Notebook Screen Guide

Considering this was like 5 months ago, I'm guessing you already figured out the answer anyway. But I'll answer it anyway in case it helps someone else. Your TV doesn't use a very high resolution (I believe a standard TV runs at 640x480; I'm not quite sure what a HDTV runs at). You've probably figured this out if you've used a TV as a monitor before to watch movies or something. So, when you watch a movie on a high-res computer screen, it's going to be repeating pixels to run this lower-res movie on your higher-res screen. As a result, there will be reduction in quality. To give you an example, I just rented the movie "300" (highly recommended, by the way). I watched it on my TV, and it looked awesome. I then watched it on my 1280x1024 17" monitor and there was a noticeable difference in quality.

 

um...is the above true? Are lower res screens better for watching movies? I'm thinking of buying a 15.4" 1600 x 1000. I want to watch a lot of movies....would that be a problem...or would the movies look better on a 1280 x 800. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Ash

 

You can always turn your resolution lower..

No problem in that department.

 

I am shopping for a new notebook, but I rather despise widescreen. I'm having trouble finding a 14"+ that has any of those happy buzzwords like "XBRITE," "Crystal View," "TruBrite," etc. So, two questions:

1. When a screen is advertised as "glossy," or even just not "anti-glare," does that necessarily mean it's one of the bright, shiny, colorful, high-contrast, candylike screens?

2. It seems really hard to find a non-widescreen machine that isn't some sluggish 10" anti-glare business tool. I value my vertical display real estate for documents and web pages, and don't want excess horizontal screen space sucking my battery dry; but I want to play my games too, so I want at least a 14" screen. Are they out there?

 

Is this still updated, considering that's it's linked in the WNSIB FAQ? If it is, it may be good to edit this part:

Maybe to something like this:

Also, if you want to keep the previous sentence:

you'll have to rearrange the resolutions in the list, especially the widescreen ones (e.g. 1280x800 is definitely not the most common 17" res, I'm not even sure it's really offered).

 

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/10/22/sams_1cm_lcd_tv/

It will also show off 16in and 18.4in laptop LCD screens designed for a movie-friendly image aspect ration of 16:9 rather than the 16:10 ratio almost all existing widescreen laptop screens provide. One such as a 15.4in panel from Samung with an LED backlight - it too will be shown off at the FDB conference.

Wonder if I should hold off buying a new laptop, perhaps there is a new generation of screens coming along soon?

 

i own both a hp dv600t (widescreen) and a thinkpad x61 (standard screen) i think they both have their own strength and weaknesses.. i love watching movie and listen music on my Hp; however, using it in the outside in the sunlight is so difficult to see even with max display brightness.... the x61- since it's only 12"- is significantly smaller in size, but i love how durable and portable it is. The standard screen is very nice like my TV

 

that LCD screen is CRAZY!.. so nice.. the del M1330 has option for lcd screen for an extra $300.. i was about to get that instead of thinkpad x61 but too expensive for the same specs

 

thank you sir for the guide

 

Is a 15,4" screen with 1280x800 resolution good for making webpages? Or is it better to use a bigger screen?

 

i'm going to buy my first notebook. i will use it equally for gaming and word processing. i wonder which resolution would be better 4 me - 1280x800 or 1440x900? good quality is important for me.
i assume that i will run games at max 1280x800 (probably even lower res) - will the quality of the game drop dramatically if my screen native res is 1440x900? is the 1440x900 res good for reading word documents? won't the letters in time(after long reading) become too small (without enlargement) and eye tireing?

thanks 4 all the answers

 

I want to know this too, but between WUXGA (1920x1200) and WSXGA+ (1680x1050)

 

Screen guide is a very informative post. Highly recommended for any new laptop purchasers! Thanks.

 

Very Helpful!

 

really very nice guide you've dont great job

 

I'm basically saying what everyone just said, but NICE guide! i love it!

10 minutes ago i thought a WXGA 1280X768 resolution for gaming on a 15.4 or 15.6 sucked, and was "lowest of the low"... while it might be the lowest resolution setting commonly available now, I'm getting the idea that it's actually the better resolution for gaming and videos, and that WXGA really isnt any worse than the others - Thanks!

 

Nice guide, helped me a lot!

From another topic:

Well, got a question: I saw some people say that the screen loses quality if it's not in it's native resolution. I mean, if a laptop monitor is 1920x1200 17" resolution, if you use 1440x900 on it, it won't get the same quality as one that has a native resolution of 1440x900... that's right or just plain wrong?

