120Hz Notebook Panels on the Way

120Hz Notebook Panels on the Way
LG, the world's largest notebook panel supplier, is stepping up its development of panels featuring a 120Hz refresh rate with a full HD resolution (probably 1920x1080, given the current 16:9 trend). The company will begin development of 17.1-inch panels supporting the technology this quarter. The company plans to introduce several other notable panels, including:

• 15.6-inch LED-backlit full HD panels (1920x1080)
• 13.3-inch LED-backlit panels (1366x768)
• 17.3-inch panel with 72% color gamut and 220-nit brightness
• 10.1-inch 1366x768 panel for netbooks
• 11.6-inch panels in April

Full Story (DigiTimes.com)

 

Oh wow! I have seen HDTV's with 120Hz refresh rates and they look absolutely stunning. I was planning on getting a new computer really soon, but if they release a value model (under $1000) with one of these, that would be killer.

 

Here's hoping for 2048x1152 resolutions.

I wonder if that's the screen going into Lenovo's Ion netbook.

 

I'm only excited about the 10" version with higher resolution to be adapted by the majority of netbooks..... everything else - meh...

 

There is yet a 120hz desktop monitor and now we suddenly have notebook screens that can reach that refresh rate? Am I missing something here?

 

Wow this would look awesome

 

cool to bad comp. companies will have to adjust the laptops screen size for them to work.(no sager np8662 120hz screens )

 

i dont even notice the diffrence.

 

I really hope this isn't in the 16x9 resolution. The reason I haven't replaced by crummy ThinkPad with a Vaio Z is because 16x9 makes the screen way too short for my tastes.

 

The only benefit I see is being able to use the 3d glasses

60hz is just fine for anything and everything else IMO.

I expect these to cause a few problems for early adopters due to things like locked refresh rates in games or vsync.

 

10.1-inch 1366x768 panel for netbooks

WOW! That is a HIGH res for a 10" i love it throw an ion in there too

 

Good I was hoping for 1200x800 but that will work.

That and the dual core atom is what I was waiting for, now that I know they are both out there just need Asus to build me something using them both.

 

And there we go, another bad "improvement" to save costs. 120Hz is nice and all, but 16:9??? Come on now.

 

Just take a look at 120Hz HDTV's at Best Buy. They look a lot smoother and more fluid. I think it is cool, anyway.

 

LG needs to start putting those new e-IPS panels onto laptops. Then there'll be something to brag about.

 

You know it all depends.

I find on my EEE with its current resolution its the width that is currently lacking and gives the problems.

I was hoping for 1200x800 but the new 10" is even wider and just a bit less vertical. Its probably better.

Also for really big screens or once you get to the 1920+ segment 16:9 is great IMO. All HD broadcast are in 16:9, most console ports are 16:9 (because they are designed for HD TV's, and all your widescreen movies & anime are 16:9.

So you get the full area of your screen and in games I find a wider FOV is more immersive than a tall flat one given on 4:3 and that 16:9 is ever so slightly better than 16:10

This is my opinion, I never had a problem with vertical scrolling. I can scroll down as I read, its when you have to scroll side to side that things suck, so I am all for 16:9 screens as long as they have beefy resolutions like these do. Dont give me a 15" with like 720p... that would suck.

 

the reason why i hate this news is that this means 16:9 is becomming more and more mainstream. and by one day these 16:9 panels will replace the 16:10 panels, even in business notebooks, as it happened to the 4:3 panels.

i hate it! less text lines per screen == less productivity and overview when programming and other stuff.

btw, i use a 1920*1200 panel, and i don't want to loose a pixel.

 

How about worrying about more important issues first-like replacing these TN panels with something better, and getting LED backlighting in more screens.

 

+1, they need to bring ISP back, I'm sick of the low quality panels.

Same here.

 

120Hz displays are amazing! Will definitely pick a good display over any mega CPU since I'm not a gamer. That and a high capacity SSD will make for a compelling upgrade scenario.

 

The 16:9 trend is very troubling. It's not like the 4:3 -> 16:10 transition, where we only gained resolution. No, 16:9 takes away space.

My thoughts are summed up here:

 

Wow, progress in action, I'm looking forward to these.

 

Thats the only problem is the loss of resoltuion, not the aspect IMO

The remedy is to create 16:9 screens with equal or greater resolution than the current models.

