[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Torvalds on laptops: Make higher-def resolution standard here

[WinTard]

Well duh! Of course make high-resolution available to all. The pertinent points are:

• at what price?
• when?

And who will bring it to the general consumers? Samsung! The #1 Electronics Component Manufacturer in the world.

So much for the hyper-hyped up Retina display, which is no more the end all be all.

Technically the Retina display now is an inferior screen with lesser resolution and pixel density than offered by superior and cost-effective technologically state-of-the-art now soon to be commonly available displays, everywhere at an affordable price.

To me at least, OLED is the ultimate because it provides the best PQ (Picture Quality) available bar none. All LCDs (even LED-backlit LCD) will soon fade to oblivion. I'm not saying the Samsung Nexus tablet is OLED. But I wish.

I just bought a large and ultra-thin LED-backlit (microdimming with an array of backlight LEDs, instead of edge-lit with only a few LED) Samsung SmartTV HDTV. The PQ is outstanding, yet still is LCD.

My next TV (already?) will be OLED.

Back in year 2000 my first high-resolution laptop was a Dell Inspiron 8000 @1600h x 1200v.

WinTard, on 22 April 2009 - 09:45 AM, said:

I don't know about junky as you term it. Funny I always thought Apple was junky thus perhaps why I never got into it. I choose the 8000 because:
* 1600x1200 display nVidia accelerated (very rare back in 2000)
* slide in modular bay HDD
* slide in modular bay FDD
* slide in modular bay DVD burner
* built-in (also slide in/out) DVD burner (total of 2 DVD drives simultaneously in the system)
* built-in 100Mbps Ethernet
* built-in wi-fi
* built-in bluetooth
* 1GB RAM (in 2000 that was state-of-the-art)
* removable HDD tray, in addition to the modular one. (total of 2 HDD simultaneously in the system)
* additional battery compartment for airplane flights & no AC adapter. (total of 2 batteries simultaneously in the system).
* runs Linux as well as Windows with all device drivers found (in Linux)...

At the time, there was nothing else comparable... And that original system is still alive today.

Funny how prejudice makes all of us see things? As for the price, I still think Apple isn't worth it. Thus junky IMHO. But I admit, they do have nice hardware. Albeit, way overpriced.

~~~~~~~~~~
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk,"
~ Steven Jobs said last year in 2008 during a conference call with Wall Street analysts...

What he really meant, is the profit margin is too thin for Apple...
PS: Junky is relative. I think all BMW's are junky except for the M3. That is the only BMW I would get. But don't think a Toyota Corolla XRS is junky...

WinTard, on 22 April 2009 - 11:02 AM, said:

Oh my bad, I went to physically look at the Dell Inspiron 8000, and actually, it says Dell Latitude C840 on the POST screen splash...

Here's the service manual: http://support.dell....en/sm/index.htm



And bluetooth was implemented via a USB dongle...

It was nine years ago.

PS: I find it extremely convenient to be able to procure parts and free-open-service-manuals from Dell... Nice touch!

http://www.pcworld.c...63/article.html

And on the topic of tablets, since I've already got a RIM BlackBerry PlayBook ARM tablet, and am anxiously awaiting the Microsoft Surface Pro (1920x1080) x86/x64 industry standard CPU running the full Windows 8 in 64-bit mode (All ARM CPU are 32-bit only), and everything else under the Windows ecosystem since day one, I will buy this Samsung Nexus 10 tablet for the simple reasons:

• that I like love Android thanks to my Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone and
• 2560x1600 display
• Toy-like price of $400.

So now I'll be better rounded, with a specimen of each type in my 'labs' to play, learn and grow with.

~~~~~~~~~~
When you have faults, do not fear to abandon them.
{Chinese Proverb}

Every man serves a useful purpose: A miser, for example, makes a wonderful ancestor.
~ Laurence J. Peter

In life and business, there are two cardinal sins. The first is to act precipitously without thought and the second is to not act at all.
~ Carl Icahn

Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.
~ E. E. Cummings (1894 - 1962)

This post has been edited by WinTard: 31 October 2012 - 11:21 AM

[berock212]

I don't get why everyone is making high resolution tablets and laptops. Leave that to apple, apple is always trying to innovate even if it is a innovation that isn't practical or downright stupid. We have embraced the 1080p standard, stop making tablets higher than 1080p. Once you get higher than 1080p, it limits the battery too much, it adds to much stress to the graphics processing, it costs to much and It's a waste because there are no movies higher than 1080p(apart from 1). Stick to 1080p until the movie content is there.

