lcd screen size comparison quotation

For screen sizes (typically in inches, measured on the diagonal), see Display size. For a list of particular display resolutions, see Graphics display resolution.

One use of the term display resolution applies to fixed-pixel-array displays such as plasma display panels (PDP), liquid-crystal displays (LCD), Digital Light Processing (DLP) projectors, OLED displays, and similar technologies, and is simply the physical number of columns and rows of pixels creating the display (e.g. 1920 × 1080). A consequence of having a fixed-grid display is that, for multi-format video inputs, all displays need a "scaling engine" (a digital video processor that includes a memory array) to match the incoming picture format to the display.

For device displays such as phones, tablets, monitors and televisions, the use of the term display resolution as defined above is a misnomer, though common. The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch (PPI). In analog measurement, if the screen is 10 inches high, then the horizontal resolution is measured across a square 10 inches wide.NTSC TVs can typically display about 340 lines of "per picture height" horizontal resolution from over-the-air sources, which is equivalent to about 440 total lines of actual picture information from left edge to right edge.

Some commentators also use display resolution to indicate a range of input formats that the display"s input electronics will accept and often include formats greater than the screen"s native grid size even though they have to be down-scaled to match the screen"s parameters (e.g. accepting a 1920 × 1080 input on a display with a native 1366 × 768 pixel array). In the case of television inputs, many manufacturers will take the input and zoom it out to "overscan" the display by as much as 5% so input resolution is not necessarily display resolution.

The eye"s perception of display resolution can be affected by a number of factors – see image resolution and optical resolution. One factor is the display screen"s rectangular shape, which is expressed as the ratio of the physical picture width to the physical picture height. This is known as the aspect ratio. A screen"s physical aspect ratio and the individual pixels" aspect ratio may not necessarily be the same. An array of 1280 × 720 on a 16:9 display has square pixels, but an array of 1024 × 768 on a 16:9 display has oblong pixels.

An example of pixel shape affecting "resolution" or perceived sharpness: displaying more information in a smaller area using a higher resolution makes the image much clearer or "sharper". However, most recent screen technologies are fixed at a certain resolution; making the resolution lower on these kinds of screens will greatly decrease sharpness, as an interpolation process is used to "fix" the non-native resolution input into the display"s native resolution output.

While some CRT-based displays may use digital video processing that involves image scaling using memory arrays, ultimately "display resolution" in CRT-type displays is affected by different parameters such as spot size and focus, astigmatic effects in the display corners, the color phosphor pitch shadow mask (such as Trinitron) in color displays, and the video bandwidth.

Most television display manufacturers "overscan" the pictures on their displays (CRTs and PDPs, LCDs etc.), so that the effective on-screen picture may be reduced from 720 × 576 (480) to 680 × 550 (450), for example. The size of the invisible area somewhat depends on the display device. Some HD televisions do this as well, to a similar extent.

Many personal computers introduced in the late 1970s and the 1980s were designed to use television receivers as their display devices, making the resolutions dependent on the television standards in use, including PAL and NTSC. Picture sizes were usually limited to ensure the visibility of all the pixels in the major television standards and the broad range of television sets with varying amounts of over scan. The actual drawable picture area was, therefore, somewhat smaller than the whole screen, and was usually surrounded by a static-colored border (see image to right). Also, the interlace scanning was usually omitted in order to provide more stability to the picture, effectively halving the vertical resolution in progress. 160 × 200, 320 × 200 and 640 × 200 on NTSC were relatively common resolutions in the era (224, 240 or 256 scanlines were also common). In the IBM PC world, these resolutions came to be used by 16-color EGA video cards.

The availability of inexpensive LCD monitors made the 5∶4 aspect ratio resolution of 1280 × 1024 more popular for desktop usage during the first decade of the 21st century. Many computer users including CAD users, graphic artists and video game players ran their computers at 1600 × 1200 resolution (UXGA) or higher such as 2048 × 1536 QXGA if they had the necessary equipment. Other available resolutions included oversize aspects like 1400 × 1050 SXGA+ and wide aspects like 1280 × 800 WXGA, 1440 × 900 WXGA+, 1680 × 1050 WSXGA+, and 1920 × 1200 WUXGA; monitors built to the 720p and 1080p standard were also not unusual among home media and video game players, due to the perfect screen compatibility with movie and video game releases. A new more-than-HD resolution of 2560 × 1600 WQXGA was released in 30-inch LCD monitors in 2007.

