16.1 UXGA worth the money? - Page 2

Where are you getting these LCD specifications from? The 16.1" has a slower response time than the 15.4". If you are getting these spec from the manufacturer's site instead of Alienware's your providing incorrect info. Compare the contrast ratio and LCD brightness of these LCDs to what Alienware has listed and they are different. When inquired through Alienware regarding these variations I was told their LCD aren't listed on either manufacturere site and that they are designed for Alienware. Alienware doens't even list the response times of their LCD's on their site. Don't you think if it was 20ms they would be boasting proudly about that. You can't even get those specs from the "Official Alienware Forums".

On the other hand 15.4 wins all the time, better contrast, brightness, color representation, pixel size, refresh rate.

? to Yoda: are they more impressed with the ghosting, or the color bleed?

Facts are facts: 16.1, 15.4 or sentia lcd- AW does not use the best lcd's out.
Do a side by side to a Powerbook and you'll see what I mean.


PS: Vahe is talking out his arse as the only relevant stat he reported- refresh rate- is wrong 15.4 >faster 16.1

Uhh no, Vahe copied that directly from alienware's FAQ

Actually, I just called Alienware today because I myself had a hard time deciding between the 15.4 and 16.1 screen. I asked them and they told me that the refresh rate for the 15.4 IS 35 ms and for the 16.1 it IS between 20 and 30 ms. I decided to go with the 16.1. The rep told me that ghosting is no longer an issue with the "newer" screen. is the rate for the 16.1 screen good? I still have some time to change back to the 15.4... let me know...

The belief of the 16.1" screen having a slower response time than the 15.4" is pure dogma. Someone randomly stated this on this forum without actual official proof to back it up, and now its beginning to become a false "truth".

Here's the link for all of you with your head in the clouds:
Alienware Support Page

Brand and Model:
Samsung 15.4 WSXGA LTN154P1
Response time
35 milliseconds

Brand and Model:
Hitachi_16UXGA
Response time
20-30 milliseconds


There are varying degrees of ghosting on all LCDs. Refresh rates on all LCDs are locked at 60Hz. And color bleed? WTF are you talking about? Quit dogging Vahe and Yoda, there alot of facts and opinions in this matter. For some of you, all the proof in the world won't let you realize that alot of people are happy with their 16.1" screen, like me.

Nice find RdL.

-Craig

Here is the question I want to know. All the people who have 15.4. If money wasn't an issue, would have still gone with the 15.4???

Hmm.. a good question. I chose the 15.4 not only for the less expensive option, but also cause it gives you 2 more speakers. Also, i had heard about playback problems (that are supposedly no longer as big a deal) on the 16.1. I may have gone with the 16.1 if i had the money, but in no way am I displeased with the 15.4 (or the reviews of it at least)

Ok another question... One thing that I like about the 16.1 is the way it looks with the laptop. It seems to compliment the laptop more when its open. Like it was made for the 16.1, and the 15.4 option was just something else. Does anyone else see what Im sayin? As far as looks, not talking about how you wanted speakers but just the look of the two don't you think the 16.1 just looks better on it?

well, I can't really say... i'm used to various laptop looks, so I really don't see a big diff...

I believe since UXGA is a larger resolution you will have a greater chance of getting a dead pixel or two

more pixels, more chances

[quote=RdLdr1]The belief of the 16.1" screen having a slower response time than the 15.4" is pure dogma. Someone randomly stated this on this forum without actual official proof to back it up, and now its beginning to become a false "truth".

I don't believe anyones heads was in the clouds. This information on the Alienware website was just posted on 03-30-04. This issue was in debate long before that information became available.

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=11620

Well, I have done some forum searching. The first mention I have found that claims that the 16.1" LCD screen of having a 50ms response time (which is incorrect) is way back in December of 2003, and possibly before then.
Here's an example:
http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=11620

This particular LCD's response time does not change over time, it has always been 20-30ms (known or not). People incorectly believed (and were outraged from hearing) of a 50ms rating. And that 'school of thought' (as you may) had won over, which had denounced the 16.1" screen as terrible. Even though the actual response time had not been widely known on the forums, the assumption of a 50ms(or so) response time had grossly misled and infected these forums. It is unfortunate that an official statement from Alienware had not been available to us sooner.

I end with this quote:
Keep your words soft and sweet, one day you may have to eat them.

Maybe you should take heed to your own quote. I never came off harsh or insulting since everyone else has their heads in the clouds. Regarding the model of Samsung 15.4" listed in the FAQ, there are a few discrepancies that Alienware has posted.

Here are the specs from Alienware's own website from the configuration page.