[boulder1259]

yawn... it's nice when the name fits

[fatAlroker]

yes. stop innovating because you cant utilize every pixel to watch a movie. how can you possibly make the argument on cost and battery life when the retina ipad has been so successful and most phones have at least 720p displays now

[TechConc]

Quote

And who will bring it to the general consumers? Samsung! The #1 Electronics Component Manufacturer in the world. So much for the hyper-hyped up Retina display, which is no more the end all be all.

Right, because when Apple provided this feature, it was not meant for general consumers? Also, you have to love it when Apple paves the way with a new direction for others to copy, it's considered "over-hyped". But, when your preferred company finally gets onboard, all of a sudden, it's a good idea. Sigh... how predictable.

Quote

Technically the Retina display now is an inferior screen with lesser resolution and pixel density than offered by superior and cost-effective technologically state-of-the-art now soon to be commonly available displays, everywhere at an affordable price.

Really, how so? Do you understand the point of a "Retina" display? The point is, your eyes can't discern a quality difference beyond a certain ppi at a given distance, etc. Likewise, it wouldn't matter if it was a 500 ppi screen because you wouldn't be able to see the difference anyway.

Quote

To me at least, OLED is the ultimate because it provides the best PQ (Picture Quality) available bar none. All LCDs (even LED-backlit LCD) will soon fade to oblivion.

Well, it's a good thing you don't do professional photography work as OLED screens are notoriously over saturated. Though, I have no doubt they look good to an untrained eye.

Anyway, sorry... I can't help but laugh at the types that get all spun up over specs without really understanding what matters in a device.

[fradamer]

Quote

I don't get why everyone is making high resolution tablets and laptops. Leave that to apple, apple is always trying to innovate even if it is a innovation that isn't practical or downright stupid. We have embraced the 1080p standard, stop making tablets higher than 1080p. Once you get higher than 1080p, it limits the battery too much, it adds to much stress to the graphics processing, it costs to much and It's a waste because there are no movies higher than 1080p(apart from 1). Stick to 1080p until the movie content is there.

The rationale here seems to relate to movie watching only. Retina displays are beautiful and are very nice for stressful eyes. I'm wondering if you have seen how much battery Apple has squeezed out of their Retina equipped machines?

[waldojim]

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Right, because when Apple provided this feature, it was not meant for general consumers? Also, you have to love it when Apple paves the way with a new direction for others to copy, it's considered "over-hyped". But, when your preferred company finally gets onboard, all of a sudden, it's a good idea. Sigh... how predictable.

You do realize that high resolution displays were available on Laptops (as in the article here) LONG before Apple got around to it, right? Lenovo W series machines offered up 1900x1200 displays for years. Now only 1920x1080, but still greater than most of the Apple laptop lineup. HP Evny also ships in those resolutions. Shoot, back in the day - the Alienware Aurora 9700 not only had a 1900x1200 display - but they were IPS displays.

All of the manufacturers have been slacking as of late.

Quote

Really, how so? Do you understand the point of a "Retina" display? The point is, your eyes can't discern a quality difference beyond a certain ppi at a given distance, etc. Likewise, it wouldn't matter if it was a 500 ppi screen because you wouldn't be able to see the difference anyway.

Weather or not you can claim to be able to see the invidual pixels, 350ppi is still greater than 320. Higher resolution, is still higher. Weather YOU can see it or not.

Quote

Well, it's a good thing you don't do professional photography work as OLED screens are notoriously over saturated. Though, I have no doubt they look good to an untrained eye.

Anyway, sorry... I can't help but laugh at the types that get all spun up over specs without really understanding what matters in a device.

Name a consumer display today that isn't over saturated? They don't exist as people want that look. For some damned reason, people want all their content to look like cartoons. I own a color correct display - they don't need to jack up the image to make it look good. In the end though, LCD is still garbage. Great for saving money - nothing else. The images never quite look natural, and there is always ghosting.

[TechConc]

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

You do realize that high resolution displays were available on Laptops (as in the article here) LONG before Apple got around to it, right?

