120Hz Notebook Panels on the Way

so.. 120Hz notebooks will all be 16:9? is that why there is so much 16:10 vs 16:9 threading?

either way, its just like 4:3 vs 16.10,
I for one will go 16:9, as long its WUXGA. (the same with everyother format)

yes some ppl do actually put applications side by side and are not blind to use those redicoulous WXGA and even WSXGA stuff

ps: wait a sec.. im actually already with 16:9 using a 22" WUXGA screen

why not battle WXGA vs WUXGA... thats whats really important, (pointless). ppl just need to understand that there are blind ppl and ppl that actually want to see as much information possible on the screen.
I just wished there would be something like WUXGA++++++ for 15.4 16.4 notebooks...

 

ALthough I really like the sony viao P, I agree. But the sad reality is that the general public doesnt know or even care about the pixel loss going from 16:10 to 16:9. And since the general public will buy them up they will keep making that ratio and saving/making more $$$ per laptop.

No thanks. I like having the extra 120 pixels on my screen.

This is completely incorrect. Your chart compares 16:10 resolutions with 16:9 of the level above. When the resolution you stated comes out it will be this:
------------------------
16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

1280x800 :: 1366x768
1440x900::...............
1680x1050 :: 1600x900
1920x1200 :: 1920x1080
...............:: 2048x1152
2560x1600::...............
------------------------

The premise for your argument of 16:9> 16:10 resolution wise, is centered around comparing the wrong levels of each ratio.

 

How about the reason you haven't gotten anywhere with your pro 16:9 arguments is the QXWGA screens you mentioned aren't found at all on laptops?
Thus placing 2048x1152 next to 1920x1200 is an unfair comparison considering there are no 16:9 laptop screens of that rez as the next highest is 1920x1080. I actually wouldn't mind 2048x1152 on a desktop and that's about the only positive aspect of 16:9 I can say but then again I might as well go for a 30" 2560x1600.

But as far as laptop screens are concerned, the highest rez on either ratio is 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 respectively and that's how they should be compared with and work down from there.


liquidxit2 above charts it better.

 

The premise for my argument is centered around what images and font actually look like at the compared resolutions based on pixel size and pixel density.

For example my avatar under my name is 149px x 150px and it would appear to be the same size on a 14.1" 16:10 screen @ 1440x900 as it would on a 15.6" 16:9 screen @ 1600x900. Or it would look the same on a 15.4" 16:10 screen @ 1920x1200 as it would on a 16.4" 16:9 screen @2048x1152. The image does not appear to be the same size though on a 15.4" screen @1920x1200 as it does on a 17" screen @1920x1200.


And I fully realize 2048x1152 isn't offered on a laptop screen yet which is why I said in post #3 of this thread that I hope these new screens will. ;þ

 

Those of your who think widescreen is the way forward should try to get one of these:



John

 

Rofl. Win!

 

that looks pretty cool whats the cost?

 

It has to be a collector's item. Well, until we'll get the same "useability" from any cheapo computer meant for dumb-arse consumers.

You do realize that with premise your argument is even worse, right? Because if it has the same dpi, there WILL be less vertical space. Very few documents that you create have the size of your avatar, hence our problem with removing vertical _work_ space. We don't al merely use our computers for watching youtube and other people's avatars.

Yes, as mentioned: You have to invent an aternative reality in order to make your argument be true.

 

ahh...the grand-father of this:

 

A 14.1" 16:10 screen has vertical a height of 7.5"
A 15.6" 16:9 screen has a vertical height of 7.6"

Both display 900 pixels vertically.


There is no loss of vertical space and everything you view on those screens are drawn using pixels of approximately the same size.

 

Are you serious?
You're comparing a 14.1'' to a 15.6''! that's completely pointless. And the fact that a 14.1 has the same pixels with less vertical height makes the 15.6 even worse.
How the hell do you say there is no loss!

 

Except you are comparing a smaller notebook with a larger one (or a physically smaller screen with a bigger one). You're basically justifying making notebooks bigger for the sake of more horizontal size and no gain in vertical size. If you don't have the resolution/dpi to back it up, there is no substantial advantage over making notebooks wider. You will have more workspace in a 17 inch notebook with a 1920x1200 screen than an 18.4 notebook with a 1920x1080 screen.