Display 15.4"WideSXGA+ 1680x1050 Multimedia LCD Display
Screentype Active Matrix (TFT)
Native Resolution 1680x1050
Colors 16.7 Million
MegaPixels 1.47 MPixels
PixelPitch 0.204 mm
Luminance/ Brightness (typical) 150 cd/m2 (nits)
Horizontal Viewing Angle +/- 40 degrees
Vertical Viewing Angle +10/-30 degrees
Contrast Ratio 250

Here are the specs from Samsung's website for the model number listed.
SIZE 15.4"

RESOLUTION WSXGA+
NUMBER OF PIXELS 1,680 x 1,050
ACTIVE AREA(mm²) 331.2 x 207.0
PIXEL PITCH(mm) 0.1971
NUMBER OF COLORS 262K
CONTRAST RATIO 300:1
BRIGHTNESS(cd/m²) 185
RESPONSE TIME(ms at 25°C) 35
VIEWING ANGLE(U/D/L/R) 50/50/65/65

As you can see the Samsung model is slightly brighter by 35 cd/m2
The pixel pitch on the Samsung is also slightly smaller.
The Contrast Ratio on the Samsung is also better by 50:1
Finally the Samsung has better viewing angles.

Here is a link for Hitachi's LCD models which don't even list a 16.1"
http://www.hitachi-displays.com/cata...ook_pcs-e.html

with that logic the better screen would be like a 7" screen with 600x480 resolution

thats taking it to an extreme

if you look at the number of ppl who got dead pixels and how many they got over on the sager forums, you will notice that the larger resolution the screens (more pixels) the more frequent it is for some1 to have dead pixels/reported


this is not logic, is just data analysis.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/display...pixels-07.html

toms hardware has an article explaining the industry standard for allowed # of dead pixels... as you can see when comparing 15" lcd screens to 17" screens...

a 17" screen with 1280 resoltuoin has 1,310,720 pixels
a 15" screen with 1024 resolution has 786,432 pixels

so now, when your talking about 16.1" screens with 1600+ resolution, there are more pixels on that screen, therefore more chances for getting dead pixels,

compared to a 15.4 or 15.1 screen with 1280/1400+ resolution, which has less pixels and a lower chance for getting dead pixels..

to sum it up in simple terms:

Dead pixels are nearly ubiquitous. As the pixel density goes up, so to does the likelihood of having one or more.

did a little research and found

"In a UXGA screen, there are 1,920,000 pixels and since each pixel is made up of 3 subpixels (red,green,blue) that's 5,760,000 things that must work perfectly."

"Due to current manufacturing methods of active matrix display panels, a certain number of sub-pixel anomalies (a pixel stuck on or off) are acceptable. Because the manufacturing yield of perfect active matrix panels is very low, displays may have some sub-pixels that are either always on or always off. The cost of accepting only perfect displays could nearly double the price of a portable computer using an LCD screen. This is true of all portable computers using LCD technology, not just the PowerBook."

15.4 " screen 1680 x1050 = 1,764,000
16.1" screen 1600x1200 = 1, 920,000

so the difference is less than 200,00 pixels, not as drastic as your example withthe sagers....

my point was sure larger screens with better resolution yield higer odds of dead pixels...

BUT

you also get a larger screen and a better picture!

Well first of all I did not state any specific example with the sagers, I only said that their notebooks with larger resolutions yielded more reported dead/stuck pixels than notebooks with more standard resolutions. I dont see how thats 'drastic'

You are correct that the difference is 200,000 pixels between 16.1 UXGA and 15.4 WSXGA+, however that is not taking into consideration certain color specific stuck/dead pixels. Each pixel on an LCD has 3 sub-pixels for red/blue/green, so you need to multiply the number of pixels an LCD has by 3 to accurately measure the % chance of a dead/stuck pixel.

(16.1" uxga)
1,920,000 x 3 = 5,760,000

(15.4" wxga)
1,764,000 x 3 = 5,292,000

So the difference here is actually 468,000 if you were to take into consideration color-specific stuck/dead pixels as well. Thats about an 11% greater chance of getting some sort of dead/stuck pixel if you opted for the 16.1 over the 15.4 screen :P

-----------

on a different note here:

I did not see you make that statement or point made anywhere until after I got technical...

all you said after my intial post, was sarcastically:

----------

back on topic, for the cost of a 16.1 uxga screen, you will have a visually larger screen to look at, with typically better horizontal and vertical viewing angles. however with that in mind, you also will have a greater chance of getting some sort of stuck/dead pixel (11% to be accurate). while all of this dead stuck pixel business may not even matter for some, its just something a consumer should be aware of.

my fault, and your right it was sarcastic.