Display resolution, in the context of up-scaled and equal sized fonts

This is a general display question, but I'll ask it here in Lenovo Land because it arises from the great dilemma I and many others suffer from when trying to decide between the Lenovo's 15" HD+ display (1600x900) and FHD display (1920x1080) -- especially since most of don't have the opportunity to compare both in person.

I know there is no "right" answer to the display decision, and that much of the decision will depend on subjective preference factors that can vary from individual to individual. But I am looking for an objective answer on the issue of "up-scaled and equal sized font" crispness and clarity. I'll explain. My exact question will come after several paragraphs of recent experience.

I have taken delivery (with free return privileges until 21 days after Christmas) of a T530 with the HD+ display. Although tests show that this display has less brightness and color saturation than the FHD display, I was more concerned about text font readability than color or real estate, because reading and writing are what I spend much of my time doing.

However, after about 20 hours of 530 HD+ use, the reality is that at normal dpi settings almost all text is too small for me to read comfortably even on this display. Hmmmm.

There are two ways to scale up the fonts to remedy this. First, Windows 8 allows you to scale up font and icon sizes in the control panel. I'm not sure what this affects exactly, as it doesn't seem to affect text in some applications. Secondly, all browsers allow you to "zoom", but this zooming does not necessarily hold from one web page to another.

The net result is that I have to set Windows 8 for an upscale of 115%-125%, and in addition, I have to constantly fiddle with browser zoom in the range of 110%-130% as I surf from site to site. Of course, this is exactly what I had to do even with my old 14" ThinkPad Z with something like 1280x800 resolution. And on some pages this up-scaling results in fuzzy, uncrisp, unsharp fonts or even a distorted look.

So . . . . . with this HD+ screen I have to fiddle with font scaling but have sacrificed the FHD's greater brightness and color saturation. Logically, this tells me that if I had a FHD display, I would similarly have to fiddle with font sizing, though at a somewhat increased scale in both Windows and browsers. But so what? I would have a supposedly better screen for other specs, and the dang screen it the one thing on a laptop computer that I use 100% of the time.

This finally brings me to my objective and technical question.

If I upscale the fonts (more so) on a FHD display and (less so) on a HD+ display so that the fonts are of equal sizes, will those up-scaled and equal sized fonts appear sharper, crisper and more readable on the higher resolution display?

I assume the technical answer has something to do with the dpi of the differentially upscaled fonts, but I can't intuit how the dpi's comparatively translate after different up-scalings on different native resolution displays.

 

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yours is a perception-related question. I can only answer it from my personal perspective, which might not apply to you.

In fact, all questions related to using a tool (pen, phone, computer, car...) are perception-related, and the most influential factor is the user of that tool, in terms of his/her abilities, limitations, preferences and needs. Numeric values (e.g. size, speed, amount...) can only give hints on certain aspects of the issue at hand. It is unfortunate that potential customers have to conceptually reason about their choices of options, based on such vague notions as "HD+" and "FHD."

Another approach is to tangibly use your eyes and fingers on real products in an actual store.

(Typing this on an AUO B156HW01 V.4, FHD 1920x1080, screen. That sounds impressive, but it tells you practically nothing.)

 

The short answer is yes, a higher resolution will allow for much better text clarity when upscaled...simply take a look at the MacBook Retinas. With that said, some people argue less of an actual difference for many "HD" screeens, mostly because these screen's aren't actually HD, not even close. Your "14" ThinkPad Z with something like 1280x800 resolution," for example, would have much better text clarity if it had the equivalent of the Macbook Retina's 2560 x 1600...purely based on the number of pixels you can observe that having 4 times the pixels on a smaller 13.3" screen might have an effect on text clarity, especially when upscaled. Assuming you upscale the font to be roughly the same size (125% or 150% on the larger screen), you can be sure that each letter is displayed by at least 2-4x more pixels, which are smaller and offer much more seeable contrast than previous displays. To answer your full question, yes, buying the FHD option would be worth the upgrade as it allows more crisp/clear/sharp upscaling of texts. It sounds to me like you'll have to upscale on either screen (HD or FHD) since you tried using it on a 1280 x 800 display in the past..may as well go with the higher res dispay. While your text clarity will not approach that of the Retina displays, it will be better at a higher resolution (yes there are many technical other display, pixel, and software considerations but overall this rule will never change). I would guess I'm not the only person to be waiting for PCs response to the Retina displays.