Using the ever famouse 1920x1200 16:10 vs the 1920x1080 16:9

Though I find with the resolution that high it does not matter too much, if they just made a 2133x1200 16:9 resolution then all would be well.

In the case of the little 10" screen they just made the 16:9 version being ever so slightly wider but less vert works better than a standard 1200x800 like screen as horizontal scrolling is much worse and harder to deal with than vert scrolling.

When it comes to maximizing screen real estate (size) more and more things are use 16:9 formfactor now, so thats the main reason for the change.

 

Right; if they kept the vertical resolution the same and increased the horizontal, then I would not have any issues with 16:9.

Regarding 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, that is actually a significant difference. It is 10% less space. I notice the difference going from my 1680x1050 screen to my 1920x1200 desktop monitor; an extra 100-150 vertical pixels makes a difference.

As I noted, the sole reason 16:9 exists is because it is cheaper to produce.

 

Given the standard resolutions on 16x10 and 16x9 screens, horizontal scrolling on both makes no difference since they are both the same. But from 16:10>16:9 you lose vertical scrolling so how is the latter better for general scrolling?

2133x1200? They'll only do that if there's a new HD standard that supports that rez and that isn't happening. True HD is 1920x1080. Besides cutting cost the reason they're shoving 16:9 mobile screens down our throats is so they can tout them as "True HD"...yea more marketing FUD to convince the general consumer that they can sell us an inferior spec'ed product whilst making us think that it is actually better than "non True HD" 16:10 screens.
This pisses me off to no end.

 

120Hz should have one place and one place only, and that is in televisions and cinema. The only reason 120Hz technology is being introduced to the commercial market is the influx of BluRay. Certain BluRay movies are being distributed at 24fps, which is how most movies are actually originally filmed. On the other hand there are a lot of legacy and new movies, as well as television, that are only released at 60fps. So what is the least common multiple of 24 and 60? That's right, 120.

The first question that gets asked is why, what is the advantage to 120Hz compared to a 60Hz television. The answer is that there is no more need for 3:2 pulldown. If you don't know what 3:2 pulldown is than I suggest reading up on it instead of me trying to explain it in a simple manner.

For most people the difference isn't even noticeable, and it shouldn't be on material that is native 60fps. I believe the common notion is that anything over 60fps isn't really picked up by the human eye anyway. Also the quality of the 3:2 pulldown, which varies between components, is important in this. Note that most TV's and source's can be set to do 3:2 pulldown, so manually set to which handles it better. But there has been plenty of people that have commented on how 120Hz has helped remove motion jitter. And this is exactly why 120Hz seems pointless to me on a computer. This move to make computers monitors televisions will just cause negative effects to people that need them for actual work.

This is the same problem reason why people complain about 16:9 screens on computers instead of 16:10. It surely is a better aspect ratio for movies filmed at 1.78:1, but losing screen space is a bad choice for real work. I won't even bother getting into the aspect ratio debate since it all pisses me off. 1.78:1 being marketed as some sort of standard when more and more movies are just being filmed at 2.35:1 that will show black bars and make people go "why am I getting black bars? I have a widescreen display!". That doesn't even mention the other ratios that are pretty common (1.85:1). No matter what you do you will have black bars so we need to just quite it already. Only solution is build a theater with a masking system, like a real movie theater. Either that or somehow everyone in the film industry agrees on one standard (good luck with that).

For more info on 24p read the wiki HERE and the wiki on aspect ratio HERE.

 

Actually i never asked, but is there any word on what these upgrades would cost?

^^^^^to the person above you are 100% right 120hz in a notebook screen IS gimicky. The only thing im really liking about these new screens are the RES for the size of the screen that is really awesome. If i can get these screen without 120hz at a discounted price id just do that instead.

 

Problem with 3:2 pulldown on inverse 3:2 pulldown is that is hardcoded into almost all the stuff on your computer videos so its going to take a long long long time for people to get any use of the 120hz stuff unless they have the original source and can re-code it to make use of the new refresh rate themselves.

 

Yes there is both hard telecined and soft telecined. Most material is hard telecined since 60fps refresh rates are what has been in use forever. But like i said, BluRay (and before it went extinct HD-DVD) has changed that by now providing native 24fps source material that can take advantage of 120Hz displays.