In 2010, 27-inch LCD monitors with the 2560 × 1440 resolution were released by multiple manufacturers, and in 2012, Apple introduced a 2880 × 1800 display on the MacBook Pro. Panels for professional environments, such as medical use and air traffic control, support resolutions up to 4096 × 21602048 × 2048 pixels).

In this image of a Commodore 64 startup screen, the overscan region (the lighter-coloured border) would have been barely visible when shown on a normal television.

When a computer display resolution is set higher than the physical screen resolution (native resolution), some video drivers make the virtual screen scrollable over the physical screen thus realizing a two dimensional virtual desktop with its viewport. Most LCD manufacturers do make note of the panel"s native resolution as working in a non-native resolution on LCDs will result in a poorer image, due to dropping of pixels to make the image fit (when using DVI) or insufficient sampling of the analog signal (when using VGA connector). Few CRT manufacturers will quote the true native resolution, because CRTs are analog in nature and can vary their display from as low as 320 × 200 (emulation of older computers or game consoles) to as high as the internal board will allow, or the image becomes too detailed for the vacuum tube to recreate (i.e., analog blur). Thus, CRTs provide a variability in resolution that fixed resolution LCDs cannot provide.

As far as digital cinematography is concerned, video resolution standards depend first on the frames" aspect ratio in the film stock (which is usually scanned for digital intermediate post-production) and then on the actual points" count. Although there is not a unique set of standardized sizes, it is commonplace within the motion picture industry to refer to "nK" image "quality", where n is a (small, usually even) integer number which translates into a set of actual resolutions, depending on the film format. As a reference consider that, for a 4:3 (around 1.33:1) aspect ratio which a film frame (no matter what is its format) is expected to horizontally fit in, n is the multiplier of 1024 such that the horizontal resolution is exactly 1024•n points.2048 × 1536 pixels, whereas 4K reference resolution is 4096 × 3072 pixels. Nevertheless, 2K may also refer to resolutions like 2048 × 1556 (full-aperture), 2048 × 1152 (HDTV, 16:9 aspect ratio) or 2048 × 872 pixels (Cinemascope, 2.35:1 aspect ratio). It is also worth noting that while a frame resolution may be, for example, 3:2 (720 × 480 NTSC), that is not what you will see on-screen (i.e. 4:3 or 16:9 depending on the intended aspect ratio of the original material).

The "p-display" nomenclature used in this article refers to the number of pixels displayed across the width of a given phone"s screen. Earlier phones with lower than 720p (lower than HD ready resolution) are not included in this listing. The lists below are dynamic lists and may be sorted into alphabetical order by clicking on the "sort icons" at the top of the first column.

LCD panels" resolutions are often quoted in terms of raw subpixels, misnamed "pixels" in manufacturer"s specifications. Each real pixel includes one subpixel for each of three colors, so calling subpixels "pixels" inflates the claimed resolution by a factor of three. This bit of marketing obfuscation is calculated as horizontal resolution × vertical resolution × 3. For example: 640 × 480 VGA is 921,600 subpixels, or 307,200 pixels, 800 × 600 SVGA is 1,440,000 subpixels, or 480,000 pixels, and 1024 × 768 XGA is 2,359,296 subpixels, but only 786,432 full-color pixels.

Aspect ratio is the relationship of the width of a video image compared to its height. The two most common aspect ratios are4:3, also known as 1.33:1 or fullscreen, and 16:9, also known as 1.78:1 or widescreen. (Larger aspect ratio formats are used in the motion picture industry.)

All the older TV’s and computer monitors you grew up with had the squarish 4:3 shape– 33% wider than it was high. These are often referred to as square monitors.  4:3 LCD monitors can display analog video signals that conform to NTSC and PAL standards. They are not capable of displaying HD (high-definition) video.

The 4:3 aspect ratio dates back to 1917, when the Society of Motion Picture Engineers adopted it as the standard format for film. In the 1930’s, the television industry adopted the same 4:3 standard. But in the mid-1950’s, the motion picture industry began developing several widescreen formats to improve their decreasing audience numbers. Television broadcasting stayed with the 4:3 standard, until the recent move to HDTV and 16:9 widescreen.