 

I was trying to make this question an objective one, not a subjective and perceptual one.

Let me start with the technical assumption that that a 0.25" high letter "R" on a display screen will be more objectively sharp and clear the more dpi it has.

Assuming that's technically correct, my question is this: Which 0.25" letter R will have more dpi -- one that is up-scaled 125% on a 1600x900 screen or one that is up-scaled135% on a 1920x1080 display?

Maybe that answer is unknowable without testing, but I think it could be determined mathematically, though not by me.

 

Having more dots to visually present a curve is always better than having less dots. The real issue here is not about scaling, but about pixel density. Every letter (technically called "glyph") is represented internally as a Bézier curve. Such a mathematical function shows identically whether it is enlarged or reduced. Now, given the shape of a letter at a certain size, the task of "rendering" it visually on the screen involves mapping that shape to a grid of discrete dots. The more dots there are within the grid (i.e. higher "pixel density," usually measured in terms of "dots per inch" or "dpi"), the finer the shape is shown and perceived: the letter appears smooth, sharp, and well-defined, without the "staircase-like" jagginess (techically called "pixelation").

Of course, not all rendering algorithms have the same quality. Windows 7 algorithm is not the best, by the way.

The above discussion applies to laser printers: 1200dpi printers render much better-looking pages than 600dpi and 300dpi printers.

Technical and objective enough?

 

I was replying to Kaso before I read w_km's post, and I appreciate his or her taking time off from looking hungrily at the Retina page at the Apple store.

So far, I've got two votes for better up-scaled font clarity on the higher resolution display.

If that's true, objectively or even perceptually, and if the FHD display is also superior in real estate, brightness and color, then there is no argument in favor of the HD+, at least for those who have to upscale text on both displays.

Oh, except for $$$$$$$$$$. In my case the upgrade would cost $150.

(Hmmm. This is a machine I expect to last a long time. Nah, that's the same rationalization I used to spend more money on CPU power and storage speed. Yeah but . . . what's more important, a screen or a CPU? Hmmmm.)

 

I think the question you're asking is whether there's an objective measurement of the distortion (if any) caused by scaling. (Answer: I don't know.) If you assume no scaling distortion, then by definition a same-sized image (e.g. a 0.25" letter R) at higher resolution (more dpi) will be sharper.

...adding, your OP question asked about "appear" sharper, which brings in the question of the ability of the human eye to discern the differences. That's a whole other can of worms...

 

I do understand and appreciate that, and I wasn't intending to be dismissive of Kaso's comments on perception. Obviously, it's a matter of personal perception as to whether a given person needs a letter R to be 0.25" or 0.33", etc., tall to be most readable.

What my OP was really intending to do was to rebut the argument that one needs a lower resolution display in order to have "big enough" text to read clearly -- or at least to rebut it in my own mind and semi-objectively.

I do believe I may get my hands on both a HD+ and FHD display before the end of the month so I can do a personal hands on comparison, which my OP assumed was not available for most potential buyers. Then, I will be better able to perceive my own perceptions.

 

Before replacing screens, you may try to play with "Adjust ClearType settings" in Control Panel, and choose the text rendering that is "sharper, crisper and more readable" in your subjective opinion.

After all, a 1600x900 screen is 4800x900 image elements and ClearType settings make a big subjective difference. Possibly larger difference than +20% increase of pixel pitch ( 1600 vs 1920 horizontal pixels in HD+ vs FHD screens, the difference which people uncomfortable using 100% scaling on 1600x900 @ 15.6" may not even notice).

 

Thanks, I just played. Very hard game with difficult perception choices. I think I improved the readability slightly.

However, that just raises another question in my mind. If adjusting ClearType settings can improve text crispness perception, wouldn't it be likely to do so even more on text has has a higher dpi density?

And, Robisan, you raise an interesting point about whether increased scaling would induce some sort of linear or even accelerated distortion.

 

Right on. Such settings inject personal perceptive adjustments by that individual user's eyes. Technically speaking, user-directed ClearType settings (ClearType being the name of Microsoft's rendering algorithm) influence anti-aliasing, which is the technique of "fooling the eyes" into perceiving something to be smoother than it actually is, by filling certain surrounding pixels with lighter colors. Again, the more pixels available for anti-aliasing, and the color depth per pixel (number of bits available for representing a wide range of colors, including subtle ones), the "sharper, crisper and more readable" the character shapes will look.