Hi Waldojim... yes, I'm aware that many manufacturers, including Apple have had a range of resolutions for their displays for some time now. While I do realize that "Retina display" is a marketing term, it's also a practical term which refers to a resolution which exceeds the human eye's capability of discerning any further difference in quality. I also know that it's not simply a magic number for ppi as the ppi required differs depending upon your focal distance. That is, we hold cell phones closer to our eyes than we do desktop displays. Likewise, a higher ppi is required for a mobile device than a desktop display in order to achieve this goal.

It's also not just about resolution. In many cases, it's also about high ppi for normal sized interface controls. In many cases, text, controls, etc. are all shrunk when you increase the resolution on the same sized screen.

That said, I think it's fair to say that Apple has been leading the push in this regard, certainly in the mobile space for some time now. The fact that Samsung is just now bringing this type of a display to their flagship tablet is evidence of that. What struck me about Wintard's position was that when Apple was pushing this feature, it was all hype. Now that Samsung is pushing the same feature, it's the greatest thing ever...

Quote

Weather or not you can claim to be able to see the invidual pixels, 350ppi is still greater than 320. Higher resolution, is still higher. Weather YOU can see it or not.

Yes, in the same way a tree makes a sound in the forest when it falls, even if nobody is there to hear it. Technically, I agree with you. Practically, I disagree with you. It's not just me, there are limitations of the human eye. Exceeding those limitations looks great on paper, but serves no practical purpose. Really, I fail to see the advantage. If anything, you have the disadvantage of needing a higher fill rate from your GPU without seeing any added benefit.

Quote

Name a consumer display today that isn't over saturated? They don't exist as people want that look. For some damned reason, people want all their content to look like cartoons. I own a color correct display - they don't need to jack up the image to make it look good. In the end though, LCD is still garbage. Great for saving money - nothing else. The images never quite look natural, and there is always ghosting.

Similarly, I can ask you to name a display, consumer or professional, that is perfect. That doesn't mean there aren't difference in quality relative to each other. I'm not sure what your issue is with LCD based displays and I know that can certainly lead to a very long debate which I don't care to go into. I do agree that LCDs aren't perfect if that helps. Suffice it to say, my point was that OLED was presented as the superior solution and that's just not the case. OLED does have a wide color gamut and it is efficient from a power perspective. However, they are not without flaws either. The over saturated colors are an example of that.

[waldojim]

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Hi Waldojim... yes, I'm aware that many manufacturers, including Apple have had a range of resolutions for their displays for some time now. While I do realize that "Retina display" is a marketing term, it's also a practical term which refers to a resolution which exceeds the human eye's capability of discerning any further difference in quality. I also know that it's not simply a magic number for ppi as the ppi required differs depending upon your focal distance. That is, we hold cell phones closer to our eyes than we do desktop displays. Likewise, a higher ppi is required for a mobile device than a desktop display in order to achieve this goal.

It's also not just about resolution. In many cases, it's also about high ppi for normal sized interface controls. In many cases, text, controls, etc. are all shrunk when you increase the resolution on the same sized screen.

That said, I think it's fair to say that Apple has been leading the push in this regard, certainly in the mobile space for some time now. The fact that Samsung is just now bringing this type of a display to their flagship tablet is evidence of that. What struck me about Wintard's position was that when Apple was pushing this feature, it was all hype. Now that Samsung is pushing the same feature, it's the greatest thing ever...

Well, Sony has been selling Retina displays for years. The 'Z' series machines (13") all have 1080P displays at 170PPI - assuming a normal seated distance. Then again - how far beyond your perception doe the pixels really need to be? Also 720P cell phones have a higher resolution than the iPhone 5 retina display....

Sorry, but these displays have been around for a LONG time before Apple. Apple is just now catching up to that market. For a great example - prior to this years MBP - name ONE 15" 1080P or higher resolution MBP? There are none. Prior to this year, HP, Lenovo, and Dell have all had DOZENS of machines with color accurate, high resolution displays. Apple is VERY late to the game on this one.

Quote

Yes, in the same way a tree makes a sound in the forest when it falls, even if nobody is there to hear it. Technically, I agree with you. Practically, I disagree with you. It's not just me, there are limitations of the human eye. Exceeding those limitations looks great on paper, but serves no practical purpose. Really, I fail to see the advantage. If anything, you have the disadvantage of needing a higher fill rate from your GPU without seeing any added benefit.

