Compare 1600x1200 flex-view high density w/ FHD

I've been to some of the local shops where I live but have not been able to see the new FHD 95% color gamut screens on the newest Thinkpad (now only on the W510 or W710, apparently; T510 is not showing them at the moment), so I'd like to ask who has used or seen extensively the 1600x1200 high-density flex view screen on the T60 era Thinkpads, and has seen and can compare it with the new FHD 1920x1080p 95% gamut screens.

Criteria:

1. brightness
2. color accuracy (how natural the colors look)
3. viewability (how "easy on the eyes" each screen is)

For the record, my machine has the BOEhydis HV150UX1-100 15" 16:10 old style screen.

Yeah, I'm still looking for answers on this FHD screen thing.

 

If your machine is 1600x1200, it's 4:3, not 16:10...don't think there was a 15" 16:10 flexview

 

Whooops, I stand corrected. Thanks, marlinspike. 4:3 it is.

You seem to be familiar with both screens, have commented on my other thread, how would you compare the them re the criteria I gave (or other criteria/subjective impressions you might have)?

 

Eh, I haven't seen the FHD in person, and I'm not willing to trust the internet to the point of giving a recommendation to others, other than to say that it is the best of their current 15" screens (I don't know the 17" screens because I've never been interested in a 17" laptop).

 

I see. OK, thanks.

Yeah, I tried to get a look at one yesterday at a fairly big electronics shop, but they didn't have one (I'm not in the States). Best they had was the 900p. It was OK, but not much different from the 768, at least as far as I could tell.

 

I've not seen the FHD either, but my R60 had the BOE screen as well. It's about the best screen ever put in a notebook. I would say the pixel density on the FHD is going to be higher than the BOE, 141 on the FHD versus 133 on the BOE. 141 is starting to get up there and I think text size effects viewing comfort. Some people really like the small text and I really liked mine, but occasionally it seemed too small. RonS posted some impressions of his W510 with the non-touch FHD over on TPF and he was coming from a T60p like yours. You can read it here.

 

Thanks, ZaZ. Great reference, and I appreciate that.

To me, the beauty of the high resolution is the same as with a camera: you can capture all the fine detail for when you want it, but then can lower the res when it gets too hard on the eyes , like when reading a lot of text. My standard res is set to 1431x1164, and the reading size is perfect (or, in the case of the camera, it just takes up too much band-width).

Have you ever seen or heard about the BOE screen at *higher* nit value than that of 200, the T60p era value?

If I could get the same screen I've got now but with 20% higher brightness, I'd be tempted to keep using this machine longer. (Of course, I'm also interested in switching over to the i5 or i7 and the upgraded band-width in the newer machines. 64 bit, too)

 

You can just change the dpi to bring up the text size without changing the resolution...
If you have a LCD screen operating at anything other than native resolution, you're killing your image quality.

 

There's no brighter version of the T60 screen. If your T60p is four years old, it may have dimmed some over time. Cause it's so slow, it can be difficult to perceive. You could replace it. JGA is selling some new old stock BOE screens over at TPF. I don't know if he ships to Europe, but it don't hurt to ask. Here's the link.

 

I'm sorry, you're right. That's what I do: change the dpi via the Windows display settings.

My image quality is great, and I love it. Just the brightness is not quite enough.

 

It must have dimmed some, it's exactly four years in service, about 14,000 to 18,000 hours. I remember I had to also turn down the brightness a notch when it was new; just too bright. But now it's on full blast, and doesn't glow as strongly. But, it's not too bad, all things considered. I might ask a friend of mine to get one of those screens. $150 is a good deal for this screen.

 

alibaba.com apparently sells the 15 inch QXGA LCD for around 100 USD.

 

Advantages over UXGA??

Refresh rates (max.)??

 

The problem with alibaba is you have to buy 10 at a time....

 

well it has higher resolution, in fact the highest ever for a laptop LCD in 15 inch format. But the refresh rate is around 50 to 60 ms, while the UXGA should be 25 ms.

oh that could be a bit problematic.

 

I believe the QXGA is 150 nits, which would be about 25% dimmer than your UXGA.

 

Also wasn't the QXGA IDTech 150nits? Or am I wrong on that?

EDIT: Wow, zaz beat me by 4 minutes, but I didn't see his post at all before making mine...strange.

 

Yeah, I'm not really looking for that high resolution anyway.

 

Maybe they got us on tape delay. You know, in case we curse or something.

 

By "refresh rate" I was referring to the Hertz (I think that's how often the screen refreshes itself with a new image, usually measured in Hertz, which are like 60 or 70 or 75 Hertz/repaints per second. No?).

My UXGA flex-view has a max Hertz of 60. Good old fashioned CRT monitors had refresh rates of 75, 80, .... up to 120 and more.

If the refresh gets much lower than 60 the brain gets cramped on the more slowly flickering of the screen as the rate of repaint slows down.

 

the refresh rate of hz is not applicable to LCD, the response time at ms is more relevant and this is what is been quoted for specs for LCD.

Refresh rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Lol, maybe not cramped, but on CRT's anything lower than 75Hz is annoying to work on, it pisses me off how our school is running all of it's ancient Pentium 4 era PC's in the library at 60Hz in an effort to save electricity, (my opinion) either that or i'm the only one who finds 60Hz annoying.

 

Good schooling! Thank you. Learn something new every day. I always wondered why there was no flickering on LCDs the way there can be on CRTs, but I never stopped to ask why. I was speaking based upon the "60 Hertz" that my Windows XP display settings quote. But your link cleared up that mystery.

Is the "ms" figure you mention associated with "flicker" or frames per second??

 

In CRTs the refresh rate is noticeable when it goes below what you are used to seeing, especially when it gets down to 60 or below. I remember this from years ago when I used a CRT for my primary display. If I set it to 75, and then went back to 60, I noticed it. If one starts with 60, they will probably not notice it, but if they go to a higher refresh rate, it will be noticeable when going lower.

 

you can still notice flickering or type of ghosting on the cheaper vga only LCD (or some expensive one that has crappy electronics, i.e. HP LP2065)... but it is slightly due to different reason to the one in the CRT.

milliseconds or ms, is associated how fast the colour elements can respond to electronic input signal. It got nothing to do with flickering as such.

 

So, the lower the ms the better the view? How does that work?

 

lower the ms, the faster the response time of the pixels, for games it is advisable that you get a LCD with lower than 5 ms response time. 2 ms response time for the TN LCD is quite common now.

 

I see, and I imagine screen manufacturers list the response times in their specs? Or no? .... Never mind, I'll check myself.

Thanks for the info.