I don't know though, I personally don't see any difference. A well done 3:2 pulldown looks identical to my eyes. But than again everyone is different. I don't see rainbow effects from DLP technology but others do. I also see excessive macroblocking in LCD technology, but others don't. I guess it all depends.

I don't necessarily have an issue with 120Hz technology since it doesn't negatively effect any previous tech, and instead is inclusive and builds off what we already have (unlike the aspect ratio issue). But I think, like many, I'm afraid they will use it to raise prices and push the old technology that is perfectly fine out of the market, thus leaving less quality products on the low end of the price scale.

 

Yes since I encode with H264 it has really good filters and things to do this, I cant see the difference myself. Most of what I work with is native 60 or 30fps material though since its captures off my computer.

 

Any idea on whether these will support nvidia 3d vision?

 

Yes the only requirement is a panel capable of atleast 120hz last I checked. As each eye has to see a separate image at 60fps aka 60hz.

 

So it seems they are only working on 16:9 ratio. Hmmm I guess I better grab the best 16:10 ratio laptop I can before they will no longer be made.

Agreed. When I watch a movie in 1080p on my TV which has the 120 refresh vs my laptop with the standard 60 refresh I notice no difference.

 

Maybe one advantage of 16:9 laptop panels is that the response times, as of now, are the lowest available - 8ms. 16:10 panels currently in use often have 16ms or worse. In other words, better for gaming.

 

16:10 screens don't hurt my gaming at all. But like Chaz said the loss in screen space is troubling to say the least. I have done many side by side tests with my dell at 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 and its quite painful to make that switch. So Ill take whatever response time (even though 8ms difference isn't noticeable by the naked eye) 16:10 has for the extra space. If anything I need more space then what WUXGA has to offer, so less is not even an option for me.

 

It's easy to tell the difference between an 8ms and 16ms panel... (though of course at their worst really is neither that fast, and like most of these specs they're kind of make believe...)

 

Dammit, 15.4" WSXGA+ LED-backlit panels - NOW!

 

Yeah - given the trend of 16:9 displays though, I highly doubt any more development is going into 16:10.

There is something you may like though: Dell offers a 15.4" RGB-LED display with a 1920x1200 resolution on its Precision M4400 Mobile Workstation.

 

I don't think response times are an aspect of 16:10 and 16:9 panels. More to do with the panel type aka TN-panels. There are 16:9 panels with both 16ms and 8ms and same holds true for 16:10 panels. LG's excellent LP171WU5 17" RGB-LED 1920x1200 WUXGA panel is listed as 8ms while one of their 16:9 panels is listed as 16ms. Then again mfg's are pretty liberal when it comes to their specs so take everything with a grain of salt.

 

It's time to make a stand against this 16:9. Next thing you know, our notebooks will start looking like this!

If they're 16:9'in it, I ain't buying it!

 

16:9. Embrace Change.

 

I will fight this plague with all my might. Time to end this vertical trend.

 

As some of you guys (and girls?) I don't really like this trend. I don't like that an entertainment niche (film) should dictate everything, simply because the "film-lovers" don't like to have a slim black bar over and under their moving pictures.
Seriously, do these people not own a telly, or is the entire market place catering to dorm-dwellers?

I don't embrace change for the worse. Here are some examples (no comparison other than it's change for the worse):

1) global warming – embrace the change? No, I don't think so.
2) sudden famine caused by drought? – embrace the change? No, I don't think so.
3) A dictator takes power in a given country (could be yours) – embrace the change? No, I don't think so.
4) You become seriously ill – embrace the change? No, I don't think so.
5) Suddenly you're laid off – embrace the change? No, I don't think so.
And on and on.

No, it's a cliche to ask of people to "embrace change", if said change aren't for the better. It's mostly used by people to shut up any critics, because it implies they're conservative (non-political) and don't want change at all.

But do tell me – why should we "embrace" something that will make it harder to do actual work on our computers as opposed to being merely entertained? I use computers for work, and the very thing that (and only thing) 16:9 is good for is allowing you to NOT have two narrow black bars on your screen while watching a film. Please go buy a telly instead.


Edit/add:
What I'm trying to say is that cliches like "embrace change" is a synonym for "Embrace apathy". In other words "No matter what happens, don't voice your opinion, don't try to do anything about it, and for the love of god, just accept anything given to you, no matter how crap it is. Pay for crap with a smile".
Again:
"Emprace change" = "be apathetic"

 

hear, hear!
what's even sadder is this trend is affecting desktop monitors too....pretty soon you won't be able to buy 22"-26" 16:10 monitors. Why do I need a tv on my desk when I got a perfectly fine one in my living room?