16:9 is the native aspect ratio of most high-definition widescreen LCD monitors and TV’s (16:9 and 16:10 are very similar). It is 78% wider than it is tall, and fully one-third wider than a 4:3 screen. 16:9 widescreen monitors are ideally suited to display HD video signals. Some models can also display SD (standard definition) video signals, but this will require some compromises, as you will read below.

Nearly all experts agree that in order to display optimal video images, it is critical to match the aspect ratio of the monitor to the aspect ratio of the camera (or other incoming video source). Below is a example of a 16:9 image on a 16:9 widescreen lcd monitor:

Unfortunately, despite the continued widespread use of 4:3 cameras, LCD monitors with a 4:3 aspect ratio are getting harder and harder to find. Many manufacturers have abandoned them in favor of the newer 16:9 widescreens. TRU-Vu Monitors still offers a complete line of industrial-grade 4:3 aspect ratio LCD monitors. These range in size from 5.5″ to 19″ screens. They are available with standard, waterproof, steel or open frame enclosures. They can be touch screen,  sunlight readable, medical-grade, or optically bonded.

16:9 widescreen LCD monitors are the ideal complement to 16:9 format HD cameras. These are increasingly used in video conferencing, broadcast and medical applications. They display superb, distortion-free, high-definition images. TRU-Vu Monitors offers these in 7″, 10.1″, 13.3″, 15.6″, 17.3″, 18.5″ and 21.5″ to 65” LCD screen sizes, in standard, touch screen, sunlight readable, medical-grade, optically bonded and open frame configurations.

You must avoid video images which are stretched, chopped, squeezed, shrunk or distorted. Be sure to choose a LCD monitor with the correct aspect ratio (4:3 aspect ratio or 16:9 aspect ratio) that matches your camera or other incoming video signal.

Click on the links below to see the screen size of each touch screen relative to the average sized person, find the touch screen suitable for your project.

Confused about what projection screen size to rent for your meeting, conference, or other event? You’re not alone. Projection screens come in a huge variety of sizes and shapes, and it can get confusing, fast.

But it’s critical to know how big your screen needs to be because there’s no single standard projector screen size. The last thing you want is a screen that can’t be seen by all your attendees, or worse — one that’s not compatible with the space or projector.

Luckily, once you have your basic event details figured out, calculating your screen size comes down to a few simple factors. To figure out the right projector and screen size for your event, you’ll need to know these basics:

For smaller meetings of up to 100 people, a tripod screen is a great option. Tripod screens come in 6′ and 8′ dimensions, can be either 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios, and are flexible in an event space. They also have adjustable legs so ceiling heights aren’t a concern, and they don’t require technician setup.

But if your audience is larger than 100 people, you’ll probably need a fastfold screen in the correct size. These screens require a professional to set-up, and you’ll usually need to confirm all the specific details with your AV provider before renting.

Aspect ratio basically means the shape of the screen, based on a ratio of width to height. For example, a 4:3 aspect ratio for a projection screen means that for every 4 feet of width, there will be 3 feet of height.

These days, almost all content created on a computer is going to be in 16:9. But if you’re really unsure and can’t find the answer from your speaker, go with a 16:9 screen because your AV team can more easily adjust 4:3 content to fit on a 16:9 screen than vice versa.

Quick tip: You can find the aspect ratio of your PPT deck by viewing the “Design” tab and selecting “Page Setup” within your Power Point file. The drop down selected in the “Slides sized for” box will show either 4:3 or 16:9. You can view more information on how to change your slide size here.

Also, it’s often best to have screens on each side of the stage so that attendees throughout the space can easily see your content. Two screens also provide uniformity to the stage set. There are lots of variables in choosing the right screen size, so be sure to discuss all the details of your event with your AV provider.

For audiences larger than 1,000 people, you might also consider a truss screen or custom setup. These types of screens can be flown or ground supported, and are available in front or rear projection.

You’re almost there. You’ve chosen your screen size, and now you just have to make sure your venue’s ceilings are tall enough to accommodate the whole set-up.

This is a good rule of thumb to determine your standard screen height without any kind of dress kit or top valence. Adding a dress kit, which makes screens look a little more polished and professional, will add one more foot of height and four feet of width.

Adding legs and a dress kit means that many larger screens can require ceiling heights of 10′ to 15’+, but the average ceiling height of a meeting room is 8′-10′. That’s why it’s so important to confirm ceiling height.

