brightview vs ultra brightview

whats really the difference besides the res i know i can get the 1680 on the reg brightview and the ultra is 1440... does the ultra really make that big of a difference??

 

bright view with one lamp under the screen
and ultra brught view with two backlights under the screen instead of one and is threfore much brighter

 

is it worth the price difference.. and seeing as i kinda want the 1680 should i bother?

 

well the extra brightness is something not many can deny but it will have a god effect on photos or while watching movies with minimal light leakage the decision is ones own personally i would go for it if it was only higher by a small margin but also note that it WILL add a bit a of weight as compared to original configuration as it is two backlights instead of one

 

If you're planning on using the notebook under sunlight or other bright direct lighting, then yes it's definitely worth it. Otherwise just go for the brightview 1680.

 

man im so torn.. keep the dell or order up a 17" hp.. i will not go for the 6500 hp due to the 8400gs card i really want at least a 8600gs or better...why does hp's choice of gpu's suck..

 

Because they're not gaming computers. They're basic multimedia/entertainment machines, with light to moderate gaming capabilities. If you want an HP that can game, get the 8510p.

 

As mentioned above, Ultra Bright View has two lights. Basically, the dimmest the UBV can get is about the brightest the BV can get.

With the UBV, I was constantly getting comments on the color/contrast quality of whatever was on the screen. The viewing angle is higher too. Here's a photo I took of two laptops side by side (one with a UBV screen). (I blacked out the rest of the photo, so you can just compare the screens.)

 

I wouldn't give up the extra res for another backlight. Thats me though.

Has to drain the battery quicker too no?

 

wowowow thats a huge difference.... yeah id def opt for the ubv...but the above brought up a great point... how much faster does it drain the battery.. already being a 17" has to drain it faster as it is.. with the ubv its got to add to the drain

 

tht would usually depend on the brightness it is used in
17'' are usually DTRs and arent meant for portability if your buying a 17'' i dot think is woth the hassle concerning yourself over battery
but under normal circumstances ad under mid level rightness i would probssbly say 15 mis or 20 mins battery lie decrease at the most

 

FWIW, the sales rep indicated to me that they had tweaked the system so the ub actually had slightly less battery drain -- whether true, I don't know

 

anyone else whch would you pick... im highly considering getting a hp now

 

I suppose what it all comes down to is ... would you rather have the brighter screen or better resolution?

Personally, I'd go with the better resolution but that's just me.

 

Bigger, brighter, better!! HP's Ultra BrightView is a composite of all available LCD technologies currently offered by HP consumer notebooks. Ultra BrightView displays include an improved color gamut rated at 72% - more colors can be displayed as a result of the improved technology!

Hp

for me the most important thing is the screen... i believe its not just a extra lamp.. i compared my friends dv6000 (non-ultra) screen with mine.. and i assure you, differnce is very noticable... ultra brightview provides more vivid colors IMO... but then again i would never say this is the best screen u can get of current technology

i can go with lower CPU, GPU but i never sacrifice the screen quality..

thats why i bought hi-end sony monitor which costed me as much as a desktop that time.. lol

cheers...

 

it just really stinks they dont have this in a 1680.. thats what i really wanted on a 17" i am sending back my 1520 i just got today the sec it came with is just awful!!!! i mean its horrible... the grain is the worst i have ever seen and its 15.4 and 1680 and i actually loved the res on the 15.4" its great def not to small

 

I'm not sure thats possible in our physics based world

2 backlights have to use more electricity than one if they're even remotely similar CCFL's.

 

Higher resolution is always better. The UBV might be brighter, but does that really matter? I have the regular one with 1680, and so far it's been just fine. I much prefer the higher resolution.

 

it all depends on what appalications you plan on running. if you do artwork photoshop movie watching and multimedia stuff i would certainly recommend the Ultra Brightview so colors are proper. Honestly i have allot of applications running and 1440x900 is fine.

 

I just had the exact same situation as you zfactor. I ordered a 1520 and had problem after problem after problem after problem and then I received it with a SEC crappy screen. That was the last straw, so I decided to order the HP dv9500t 17" laptop with the 30% coupon. I think the 1680x1050 resolution is a minimum for such a large screen - I checked some 1440x900 ones out at Best Buy and they just look too big. I would say definitely go with the higher resolution, if you absolutely must have more brightness (which you probably won't) you can always tweak your video card settings.

