Is there a big difference between the 900p screen and the 720p on the 1555?

Hi! I just got the 720p screen and it looks ok but well, you know, kind of average. The text is not that crisp and the colors don't have too much contrast. I'd like to return it and get the 900p but is it that much better?

Also, is the text going to be much smaller? I spend most of my computer time reading or writing text so having it really small or always having to resize it will be a pain.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Scott

 

The thing about extra screen res is that it has a lot of uses. It will come in handy for everything from basic doc editing to full-on graphics and gaming. The extra real estate will definitely come in handy, and you will quickly get used to the relatively small text size. Once you go high-res, there's no turning back.

 

Thanks for the response...

but would you say it's a better screen? better colors? sharper?

 

color reproduction and sharpness would be side effects, and more dependent on the actual manufacturer of the screen than the screen resolution. That being said, the people with higher res screens do appear to be more content with those factors than people with lower res screens, so maybe there is some sort of relationship.

 

When did manufacturers start using the term "900p" (I understand they really mean the resolution, as in 1440x900 or 1600x900)? Kind of odd, since there is only 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i/p.

 

900p refers to HD+, and it only exists in computers because quite frankly, that's the only circumstance in which the extra resolution is useful. Since the standards in video production and broadcasting are as you've written above, there's no real advantage to a 900p display over a 720p display when used strictly for television, DVD, BD, etc, hence television manufacturers have been ignoring this middle ground.
On the other hand, on a computer, the extra 180 pixels in height and 320 pixels in width come in handy for computers, while providing a marginal increase in video quality, so computer manufacturers have been quick to accept it. I'd hope the screens would be able to manage more than just 60 fps (or progressive scan), for smooth gaming and what not.
I love the extra screen real estate, and rather need it. I also like not seeing black bars when watching a video, so it's nice.

 

HD+ is just a made up term (by Dell, if memory serves). Until this whole HD+ thing was invented, screen sizes were never labeled in terms of horizontal lines - they were always stated in diagonal sizes in addition to the maximum resolution allowed, ie: 17" 1920x1200, 17" 1440x900, etc. I would have laughed if Dell had slapped "1200p" on the specs for my e1705! I guess saying 900p and HD+ sells more laptops.

 

I don't really think so - you have to remember that the e1705 is a 16:10 ratio, and not 16:9. 1200p would imply 2133 horizontal pixels, not 1920. They do it this way for multimedia laptops because it then becomes comparable to television sets and HDTV's. Most other laptops are still in normal nomenclature, ie, WSXGA, WUXGA, etc. Dell might have made it up (I'm almost sure I saw another manufacturer using the same terminology) but they're not breaking any rules, as most of it is a grey area.

 

I think it gives consumers a bit of a reference point when considering resolutions. I can understand that 900p is sharper than 720p. Compare that to the normal alphabet soup (WUXGA+...). Which is easier to understand?

The 900p LG screen on my studio look absolutely amazing. Its probably my favourite thing about it. Don't worry about text being too small, everything is perfectly legible. The horizontal viewing angles are great, Vertical aren't AS great but still really good.

EDIT : What he said ^^^^^

 

HD+ is a stupid dell term.... HD screens are just a way for people to be like "oh my really good tv at home is HD, so these must be great screens"....

In reality, the old 16:10 screens had better resolution.

Once you have used a high rez screen, you will never want to go back to a standard screen (ie the 720p)

 

16:10 by definition has 10% more space than 16:9 - so yeah, they're inherently better. The 720p makes it sound much fancier than it is, yes, but it's a good standard at least for 16:9 screens. It rolls off the tongue better than WUXGA+, but that's just me.

 

I'm pretty sure that 900p is the number of horizontal scan lines, just like 720p and 1080p are the number of horizontal scan lines. Make sure not to confuse the resolution of the screen with the broadcast resolution. My Sharp 37D43U can display 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i, but since the screen resolution is actually 1366x768, it will scale everything up/down to fit the native resolution of the screen (which is very close to 720p). That's why, IMHO, it is not a good idea to throw around broadcast resolution terms (900p) when in reality it's the screen resolution that is being discussed (1440x900).

 

I know - my bad, I mixed horizontal and vertical up.

I don't think screens map 1280x720 to larger screens - I think you have a screen that's close enough in size that they would call it 720p for marketing purposes. I think you actually have 768 horizontal lines of resolution (If i'm understanding what you are saying correctly.)

broadcast resolution and screen resolution were different in the days of CRT's, I don't think it's so much the case right now. In any case, if 900p broadcasts were available (they're not) they would fit my screen perfectly, as the screen resolution is 1600x900, (not 1440x900), which would match up with the broadcast resolution perfectly.

My point being, they're only using the XXXp nomenclature for screens with the (roughly) 16:9 form factor. The only computers which have the 16:9 form factor are media computers, so it would be reasonable to assume that they're doing this for the sole purpose of ease of comparison for media oriented users.