Screen res

People say that for true 1080i, you need the 19xx/12xx display. This might be a dumb question, but is that 19xx pixel width adequate for the typical widescreen film? Just curious on that.

Secondly, dropping the res to 1440/xxxx would provide a performance boost in games. Ignoring the 1080i aspect, what is everyone's feelings about going with 1440/xxxx display for an improved gaming experience? Especially if you're going to try and make this notebook last three years or so.

 

I would say the WUXGA 1920x1200 resolution is fine for high-end systems like those with the geforce 8800M GTX. Otherwise with something like the 8600M, the lower resolution would be better!

 

If you want to watch high def video (blu-ray) at full res, you will need a monitor with at least 1920X1080 pixels. That said, for better perf in games, there is no reason why you can't run at 1440X900 or 1280X800 when gaming.

 

I would go for the high-resolution screen regardless because you're not going to be playing games all of the time. I find that I am far more productive with higher screen resolutions because I can fit so much on the screen and see a lot more. There is less scrolling involved and larger-res screens can be fit side-by-side.

As long as you keep the widescreen aspect ratio, scaling works rather well with LCDs. You're not going to notice much of a difference in games. For high-def movies you will certainly see more details with the higher resolution as well.

 

You can always downscale for gaming anyhow. To this date I have not found a game that looks bad running 1280x800 on my 1680x1050 native res screen. Why people keep thinking they can only game at native resolution befuddles me.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong. But for gaming (and just computer use in general), wouldn't you want to send the monitor/tv a progressive signal?
1080p etc.... Maybe I am just used to my plasma that has a rough time with interlaced signals (like most plasma's).

 

WUXGA will seem more crisp and detailed than a lower res.
Plus, you get all the desktop space you need, so nice to open tons of windows and still fit them in one screen

 

Completely agree.

 

As far as I know, all computer GFX cards put out progressive video signals. Any de-interlacing (which would only apply to videos recorded interlaced anyway) is done on hardware before even reaching the video output.

 

On a 24 inch monitor, I love the higher resolution, but I don't understand how anybody can stand that kind of resolution on a 17 inch notebook screen!

I'm only 20 years old, and have slightly less than average quality eyesight. Trying to read NBR on a 17 inch at 1920x1200 simply is not possible unless my eyes are right around space bar distance from the screen.

How do you do it?!

 

i use 1680x1050 for work and 1920x1200 for gaming, that's how i did it.

 

Exactly! Besides games do not look bad at lower-than-native resolution either.

 

I'm near sighted, but I have no problem using my 1920X1200 res at about 1-3 feet distance. I find that the image is so sharp that it is easier to read text. If the text were written at the same size on paper, I probably couldn't do it.

 

I`ve increased the DPI to 135% and keep the notebook at over 3 feet away.
How`s that for eagle eyes?

 

I am one of the native res gang. I've never seen any LCD monitor display games at a downscaled res that are sharp enough for me to comfortably view for extended periods. I think if your graphics card is able to play all current, and some future games, with all details maxed, and enough AA to keep you happy, at 1900 x 1200, then, (apart from the fact that you're very fortunate, - unlike me of course !) yeah, why not, otherwise, I'd stick with something your card has just got the edge on.

I was a little miffed when I realised that the G1S is available with a higher res screen that mine (mine's 1440 x 900), but then again, I have to consider that if I had the higher res version, to play native, I'd have to take a significant framerate hit, on the same hardware that is just comfortably playing the latest games at 1440 x 900.

So, depending on your system, Higher resolution monitor isn't neccesarily better. (Just my opinion, of course !)

 

IMO, Stick with 1920x1200 for two main reasons, first studio HD movies are 1080 period. 720P was a TV fad and was on some Anime and a few intermediate formats/titles, the future is 1080P until 2560P->4K come along to replace it, and they do look best at native (which unfortunately means a little black edging in WUXGA).