Those limitations you speak of vary widely from one person to the next. As a child, my vision was 20/10. I could see from 20 feet, clearly what the average person could only see from 10 feet out. There are people who have sharper vision even than I did. As such - this is about more than just a perceived limitation that doesn't apply to everyone equally.

Quote

Similarly, I can ask you to name a display, consumer or professional, that is perfect. That doesn't mean there aren't difference in quality relative to each other. I'm not sure what your issue is with LCD based displays and I know that can certainly lead to a very long debate which I don't care to go into. I do agree that LCDs aren't perfect if that helps. Suffice it to say, my point was that OLED was presented as the superior solution and that's just not the case. OLED does have a wide color gamut and it is efficient from a power perspective. However, they are not without flaws either. The over saturated colors are an example of that.

I certainly have no delusions here. There is no perfect display. There never will be - as we create them, and people are not perfect.

However, the LCD answer is very simple. They are slow, inflexible, nearly impossible to calibrate for true color accuracy, and save nothing but space on your desktop. They don't even save electricity anymore. With CCFL displays, you can get decent color, but have light bleed as well as shorter life spans. With LED, you get distorted colors. Only with RGBLED can you get back to a decent light source, but they are rare and command a premium price. During all this, the average LCD contrast is under 1000:1. Very few LCD displays get past 2000:1 (real life contrast), and are incapable of producing BLACK.

CRT's on the other hand, can display a WIDE array of "native" resolutions, have a NATIVE 100,000:1 contrast, natively produce a far wider range of colors, have ZERO ghosting / lag, no light bleeding, true black, and very long life. Seems to me that LCD's are a massive step back regarding image quality. Oh yeah, and the one constraint that LCD should have released us from, they have actually tightened their grip on - REFRESH RATES. You need an honest 100Hz or more to have a 3d image. I had an old CRT (a Veiwsonic pro series) that could EASILY have handled the rates needed - back in 2005! Yet today there are less than a handful of desktop LCD panels capable of anything more than 60hz. TV's are a joke - 99% of the LCD panels on the market wouldn't know what to do with a 120hz signal no matter what you tried.

Sorry fellow techies, but display technology has taken a MASSIVE step backwards in recent years.

Apple helped lead that charge with 1440x 900 pixel displays being "standard" and the 1600x1050 displays being "hi-res" on the MBP for so many years. It told other manufacturers that "premium" doesn't need to mean premium any more. And that low resolution garbage was acceptable as the "standard".

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Right, because when Apple provided this feature, it was not meant for general consumers? Also, you have to love it when Apple paves the way with a new direction for others to copy, it's considered "over-hyped". But, when your preferred company finally gets onboard, all of a sudden, it's a good idea. Sigh... how predictable.

You do realize that high resolution displays were available on Laptops (as in the article here) LONG before Apple got around to it, right? Lenovo W series machines offered up 1900x1200 displays for years. Now only 1920x1080, but still greater than most of the Apple laptop lineup. HP Evny also ships in those resolutions. Shoot, back in the day - the Alienware Aurora 9700 not only had a 1900x1200 display - but they were IPS displays.

All of the manufacturers have been slacking as of late.

Quote

Really, how so? Do you understand the point of a "Retina" display? The point is, your eyes can't discern a quality difference beyond a certain ppi at a given distance, etc. Likewise, it wouldn't matter if it was a 500 ppi screen because you wouldn't be able to see the difference anyway.

Weather or not you can claim to be able to see the invidual pixels, 350ppi is still greater than 320. Higher resolution, is still higher. Weather YOU can see it or not.

Quote

Well, it's a good thing you don't do professional photography work as OLED screens are notoriously over saturated. Though, I have no doubt they look good to an untrained eye.

Anyway, sorry... I can't help but laugh at the types that get all spun up over specs without really understanding what matters in a device.

Name a consumer display today that isn't over saturated? They don't exist as people want that look. For some damned reason, people want all their content to look like cartoons. I own a color correct display - they don't need to jack up the image to make it look good. In the end though, LCD is still garbage. Great for saving money - nothing else. The images never quite look natural, and there is always ghosting.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the poor dpi scaling with programs. (Windows 7 and its' included programs actually scale quite nicely, for the most part.) For instance, Chrome doesn't scale with 125% or lower, and above, it gets blurry. (XP style scaling and not)

The other thing is that, beyond a point, a super high res screen is pointless. For instance, no matter how hard I look, I can't see individual pixels on an iPhone 4/4S. Heck, even if I could, I'd have to look absurdly hard. (On the other hand, it's a bit hard not to notice the pixels on the 19" 1440x900 screens at school.) At some point, it's about bragging rights and nothing more.

