TR Forums

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/20/lg-i ... #continued

Is this the smallest bezel yet? The multi-monitor setups I've gamed on are great but I get really irritated by the bezels.

that is incredibly small. those would be awesome in a multi-monitor setup.

let everyone now complain about only 1080p.

Apparently someone, somewhere can't convert mm to inches.

1.2/25.4 = 0.047"

or 0.025"x25.4 = 0.635mm

so the question is, which one is correct? 1.2mm or 0.635mm?

That math...anotherengineer, you kind of ruined the article for me.

anotherengineer wrote:

Apparently someone, somewhere can't convert mm to inches.

1.2/25.4 = 0.047"

or 0.025"x25.4 = 0.635mm

so the question is, which one is correct? 1.2mm or 0.635mm?

Logically, the 1.2mm is probably correct. The original specification would have been metric, and the "0.025" looks like an ordinary mental typo for someone thinking "it's about 1mm" and then trying to do the 25.4mm/in calculation in their head before the first cup of coffee.

superjawes wrote:

That math...anotherengineer, you kind of ruined the article for me.

I feel bad for not noticing. But yeah, in my head I was thinking 1.2mm.

I have a 23" 1080 monitor right now, three of them with those small bezels would be very nice. Let's see what the price ends up being...

Don't be fooled by the thin bezel, that thing has rounded corners and panels don't have rounded corners.

My guess is that the glass front goes to the edge, the 1.2mm refers to the thickness of the frame around the edge of the glass, and the panel/image inside stops at least 10mm before the actual edge of the display.
That would mean a sizeable gap between images, and still requiring a significant bezel compensation for gaming.

Whatever happened to this idea?

That was rear-projected, right?
I guess the same thing happened to that idea as happened to battery life in mobile devices. Manufacturer's wrongly assume we want thin products, yet ten years ago we were happily carrying around "small" phones three times the thickness and weight all day.

Honestly, who gives a crap how thick their desktop LCD screen is? Even wallmounted HDTV's don't need to get thinner, because we long surpassed the point where the wall bracket is thicker than the TV.

Chrispy_ wrote:

Honestly, who gives a crap how thick their desktop LCD screen is? Even wallmounted HDTV's don't need to get thinner, because we long surpassed the point where the wall bracket is thicker than the TV.

I think you completely missed the point of this thread...

Chrispy_ wrote:

Even wallmounted HDTV's don't need to get thinner, because we long surpassed the point where the wall bracket is thicker than the TV.

No ways, velcro on and wall and back of TV = really thin mount

just brew it! wrote:

I think you completely missed the point of this thread...

Nope, just commenting on that Alienware tangent We don't have displays like that because manufacturers are obsessing about the wrong thing. My huge HDTV is about two inches thick. Sitting ten feet from it, I can't say I'd care if I had a TV that was only one inch thick. Difference between 120" and 121" inches is not relevant, I say - but this is all getting off topic anyway.

I still think the 1.2mm bezel of this thread topic is a misleading marketing number rather than an actual panel that goes to the edge of the housing; Glass front 1.2mm from the edge is not the same as actual, working pixels stopping 1.2mm from the edge. Also, if they've started making IPS panels with rounded corners then the concept of "X by Y resolution" is going to fall apart pretty damn quickly!