And there's any problem if my resolution on Desktop is 1920x1200 and when in-game I change to 1440x900? It will be the same as one as a native resolution of 1440x900, right?

If I plan to game everytime on lower resolutions (1440x900) than my native (1920x1200, because newer games got very detailed to play on that res) will I get worst quality than one that it's native resolution is 1440x900? In this case, should I get the 1440x900 screen?

Also, I saw a user commenting that 1920x1200 screens are less bright than for example 1440x900, the laptop I'm aiming for has a LG 1920x1200 LED (P7805u Gateway's), should I get concerned?

Thanks in advance!

 

LCD displays will lose quality at lower resolutions. it doesn't matter if you change the resolution of your desktop before opening the game. playing a game at a lower resolution will never look as clear/sharp as playing at your native resolution. if you plan on playing at 1440x900, you would be better off getting one with that native resolution, especially if gaming will be your main purpse. Also make sure you get a card that can handle that resolution

 

Nice guide, a bit oudated now with the new ultraportable laptop widescreen trend, but helpful nonetheless

 

Time to update with the 16:9 resolutions

 

Nice guide, cheers.

What about these new LED screens in some notebook models?

And certain descriptives that appear to be manufacturer spiel such as:
Asus' "Color-Shine",
Samsung's "Super bright"
Toshiba's "Active Matrix"?

 

I vote for stickying this thread (or maybe a new, updated thread).

 

I'm a big movie watcher so I've been looking for a 17" laptop with a 1920x1080 resolution but I've seen a lot of other 17" laptops with 1600x900 resolution and they are still advertised as "high definition", so how is this possible? I haven't gone to a store and compared the two but is there a big difference when watching movies and with other things such as font size and icon size?

 

MSorrell, there are usually two important terms for you to distinguish between. The first term, "High Definition" means anything that is at least 720p, which means the screen resolution is at least 1280x720 (The 720p coming from the 720 pixel height in the resolution/ 1280x800 and 1280x768 are close alternatives). So, 1600x900 has a resolution that surpasses that 720 mark (as it is 900 pixels tall). However this screen will still only play clips/movies/etc. that are 720p, as there are no clips, not usually anyway, that are 900p.

The second term is "Full HD" (HD stands for high def.). These screens have resolutions of at least 1920x1080 (though they can be higher providing the second number is above 1080, like 2600x1200). So the clips/movies that run on these screens are 1080p and they are just a little bit sharper than the 720p ones. These screens, in addition to playing 1080p can play 720p and any lower res. clips. The 720p (1280x720, etc) screens can't play 1080p clips. So there are like two stages for high definition videos/clips 720 and 1080, the screens can fall between the two but have to exceed the resolution numbers to play them. (sorta confusing....)

As for differences when watching movies, like I said there is not too much of a difference if you are not looking hard, but full hd (1080p) is a BIT sharper. BUT on a 17in screen the difference would be hardly noticeable as the screen is small. However the 1920x1080 screen will be a little harder to read with due to the larger screen real estate. The best way to tell with that is to go into the store and look at icons and fonts for yourself to see if they're too small for you. Everyone has different preferences in the legibility department. Good Luck!

 

So is 1600x900 a pretty good and popular and sharp resolution that looks good on a 17" laptop if you don't absolutely have to have 1080p?

Also, say I bought a laptop with a 1920x1080 resolution, if I needed to make the text and fonts bigger when not watching videos, I could change the resolution down to 1600x900 right?

I definitely need to go to a store ad see the difference. I'm not sure if I should be putting so much thought into the resolution. I've always just assumed I would only buy a laptop with 1920x1080.

 

The thought you're putting into it is good, because you're probably going to be using this screen for a couple years, I assume. You don't want anything uncomfortable. I did the same thing when I bought my laptop.

So yes, I would believe a 1600x900 would be a good sweet spot for a 17'' laptop, if you don't absolutely have to have 1080p. It will be a little easier to read fonts and letters on the screen with that resolution than with the 1080 screen. If you did buy a laptop with 1920x1080 res. you would have the ability to change the resolution setting down to 1600x900, but it wouldn't look too good (images/fonts/letters might start to appear slightly fuzzy, as that isn't the native resolution of the screen). The native res. of a screen is the highest res. it displays at and that is always the best setting for the screen. Although operating systems and programs now have zoom functions in them that allow you to change the size of the font without changing the screen res. settings.