Also, can you actually notice the ghosting on most displays? Personally, I can't, and would easily take the slightly worse response time of an IPS screen over the better color and viewing angles. I do get a bit annoyed about the lack of color accuracy on some displays though - my Acer was absurdly bad at first. (even after calibrating it, it still looks like crap, and I'm planning to replace it with something better)

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

[Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the poor dpi scaling with programs. (Windows 7 and its' included programs actually scale quite nicely, for the most part.) For instance, Chrome doesn't scale with 125% or lower, and above, it gets blurry. (XP style scaling and not)

The other thing is that, beyond a point, a super high res screen is pointless. For instance, no matter how hard I look, I can't see individual pixels on an iPhone 4/4S. Heck, even if I could, I'd have to look absurdly hard. (On the other hand, it's a bit hard not to notice the pixels on the 19" 1440x900 screens at school.) At some point, it's about bragging rights and nothing more.

Also, can you actually notice the ghosting on most displays? Personally, I can't, and would easily take the slightly worse response time of an IPS screen over the better color and viewing angles. I do get a bit annoyed about the lack of color accuracy on some displays though - my Acer was absurdly bad at first. (even after calibrating it, it still looks like crap, and I'm planning to replace it with something better)

I don't want a high resolution display to SCALE Windows to larger sizes - I want it to have more room to work.

As for the phones - I don't care what your excuse is - I just don't want my HD videos terribly rescaled.

As for the ghosting, yes I can. It is actually VERY distracting in games.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

[Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the poor dpi scaling with programs. (Windows 7 and its' included programs actually scale quite nicely, for the most part.) For instance, Chrome doesn't scale with 125% or lower, and above, it gets blurry. (XP style scaling and not)

The other thing is that, beyond a point, a super high res screen is pointless. For instance, no matter how hard I look, I can't see individual pixels on an iPhone 4/4S. Heck, even if I could, I'd have to look absurdly hard. (On the other hand, it's a bit hard not to notice the pixels on the 19" 1440x900 screens at school.) At some point, it's about bragging rights and nothing more.

Also, can you actually notice the ghosting on most displays? Personally, I can't, and would easily take the slightly worse response time of an IPS screen over the better color and viewing angles. I do get a bit annoyed about the lack of color accuracy on some displays though - my Acer was absurdly bad at first. (even after calibrating it, it still looks like crap, and I'm planning to replace it with something better)

I don't want a high resolution display to SCALE Windows to larger sizes - I want it to have more room to work.

As for the phones - I don't care what your excuse is - I just don't want my HD videos terribly rescaled.

As for the ghosting, yes I can. It is actually VERY distracting in games.

OK, the first part makes sense, to a point - I know a guy with a 13.3" asus with a 1080p screen, and without scaling, I find it's so small it's definitely not comfortable to read things on. (I can still read them, but I have to do it from a closer distance.)

On phones, I would think that 720p is plenty. Beyond that, you're just wasting space, and it's probably not easy to notice the difference anyway.

For ghosting, what types of games exactly are you talking about?

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

OK, the first part makes sense, to a point - I know a guy with a 13.3" asus with a 1080p screen, and without scaling, I find it's so small it's definitely not comfortable to read things on. (I can still read them, but I have to do it from a closer distance.)

On phones, I would think that 720p is plenty. Beyond that, you're just wasting space, and it's probably not easy to notice the difference anyway.

For ghosting, what types of games exactly are you talking about?

I never claimed that 1080P @ 13" was ideal. The comment was directed at the "But Apple is leading the way" comments, since they are obviously WRONG. Apple is taking up the rear on this one.

I am talking about any game with constant motion. Brian - if all you took from my rant was ghosting, you really need to re-read that. There is much more fault with LCD than just ghosting. But if you want to see the effects of ghosting first hand, pick up Crysis, enter the forest, and watch how all your detail magically disappears the moment you move. You are seeing your display try (fruitlessly) to keep up.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

OK, the first part makes sense, to a point - I know a guy with a 13.3" asus with a 1080p screen, and without scaling, I find it's so small it's definitely not comfortable to read things on. (I can still read them, but I have to do it from a closer distance.)