Most venues have room diagrams or layouts online that clearly state the ceiling height. If you aren’t able to find that information, you can always set up a pre-event site survey for an audio visual technician to ensure the screen will fit into the event layout. If your venue doesn’t have high enough ceilings, consider using multiple smaller screens or additional monitors to make sure every guest can see your content.

Some venues aren’t big enough to have enough space between the screen and projector, also called throw distance. You AV provider can help determine your throw distance and the best placement for your projector and screen.

If you already have a projector that you plan to use, it’s important to remember that not all projectors and screens work together. As screens increase in size, the lumens (aka the brightness) required in a projector increase as well.

Think of projectors like a flashlight: The light spreads out across the surface the further away that you are. So, the bigger the screen and the farther away you projector is for the screen, the brighter the light needs to me. If your projector doesn’t produce enough lumens, you may have trouble seeing the content on the screen.

These four steps are a great starting point to choosing the right screen and projector. No two events are alike though, and depending on the full scope of your program, there may be many other factors to take into account.

Two measures describe the size of your display: the aspect ratio and the screen size. Historically, computer displays, like most televisions, have had an aspect ratio of 4:3. This means that the ratio of the width of the display screen to the height is 4 to 3.

For widescreen LCD monitors, the aspect ratio is 16:9 (or sometimes 16:10 or 15:9). Widescreen LCD displays are useful for viewing DVD movies in widescreen format, playing games and displaying multiple windows side by side. High definition television (HDTV) also uses a widescreen aspect ratio.

All types of displays include a projection surface, commonly referred to as the screen. Screen sizes are normally measured in inches from one corner to the corner diagonally across from it. This diagonal measuring system actually came about because the early television manufacturers wanted to make the screen size of their TVs sound more impressive.

Interestingly, the way in which the screen size is measured for CRT and LCD monitors is different. For CRT monitors, screen size is measured diagonally from outside edges of the display casing. In other words, the exterior casing is included in the measurement as seen below.

For LCD monitors, screen size is measured diagonally from the inside of the beveled edge. The measurement does not include the casing as indicated in the image below.

­Because of the differences in how CRT and LCD monitors are measured, a 17-inch LCD display is comparable to a 19-inch CRT display. For a more accurate representation of a CRT"s size, find out its viewable screen size. This is the measurement of a CRT display without its outside casing.

­ Popular screen sizes are 15, 17, 19 and 21 inches. Notebook screen sizes are smaller, typically ranging from 12 to 17 inches. As technologies improve in both desktop and notebook displays, even larger screen sizes are becoming available. For professional applications, such as medical imaging or public information displays, some LCD monitors are 40 inches or larger!

Obviously, the size of the display directly affects resolution. The same pixel resolution is sharper on a smaller monitor and fuzzier on a larger monitor because the same number of pixels is spread out over a larger number of inches. An image on a 21-inch monitor with an 800x600 resolution will not appear nearly as sharp as it would on a 15-inch display at 800x600. ­

It refers to 1400 x 1050 resolution. As an extension of SXGA, SXGA+ is a kind of screen designed specially for laptops. Since the horizontal and vertical dot pitch of laptop LCD screen differs from that of common desktop LCD screen, the display accuracy is much higher than common 17inch desktop.

It refers to 1600 x 1200 resolution.UXGA is also called UGA, its resolution is exactly 4 times of VGA. The biggest downside of this display is its high cost. At present, this kind of resolution is found application in 20inch LCD devices.

It refers to 2048 x 1536 resolution. Its resolution is right 4 times of XGA, and is also the limit of most 4:3 screen. Currently, Apple has released new iPad, iPad4 and New Macbook Pro, and these products has applied this technology in its retina screen. This screen technology makes the whole screen display effect reach a very high smooth degree.

WXGA means wide version XGA and has a resolution of 1280 x 800. WXGA adopts 16:10 aspect ratio to expand the screen size. Because of its 800 horizontal pixels, so this type of screen can be found application in 15-inch and 12.1-inch notebook.

It means wide-screen version SXGA+ and has a resolution of 1680 x 1050. Every pixel is 32 bit. This kind of resolution used in a wide-screen LCD with a 15.4-inch diagonal length.

It refers to 1920 x 1200 resolution. As the 4:3 aspect ratio in UXGA, WUXGA is very rare to be found. Its display resolution can reach up to 1920 x 1200. But rare notebook manufactures adopts this screen due to its high price.

