Couldn't find a thread on a first search so figured I'd make one!![]()
So easy question: what would you value more (assuming you couldn't strike a proper balance between both or have both): Screen quality or Screen Resolution?
Would you rather have a good quality screen but with poor resolution (so either WXGA or even a 4:3 screen) or get a poor quality screen but with a good high resolution (so WUXGA or something)?
You can discuss the case with laptops or with external monitors!![]()
I personally feel like I could live with an "ok" screen (as in the mediocre run of the mill screens most computers use) if it had a good resolution. To me, the quality of the screen is mostly a plus and I need work space to get things done. I do lots of graphics work too but for most of the stuff I'd need "quality", I would most of the time not be working on my own setup anyways.
What are your preferences?
-
-
Quality over resolution for me.
My HP 8460P has 900p screen, but the quality is horrible and makes my eyes bleed.
My previous X460DX had a 720p screen, but it had way better quality and didn't make my eyes bleed. -
You forgot to add another option. I would rather have a average quality display with a 1080 resolution any day than a high quality display with a 720 resolution.
-
Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow
I'd say both are correlated as most low resolution panels are awful, while ALOT of high resolution panels offer something like RGBLED, better viewing angles, better contrast. So in a sense, higher resolution is important as it almost always means a better panel. I can say the WUXGA RGBLED panel in my R2 is one of the best, and still 16:10.
-
Voted resolution, but there is a minimal screen quality i need though. That being said, Tsunade is right, even the glossy wled panels are usually much better quality for higher resolution, there are always exceptions, but it seems that panel manufacturer assume that when you put a 720p panel in a laptop, all you want is something cheap while when you go for higher resolution panels like 1080p, you expect a minimum of quality with the higher resolution. That is speaking of standard consumer grade notebooks of course. I also prefer having more desktop real estate, now, i'd probably have problems settling for less than 1080p on any panel 17" or larger. The 1440x900 res on my 15" N50 is ok, but i wouldn't get anything lower on 15".
-
Well yeah there's a correlation but I meant if you had to choose one or the other.
Like for example when I was browsing for an external, for the same price bracket I could for a lower resolution 4:3 from the old Dell Ultrasharps or a newer larger 1080p LCD but regular panel so I wondered which mattered to me more. I still haven't gotten anything though
Idk, to be honest I can tolerate a "regular" quality screen as long as it's not godamn awfulJust calibrate it ok and it's good enough D: Like I said, if I have any important stuff that requires precise color calibrations I'll more than likely to go my printer's (the guy not the machine) office and work it out there to avoid any unpleasant surprises D:
-
My 16F2's screen is easily superior to my M860ETU's screen, quality-wise; but with its lower resolution, I definitely prefer the 1920x1200 screen to it.
The higher-resolution screen simply allows me to display more on it at once; which I think is much more valuable. -
Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow
I think it also depends on what you do with your notebook. People who code, browse emails, Excel will prefer a higher resolution and a lower screen quality as those value vertical pixels more than anything. However if you use Photoshop or do CAD, you'll want a better quality screen, though high resolution is nice. OR you can buy RGBLED IPS and just have the best of both worlds.
-
redrazor11 Formerly waterwizard11
I'd rather have a good quality panel. If I need more resolution, I'll just hook it up to something else.
-
There's a correlation between the two. But, say, if I were to choose between a 1366x768 IPS versus a 1600x900 TN, I would immediately go for the latter. A 1920x1080 TN in the same size would make it a no-brainer.
-
Depends I guess.
As long as the quality meets the MINIMUM requirements, I would choose higher resolution.
But if the quality does not meet the MINIMUM requirements, I would throw away the resolution for the quality.
But yeah, RGBLED IPS rocks. -
I love to have a large resolution. However, after the bummer of a crappy screen I got on my Sager NP8170 (Stock 1080p), I'll take a quality 1366x768 over a glossy, low visibility, washed out 1080p screen.
-
That's a hard one ! Both factors are very correlated if you think about it. Most 720p panels have terrible quality and 900p&1080p otherwise !
edit: you may consider whether the screen is matte/glossy.. -
I want both. But if I could have only one then it'd be Screen Quality. Gimme a nice 1920x1200 IPS panel (ok, ok, or a 1920x1080...).
-
Anyway, to the topic. I say that 16:9 sucks... Ooops, I mean resolution FTW! -
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
for browsing, text, spreadsheet, etc
resolution all the way.
photo editing, video editing, resolution all the way + quality required -
-
I think screen quality is very important, but anything under 1920 x 1080 is an automatic no deal.
-
Resolution. Always...
My first laptop that I bought in 2005 had 15.4" 1680 x 1050 -- highest at that time.
The second laptop that I bought in 2008 had 14.1" 1440 x 900 -- highest at that time too.
I have been using it since then (in the sig).
-- -
Personally, it depends on size of laptop.
For 14inch and below, I want 720p. Anything bigger than that, text become too small to comfortably read daily.
For 15inch, I want 900p. Currently having a 1080p on 15inch laptop, the text are too small.
For anything bigger than 15inch, 1080p all the way.
For the poll, quality over resolution. -
SlickDude80 Notebook Prophet
Resolution all the way. As others have said or alluded too, an average 1920x1080 screen is better than a great LCD panel, but 1600x900
-
Screen Quality vs Resolution
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Melody, Jan 23, 2012.