On phones, I would think that 720p is plenty. Beyond that, you're just wasting space, and it's probably not easy to notice the difference anyway.

For ghosting, what types of games exactly are you talking about?

I never claimed that 1080P @ 13" was ideal. The comment was directed at the "But Apple is leading the way" comments, since they are obviously WRONG. Apple is taking up the rear on this one.

I am talking about any game with constant motion. Brian - if all you took from my rant was ghosting, you really need to re-read that. There is much more fault with LCD than just ghosting. But if you want to see the effects of ghosting first hand, pick up Crysis, enter the forest, and watch how all your detail magically disappears the moment you move. You are seeing your display try (fruitlessly) to keep up.

The thing is, even if you ignore the energy usage and size on CRTs, there's still the issue of text being blurry (particularly on older ones) and the image being slightly warped. That alone is a big reason for me preferring LCDs.

Another thing - Apple wasn't the first with high res displays like that, but they were the first to go that high - seen any laptops with a similar res (or 2560*1600) elsewhere?

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

The thing is, even if you ignore the energy usage and size on CRTs, there's still the issue of text being blurry (particularly on older ones) and the image being slightly warped. That alone is a big reason for me preferring LCDs.

Another thing - Apple wasn't the first with high res displays like that, but they were the first to go that high - seen any laptops with a similar res (or 2560*1600) elsewhere?

This issue plauges more than just older lcd panels. newer ones can deal with minor movement better (such as mice!) but with active movement - even in movies like Avatar, you can see how quickly detail falls off. Then of course, there is the inconsistent lighting leading to slightly different shades of color from one part of your screen to another.

As for Apple - have you ever seen Apple actually let it run at native resolution? Nope. WHY? Because it goes far beyond high resolution, and beyond pointlessness. High resolution means many things. Being able to use that resolution is part of it. 1080P on notebooks was only possible through any vendor that wasn't Apple. Now, Apple is playing catch up, and going to their nonsense. Sadly, after their crapware gets done with it, the effective resolution is still - 1440x900. Or 1600x1050 @ their "small" setting. You still cannot make it to 1080P effective desktop real-estate.

BTW - Going bigger after the fact doesn't mean you led the charge, it means you overcompensated for being late.

[WinTard]

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 01 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

OK, the first part makes sense, to a point - I know a guy with a 13.3" asus with a 1080p screen, and without scaling, I find it's so small it's definitely not comfortable to read things on. (I can still read them, but I have to do it from a closer distance.)

On phones, I would think that 720p is plenty. Beyond that, you're just wasting space, and it's probably not easy to notice the difference anyway.

For ghosting, what types of games exactly are you talking about?

I never claimed that 1080P @ 13" was ideal. The comment was directed at the "But Apple is leading the way" comments, since they are obviously WRONG. Apple is taking up the rear on this one.

I am talking about any game with constant motion. Brian - if all you took from my rant was ghosting, you really need to re-read that. There is much more fault with LCD than just ghosting. But if you want to see the effects of ghosting first hand, pick up Crysis, enter the forest, and watch how all your detail magically disappears the moment you move. You are seeing your display try (fruitlessly) to keep up.

The thing is, even if you ignore the energy usage and size on CRTs, there's still the issue of text being blurry (particularly on older ones) and the image being slightly warped. That alone is a big reason for me preferring LCDs.

Another thing - Apple wasn't the first with high res displays like that, but they were the first to go that high - seen any laptops with a similar res (or 2560*1600) elsewhere?

Apple doesn't manufacture LCD displays (or anything else for that matter). It just orders them from OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and gets it put together by ODM (Original Design Manufacturers) like Foxconn. Just like anybody going to a restaurant. Patrons simply order from the menu. The chef has the skills, the training, the experience, the ingredients, and does all the work and all the cooking. The patrons may not even able to boil water without burning it, but they can enjoy gastronomical smorgasbords, without any skills required.

