post by **davidspalding** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:18 pm

Wha-? A 1600x1050 monitor does not show your computer output in reverse-anamorphic (well, unless you tell it to stretch video, and you set your video card for 1400x1050 external resolution). Your video card should support the resolution of the monitor, e.g. 1680x1050, ... so you'd have a desktop about 200 pixels wider. Circles will be circles.

So, yeah, you won't find 1680x1050 monitor with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Does ... not ... compute.

If you can go see one in a retail location, you should see this (unless the staff know nothing about setting up their monitors).

Dharma, you don't have to get the same resolution as your Thinkpad ... you can go higher, depending on what video your TP is equipped with. Check the specs and see what it'll do.

greghead · #9 Post by **greghead** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:36 pm

Digital photos.

#10 Post by **GomJabbar** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:34 pm

I have to agree with davidspalding on "Circles will be circles." If you look at an image or a page, it is either scaled to fit on your monitor horizontally, or else you get a horizontal scroll bar, or else there is space on the side - depending upon your settings. The aspect ratio should always be correct.

One exception to this is video, where in some cases the video is stretched to fit the screen (usually vertically). Another exception is if you make the image of one aspect ratio fit the screen of a different aspect ratio; an example would be using a square picture for your desktop wallpaper. This second scenerio doesn't come into play very often; in fact my wallpaper example is the only one I can think of off-hand.

davidspalding · #11 Post by **davidspalding** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:13 am

Not sure about the others, but even Windows Media Player, if you engage "full screen" will not distort the aspect ratio.

Good catch, Gom, desktop wallpapers of, say, 1024x768, will distort when you put them on a 1600x1024 desktop, and set position 'stretch.' Again, this is a matter of the desktop size, not the monitor resolution.

Again, the only way that anything, incl. digital photos, would distort is if a) you set your Windows resolution to 1600x1200, and 2) your widescreen LCD (1600x1050, or whatever) is configured to "stretch" input that doesn't match. (This is so that a computer outputting 1024x768 doesn't give you a smaller window on your 17" 1280x1024 flat panel display, but the desktop is "stretched" to 1280x1024 so it fills the screen.)

YMMVAPW. I've noticed with my TP + XP SP2 that whatever plug 'n play monitor I hook it to, the resolutions on the Display Properties Settings tab match the monitor. This happens quite nicely when I hook my Dock II to my HDTV, and "suddenly" a 1920x1080 resolution is offered for the second "monitor."

So the most likely way to get those "squashed circles" is by setting your Windows resolution to something other than the plug 'n play monitor's native aspect ratio.

To the original poster's query, you could go get a monitor like the highly regarded Dell 2005FPW(?), the 20.1" wide screen FPD (flat panel display), and hook your TP to it. If you mirror the desktops, your 1400x1050 ought to appear fine (just insure the FPD isn't set to 'stretch' all non-native resolutions). if you extend desktops, you're in for a very delightful arrangement. (I think the 2005FPW is 1600x1024 native, if memory serves. I'm eyeing the 23" big brother, which does something like 1900x1280 native, which ought to do Photoshop and Premiere Elements just FINE.

)

greghead · #12 Post by **greghead** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:00 am

Circles will be circles if a program is drawing a circle on the screen from scratch, and paying attention to the aspect ratio.

But vidoes, photos, bitmaps (e.g. wallpaper) -- there's no way around it. They're going to get squashed when displayed at a different aspect ratio than the original. And most games look like [censored] when stretched to a non-4:3 ratio.

1024x768 is 4:3.
1400x1050 is 4:3.
1600x1200 is 4:3.

The weird resolutions are all those cheap 1280x1024 LCDs (5:4) plus most of the "wide-screen" LCDs now.

Digital cameras are 4:3.

Viewing a digital photo on a 16:9 or other wider aspect ratio screen, will make the photo appear shorter and wider.

But if you don't mind looking fat in photos, don't sweat it.

That is the one advantage of all those cheap 1280x1024 LCDs. At 5:4, they're a bit skinnier.

#13 Post by **GomJabbar** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:22 pm

greghead wrote:Viewing a digital photo on a 16:9 or other wider aspect ratio screen, will make the photo appear shorter and wider.

But if you don't mind looking fat in photos, don't sweat it.

This is only true if you force the photo to fit in the screen. Most image viewers shrink the photo to fit in the viewing area. They do not change the aspect ratio when they do this. The result is some white (or black) space on either the sides, or top and bottom of the image, as seen on the display. If you view an image that is larger than the screen at full size, normally you end up with scroll bars on one or both axes - this is to maintain the aspect ratio.

The people in all my photos look their normal weight.

davidspalding · #14 Post by **davidspalding** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:14 pm

Greghead, either you've never seen a widescreen display configured right, or you're yanking our chains. Aside from making a 480x480 photo into a desktop wallpaper at 1024x768, images don't just change their aspect based on the screen you're looking at.

If you're trapped in a situation like you've described - post a question, we'll help you out.

sparta.rising · #15 Post by **sparta.rising** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:53 am

If you can get a UXGA display (1600x1200), you can scale down to any resolution you want.

I think dharma wanted a display to be identicle to the one he was working on, make it easier to transition.

And, if you set a resolution with an aspect ratio different than the physical aspect ratio of your monitor, circles will not be circles. Yes this is possible, once I had a CRT incorrectly set up for over a month before I realized. 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960

#16 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:59 am

sparta.rising wrote:And, if you set a resolution with an aspect ratio different than the physical aspect ratio of your monitor, circles will not be circles. Yes this is possible, once I had a CRT incorrectly set up for over a month before I realized. 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960

That I won't argue with.

syhead · #17 Post by **syhead** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:54 pm

A 19" monitor with a 1280x1024 resolution (pretty standard) would give a fairly good transition between both monitors. Why? Because the vertical resolution of your laptop screen is 1050. That's pretty close to 1024!

Since a 19" 1280x1024 LCD is pretty cheap these days, I would strongly recommend it! There is no need to limit yourself to a second small screen. The transition between screens works well and you will end up with a pretty good second screen.

davidspalding · #18 Post by **davidspalding** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:26 pm

I agree too, with the added assurance that when I boot up in the dock with my external display on, Presentation Manager (or one of its buddies) detects it and switches to the profile I have set to it, 1280x1024. Every time.

Also, connecting to other external monitors, similar things happen. That's what i think plug 'n play monitors do. So I don't see a need for a 1400x1050 monitor ... one a wee bit smaller (one of these ubiquitous 19" LCDs) or a larger one, they will both have minimal transition issues when you hook up a TP.

To Greg's credit, my Sony CPD200sf DOES support all kinds of not quite 4:3 ratios, which my ATI x300 card supports, too. I can set those (1290x960, 1280x768), and circles aren't quite circular.

I'm not sure that LCDs do the same thing, though this Intel 82865G card on a Viewsonic VG710b FPD seems to offer the same smorgasbord. So the user who picks a resolution might want to experiment and find the most pleasing combination. The Presentation Manager's test button is a great way to verify not just that the monitor supports a selected resolution, but that it looks okay. (If no one knows what I'm a'talkin' about, I can post a screenshot.) YMMV, as always.

External 14.1 inch 1400x1050 monitor for T42p

External 14.1 inch 1400x1050 monitor for T42p

Who is online