16:9 is good for watching some films and HDTV without black bars and that's it. I personally don't care for it because 1) black bars are cool, 2) a good chunk of those other films are 16:7, so you'll still see black bars in 16:9 screens anyways and 3) Notebooks aren't meant to be movie or TV screens.

Good luck trying to type a paper when they force 16:7 on notebook screens 3 years from now.

 

Did you include the boarder around the screen as well? So they really are no where close to the same size.

 

Lol John nice photo

I suggest you read this article http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp

 

I agree with everything he says. Sad reality, but I may just have to upgrade before I need to in order to outlive this 16:9 craze. Im sure as heck not going to buy a 16:9 screen and cause myself a lot of pain. No thanks.

 

As others have pointed out to you, you're comparing one size laptop to another. Why not go the full length and compare a 16:10 12-incher to a 16:9 17-incher. I bet that you'll be able to show that 16:9 will yield far more vertical resolution even at the same dpi.

 

Screens got wider.

12.1" became 13.1"; 14.1" became 15.6"; 15.4" became 16.4"; 17" became 18.4"...etc.

18.4" screens prove to me that screens got wider since laptops are now offered with a larger screen option that is as common as 17" screens. If 18.4" is a chopped down screen then 19" laptop screens would have had to have been much more popular for anyone to actually say their screen lost vertical height.

 

so will these 120hz panels also have that anti judder technology that makes film look like live video?

 

Screens did not get wider pixel wise. The width may be physically bigger, but the use and pixel width is the same as 16:10. No matter how you slice it 16:9 has less screen realty. Go read about how ratios work and youll see there is no way a 16:9 will have more usable space then a 16:10. Its physically impossible since there are more pixels vertically no matter what the screen size you wanna look at. For instance an 18.4 W90 has a resolution of 1920x1080, my dell is 17in and 1920x1200. I have 120 pixels more vertical wise. That means I have 1.4in less of screen size but 10% more viewing area. So why would I want a slightly bigger screen with less space to use?

 

the sad thing is since most dvds are 2.35:1, you still get black bars with 16:9.
and you have to deal with extra scrolling.

 

Well, that makes going 16:9 even more useless!

 

My only problems are with games that are just starting to accept 16:10 aspect ratio. Of course, many of these are console ports that natively support 16:9 in the first place but there will undoubtedly be several games that just don't like it.

It'd be like 5:4 versus 4:3 all over again in terms of resolution/aspect support - like how some games must run 4:3 despite the how widespread 1280*1024 resolution monitors are (and naturally don't support widescreen at all).

 

Finally, it took them long enough, Though I personally don't like the transition to 16:9... it's just getting to wide, I just got myself a t60p with the IPS uxga and my gosh is it gorgeous. The resolution is amazing though, It also seems like manufacturers don't like high dpi screens anymore. I'm about to get a 2048x1536 qxga screen for the t60p.

About the 120hz notebook panels, heh, Already here, just need to know how to "activate" it. I've long been an advocate for high refresh rate I was about ready to contact several manufacturers about this, but didn't have to.

but anyways my thinkpad t61p 1400x1050 can do up to 100hz with no color distortion or 150hz with minute artifacts with the max at 160 before becoming unusable.
the t60p uxga panel can do up to 100hz
asus v6j sxga+ could do 100hz as well


Whereas high resolutions, better color reproduction and contrast, all contribute to great image quality on screens, high refresh rate contributes to great video or fluidity of motion on screens.

for more info read my comments here:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/26/viewsonic-shows-off-a-120hz-lcd-display-for-computers/
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=205976

 

ohh nice.. .. but theyre missing the 14.1inches

 

14 inch is what I want...eventually.

 

im down with the 120hz screens!
1080p looks better on hdtv's than computer screens (just an opinion)
1200p just seems right...

what would be the flip side of 1600p? 1480p or some off the wall number like that??

 

There isn't one but if one were created it would probably be 1440p or 1800p(a double 900p).