The point is that 2560 x 1600 screen in the Macbook Pro is being purchased by Apple from Samsung. You got that right. It is a Samsung engineered, designed, and fabricated 'Retina' screen, being sold as a mere component to Apple. The cheapest MacBook Pro 13-inch 2.5GHz with Retina is $1699. Incidentally, one can now purchase a Google Samsung Nexus 10 ARM 32-bit tablet with 2560 x 1600 (300ppi) resolution for a mere $399.

Proof? Google Apple uses Samsung retina displays

So being first to develop and bring to market is Samsung's realm. Actually making something from scratch, versus ordering what's already made available are two completely different things.

Ironically, Samsung having been there and done that, is moving away from LCD. They are continually investing large sums of money to fund R&D and are the world's leader in OLED.

Google Samsung leading OLED development reveals:


Since a picture is worth a thousand words:


Two pictures == 2000 words?


~~~~~~~~~~
The mind that is anxious about future events is miserable.
~ Seneca, 4 BC-AD 65

Let us strive to improve ourselves, for we cannot remain stationary; one either progresses or retrogrades.
~ Madame Du Deffand, 1697-1780

Everything changes, nothing remains without change.
~ Buddha

This post has been edited by WinTard: 01 November 2012 - 10:42 PM

[WinTard]

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Right, because when Apple provided this feature, it was not meant for general consumers? Also, you have to love it when Apple paves the way with a new direction for others to copy, it's considered "over-hyped". But, when your preferred company finally gets onboard, all of a sudden, it's a good idea. Sigh... how predictable.

Sigh... How predictable when you have fanboi blinders on? Didn't you know Apple did not invent anything? They just bought it from Samsung. But DID NOT DEVELOP IT NOR FABRICATE IT.

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Really, how so? Do you understand the point of a "Retina" display? The point is, your eyes can't discern a quality difference beyond a certain ppi at a given distance, etc. Likewise, it wouldn't matter if it was a 500 ppi screen because you wouldn't be able to see the difference anyway.

I understand the point exactly. It is pure Apple marketing hype. The specs were always there. horizontal resolution x vertical resolution. Divide this by the screen size and you get PPI. So what's Retina? Now that it has been exceeded by mere specs, coming from a $399 device no less. Oh the shame!

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Well, it's a good thing you don't do professional photography work as OLED screens are notoriously over saturated. Though, I have no doubt they look good to an untrained eye.

Oh and I suppose you are a professional photographer? Your inference is you've got better eyes or vision than others? ROTFLMAO!

So please explain why the entire industry is buzzing with favorable OLED predictions? Everyone (except the layman, and general consumer who don't even know much less understand what kind of technology is underneath the oh so pretty skin) in the professional industry regards the chrominance (color saturation) and luminance (dynamic range between black to the most intense white) and color gamut (the spectrum of light ranging from infra-red to ultra-violet) as important metrics?

Well all LCD technology is backlit (since it does not produce its own photons) and is also known as passive. Which means the backlight must produce a sufficiently white lighting for the LCD to produce colors from that 'white' spectrum. Furthermore, the LCD being passive means no matter what, it will also absorb and distort light passing through it.

In Plane Switching (IPS) is especially poor on two metrics:

• contrast ratio (due to light escaping the various polarizers necessary for LCD operation)
• response time (causing blurry resolution on moving images.

Not that you would care as a photographer, since you are only dealing with static images.

I happen to use an Asus PA246Q P-IPS ProArt Series Professional Monitor, with adjustable, and professional color calibration.

It is beautiful on static images, but I wouldn't watch any video or movie on it. Why? Because the blacks are NON-EXISTENT. Only gray. Bright gray at that.

And you dare spread the FUD about 'oversaturated' OLED colors? When in reality it is you that is used to lower quality and lower contrast picture. (*Shakes head in disbelief*).

It is simple to prove. Any escaping light (as seen as light when the screen should really be BLACK) will distort the fidelity of the color. Why? Because any escaping light should not be there in the first place. Thus really is pure distortion. And non-professional people get used to that. They call it 'softer' pastel tones... Well tough, no IPS screen to date can reproduce BLACK correctly.

TechConc, on 01 November 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Anyway, sorry... I can't help but laugh at the types that get all spun up over specs without really understanding what matters in a device

Don't be sorry. Especially when you are the one that spins all kind of false BS without any understanding of what matters in Picture Quality, nor the limiting factors in any fundamental technologies.

Instead, please try to explain why the top studio reference standard monitors (we're past professional photography here) are OLED and / or CRT based and not LCD (or IPS-LCD)?

http://www.studiodai...a-tech-retreat/


http://pro.sony.com/...roduct-BVME250/


When the price comes down in a couple of years, LCD (and IPS) is DEAD.

How about this? Every time I stumble onto some of your random posts; thanks in advance for the laughs.