Again I would recommend going in to see the legibility of the two screens for yourself, but if it were me (and I couldn't make it to a store)...I would go with the 1600x900 because the visual differences (in movies, pics, etc) would be minimal, and I would at least have better legibility than the 1920x1080. Hope that helps.

 

Today I stopped by Best Buy and I was so happy to see the Asus G72 (Best Buy version obviously), but it was still a beautiful machine. I was pretty much hypnotized at it's build quality and loved EVERYTHING about it (excluding the components)! This made me want an Asus (especially the G73JH) even more.

I compared the 1600x900 resolution of the 17" Asus to the 1920x1080 resolution of a 16" Sony Vaio (only computer with that resolution they had). I thought the 1600x900 looked perfect, not too big, not too small. I also went into the settings and made sure it wasn't zoomed at all, and it wasn't. The 1920x1080 on the 16" looked a tad bit too small to me, but once I zoomed to 125% (right clicked on desktop, selected resolution, then zoom option brought up different menu), it was perfect.

So would be using the zoom option all the time be OK? Would I need to set it back to default when watching videos? Does it zoom the text on websites as well?

 

That has been my question too.

Does this have to be done for everything, or is the a "quick fix"?

 

The zoom function on Windows 7 (I don't know about vista or XP) is said to be pretty good. Having never used it myself I just tested it for you guys (125%) and it seems to scale images quite nicely. However, the icons are zoomed in, and so don't have quite that smooth look as they would, but it's better than changing the resolution IMO. I tested out a a few applications while zoomed and it seems to zoom in those ones as well, but I am not certain that all applications are integrated with the windows 7 zoom (they might not all zoom). For example Firefox web pages seemed to stayed intact (unzoomed) though it's menu's on top were zoomed. Despite that firefox has it's own simple, good zoom function (press Ctrl and + or Ctrl and -). I also tested out a movie while in zoom and it was fine, appearing to have the same quality as when unzoomed. So all in all I think you will be fine. Maybe a quick google search can give you more insight into the Windows 7 zoom function. Hope that helps...

 

That definitely helps. Thanks for running those tests. I'm not quite as concerned now whether I get a 1920x1080 or 1600x900 display. I'd be happy with both, especially since you said I wouldn't notice much difference when watching HD movies with a 1600x900 resolution.

Maybe you can help me out with another thing I'm curious about. I've been researching the Asus N71 and it has something called Video Majic. On GenTech PC it says " Video Magic enhances DVD quality from 740p to high definition 1080p, as well as color and brightness naturalization. Enjoy videos and movies with smoother transition and increase in frame-rate from 24/30 fps to 60/72 fps."

The N71 has a 1600x900 display. So does that mean with the N71, I could still watch movies in 1080p? I don't see how that could be possible.

 

You're welcome. Yea, you wouldn't notice too much of a difference when watching HD movies at that screen size (17"), between the two screen resolutions. The difference only starts to be evident with large HDTVs (32+ inches)

Now that Video Magic thing is another High Def. topic. It's known as "upscaling." If you watch a video that is not 1080p, lets say it's DVD quality like their example (which is usually around a resolution of 740-720x480). The Video Magic will "upscale" (enhance) the image quality of the dvd video to make it look sharper than the dvd actually is. It just makes the quality sharper in an attempt to emulate high def quality (1080p). However an emulation is never as good as the real thing (blu-ray, 1080p vids) and even then your display would also a be hindrance at only 1600x900 (1080p playback is impossible on 1600x900 screen, you need at least a 1080 screen). In other words Video Magic is just really making the non-hd stuff look a little more hd-like which becomes a good feature if you have a lot of dvds.

Now the cool/unique thing is the framerate increase (from 24/30fps to 60/72) that the Video Magic feature seems to indicate it provides. That should make the viewing of video a little smoother which I believe should actually make some difference in viewing. It should transition smoother as they said, thus helping faster action scenes in movies look a little smoother as well. I think you can relate it to gaming: in gaming 30 fps is a good framerate and very playable, but 60 fps is just "silky smooth" and adds a layer of refinement (for lack of a better word). Again, hope that helps.

Btw, that's a pretty nice laptop with the new ati 5000s. What specs. are you thinking of?

 

I intend to buy a 37" or 40" HDTV and connect my laptop to it via HDMI. Does the screen resolution on the laptop effect the quality of picture the TV will give me? Meaning, will I get a better quality picture on the TV if the resolution of the laptop is 1920x1080 rather than 1600x900?

