HD+ vs. FHD

1. 15.6" HD+ (1600x900)
2. 15.6" HD+ (1600x900) MultiTouch*
3. 15.6" FHD (1920x1080)
4. 15.6" FHD (1920x1080) MultiTouch

* I grayed out this version because I'm not sure if Lenovo offers it.

My question is, what are the differences in color saturation and viewing angles (and any other applicable factor) with these screens?

To give some context for a specific answer, I've been considering the W510 but have heard conflicting reports on the screen options (ie: FHD produces over-saturated colors, MultiTouch has discrepancies at some viewing angles compared to non-MultiTouch, etc.). The higher the resolution for me the better, but I'm a web developer and work with Adobe applications a lot - some photo editing, but mostly interfaces - and my concern is that the FHD will not display colors properly (or not as naturally as the HD+ non-MultiTouch, or so I've heard).

So I've heard a lot and am hoping some of you can help to clear up my concerns. Thanks.

 

1. 15.6" HD+ (1600x900) Keep away, too grainy.
2. 15.6" HD+ (1600x900) As above, unless necessary don't get MultiTouch.
3. 15.6" FHD (1920x1080) Get this screen with the Pantone colour calibrator. For photo editing this is the way to go. There are Youtube films showing the Pantone Colour sensor in action in the W701.
4. 15.5" FHD (1920x1080) MultiTouch. Keep away.

After reading lots of reviews I consider this the way to go. I think you should wait until the 15.6" FHD (1920x1080) becomes available.

Regards, Zeb.

 

By "grainy" do you mean it looks comparable to a 14.1" at 1440x900? Is the 15.6" at 1920x1080 then comparable to, say, the Vaio Z's 13.1" at 1600x900?

Again, my concern about the saturation on the FHD is that it will not display colors naturally - in designing interfaces for the web I don't want to deviate too far from what the average user has so as to ensure that I see what they see. Not sure if my concern is unfounded, but just want to make that clear.

 

If the FHD wide gamut screen is properly color calibrated and you have a color profile of your target output device then you can view things accuratly in that target color space as long as the color space you start with encompases all of that target space. Since the FHD is wider then SRGB then you will see an accurate SRGB representation when you do output proofing.

 

On another note, if you didn't get the FHD, you would be strictly limited to a much narrower color space, you wouldn't have the options to proof to as many targets. Color management is key in all of this.

 

So you're saying that you can match the top HD+ colors on the FHD? But you can't match the top FHD colors on the HD+?

 

If you are working in color aware applications, yes. Example, if you had the FHD screen and you were working in photoshop and your screen was calibrated. If you could get a hold of the color profile for a HD+ screen you could "proof" the photo and see it just like how an HD+ user would see it. Then you could save it in the sRGB color space that most the rest of the world uses. Same with a printer, or a magazine service.... all should have color profiles of their output device that you should be able to get to do output proofing. I believe in Photoshop there is also a generic sRGB profile that you can use since you can't get profiles for every monitor on the market. In this sense, having the most color space is really best. The downside is the complexity of being aware of what you are doing.

On the flip side, Going with the HD+ which is just your standard 60-70% gamut sRGB monitor will give you what most the rest of the world see's all the time and simplify your life a bit. The downside of that is you won't have the wider color space available if you were to work with an output device that can use that color.