In the not-so-distant past, the size of a computer monitor determined the number of horizontal and vertical pixels it would display. Usually, a 15″ screen was about 800×600 pixels, a 17″ screen was 1024×768 pixels, and a 21″ screen was 1600×1200. These aren’t exact numbers – sometimes a manufacturer would make a denser screen by putting 1600×1200 pixels into a 19″ screen. Wikipedia has a nice table showing common screen sizes and their respective pixel densities.

The problem I have now is that it has become incredibly expensive to get a resolution higher than 1920×1080 pixels. This is because of the proliferation of HDTVs’ – 1920×1080 is the resolution that a 1080p HDTV runs at. Which means that when you shop for LCD computer monitors, once you hit about 21″, the resolution stops increasing. Going to a 25″ monitor doesn’t give you more real estate on the screen – the resolution is static. This is true until you get to a 27″ WQHD monitor which sports a 2560×1440 screen, and a price tag of over $999.

What’s worse is that a 26″, 1080P computer monitor costs $350, while a 26″ 1080P HDTV costs $230. It’s signifigantly more cost effective to buy a cheap HDTV than it is to buy a mid-range computer monitor. The color won’t be nearly as accurate, but the picture will be just as sharp, and the built in speakers will probably be worth enough to stop worrying about crummy desktop computer speakers. This whole effect is pushing out innovation and cost efficiencies for monitors, as anyone who realizes this will just buy the TV for ~$250. And it means the higher resolution, color-accurate monitors are $999+, and there’s nothing in between. I can’t really justify buying a 27″ Apple Cinema Display for $999 or the new Dell UltraSharp U2711 for $1049, but I also can’t stand the idea of trying to do photography work on a 1080p HDTV.