For specs, check THIS out.

 

No it doesn't affect it at all. It should be all fine, especially with the graphics cards that are in the types of the laptops you seem to be looking at...lol. Just make sure the laptop has an HDMI Port or else it would all be, obviously, pointless

 

That's a relief to have confirmed. Thanks again.

 

You're welcome...all that's left now is to click the "Checkout" button on one of these laptops.... Good luck

 

Ohh how I wish it was that easy lol. Unfortunately, I need to save up the money to buy one of these beasts.

I got a couple more questions not related to screen res., do you mind if I PM you?

 

I don't mind, although I hope I am knowledgeable enough in those areas to answer those questions for you.

 

E.D.U.: You write re displaying laptop content on HDTV : "It should be all fine, especially with the graphics cards that are in the types of the laptops you seem to be looking at."
So here's my question, please: I do absolutely ZERO gaming or video editing, but would like to (1) watch movies on a high-quality laptop screen and (2) occasionally display them on an HDTV (when I get one...) by way of a cable from an HDMI out port on a laptop.
Do I need a graphics card for this, or are integrated graphics (at least one new CPU's) enough? It's been my impression till now from what I've read that discrete graphics are needed only for gaming. Please correct/clarify.
Thanks.

 

Yes, modern IGPs are able to handle HD content, even if transmitting to an HDTV.

 

Yea, like Forever_Melody said, modern ones handle high def. content well, as that's not as tasking as gaming. Also if your laptop has an HDMI port and it had an integrated graphics card at purchase, I would assume that the manufacturer placed a graphics card (integrated or not) in the laptop that was capable of transmitting HD content through the port (unless that would sort of defeat the purpose of the HDMI port ). So the modern ones can handle it, just make sure it's nothing too old

 

Thank you, Forever_Melody and E.D.U., for your very helpful replies.

I see I've found the right thread as I'm hoping to replace my 4 year old Fujitsu 15.6" E8210 soon (hand it down to my daughter) and buy a 17" or 18.4" desktop replacement because I barely ever travel with my laptop.
And the MOST important quality to me in a laptop is a top-quality screen because I get fatigued and headaches from looking at the screen too long and my eyes are getting older. In fact, I chose the Fujitsu at the time based on its great Crystal View screen, and specifically chose a lower resolution (WXGA rather than WSXGA) so the fonts would be larger.

I'm wondering if you know what the equivalent resolution to the WXGA in a 15.6" screen would be for a 17" or 18.4" screen? Obviously, I'd like as sharp a picture as possible while keeping text legible for me. I did notice that I have no problem with text on a full HD 24" desktop monitor.

Also, while I'm pushing my luck, I was wondering:
1) Do any of you have any idea on the relative quality of the 18.4" screens offered today by various brands/models (i.e., which are best/worst)?
2) How important is LED vs. regular LCD?
For example, I noticed that the Toshiba Quosimo, which otherwise seems to have awesome specs (more than I need as a non-gamer but great for entertainment) does not seem to have LCD.
Also, the new Fujitsu 18.4" NH570 not only does not have LED, but its specs list it at 220 nits whereas my current beautiful screen has 300 nits. Does anyone know if that's enough (I can't see it in person)? Has Fujitsu fallen behind in screen quality?

Thanks in advance for all insight.

 

The lowest resolution on a 17" or 18" will be 1600x900, which has about the same pixel density as your Fujitsu, right around 100. I think the problem you're going to run into is that most of your higher quality screens on larger notebooks are higher resolution like 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. Now you can play around with the DPI in Windows 7 to make things bigger and it works pretty good. If you want a machine with a good screen I might suggest you look at the ThinkPad W700 with the 400 nit WUXGA screen, the 17" MBP and the RGB-LED offered on some Dells like the Precision M6400. I don't know what you're looking to spend, but all of those are on the pricier side. They are also offer relatively good screens in today's market.

LED vs CFFL refers how the screen is lit. They are lighter and offer a bit better battery life, but do not enhance image quality.

If you're looking at 18" notebook, I'm thinking you're not moving it much. You might want to consider a desktop. There's some nice SFF desktops that are quite small and offer good performance. You can get a much better screen with a desktop and it costs less too, but it's not as portable. The pixel density on a desktop LCD is going to be much lower than a laptop.

Fujitsu? The seem to have lost their way. Other than a couple tablets, there's nothing in their line-up I'd call compelling.

