Nothing is really wrong with it, if you don't mind glossy 1280x800. If you want higher res or non-glossy, I guess you might want more though
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does anyone make 13.3in WSXGA+ (1680x1050) lcd modules?
- Thread starter phidauex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nothing is really wrong with it, if you don't mind glossy 1280x800. If you want higher res or non-glossy, I guess you might want more though
I'll ignore your other argument because it is wrong ...
Anyway maybe the fact that they don't release such screens is the cost plus the fact you can't buy a resolution independent OS. People across the world would be complaining that their Text is too small.
If on the other hand you had resolution independence and people all across the world could have the same size fonts as they had before just with better clarity then i don't think people would complain.
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
Sure, but I am still counting on it. Higher resolution means better quality, so I'll put the highest resolution I can on the MacBook with Leopard's Resolution Independence.
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
I'd say we've almost reached the level required with 10MPx cameras. The problem is that the screens are taking a while to catch up.
Addressing a few random issues that have been brought up.
* Nothing is 'wrong' with the macbook screen. Its really nice, actually, and I don't mind the glossy one bit! I'm just a pixel whore, and don't mind a higher DPI. Stock DPI is about 114, and a 1440x900 would push it to 129, which isn't unreasonable for someone who likes screen real estate, and has young eyes.
* Screens ARE sold at 129 stock (any 15.4" screen at 1680x1050 is 131 dpi), and if people complain, its not enough of them to prevent them from being sold, so I don't buy that argument for why you can't find 13.3" screens at ~130dpi. Its probably just that it is a new/uncommon size.
*I see gamut as a bigger problem than resolution for display of realistic images on screen. If I take my glasses off (blurring the pixels and removing the need for higher resolution), I can still tell that the image on my screen isn't a real photo. In fact, no three-color emissive display can create the full color range that we can see. Its going to take a fundamental change in technology to make that happen.
*The "idea" when selling displays is to keep a consistent DPI for the screen size. When shopping for screens, you are looking for two things, DPI (how grainy it is/how small widgets are) and size (how my screen realestate you have). I like between 110 and 130 DPI, so I'd buy the biggest monitor I could afford that hits those DPIs.
Why does Dell sell a 22" at the same resolution as their 20"? Two reasons.
Some people prefer a lower DPI so the larger screen gives them the same amount of work space, but the widgets are all a little bigger and blurrier.
But the REAL reason is because most consumers don't think about things like this, so they just buy the biggest monitor they can afford. Which is why you can purchase junk like 1024x768 20" monitors. Bigger = Better, right? The distinction between size, resolution, and resultant DPI isn't something people think much about, so manufacturers can make cheaper displays and sell them for more.
peace,
sam
* Nothing is 'wrong' with the macbook screen. Its really nice, actually, and I don't mind the glossy one bit! I'm just a pixel whore, and don't mind a higher DPI. Stock DPI is about 114, and a 1440x900 would push it to 129, which isn't unreasonable for someone who likes screen real estate, and has young eyes.
* Screens ARE sold at 129 stock (any 15.4" screen at 1680x1050 is 131 dpi), and if people complain, its not enough of them to prevent them from being sold, so I don't buy that argument for why you can't find 13.3" screens at ~130dpi. Its probably just that it is a new/uncommon size.
*I see gamut as a bigger problem than resolution for display of realistic images on screen. If I take my glasses off (blurring the pixels and removing the need for higher resolution), I can still tell that the image on my screen isn't a real photo. In fact, no three-color emissive display can create the full color range that we can see. Its going to take a fundamental change in technology to make that happen.
*The "idea" when selling displays is to keep a consistent DPI for the screen size. When shopping for screens, you are looking for two things, DPI (how grainy it is/how small widgets are) and size (how my screen realestate you have). I like between 110 and 130 DPI, so I'd buy the biggest monitor I could afford that hits those DPIs.
Why does Dell sell a 22" at the same resolution as their 20"? Two reasons.
Some people prefer a lower DPI so the larger screen gives them the same amount of work space, but the widgets are all a little bigger and blurrier.