On top of that, brightness and contrast characteristics of the screen contribute to readability. There would be no point in rendering sharper text when everything on the screen looks so dull and flat.

There are more factors at play than 1600x900 (HD+), 1920x1080 (FHD), scaling, and tiny vs. big characters.

Again, you cannot reduce perception to a set of "technical, objective" numbers.

Yes. Revisit my note above regarding anti-aliasing.

Not really. With higher dpi, the "bigger" curve is mapped to a larger area of more pixels.

 

Kaso, thanks for your continuing expertise and logic. I take it your short answer is still yes.

Agreed, and I really would like the brightest screen possible for reasons other than text clarity. I have read this review of the Lenovo FHD screen and this review of the HD+ screen. The display summaries say the FHD is significantly brighter, but I'm not sure what the numbers for contrast and black level mean. I'm thinking those are better for the HD+.

Good, because in the bigger display of life, that fits in with my mystical side.

 

I'm realistically picky about displays, and the only ThinkPad display that I prefer is the AU Optronics B156HW01 V.4 that has been available since the T/W510. I've been using its glossy brother, B156HW01 V.7, on the Dell XPS 15 L502X and find that screen even better.

I keep my old T43p with FlexView for the fond memories. These days, mobile phones and tablets have much better screens than mainstream (and expensive) notebooks. For long desk-bound activities, I use large IPS LCD panels. In addition, I please my eyes with an iPad with Retina Display and a MacBook Pro 15 with Retina Display.

 

I've seen reference to MBPr a number of times now (on NBR), so out of curiosity I searched "computer" section in Amazon for "macbook retina 15" see: Amazon.com: Apple MacBook Pro MC975LL/A 15.4-Inch Laptop with Retina Display (NEWEST VERSION): Computers & Accessories

Wow that is one expensive laptop even with just a lowly 2.3 GHz i7 cpu. Amazon frequently screws up spec details, but the above ref shows a 15.4" screen with 2880x1800 rez. >drool!<

Keyboards and screens and mice are all very personal choice items.

For those that put typing 1st, it's keyboards; but it's hard to personally use a computer without actually having a screen.

 

MPBr 15 has a quad core CPU and the performance was pretty good. The only downside is it heats up quite noticeably when the CPU and GPU is loaded.

 

Isn't the 1080p display wide gamut? I know that the 1600x900 display spans a normal sRGB gamut or less.

Wide gamut displays tend to display oversaturated colors because most applications, especially the web browser, show images designed for the sRGB color space.

For example,if 100 is specified for the green channel of some pixel, 100 will be a more saturated green with the wide gamut display than with an sRGB display because 0 to 255 on a the wide gamut display spans a bigger colorspace. This should be something to consider.

 

I would not buy a 15.6" 1600x900 screen. I would opt for the FHD screen and run it at 125% DPI.

 

I have a second T530 on order with the FHD screen and will compare it to my current 530's HD+ screen side-by-side. I will then report my objective perceptions and perceptive objections. The loser gets sent back to China.

 

So I've had both an HD+ T530 and a FHD T530 for two days, and the HD+ is the one going back to China.

To answer my own question, though I couldn't get fonts exactly the same size on both displays, the fonts of approximately equal size are sharper on the FHD, as posters above said. I found out something I didn't know about Chrome, that you can permanently set a zoom setting in the Chrome "Settings -> Web Content" menu. I use 125% on the FHD screen.

In addition, the FHD display is noticeably brighter and has much richer and more saturated colors than the HD+, as the reviews I linked above say. To me, these were more important features than text readability. The FHD's extra real estate can help somewhat with multiple open windows and the user interface of a video editing program.

In conclusion, I would say that font size and readability are not (for me) reasons to prefer an HD+ over an FHD, as some argue. Both need the fonts to be upscaled for me to read, and the upscaling is clearer on the FHD.

 

You made the right choice. Keep in mind you can set custom DPI % in Windows. It doesn't have to be 125% though that's a pretty good size for most people. Sometimes I use 112 or 115%. I use 150% on my 2560x1440 Dell U2711.

Regarding the browsers, their zoom support varies. I do like the fact FireFox lets you set per website zoom settings. I customize the F toolbar and add the zoom control so I can set the zoom on sites I visit.

 

Highly recommend the NoSquint add-on for Firefox for additional flexibility and customization of zoom control.