It refers to 2560 x 1440 resolution with its screen horizontal pixel up to more than 2000 pixel. The domestic projector in theater mainly adopts this kind of resolution, as well as many high-end smartphone screen.

Refers to the concentration of pixels on a particular display, measured in pixels per inch (PPI). Pixel density is calculated by dividing the diagonal pixel resolution of a display by its diagonal size.

LCD panels are made of a layer of liquid crystal between two pieces of polarized glass. Liquid crystal can not emit light. Backlights are therefore used to illuminate the display. LCD panels are sleek in design, but typically limited to specific sets of dimensions.

LCD video walls on the other hand take on a tiled approach. This means that screens are jutted against one another. This approach creates bezels or seams and the final dimensions of the wall is directly dependent on the dimensions of the individual screens.

LCD is a more straightforward product and consumers are generally more familiar with LCD. LCD is used for cell phones, computer screens, and most TVs, but is it the best choice for video walls? Ultimately that choice is up to the consumer. LCD is cheaper, but generally less customizable. LCD does not work well for outdoor uses and is generally very limited in terms of size and shape.

A video wall is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are many options to choose from when designing a video wall: the size and shape of the digital canvas, what type of content will be displayed and the purpose of the video wall. Operationally, options include the desired reliability, maintenance and serviceability of the equipment. Hardware and technology decisions need to be made to ensure the video wall delivers both the desired viewership and ownership experience.

One of these choices is deciding between an LCD display or an LED video wall. Continue reading to find out more about the basics, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.

Most people are familiar with LCD technology, which stands for Liquid Crystal Display. These types of displays have a massive presence in this world, used in living rooms to watch movies, fast-food restaurants to showcase menus, airports to show flight schedules, and everything in between. LCD technology was developed in the 1960s and has been used worldwide as a standard for roughly 20 years. It is a tried-and-true technology that has stood the test of time and will be around for the foreseeable future.

On an LCD screen, the panel is illuminated by a light source and works through reflection or transmission of light. Overall, LCD displays have better viewing angles and less glare than LED screens. This technology was designed to be energy efficient and tends to be lighter in weight.

An LCD video wall is made up of multiple LCD panel monitors mounted on a surface to create a digital canvas, which then work together to create a unified experience. They operate 24/7 at a high brightness and have thin bezels that help create a seamless look when the displays are placed next to one another.

Nits:Brightness is measured in Nits. A higher Nit value means the display will be brighter. A brighter display is necessary in a room that sees plenty of direct sunlight, or if the intent is to draw in visitors from far away. With LCD video walls, the price of the hardware goes up as the display size and brightness increase, and the bezel width decreases.

Although video walls are relatively new, LCD technology has had the benefit of decades of mainstream adoption. With that comes familiarity and lower costs. If those factors are important to you, then an LCD video wall is likely the right choice.

The next item to consider is the type of content that will be displayed on your video wall. Another benefit of LCD displays is that the resolution is incredibly high on the displays—modern 4K displays have over 8 million pixels! This means that the content being displayed is highly detailed and crystal-clear. A viewer could stand less than 1 foot away from the screen and be able to see exactly what is being shown on the screen.

Like previously mentioned with LCD video walls, an important consideration in the decision-making process is the type of content that will be displayed on the video wall. LED video walls suffer from image degradation and pixilation from up close, so fine details will be lost, and text will be illegible. If detail from up close is important, LCD displays are much better suited for that situation.

LED video walls are similar to LCD video walls, but the digital canvas is built using LED panels. Individual LED panels can be anywhere from 12”x12” to 36”x18”, which is much smaller than LCD displays. LED panels have a larger presence in this world than most might think—they are found indoors and outdoors at stadiums, arenas, concert venues, airports, and in use as large digital advertisements in iconic places such as Times Square.

The module is a small rectangular board that contains all the individual LEDs (light-emitting diodes).Unlike LCD, there is no glass or color filter on the LED panels. The individual diodes that are placed on the modules produce both color and light.

One of the most impressive features of LED panels is that they can be combined to create almost any shape, without a bezel interrupting the digital canvas. LED panels can be placed on curved surfaces, 90-degree edges, and other non-standard surfaces. The smaller size of the panels in relation to LCD displays means they can fill more space on a surface—they aren’t limited to standard 46” and 55” sizes as are LCD video wall displays.