But the REAL reason is because most consumers don't think about things like this, so they just buy the biggest monitor they can afford. Which is why you can purchase junk like 1024x768 20" monitors. Bigger = Better, right? The distinction between size, resolution, and resultant DPI isn't something people think much about, so manufacturers can make cheaper displays and sell them for more.
peace,
sam
My 2 cents
Being an owner of a PowerBook with 1920 x 1200 display and having spent a fair bit of time using this high DPI rather than just contemplating it I would like to add a couple of insights.
First: Resolution independance already exsists in Tiger it is simpy not used and can be enabled in terminal. It's there but is not usable (doesn't look very good) because app developers don't bother deveolping for it as it is an unused feature.
Second: These high DPI display's actually scale a lot better than you might expect. Because the pixels are so small at a distance of 2' it is hard for your eyes to notice the scaling. We all assume that scalling looks awful because we have seen it on most monitors of lower DPI's and it looks awful but with higher DPI's it is actually at quite an acceptable level. If for example they made a 2560 x 1600 15.4" which is exactly 4 time the resolution of 1280 x 800 and the image was scaled up by this factor ie.. green dot would be 2 x 2 rather than 1 x 1 it would be near on impossible to tell the difference between a 15" 1280 x 800 and a 15" 2560 x 1600 display at around 1'.
Third: When I first came out with my project machine everyone jumped up and down saying it was unreadable even though they'd never seen it. But after a while we started having more and more people jump onboard willing to try it out and are very very happy with the final product. It is very readable (granted I am young and have good eyesight) but the increased resolution makes up for the reduced size - the text is so sharp that it is very clear and still quite easy on the eyes. However having the machine on a desk two or three feet away is a little straining - but you can simply adjust font size for that anyway. Don't say it is too small without ever actually trying it.
So although we are not quite there yet the idea of having fantastic resolution combined with readability/useability is not that far off.
Being an owner of a PowerBook with 1920 x 1200 display and having spent a fair bit of time using this high DPI rather than just contemplating it I would like to add a couple of insights.
First: Resolution independance already exsists in Tiger it is simpy not used and can be enabled in terminal. It's there but is not usable (doesn't look very good) because app developers don't bother deveolping for it as it is an unused feature.
Second: These high DPI display's actually scale a lot better than you might expect. Because the pixels are so small at a distance of 2' it is hard for your eyes to notice the scaling. We all assume that scalling looks awful because we have seen it on most monitors of lower DPI's and it looks awful but with higher DPI's it is actually at quite an acceptable level. If for example they made a 2560 x 1600 15.4" which is exactly 4 time the resolution of 1280 x 800 and the image was scaled up by this factor ie.. green dot would be 2 x 2 rather than 1 x 1 it would be near on impossible to tell the difference between a 15" 1280 x 800 and a 15" 2560 x 1600 display at around 1'.
Third: When I first came out with my project machine everyone jumped up and down saying it was unreadable even though they'd never seen it. But after a while we started having more and more people jump onboard willing to try it out and are very very happy with the final product. It is very readable (granted I am young and have good eyesight) but the increased resolution makes up for the reduced size - the text is so sharp that it is very clear and still quite easy on the eyes. However having the machine on a desk two or three feet away is a little straining - but you can simply adjust font size for that anyway. Don't say it is too small without ever actually trying it.
So although we are not quite there yet the idea of having fantastic resolution combined with readability/useability is not that far off.
Too lazy to go searching but what size PB do you have? Would be worth sticking the size in your signature so people could easily tell.
You still didn't modify your signature
!!!Anyway i had a read through your thread about the upgrade and i'd like to congratulate you on very good work. I'd love to have the balls to do something like that.
It would be nice (although i know that thread is very quiet now) to maybe consolidate all the info you got and maybe edit the first post on the thread to include as much info as you can. (I know that's a lot of work to do)
Might be worth asking Arn if he'd let you do up a how-to on the site, if you wanted to. Mainly just including what panels are compatible and how to fit them in.
You still didn't modify your signature
Anyway i had a read through your thread about the upgrade and i'd like to congratulate you on very good work. I'd love to have the balls to do something like that.