 

ZaZ -- thanks! Unfortunately, I am confused by some of the things you wrote and be grateful for an explanation. E.g., you refer to the 17" "MBP" and I'm afraid I don't know what MBP stands for.
Also, I've considered a SFF desktop, but I use a portable table ("hospital bed" type) to hold my computer, and a desktop would likely fall off, as well as not be removable when I need the table for something else. I don't quite understand why a desktop LCD that's the same size as a laptop LCD would necessarily be any better than the latter? Also, you say a desktop has lower pixel density -- I don't understand why -- but doesn't lower DPI translate into poorer quality (like printing at 600 DPI is much higher quality than at 300 DPI without making the font any smaller)?

As you can see, I'm sadly confused. I do gather from what you wrote that
RGB-LED screens offered by Dell are higher quality. Do you know how Dell's quality/service is these days, because I had an awful experience on both grounds with a laptop of theirs in the distant past?

Anyone have any other good suggestions (the Lenovo T700 is expensive, as you noted)? When I bought my Fujitsu in 2006, this very helpful forum accurately recommended Fujitsu's screens as among the best quality. Is that true for the Toshiba Quosimo (good prices!) Are their different manufacturers that excel today (in addition to those ZaZ mentioned).
TIA.

 

MBP = MacBook Pro.

Desktops LCDs at the same size will have the same pixel density i.e. how many pixels there are per square inch. The lower the pixels density the easier it is to read. If you went with a desktop LCD you'd generally get a larger screen which has a lower pixel density. Also would have a much wider selection of quality screens with a desktop LCD. Even the best larger notebooks with a larger screen will not be as good as a desktops screen.

Another option if you chose would be to buy a notebook then an external screen to use with it. Many notebooks have these connectors which would allow you to use an external monitor.

 

"MBP" stands for Apple's Mac Book Pro. Their screens are supposedly quite bright and vibrant (but I'm no Apple user). I know that all these abbreviations can get unnecessarily confusing at times, but what can we do . Yea, according to your description I believe a desktop will be above your "portability threshold" (or maybe space requirements) and wouldn't work for you. I'm not a desktop person myself, and have never been, so I can't really comment on them. Maybe what Zaz meant was that desktop screens are actually dedicated screens. They don't have to fit certain form factor like laptop screens do, meaning that maybe there are less restrictions to work with, leading to overall better quality (again, I don't really know sorry).

Now as for the DPI, Windows has this nice zoom function that zooms in on the fonts, texts, and icons of the operating system without affecting image and video quality. Now the icons and fonts themselves might not look too good as they are in a sense "blown up" to be more legible, but they don't look bad either. The DPI/zoom function works pretty well in windows 7. I guess it's not exactly the same as "printing", since we're dealing with screens, though you are very correct with your explanation.

Now as for Dell. I have a Dell Studio XPS 1645 laptop now, and let me first say the RGBLED screen is AMAZING! The colors are vibrant, and very bright, and many have called it the best screen out there today, and I can see why. However, Dell has been having a few problems, namely to do with power supply to some of their laptops (mine included), called "throttling". This only really affects gamers (which it seems you are not) as the games they play really push the system to its full capabilities. This causes the system to not receive enough power, due to the underpowered adapter shipped with it, which leads to further complications. A fix is being issued for my laptop model, but these problems should have never existed in the first place. So long story short, Dell is still quite disappointing sometimes and people are still having bad experiences with them.

I would still recommend the Dell rgb-led screens though as they are still very good. HP Envy's (and Sony's F series') screens are supposedly not too bad themselves and seem to be earning some praise, however I can only accurately comment on Dell's rgb-led and Dell themselves. Maybe someone else can help shed some more light for you on screen recommendations.

 

Thanks, ZaZ and E.D.U.!

 

After witnessing the awesome power of AW M17x RGB LED, it's hard to go to anything else

 

Great guide, thanks!

 

I'm still confused about resolution. I want a display that is easiest on the eyes, since I want to avoid eyestrain. I currently have matte 15.4" WXGA,1280 x 800.

What differences would I notice if I get a new laptop with 15.6 inch High Definition LED Display (1366 x 768) with Anti-Glare?

I'll be doing word processing, internet surfing, and photoshop.

Thanks.

 

The difference between those two screens is minimal. 1366x768 is equivalent to 1280x800, the first one being 16:9 and the second being 16:10. You won't notice any difference except that you will do more scrolling with new 16:9.

The new resolution and screen sizes should be updated in the first post.