Second, 1920x1200 is a much better scaling resolution for games, because while 1440x900 sounds good, you're not going very far on future titles with a laptop VPU and that resolution either without turning down features as well. So it's either interpolate or reduce settings. Now another option is ratio scaling where you change the resolution to one that's a pixel ratio different, like 4:1 which gives you 960x600 as a resolution, same scaling for 1440 is 720x450 and for 16x10 is 840x525 and 1280x is 640x400, which you could also achieve with a 6:1 pixel : pixel scaling ratio for 19x12. I prefer a well scaled image with all the features than an interpolated one that muddies up my AF and AA, but you really need to see for yourself what you prefer (and you always have the interpolation option isf you want).

To me that's the best of all worlds high resolution for documents/images/etc, perfect pixel correct 1080P movie playback, and a very scalable image for gaming.

Everybody has their own preferences, but those would be the ones that would make me lean towards WUXGA over other resolutions when thinking of the future.

Of course alot also depends on where your eye falls for the pixel pitch preference, if you don't like high reoslution small pitch images, then WUXGA may never give you what you want compared to the other options which may fit your perception better.

 

are you on about a monitor or a HDTV?

because in my experience, upclose to a HDTV, WITHOUT 1920 x 1080 native (1080i and 1360 x 768 native), its quite blurry upclose when u have a PC plugged in and running at 1920 x 1080, but from a few feet away it looks almost exactly like 1080p,

ALL computer monitors run at P signal, whether theyre 17 inch, or 30. they always run at full 60hz. and will look crisp as hell regardless of what res u run.

 

The Great Grape Ape is right on this one. If you have WUXGA,not only will you be playing movies at full 1080p , but when you`ll be down to scaling, 960x600(4:1 pixel ratio) still looks sharp.
I`ve finished UT3 and Crysis at those res,WITHOUT having to cut down on details. So basically,maxxed out at WUXGA/4 Less GPU straing, same aspect ratio,max details.On a 2 year old gen card.
So WUXGA is also futureproofing. A 8800M GTX for example can play native a lot of games and will play future titles a WUXGA/4 if needed and there still won`t be any detail cutting

 

Heh, I have a 15.4" laptop with a 1920x1200 resolution panel, and I love it. Text is razor-sharp, and I can fit so much stuff on it at one time.

 

I hate all of you. Not only am I lefthanded, I can't see text nearly as well.

Psh, no wonder it has taken me five years to manage a 1:1 in CS:S, nature is working against me.

I DEMAND all of you donate your eyes and right handedness to me!

 

Here :

 

I love WUXGA on a 15.4" too . . . not to put salt in your wound or anything. LOL
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4328

My Sager has a 15.4" WSXGA+, I wish it had WUXGA. I plan to make my next laptop a 15.4" WUXGA.

 

I'm a lefty too. Still right mouse. I tend to use the keyboard more than righties, heh.

 

Same, I sucked it up and learned a right-handed mouse. They don't have any decent gaming mice for lefties anyway.

Seriously though, in the wasd arena I am unbeatable!

 

I cheated and bought a left-handed MX610. I actually really like it.

 

At this point, lefthanded mouse feels weird to me. Plus all the keys you usually use are on the left of the keyboard, so I find a lefty mouse more akward to use.

 

A friend of mine whom is a lefty uses the mouse on th left an the numpad keys instead of wasd.
He`s really good at CS too

 

Well, I went for the 1680x1050 display on my Clevo M570RU for that very reason, even though I only got a 60 eur discount for the "downgrade" from the 1920x1200 -- USABILITY.

I've seen a Dell XPS laptop with the 1920x1200 and it would hurt my eyes to work with that resolution on a 17" screen. Or, you can start tweaking with Windows font sizes and everything will look all funneh.

Honestly, 1680x1050 is more than enough. Also, you can get an inexpensive 22" widescreen display and run it dualscreen with your laptop. (24" in 1920x1200 is nice I'm sure, but its $$ too.)

 

Keep an eye out for Dell 24" WFP monitors. I got mine with discounts and coupon for under $400 and it is a beautiful 1920x1200. Make sure its a 2407 or 2408WFP NOT one of the monitors that start with an E.

 

I agree that WSXGA+ is perfect for a 17 inch screen , but WUXGA is future-proofing. More desktop space, and downscaling is NOT that bad.
Running games at 960x600 (4:1 pixel ration) still allows me to play games at highest settings,even new ones, like UT3 or Crysis
The same 4:1 in WSXGA+ would mean 840x525 ...