2560x1600 is WQXGA and that's the widescreen extension of 2048x1536 QXGA but there's already a 16:9 resolution that falls in that category which is 2048x1152 QWXGA.

If they created it 2560x1440 would probably be called something like QWXGA+ while 3200x1800 would be called something like QWSXGA.

After that we hit 2160p which is actually a future HDTV resolution and falls in with the QUXGA category.

 

Rotate 90 degrees, then you have more text lines per screen than ever before.

 

has anyone mentioned that if the laptops running 120hz its a good candidate for 3D nvidias stereo scopic glasses for an extra £$200 and hopefully some simple little program that will make everything 3d, um...maybe

 

Extra width=extra weight=extra pain=extra fail

ScreenWars III: The Revenge of Tablets.

 

Hm, i think we will see a time sooner then later when SSD's will start coming in notebooks in stock form(probably next year)

That should offset the weight difference.

 

But still, in term of portability, you can't compare a 14.1 to a 15.6...

 

Isn't the "upgrade" to 120hz from 60hz about less eye strain or does it matter with lcd's and led backlit screens?

 

its about smoothing the blur noticed w/ fast motion video and

if you watch #'s flickering quickly on your screen it should make things a bit less taxing on your eyes

 

I can't comprehend how this can exist in your mind without it degenerating into a gelatinous blob. You're comparing 14 and 15 inch screens. You're effectively saying that to obtain the same vertical resolution while keeping DPI constant, you have to get a bigger screen. This is an argument against 16:9, not for it. Productivity wise, from your own words, everyone now has to buy an inch up to get the same vertical resolution.

In order for your arguments to make sense, you have to put yourself in a fantasy world where certain resolutions don't exist, and then try to compare screen sizes and resolutions as if they were linearly spaced. Erroneous conclusions ensue.

Let's spell them out. In between 12.1 inches and 14.1, you conveniently forgot 13.3. You also forgot the 14.0 inch 16:9 screens, which have been around for quite a while now, and usually utilize the abhorrent 1366x768 resolution. Also missing are 16 inch 16:10, and 17 inch 16:9. That they are rare or unusual sizes is no reason for exclusion, although even if we grant that we can leave out those sizes, 14.0 and 13.3 inches definitely do exist in significant numbers. Let's see those comparisons again without omitting information:

16:10 -> 16:9
13.3 -> 13.1
14.1 -> 14.0
15.4 -> 15.6, and so on

Obviously you can make your argument sound right if you completely ignore several screen sizes.

So what's your solution to the vertical resolution drain? You seem to think that the size equivalent of a 16:10 screen is a 16:9 screen that's a whole inch larger. If I wanted 14 inches, should I get 15.6? If I want 15 inch, I have to get 16 now? Obviously, when you get a bigger screen, the resolution increases. If I wanted a larger screen, I would get one. I'm not going to be bullied into getting a bigger screen and heavier computer for the same vertical resolution just because things are switching to 16:9.

I suppose the only positive I can see is that the ultraportables will get a better keyboard, but only in the real world of within the same inch screen equivalents, not Phinagle's fantasy land where 12 = 13, 13 = 14 and 14 = 15.

 

Nice technology coming. I wonder what the real advantages are here...

One comment, this thread is a war. I just read all of it, and wow, only insults are missing.

 

Yup they are all 16:9 ratios.

 

that's unfortunate, but oh well. nothing we can do.

edit: I should have made this post more evil Post count = 2, 666

 

The real advantage of this is that manufacturers can pawn off low resolution screens, and still put in marketing phrases like "full HD" and "120Hz".

In reality they will charge just as much, just for us to have the "privilege" of owning a notebook that has a uselessly wide screen and a VERY low resolution compared to what was offered with 16:10 screens.

Seriously.
14.1" 16:10 screen ~= 1280x800 to 1440x900...14.1" 16:9 ~= 1366x768.
15.4" 16:10 screen ~= 1280x800 to 1920x1200...15.6" 16:9 ~= 1366x768.

Yet they still market the new screens as "better" because they are "full HD." 120Hz is going to be yet another scam for the marketeers.