Thread: 2005 Lilliput Monitor Differences

The usb connector/video thing is gone and they have gone to the propriatary connector for vga, power and all that. Same connector as the 8" lilliput. keep in mind the 8" lilliput has a better default resolution and is probably better for desktop applications in Windows/mac but the 7" is better for DVD movies and video generally speaking (except for maybe a backup camera due to streatching the image)

Other changes include the housing. I can't comment on reliability of the touchscreen or build quality as I've never used one.

This new monitor appears to have an S-video input, making it a hell of allot better for video from a dvd player etc.

The 7" lilliput has: 2400x480 physical resolution, or 1,152,000 pixels.

The old 7" lilliput seems to have the same resolution (2004 model)

The new 8" lilliput has 1024*768 physical resolution, or 921,600 pixels.

So the 7" lilliput has a 230,400 higher pixel count than the 8" lilliput. They cost the same on eBay. Suposedly this means the 7" lilliput will have better image quality.

Has anyone on here tried the 7" and the 8" lilliputs? Which is better for image quality in your opinion?

I'll probably go 8". The 8" screen alone is 3x the physical resolution of my LUXMA 7" widescreen that is mounted in my sunvisor, and that screen is pretty dang good lol =).

-LAKORAI

Originally Posted by lakorai

The 7" lilliput has: 2400x480 physical resolution, or 1,152,000 pixels.

Actually, the 2400 is 2400 dots...3 dots clustered together for red/green/blue. Physical resolution is 800x480 full pixels.

sneaky sneaky...

SO this means the 7" lilliput has a "real" physical resolution of (800 x 480)384,000 pixels.

The chinese can't add lol. They state 921,000 pixels for the 8" model, but (duh) 1024*768 is NOT 921,000 pixels, it's 786,432 pixels. Gotta use the calculator mike....

Does Lilliput use the 3 RGB element to add up pixels for the 8" model as well? That would suck, then that would mean the "real" resolution would be 348x768 (which is 262,144). Not going to bother with the pixel count per inch as I need to know the length and width of the screen first lol. AT that pixel count these screens are nothing more than your average car audio lcd with a vga controller in them (and higher brightness than most)

So with a pixel count of 262,144 (if the first 1024 spec is really 341 and 1/3 x 3 colors to equal 1024) that means that the 8" lilliput could still potentially have a worse image.

So which is it with the 8" screen - is it 1024*768 pixels or really 341 and 1/3*768 pixels?

This is going back to my argument that car lcds still suck compared to home lcds and are overpriced. But supply and demand economics have their ways....

It's probably a matter of just not having a consistent website. Heck, even the mp3car.com store isn't very clear: http://www.mp3car.com/store/product_...products_id=42
Says "up to 1024x768 (HxV) formatted" but then it also says "Supported computer display resolution up to 800 x 600". So does that mean it's really 800x600, and the controller can scale down 1024x768 to fit?

the 8" I bought from mp3car is 800x600 physical resoultion (2400 * 600 =1,440,000 RGB). any other supported computer output such as 1024x768 would be scaled to fit.

I've heard older 8" is 640 * 480 (1920 * 480 = 921,600 RGB).

I suppose I could get the model number off my 8" but it is less than 2 months old. VERY clear image and compared to a car cd/dvd player it is far superior. I have a few programs that I need to run at 1024x768 and it does just fine. Of course some of the text is tiny but still very readable. I really dont care what the resolution or pixel count is, it looks nice!