As is the case with an LCD video wall, an LED video wall will add exciting drama and premium value to showcase spaces. LED panel displays don’t enjoy the benefit of decades of mainstream adoption as do their LCD counterparts. However, the technology curve is increasing their availability and lowering their costs. At this time, an LED video wall will have higher upfront costs compared to an LCD video wall. If cost is the main concern, then an LED video wall will likely not be in the running for your project.

Limitless shapes and sizes:the smaller size of LED panels allows them to be combined to create unique canvases, including curved, 90-degree edge, and other combinations not possible with LCD displays

Video walls come in all shapes and sizes, and the components that are used to create the video wall experience vary widely. It is important to consider variables other than price when scoping out both the content and the hardware, as one solution could provide a captivating viewing experience that delivers an immeasurable ROI, while another solution could flounder and defeat the entire purpose of the video wall.

First, we will provide a brief technical overview of functional principles as they relate to visual stimulus presentation. Detailed descriptions and parameter measurements are already available from the existing literature; however, our intention here is to equip readers with limited technical expertise with the necessary knowledge to set up computer experiments with LCD monitors. Thus, we keep our explanations relatively short and simplified.

LCD monitors work differently: Each pixel consists of liquid crystal threads that can be twisted or arranged in parallel by an electrical current applied to them. This leads to a polarization effect that either allows or prevents light passing through. A white light source located behind this crystal array uniformly and constantly illuminates the array. To display a black pixel, the crystal threads are twisted by 90° such that no light will pass through. A white pixel is achieved by aligning the crystals such that maximum light is allowed to pass through, until a different, non-white color needs to be displayed (see the lower panel of Fig. 1 for an LCD pixel’s brightness over time). This is a static process, not a pulsed one as in CRTs.

In theory, the difference in presentation methods, namely a strobing versus a static image, should be of no consequence if the light energy that falls onto the retina remains the same over the time period of one single frame. As the Talbot-Plateau law states2 is equally well detectable as a light flash presented for 60 ms at 40 cd/m2. This suggests that temporal integration can be easily described by energy summation”. Thus, in principle, LCD and CRT monitors should be able to yield comparable results.

However, due to the differences in technology, the visual signals produced by the two display types have different shapes (i.e., a different light energy-over-time-curve; see Fig. 1). Moreover, default luminance as well as visual-signal response times (in addition to other parameters, see below) differ between most CRT and LCD monitors

Table 1 reports the parameters we considered in setting up the CRT and LCD monitors. Certainly, most of them are commonly considered when setting up a computer experiment; nevertheless we deemed it important to mention them here explicitly, as their neglect might have unintended consequences. We used a 17” Fujitsu Siemens Scenicview P796-2 CRT color monitor previously used in several published studies including studies with masked presentation conditions

We tested various monitor user settings, refresh rates, resolutions and luminance settings (see materials available at https://osf.io/g842s/) with regard to the emitted light energy–over-time-curve and therefore response characteristics (i.e., onset and offset of full screen and centrally presented stimuli). Measurements were conducted with a photodiode setup, using both an oscilloscope (model “Agilent MSOX 3012 A”) and a self-developed microcontroller setup as measurement devices. Stimuli were black and white squares.

Our measurements revealed several interesting characteristics: First, luminance of the LCD monitor at default setting (i.e., maximum brightness) exceeded the CRT luminance at a ratio of 3.25:1. However, comparable average luminance can be (and was) achieved by downregulating the LCD monitor (the older CRT technology emits less energy even at maximum settings, see Table 2), without participants perceiving it as unnaturally dark. If one plans to upgrade from CRT to LCD monitors in an experimental laboratory, we therefore recommend measuring the CRT monitors’ brightness levels and matching them in the new LCD monitors’ user setup, if comparability with the old setup is needed. This will minimize hardware-dependent variability, thus contributing to better replicability. Please note that a brightness adaption is not a necessary precondition when employing LCD monitors; researchers should simply be aware that the brightness level can have an influence onto the resulting effects, especially in time-critical experiments with short and/or masked presentation. Thus, we recommend the adaptation for time-critical experiments in which researchers orient on existing empirical evidence gathered with CRT monitors. Furthermore, gray-to-gray response times varied slightly depending on the employed brightness levels2), so we suggest that researchers can rely on this more efficient method as an approximation.

For the empirical comparison of human performance with CRT and LCD monitors, we relied on these results and set the monitor settings accordingly (see Method section below).