 

First off: LOL @ comparing 16:9 to starvation, global recessions, Hitler and the Apocalypse.


16:9 screens have the height of the 16:10 screen size below it and the width of the 16:10 screen size above it. If you compare the aspect ratios by the shared widths then it's a loss in resolution but if you compare the aspect ratios by height it's a gain in resolutions.

e.g. 16.4" @1920x1080 is a loss in resolution vs. a 17" @1920x1200 but a gain in resolution vs. a 15.4" @1680x1050.

 

Sigh . . . this has been beaten to death, and your arguments have been invalidated several times by myself and other forum members.

Persnickety was right to apply your "Embrace Change" theory to other situations. It is an invalid concept, plain and simple, exposed by those extreme but visible examples.
Now that we have that settled, let's move on with the 16:9 business.

First things first - 16.4" is not the 16:9 version of 15.4"; 15.6" is. Secondly, the argument isn't about relative gains/losses in resolution (PPI/DPI which I have seen you argue elsewhere) - it's about the absolute loss, which is all that matters. Lastly, you continuously ignore the fact that 1920x1200 was and still is available on some 15.4" notebooks, so your argument that 16.4" 1920x1080 is a gain versus 15.4" 1680x1050, ignoring what I said about 16.4" not being comparable in the first place, is invalid.

Other points - 1920x1080 is not comparable to 1680x1050; 1920x1200 is, and that is not the first time you have been told that. I will list the 16:10 to 16:9 conversions below so there is no more confusion and twisting of the facts:
------------------------
16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

1280x800 :: 1366x768
1680x1050 :: 1600x900
1920x1200 :: 1920x1080
------------------------

The reason you have gotten nowhere with your pro-16:9 arguments is because no one had admittedly understood what you're arguing in the first place - "gain in resolution". If all you are saying is that in the same height screen, we have more resolution with 16:9 because it is wider (more width * same height = more area), then that's already been thrown out by the fact that 15.4" 1920x1200 exists. An argument doesn't work if a premise is false.

The 16:9 standard is very difficult to argue for, unless of course it translates into consumer surplus (lesser prices). So far, I haven't seen any cuts. That is something to figure out on another day.

Anyway, onto other topics.

You're obviously not alone here, and you bring up a good point. The sentence I bolded above - it's my best guess that notebook makers are saying that to make consumers (consumers in this sense = kool aid-drinking Best Buy customer) think they're getting what they 'wanted', when they didn't actually ask for it in the first place. These things need to be questioned.

 

First of all, where did I use "Hitler" and the "Apocalypse" as examples? I seldomly use Hitler as example and even rarer do I use something from the bible. But I'm glad you made those two up, because they prove my point too.
What I did, however, was using logic to test if your argument to just "embrace change" held water. I even emphasised that, by saying something along the lines of "no comparison otherwise". So, you see, I wasn't comparing 16:9 screens to, say, famine –I was testing the validity of your argument. Had it been valid, it would have been true in the extreme cases as well. It's a classic way of testing validity. Yours failed.

As Chaz has just shown you, this is not the case in the real world. It is in fact a loss in vertical height.

 

You skipped 1440x900.


The reason I haven't gotten anywhere with my pro-16:9 arguments is because there are currently only two 16:9 screens that have started offering QWXGA 2048x1152 resolutions (23" screens from Samsung and Dell) that would change that chart to:

------------------------
16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

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

 

So, in order to make progress with your pseudoargument you have to use non-existant screen resolutions?

Really, besides the diagonal measurement, ask someone to show you (with their hands) how big their computer is. The first "measurement" will be width, not depth. Why? well, depth is seldomly a factor when thinking of laptop size. This, of course means, that although it's feasible to get the same depth if you add extra width (i.e. go 16:9 or even worse) it will be construed as "It's a bigger screen/laptop to compensate for the lack of depth (height)".

 

Just give me 1600:900 instead of 1366:768 in standard consumer notebooks, and I'll happily embrace 16:9.

768 vertical pixels is just not enough!

EDIT: But "10.1-inch 1366x768 panel for netbooks" sounds like a good idea!