New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WSXGA vs. WUXGA

post #1 of 8
2/25/04 at 1:23am
Thread Starter 
I had an opportunity to watch part of Saving Private Ryan DVD on a friend's 8600 with a WSXGA screen. I was not that impressed with the quality of the video. Is this a function of the screen (i.e. WSXGA vs. WUXGA) or is it the Dell LCD? Would DVD video quality be better on a UXGA screen vs. a SXGA screen in general? I think I am ready to get a AMD64 laptop but I have reservation about DVD quality with a SXGA screen after seeing the Dell in action. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 8
2/25/04 at 5:22am
Take a DVD into the store with you and watch it on a couple of laptops.
We could all give you our opinion, but those won't matter as much to you as your own eyes.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 8
2/25/04 at 5:23am
I think the issue is w/ the specific screen, i.e. the specific LCD brand, not the resolution.

DVD's are fairly low resolution, something like 768x480...it should fit even WXGA screens fine. If you weren't impressed, it could be b/c of the interpolation algorithms used in the DVD player/graphics drivers to scale that resolution up to SXGA; it could have been the blurring, common w/ laptop LCD's; it could be the narrow viewing angles, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 8
2/25/04 at 11:59am

get the wide screen

From personal experience (and personal opinion) wide screens are much more conducive to a great DVD watching experience. You get, and feel, that movie theatre panoramic touch. The same experience permeates into the gaming experience also. I've got 2 games I play a lot. Call of Duty and Madden 2004. Call of Duty, being a cinematic-style game anyway, is a treat on the widescreen. Same goes for Madden 2004 with it's right-on NFL depiction.
I've had the standard square-box monitors for years (12 as I recollect of all sizes and resolutions...my most recent being a Mayhem G1 with WXGA) but the widescreen will be one of my buying requirements from this point on.
You can say what you want for resolution, but it basically just shrinks stuff. My understanding is the higher the resolution the less video refresh speed you have (which is completely logical...more pixels..more time to paint them). Give me 1280x800 on a widescreen and it's all good.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 8
2/25/04 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashby
My understanding is the higher the resolution the less video refresh speed you have (which is completely logical...more pixels..more time to paint them). Give me 1280x800 on a widescreen and it's all good.
Dashby, where did you hear this from?

It would be a sad day for us high-resolution LCD freaks if high resolutions meant slower refresh rates in general. I thought LCD's refreshed their pixels in parallel and not in serial?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 8
2/25/04 at 3:47pm
vertical refresh rate decreases as resolution increases.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 8
2/25/04 at 3:49pm

it's true

Saluki, I agree with your statement. It only makes sense. Of course, I've found over the years logic has no place in a computer box. Could be different with LCD displays I suppose.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 8
2/25/04 at 5:39pm
LCDs have a fixed refreshment rate of 60Hz.
But pixel response times does decrease with resolution due to the need to address more pixels.

And 16:9 screens are the future. There is one simple reason: the human field of vision is closer to 16:9 than to 4:3. But sadly we are not in the future. Most of the current software do not work as well in 16:9. In fact, we don't even have true 16:9 notebook LCDs. They are 8:5. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in the future?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General