 

what about the 8600gs thats the only thing holding me back from it right now... ive been googleing comparisons and reviews of it compared to the gt and the gt just simply blows it away i mean no comaprisons at all... i wish i could find something similar to the inspiron / hp line that was around the same price but with the 8600gt card...

 

What do you mean by "similar" to the pavilion line? You could always check out a Toshiba X205 or a HP 8710 laptop. Both come with 8700M-GT cards that will be more than enough for most uses.

 

yes but at near double the price.. lol... basically trying to price it out similar to the dell/hp line.. (inspiron/pavillion) how bad does dell hold back their 8600gt in comparison??

 

The way I see it, the 8600M GS is going to last me long enough, at least until next laptop which will be in a few years. The GT is a more powerful card for sure, but the GS will definitely hold its own over the next few years. I do a lot of multimedia stuff, not a ton of gaming, but I do want to future-proof myself to some extent too. I feel comfortable that the GS is going to be good enough for any games that come out over the next 3-4 years at least.

 

Does the higher resolution make that much of a difference? I'm just weighing out my options on whether or not I should go with the Ultra or higher resolution. I guess I should stop by Best Buy to take a look at their laptops and check out the resolution on the 17", and I have some time too because my laptop hasn't come in yet so I haven't canceled the order so I can re-order again.

 

What resolution and LCD size are you used to using?

 

Well I used to have a Dell M90 with 1920x1200 resolution so 1440x900 is pretty small by my standards. 1680x1050 is just right.

 

I bought the DV9500t 17" screen with the 1440 x 900 resolution. If the 30% coupon is still good when I received the laptop I will be returning it for a refund to re-purchase it and get more money back and I'll either get the ultra-bright with the 1440 x 900 resolution or the regular HD brightview with the 1680 x 1050 resolution. Is the difference in resolution that noticeable?

 

same question ^^^

 

I am a big fan of higher resolutions, so I say that yes, it makes a difference. The ability to fit more things on the screen, and get a higher DPI which means better detail when viewing photos, is much more important to me than getting extra brightness.

 

Yes, the difference in resolution is noticeable to most people. 1440x900 is very low on a 17" screen, and I would not recommend it unless you plan on doing a lot of gaming.

 

First off, Thanks! I actually do plan on doing a decent amount of gaming on the laptop. I guess it comes down to whether the 30% off coupon is still good when my laptop comes in and I reorder it.

Thanks for everybody's input!

 

The thing with gaming is that the 8600M-GS in the dv9500t is a fairly mid-range card by modern standards, which means that at resolutions like 1680x1050 it won't perform very well at all. Most games will look much better on a native 1440x900 screen with that card, since you won't have to reduce resolution.

 

OK, the big caveat to this reply is that I'm not really a gamer these days (though I did plenty of gaming at different resolutions a few years ago), HOWEVER, the technology to scale to different resolutions WAS OLD WHEN WINDOWS 95 CAME OUT. Any game or graphics card that can't do such an incredibly simple thing must have been made by a high school kid in a beginner digital circuits class.

I can assure you that a graphics chip that is close to the top of the line (yes, for a laptop this is very close to the top) does not at all have any problem doing something so simple.

 

My LCD screen does displays better/sharper at native resolutions vs reduced resolution, even for texts in windows menus...
Why is this so??

 

That's because an LCD has a fixed number of pixels (dots). When you run at native resolution, each pixel displayed lines up 1-for-1 with the dots in the LCD panel.

If you use a different resolution, the screen has to interpret how a pixel will get put on the screen. The pixel might take up 1.25 dots on the LCD, and it can't do that, so the LCD has to scale the image to make it fit. It's not perfect, so it doesn't look as sharp.

The image quality is different from the performance though, and this scaling should not have a significant impact on the speed of the graphics.

 

Orev is correct, the scaling problem is not a function of the graphics cards, it's a function of the LCD panel. Unlike a CRT monitor, a LCD panel has a discrete number of pixels, so if you try to display an image that has a smaller number of pixels, the image has to be stretched across the screen, causing blurriness. A 1440x900 res game looks much better on a 1440x900 panel than on a 1680x1050 panel, which is why I recommend lower resolution panels to gamers than I would to a normal user.

 

Weren't it work out as sharp if you play the game in window mode,
e.g. 1280 x 768 window in a 1680 x 1050 native LCD screen??

 

Sure, but then the picture is much smaller, covering only a portion of the screen.