Participants were administered a masked number priming task and a subsequent forced-choice prime discrimination task using both a CRT and an LCD monitor. In this well-established paradigm

Perhaps the most surprising difference between the iPhone XS and iPhone XR is it’s the latter which has the bigger display. That said, everything else about the iPhone XR’s screen is inferior:

As you’ll see above, the big compromises with the iPhone XR are its downgrade from OLED to LCD and a substantially lower native resolution. In fact, the iPhone XR can’t even display Full HD 1080p content - that’s surprising for a 6.1-inch device.

LCD displays may not match OLED in terms of contrast ratio and black levels, but they are more than good enough for the vast majority of users. The lower 326 ppi (identical to the iPhone 8) is still 3x higher than a 40-inch 4K television (110 ppi), and you’ll still get the same 19.5:9 aspect ratio as the iPhone XS, the sameTrue Tonecolour accuracy and “120Hz touch sensing” for a faster response to touch input.

As for the absence of 3D Touch, iOS 12 has enabled a long press toreplace most of its functionsand the technology is expected to beaxed next year anywaydue to a lack of consumer interest. So while the display is one of the biggest technical differences between the iPhone XS and iPhone XR, in a side-by-side comparison I’m not convinced most users will care.

While the iPhone XR has roughly a 5% larger display than the iPhone XS, it is 10% heavier and slightly thicker. The primary reason for this is the LCD display, which is not as flexible as OLED so it cannot fit as seamlessly into the chassis (look for the larger bezels on all sides of the iPhone XR display).

Aside from their different display sizes, the second most externally recognisable difference between the iPhone XS and iPhone XR is the latter only has a single rear camera:

iPhone XS, iPhone XR - Primary rear camera - 12MP, f/1.8 aperture, 1.4µm pixel size, Optical Image stabilisation (OIS), Quad-LED True Tone flash, Portrait Lighting

Like the Pixel 2, both the iPhone XS and iPhone XR primary rear cameras also have a larger 1.4µm pixel size which enables them to take in more light. This is a crucial upgrade for better low light photography and a win for both phones.

For those of you on the fence about the iPhone XR’s LCD display, here’s where it delivers considerable upsides: the lower resolution is far less demanding and the larger size means Apple has more space to fit a bigger battery.

While Apple has chipped away at almost every part of the iPhone XS’s feature set to produce the XR, the reality is everything that’s lost is expendable. For some, there will be an essential feature missing (OLED display, dual camera, bezel size) that forces them to pay more for the iPhone XS, but for most buyers the iPhone XR is a well-priced phone with all the fat removed.

If you’re designing a display application or deciding what type of TV to get, you’ll probably have to choose between an OLED or LCD as your display type.

LCDs utilize liquid crystals that produce an image when light is passed through the display. OLED displays generate images by applying electricity to organic materials inside the display.OLED and LCD Main Difference:

graphics and images visible. This is the reason you’re still able to see light coming through on images that are meant to be dark on an LCD monitor, display, or television.

OLEDs by comparison, deliver a drastically higher contrast by dynamically managing their individual pixels. When an image on an OLED display uses the color black, the pixel shuts off completely and renders a much higher contrast than that of LCDs.OLED vs LCD - Who is better at contrast?

Having a high brightness level is important if your display is going to be used in direct sunlight or somewhere with high ambient brightness. The display"s brightness level isn"t as important if it’s going to be used indoors or in a low light setting.OLED vs LCD - Who is better at Brightness?

Have you ever looked at a screen from an angle and noticed that the images became washed out or shadowy? The further away you get from the “front and center” view, the worse the image appears to be. This is an example of viewing angles in action – the wider the viewing angle, the better the images on screen will appear as you view them from different vantage points.

This means the display is much thinner than LCD displays and their pixels are much closer to the surface of the display, giving them an inherently wider viewing angle.

You’ll often notice images becoming distorted or losing their colors when tilting an LCD or when you view it from different angles. However, many LCDs now include technology to compensate for this – specifically In-Plane Switching (IPS).

LCDs with IPS are significantly brighter than standard LCDs and offer viewing angles that are on-par with OLEDs.OLED vs LCD - Who is better at Viewing Angles?

LCDs have been on the market much longer than OLEDs, so there is more data to support their longevity. On average LCDs have proven to perform for around 60,000 hours (2,500) days of operation.

