Does anyone make 13.3in WSXGA+ (1680x1050) lcd modules?

[phidauex]

I've been reading the great MBP/PB high-def upgrade page, and got to thinking, "does anyone make higher resolution screens in the 13.3in size for the Macbook?

I did a quick search, and I couldn't find any laptops in 13.3in with a resolution above 1280x800. My instinct was to search for WSXGA+ (1680x1050) or WUXGA (1900x1200) screens, which are the same aspect ratio (16:10). I don't think I would want to use a WUXGA that small, but a WSXGA+ would be good for me.

Has anyone heard of a higher res display in the 13.3in 16:10 size?

peace,
sam

 

[copperhead]

it'd probably be tough to find. even 1440x900 on a 13" would be nice

 

[Subiklim]

Text would be VERY unreadable at that resolution.

 

[topgunn]

Text would be VERY unreadable at that resolution.

That is most likely a matter of opinion and age. I use a 17" 1680x1050 monitor daily from a 2.5' distance without problems. I could easily see using a 13" 1680x1050 display at close range.

Edit: Also, with resolution independence in Leopard, text size on high resolution displays will be far less of an issue.

 

[Subiklim]

That is most likely a matter of opinion and age. I use a 17" 1680x1050 monitor daily from a 2.5' distance without problems. I could easily see using a 13" 1680x1050 display at close range.

Edit: Also, with resolution independence in Leopard, text size on high resolution displays will be far less of an issue.

Isn't resolution independence still a rumor? I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it certainly wouldn't be comfortable.

 

[nazmac21]

Isn't resolution independence still a rumor? I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it certainly wouldn't be comfortable.

Apple confirmed Resolution Independence with Leopard notes and Resolution Independence is measurement of pixels in units (cm and inches) and you could run a 9280x8000 display resolution(in theory) on a MacBook with Leopard's Resolution Independence.

 

[phidauex]

Text would be VERY unreadable at that resolution.

Probably a matter of opinion...

On a Macbook's 11.25in wide screen, here are the DPIs of various resolution displays:

1280x800 - 114 DPI
1440x900 - 128 DPI
1680x1050 - 149 DPI
1900x1200 - 168 DPI

Now, I agree that 1900 is way more than I'd want. 1680 is pushing it. But 1440 would be just fine! There are lots of 15" laptops that use 129 DPI, and Macbook Pro 15" users who've gone to 1680 (129dpi) and MBP 17" users who've gone to 1900x1200 (131dpi) don't seem to mind. I personally like a higher DPI with my young eyes and high demands for screen real estate.

Resolution independence may be a rumor still, but it'll happen eventually, and I'd love to be ready. Plus, you can always adjust the font sizes in your applications for larger, smoother text.

But the problem remains... I can't find an LCD for sale in 13.3in 16:10 in greater than 1280x800 resolution.

peace,
sam

 

[whateverandever]

Apple confirmed Resolution Independence with Leopard notes and Resolution Independence is measurement of pixels in units (cm and inches) and you could run a 9280x8000 display resolution(in theory) on a MacBook with Leopard's Resolution Independence.

Resolution independence is voodoo talk for vector graphics and large-scale font smoothing.

In the end, it's going to be entirely up to the developer of the application to add these kind of features. And websites will never be resolution independent, so you're out of luck there.

Plus, what's really the point of resolution independence? You buy high-res screens to get more screen real estate. Why would you want to then blow it back up? Such nonsense.

 

[whateverandever]

Has anyone heard of a higher res display in the 13.3in 16:10 size?

peace,
sam

I believe in my past searches I came to the sad conclusion that there are no 13.3" screens made that are not 1280x800. 13.3" screens are not widely used in laptops to begin with, so there's not much diversity.

However, if I remember right you can get a 12.1" 1440x900 screen. Not really helpful for MacBook users, but there's hope that in the future someone will up the screen res for 13.3" panels.

 

[2ndPath]

Plus, what's really the point of resolution independence? You buy high-res screens to get more screen real estate. Why would you want to then blow it back up? Such nonsense.

Objects of the same size rendered with a higher number of pixels will look nicer. But in general I think it is a different advantage which comes with it. Already today some people are complaining that fonts are too small on MacBooks or MacBook Pros, while others would like to have higher resolution screens in these machines. To solve this problem there are basically two different options: One is to sell machines with different display panels, the other one is to do it in software. As Apple prefers to keep the number of different machine models they offer very small and do not allow third parties to fill in, the software option is they way out. Also it is much more flexible.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

Plus, what's really the point of resolution independence? You buy high-res screens to get more screen real estate. Why would you want to then blow it back up? Such nonsense.

its all about clarity. if you look close enough, you can see the pixels on the display. I reckon the big idea of res independence is to make curves smoother, which i would be happy with.

 

[TBi]

Plus, what's really the point of resolution independence? You buy high-res screens to get more screen real estate. Why would you want to then blow it back up? Such nonsense.

Yes... that must be the reason why people buy Hi-Def TV's...

 

[whateverandever]

Yes... that must be the reason why people buy Hi-Def TV's...

High def TVs, you may note, are much larger than 13.3". Congratulations on one of the worst comparisons in the history of this forum.

You do realize that a MacBook has a higher resolution screen than all non-high def TVs, right? TV resolution is horribly lagging behind computers. 1920x1080 is as high as TVs go right now, and even a 15.4" laptop screen can hit that.

 

[whateverandever]

its all about clarity. if you look close enough, you can see the pixels on the display. I reckon the big idea of res independence is to make curves smoother, which i would be happy with.

Yeah, I'm sure that's generally the idea behind it, but again, it's up to developers to use vector graphics when creating their applications. Otherwise you'll have smoother curves on UI widgets with less pixel grain, but horribly ugly blown up graphics in general.

