# SXGA+ Monitor



## ruinexplorer (Dec 26, 2011)

Looking to pick the brains of our computer know-it-all's. I am getting some new projectors that have a SXGA+ (1400x1050) native resolution and would like a referrence monitor to match. It must have a DVI input as well. I do not want refurbished units or discontinued products. As I have already checked many of the major manufacturers that I can think of (HP, Asus, LG, NEC, LaCie, Acer, Samsung, etc.), maybe there's a suggestion to a brand I don't know? I have been able to find a few UXGA (1600x1200) monitors which will at least keep the same aspect ratio, but would prefer matching native resolution.

So, any recommendations?


----------



## cpf (Dec 27, 2011)

I've never looked into this, but you might be able to get a higher-res monitor and disable the scaling, so you get a pillarboxed image with your video at "native resolution" in the center. That's a big If, though.


----------



## jglodeklights (Dec 27, 2011)

Yeah, difficult task these days. Projectors, in many instances, haven't quite caught up with current video technology (look at all the sub $300 HD cameras and HD shooting still cameras!). I haven't seen a new/non discontinued monitor with that rez in a while. I understand why you want a native per pixel matching between your monitor and your monitor, but it doesn't matter for several reasons:

1. With the proper hardware/software at the computer level you can purchase a monitor with greater resolution, set it to 1400x1050, and have the graphics card not uprez it to match screen resolution, effectively giving you your 1400x1050.

2. You are magnifying the pixels of the projector many many times.

3. Not all pixels are created equal. 

Good Luck in your search, but you may need to pursue other options, such as discontinued. The monitor won't tell you the quality of what you are projecting, only a what the boundaries of the image will be, maybe (1400x1050 isn't always 1400x1050, same for other rezzes due to cut off, etc).


----------



## ruinexplorer (Dec 27, 2011)

Yes, it is the fun that projector manufacturers and monitor manufacturers don't see eye to eye. SXGA is still an available option for many monitors, and in some cases, I like that resolution for my desktop. However, for projectors, TI discontinued that resolution DMD a year or two back, so no projector will be manufactured that way in the future. Of course there was the debate in the conventions market as to what format screen they should buy to replace the old 4:3 aspect ratio. Many computer monitors are 16:10 while HDTV is 16:9, which can make a diffference at the conference. Since I use the projectors for scenic purposes and not using a screen, I chose the 4:3 aspect ratio for the area I need as I would have just been blanking a wide screen projector to fit. 

The reason I would prefer matching resolutions is for the EDID. Sure there are ways around that, but I prefer to have the fewest points of failure possible, especially since I am not the only one using the system.


----------



## derekleffew (Dec 27, 2011)

This? 20'' Acer AL2017bmd SXGA+ VGA/DVI-D TFT LCD Monitor (Black) on best discount price by Acer


----------



## ruinexplorer (Dec 28, 2011)

Unfortunately that is only a refurbished model offered by geeks.com and has been out of stock every time that I have checked (including just now). Thanks for looking.

I think that part of the problem is that this was a more popular screen resolution for laptops than it was for desktops and is virtually extinct at this point.


----------



## museav (Dec 28, 2011)

ruinexplorer said:


> Yes, it is the fun that projector manufacturers and monitor manufacturers don't see eye to eye.


Of course, a direct view monitor is physically different than a device projecting a very image from a postage stamp sized chip and both the manufacturing and applications associated with each are significant factors. For example, a monitor operated in portrait mode is much more common than a projector used in portrait mode. And resolutions such as 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 are more difficult and/or more expensive to address when dealing with physically smaller devices. I have also found that the 4:3 (1.33:1) format of NTSC video and the 11" x 8-1/2" (1:1.29) and 17" x 8-1/2" (1:2) format of standard paper sizes have been major factors in the resolutions and formats offered for projectors and monitors. LCD and plasma TVs along with the convergence of entertainment and information displays have definitely blurred that traditional division.

1400x1050 was always an odd resolution to me, a 4:3 native format that is 1400x787.5 for 16:9 format images and 1400x875 for 16:10 format images. It was driven by the computer industry, especially laptops, and I never understood why projector manufacturers so widely adopted it other than perhaps being readily available in LCD, DLP and LCoS forms at a good price. I also never understood 1280x1024 SXGA with its 5:4 format, although it at least directly related to 1280x720 (720p HD) and doubling the 640x480 resolution of VGA, or the progression to 1400x1050 SXGA+ with the format then changing to 4:3 and not matching any other standard resolution either horizontally or vertically. I think both, especially SXGA+, were somewhat a result of a 'more is better' mentality and the production capabilities of the times they were popular.

We do have to face the reality that the consumer market drives many things related to video displays and manufacturers there are always looking to create a market for the latest and greatest and that market drives the prices. To them SXGA+ probably filled a niche for greater 'HD' resolutions while also supporting 4:3 content until higher res displays and/or widescreen formats became more practical and/or more common. At one point they could 'upsell' 1400x1050 over 1024x768 VGA, then later 'upsell' you again to 1600x1200, 1920x1080, 1920x1200, etc. Now that the higher res and widescreen formats are popular, the demand for resolutions like 1400x1050 has dropped, thus the per unit cost to produce and support them went up making them less attractive to sell or manufacture.


----------