With most LCDs you can expect about 7 years of consistent performance. Some dimming of the backlight has been observed but it is not significant to the quality of the display.

So depending on how your OLED is used, this can greatly affect its lifespan. An OLED being used to show static images for long periods of time will not have the same longevity as one displaying dynamic, constantly moving images.OLED vs LCD - Which one last longer?

There is not yet a clear winner when it comes to lifespans between LCD and OLED displays. Each have their advantages depending on their use-cases. It’s a tie!

I’ve reviewed monitors and laptop displays for over a decade. While different monitors suit different owners, I believe the idealhome office monitor has a 27-inch screen and 4K resolution. It uses an IPS panel, reaches a brightness of at least 250 nits, and can display 99 percent of the sRGB color gamut. Around back you’ll find a USB-C port that can deliver enough power to charge a laptop, along with HDMI and DisplayPort, plus an ergonomic stand that can adjust for height and attaches to a VESA mount.

Most standard-width monitors come in one of three sizes: 24-inch, 27-inch, and 32-inch. Bigger is not necessarily better. A large display may look more impressive, but I find it uncomfortable when placed close to my eyes. There are also practical considerations like perceived pixel density. A big monitor will look fuzzier than a smaller monitor of the same resolution unless you move it further away — which isn’t always an option.

You can be creative with size if you mount a VESA-compatible monitor to an arm, as this will let you move it to your preference (including the proper ergonomic height). If you’re just doing it to move a large monitor farther away, though, give it a second thought. Why spend more for a larger monitor, and a monitor arm to position it farther away, instead of buying a smaller display to start?

If you’re looking to stretch more screen across your field of view for multitasking, you might consider an ultrawide monitor instead. There, I think the choice is clear: go for a 34-incher.

Smaller models lack vertical space. A 29-inch ultrawide has less vertical display space than a 24-inch widescreen. Larger models generally have the opposite problem. Many are too big for a typical home office desk, not only because of their screen size, but because of the large stands used to stabilize them (some are several feet wide). You might need to rearrange your desk around a 38-inch or 43-inch monitor or add a top-tier monitor arm to make it work.

Resolution is key. A higher resolution means more pixels, and more pixels means a sharper, crisper image. More pixels also adds flexibility. You can use scaling features in Windows and MacOS to increase content size for readability, or crank it down to show more content at once.

Twenty-four-inch monitors are a different story; 4K is rare, and 1440p is often the premium option. In fact, most monitors of this size are 1080p. It’s not ideal but it’s acceptable, as decreasing size increases pixel density. A 24-inch 1080p monitor is noticeably sharper than a 27-inch 1080p monitor.

Want a 34-inch ultrawide? Look for 3,440 x 1,440 resolution. This leads to a pixel density nearly identical to a 27-inch 1440p monitor (about 109 pixels per inch). A handful of super-budget ultrawides use 2,560 x 1,080 resolution which, like 1080p on a large monitor, isn’t pleasant. LG’s 5K Ultrawide line is the sole option if you want 4K-equivalent pixel density in a 34-inch ultrawide, but you’ll typically pay $1,500 or more. LG’s well-reviewed 38-inch with 3,840 x 1,600 resolution costs even more at $1,600 and, though it might offer more screen, is equal in pixel density to a 3,440 x 1,440 ultrawide.

USB-C monitors are also expensive. The benefits often add several hundred dollars to the price when compared to an otherwise similar monitor that lacks USB-C. It’s worth the money, though: in 2019, I purchased a Viewsonic VG2455-2K for a sweet one-cable connection to USB-C capable laptops, and find it ideal for swiftly connecting my laptop to a larger screen.

If you are looking for an HDR monitor, DisplayHDR certification labels could help, but know that “peak luminance” means “a tiny region on screen can get that bright,” and DisplayHDR 400 is barely HDR at all. Screenshot by Sean Hollister / The Verge

Nearly all monitors sold today use an LCD panel based on one of three technologies: twisted nematic (TN), in-plane switching (IPS), and vertical alignment (VA).

If you demand the very best from a monitor, however, I recommend Mini LED. OLED’s burn-in worries are legitimate on the PC which, compared to a television, will display static images more frequently. Mini LED can’t match OLED’s contrast, but it’s still a major upgrade over a backlit LCD screen. There’s also the emerging category of quantum dot OLED (QD-OLED) screens, but manufacturers haven’t announced prices for those yet.