And unfortunately, if they do scale-up websites, those will all have blown-up graphics that will look terrible. On the other hand, if they don't scale-up websites you'll be back at the start... unable to read.

And the final problem... cost. If they start packing more pixels into these laptop screens it's going to either up the cost or lower the response times. Most likely a little of both

 

[TBi]

High def TVs, you may note, are much larger than 13.3". Congratulations on one of the worst comparisons in the history of this forum.

You do realize that a MacBook has a higher resolution screen than all non-high def TVs, right? TV resolution is horribly lagging behind computers. 1920x1080 is as high as TVs go right now, and even a 15.4" laptop screen can hit that.

As you may note you can get 40" SD TV's. If you had a choice what would you go for?

Congratulations on not getting my comparison.

Quite frankly with resolution independence i'd love a high res screen. You wouldn't need AA any more then because there would be absolutely no need for it. The jaggies would be so small they'd be invisible.

 

[topgunn]

Quite frankly with resolution independence i'd love a high res screen. You wouldn't need AA any more then because there would be absolutely no need for it. The jaggies would be so small they'd be invisible.

Wow, I never thought about that. Bring on the 5040x3150 13" Macbooks.

 

[phidauex]

I didn't mean for this to turn into an argument about the value of resolution independence...

However, just to address one small technical point... Webpages CAN be scaled, and no, they won't necessarily look bad.

The CSS definition of a pixel isn't the same as the display hardware's definition of a pixel. Right now browsers treat them as the same, but they don't have to be. A scaled webpage would look find, since it would just bicubically scale the images, and make the text appropriately sized. But as developers got used to resolution independence (its going to have to come someday for windows too), they will just use higher resolution images that CSS scales back for normal browsers, and scales up for the screen.

Better yet, SVG will solve all these problems. Most graphics online really should be vector, its just that we haven't been using them, and browsers don't fully support them yet. But when we get to that point, resolution independence will hit its real power.

And interfaces aren't a problem either, yes, developers will need to make minor changes to get the most out of it, but otherwise things will mostly look the way they normally do, not shrunk, but not jaggy as hell. Most widgets in OS X are already specified as larger than they appear on the screen anyway.

----

Whew...

Anyway, thanks for looking, everyone. Maybe by the time my Macbook's warranty runs out there will be some 1440x900 13.3in LCDs available.

Peace,
sam

 

[whateverandever]

As you may note you can get 40" SD TV's. If you had a choice what would you go for?

You still missed the point, and just proved it yourself. TVs get absolutely huge and are severely lacking in resolution. At the point where you 720x486 (NTSC) resolution running on a 40" screen, it becomes absolutely a HUGE advantage to have a higher resolution display simply to have more detail.

Now compare that to a 5" 640x480 display on PocketPCs. You'll notice that there's a huge gap between comparing TV resolution with Computer resolution.

Computer users generally favor higher resolutions in order to gain more working space on their desktop, not to reduce grain (though gamers are the exception). If the idea was to reduce grain, Dell would not have released a 22" display that has the exact same resolution of the 20" display.

 

[whateverandever]

However, just to address one small technical point... Webpages CAN be scaled, and no, they won't necessarily look bad.

Technically, yes, anything can be scaled, but that doesn't mean it can be scaled effectively. CSS and tables really won't have much problem scaling at all, but it really comes down to images. When you blow up the images they don't look as nice, which is the whole goal of the low-grain display to begin with, which brings me to your next point.

Better yet, SVG will solve all these problems. Most graphics online really should be vector, its just that we haven't been using them, and browsers don't fully support them yet. But when we get to that point, resolution independence will hit its real power.

I don't think the web will be using vector graphics anytime in the near future. There is so much content that just wouldn't allow for it that it doesn't make it practical (there's no realistic way to make SVG out of photos). True, content providers could provide high-res pictures and scale them up and down, but then we're at the bandwidth bottleneck. Until EVERYONE is on a high-speed connection (and higher than cable/dsl, at that) and bandwidth becomes even cheaper for providers, that's simply not practical.

And interfaces aren't a problem either, yes, developers will need to make minor changes to get the most out of it, but otherwise things will mostly look the way they normally do, not shrunk, but not jaggy as hell. Most widgets in OS X are already specified as larger than they appear on the screen anyway.

Widgets will look wonderful with scaling, no doubt. Again, it's a matter of making the developers use vector graphics, which many will not jump at immediately.

 

[nazmac21]

Resolution independence is voodoo talk for vector graphics and large-scale font smoothing.

In the end, it's going to be entirely up to the developer of the application to add these kind of features. And websites will never be resolution independent, so you're out of luck there.

Plus, what's really the point of resolution independence? You buy high-res screens to get more screen real estate. Why would you want to then blow it back up? Such nonsense.

Resolution Independence is awsome because it's going to have real world-like quality.

 

[whateverandever]

Resolution Independence is awsome because it's going to have real world-like quality.

... what?

 

[nazmac21]

... what?

Check Wikipedia for more information.

 

[whateverandever]

Check Wikipedia for more information.

Your statement didn't even make sense. At most it was an extreme exaggeration. "Real-world" quality of what? And what makes it "real-world"... the fact that the images are in higher DPI than your eyes can distinguish?

Not going to happen this decade

 

[phidauex]

Your statement didn't even make sense. At most it was an extreme exaggeration. "Real-world" quality of what? And what makes it "real-world"... the fact that the images are in higher DPI than your eyes can distinguish?

Not going to happen this decade

Not to mention the fact that, once we get the DPI below the detectable limit, we've got some SERIOUS gamut issues to deal with...

 

[The Stig]

what is wrong with the screen it comes with? It works, and it works well, I wouldn't really want anymore.

TS