~~~~~~~~~~
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
~ Charles Darwin

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.
~ Mark Twain

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
~ Bertrand Russell

This post has been edited by WinTard: 02 November 2012 - 12:44 AM

[waldojim]

Hey Wintard - small.... minor correction. A nitpick really.

It isn't just ips that cannot display blacks correctly, that applies to all LCD displays.

Other than that, very good job with that. It is funny how long CRT's have lasted in the professional world. Everyone was so focused on "the end is near" regarding CRT, that they forgot how much nicer the picture really was.

[TechConc]

waldojim, on 01 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Well, Sony has been selling Retina displays for years. The 'Z' series machines (13") all have 1080P displays at 170PPI - assuming a normal seated distance.

The problem with that argument is that essentially every screen becomes a "retina display" at some focal distance. That said, I've not seen, even from a marketing perspective the term "Retina Display" associated with resolutions lower than 200+ ppi. 170 may be nice, but it's not in the same ball park really. Even from a print perspective, when you send photography to be printed, they want about 300 dpi, and anything less than 200 dpi will begin to look pixelated.

"Then again - how far beyond your perception doe the pixels really need to be? "

Exactly.

"Also 720P cell phones have a higher resolution than the iPhone 5 retina display...."

Agreed. They also have larger screens and either way, they both qualify for what would be considered "Retina display". You didn't see 720p phones before the original iPhone 4 though, did you?

"Sorry, but these displays have been around for a LONG time before Apple. Apple is just now catching up to that market. For a great example - prior to this years MBP - name ONE 15" 1080P or higher resolution MBP? There are none. Prior to this year, HP, Lenovo, and Dell have all had DOZENS of machines with color accurate, high resolution displays. Apple is VERY late to the game on this one. "

Apple has higher PPI screens as well before their Retina display. I think we can agree that in general, it has been an evolution rather than a revolution. However, to claim Apple is late to the game is to accept that displays in the mid 100's ppi range qualifies as a Retina display. I contend that it doesn't.

"Those limitations you speak of vary widely from one person to the next. As a child, my vision was 20/10. I could see from 20 feet, clearly what the average person could only see from 10 feet out. There are people who have sharper vision even than I did. As such - this is about more than just a perceived limitation that doesn't apply to everyone equally. "

I'm not going to debate you on the possibility of someone having super human capabilities. The point remains the same, there is a limit as to what can be perceived. Once you exceed that limit, there is no practical value and if anything, you are needlessly reducing your GPU performance in the process. That point remains, despite your tales of super human capabilities.

I certainly have no delusions here. There is no perfect display. There never will be - as we create them, and people are not perfect.

Good. That was my point. Someone may prefer one technology for another. I accept that. However, the blanket statements of saying one is clearly better than the other is dangerous and open for challenge.

However, the LCD answer is very simple. They are slow, inflexible, nearly impossible to calibrate for true color accuracy, and save nothing but space on your desktop. They don't even save electricity anymore. With CCFL displays, you can get decent color, but have light bleed as well as shorter life spans. With LED, you get distorted colors. Only with RGBLED can you get back to a decent light source, but they are rare and command a premium price. During all this, the average LCD contrast is under 1000:1. Very few LCD displays get past 2000:1 (real life contrast), and are incapable of producing BLACK.

Again you are painting with broad strokes. Not all technology is the same. For example, I have an LED LCD TV at home with a full array of LEDs and local dimming. If you're aware of how that works, you'll know that I do get true blacks in the dark regions, etc. There other advances such as Sharp's IGZO technology which use 2/3 less power than conventional screens, the refresh faster, allows for higher pixel density, etc. As for color quality, you might want to look at a technical review on even the current iPhone 5 or the Lumia 920. There is a reason Nokia moved away from OLED in favor of the latest LED LCD tech. There is also a reason these two phones are considered best in class based on today's technology. If you're interested, Anandtech has a nice article on the iPhone 5 display technology.

http://www.anandtech...een-performance