It would be nice (although i know that thread is very quiet now) to maybe consolidate all the info you got and maybe edit the first post on the thread to include as much info as you can. (I know that's a lot of work to do)
Might be worth asking Arn if he'd let you do up a how-to on the site, if you wanted to. Mainly just including what panels are compatible and how to fit them in.
Well, through the months of work and hundreds of dollars worth of panels myself and others have tried, it's come down the Samsung and Toshiba panels. There's a driver over-ride provided near the end of the thread for the Toshiba panel, and possibly a Samsung one on the way.
Baxter's experience fell into the PowerBook realm which requires an oversized screen casing from the MBP to house the LCD, but the PowerBook seems more tolerant of other LCDs. I believe Baxter used a Sharp display (which we confirmed NOT to work on the MBP). I believe I tried LG and Sharp displays and confirmed both to be non-working in OS X.
You still didn't modify your signature
Anyway i had a read through your thread about the upgrade and i'd like to congratulate you on very good work. I'd love to have the balls to do something like that.
It would be nice (although i know that thread is very quiet now) to maybe consolidate all the info you got and maybe edit the first post on the thread to include as much info as you can. (I know that's a lot of work to do)
Might be worth asking Arn if he'd let you do up a how-to on the site, if you wanted to. Mainly just including what panels are compatible and how to fit them in.
Your right I haven't updated my sig - I'm not much of a forum user am I? I don't even have the quad anymore. Anyways I have written a how to for macmod as macrumors isn't exactly a mod site. Having said this I think I have left it in the very capable hand of Whateverandever and associates. Yes I did it first but those guys have been doing all the hard work getting it working on the MBP which is a much neater mod than for the powerbook and the only one people are actually willing to try, so I will leave it up to them to write a "how to" as I am no longer involved. I have moved onto other experiments. Oh and to make you happy I will update my sig... it needed it anyway.
He's trying to tell us that he has no idea what's going on, silly goose!
You can make images more realistic on very high resolutions because you can e.G. use 4 pixels to "mix" one color. In that way you get a much higher color definition range, therefore things will look more realistic. Still it won't be anywhere near analog photography especially in greyscale (with high quality cameras and high quality film material)
Websites will look identical regardless of the screen resolution (same size for everything), except that text is sharper, vector graphics are sharper, and scaled images are sharper. Most likely, your browser will have a preference how small or large you want it to pretend that your screen is.
Some people manage to get the worst results by buying a high DPI LCD screen and switching it to a lower resolution, which is more expensive and lower quality than having a screen that had the lower resolution in the first place :-(
A good printer will do 2400 dpi. That is used to make text look better, not make it smaller. You wouldn't be happy with your printer if printing wasn't resolution independent.
You can make images more realistic on very high resolutions because you can e.G. use 4 pixels to "mix" one color. In that way you get a much higher color definition range, therefore things will look more realistic. Still it won't be anywhere near analog photography especially in greyscale (with high quality cameras and high quality film material)
It better be an extremely high resolution screen if you plan on using normal pixels as sub-pixels. And as other posters have said, at that point you have gamut issues, so you're just creating color problems.
Scaled images are not sharper. That's ridiculous. Scaling makes image quality worse by its very nature. And very few websites use vector graphics.
The entire printing system is, however.
Take a PDF, print it on a crappy old bubblejet at 600dpi. Now print it on a new printer at 2400dpi. Is the text on the old printer 4 times bigger than the text from the new printer? No, of course not. The printing system is resolution independent.
It is possible to sharpen an image by scaling. While it is true that 'garbage in - garbage out' is in effect, and you can't get more information out of an image, you can improve image quality on images where the pixels aren't completely random (like nearly all images).
If the pixels are 1/4 the size, and you scale up the image by 4x with an interpolating scaling algorithm using anti aliasing, you can actually improve the image quality. This technique doesn't help much for photographs, but how many images on the web are photographs? Most aren't. And the ones that aren't can benefit from creative scaling, even before they have been converted into vector art (which would be the eventual goal).
peace,
sam