NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › 9300 Screen Question - Not Samsung/LG related!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

9300 Screen Question - Not Samsung/LG related!

post #1 of 9
4/27/05 at 3:00am
Thread Starter 
Hello All,

I just got my 9300 with the 17" UXGA Display with TrueLife and so far, so good. I just have one question, and it may be stupid, but I'm gonna ask anyway. Is there any difference between viewing a 17" UXGA at 1440 x 900 pixels compared to viewing the standard 9300 screen type (XGA+) at 1440 x 900?

AKA would the XGA+ look better at that resolution since that is its native resolution, would they look about the same, or dare I ask...would the UXGA even look better since it can support higher resolutions....?????

Any help is appreciated. Thanks--
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 9
4/27/05 at 3:05am
Native is always best. Some think that non-native is not too bad, some find it unuseable. All agree, native is best.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 9
4/27/05 at 6:27pm
In non-native resolutions (ie 1440x900 on a WUXGA), the screen emulates the resolution. This means the screen is still running at 1920x1200, but it is changing the size of the pixel.

It's like taking a 1440x900 picture and stretching it onto a 1920x1200 screen. Looks ok, but not as good as if the picture was 1920x1200 to begin with.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 9
4/27/05 at 6:36pm
Welcome to the forum. This was the best and most simple technical explanation I found on the notebook FAQ. Basically it describes WHY most LCDs look sharper at native vs. non-native resolutions.

It's all about ratios. If you scale down 1920 resolution a notch or two to say 1400, you have a let's call it 2:3 ratio. That means that for every 2 logical pixels, it now has to draw 3 physical pixels. The problem happens when you have 3 pixels, you aren't going to get a whole integer. You will have a sort of 'blended' 4.5 pixels. So you can see that in almost all cases of scaling down, you are going to have many fractions.

One interesting note tho, is if you cut the resolution directly in half, to say 960x600, it should be as sharp and perfectly clear as native 1920x1200 because you won't have any fractions! Any whole number multiplied by 2, will always produce another whole number! This is all in theory btw.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 9
4/27/05 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vally
Welcome to the forum. This was the best and most simple technical explanation I found on the notebook FAQ. Basically it describes WHY most LCDs look sharper at native vs. non-native resolutions.

It's all about ratios. If you scale down 1920 resolution a notch or two to say 1400, you have a let's call it 2:3 ratio. That means that for every 2 logical pixels, it now has to draw 3 physical pixels. The problem happens when you have 3 pixels, you aren't going to get a whole integer. You will have a sort of 'blended' 4.5 pixels. So you can see that in almost all cases of scaling down, you are going to have many fractions.

One interesting note tho, is if you cut the resolution directly in half, to say 960x600, it should be as sharp and perfectly clear as native 1920x1200 because you won't have any fractions! Any whole number multiplied by 2, will always produce another whole number! This is all in theory btw.

Can't set the 6800 to 960x600.

I don't know, I'm using 1600x1000 right now and I think its the best out of all the non-native resolutions. I love the sharpness of 1920x1200 but everything is just too small.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 9
4/27/05 at 9:52pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the quick responses and all the help everyone...I have my 9300 set to 1440x900 right now, and it still looks pretty sharp -- Although I consider myself to have real good eyesight, at 1920 x 1200 things look quite small and it hurts my eyes after awhile. I'll continue to tweak things and see how it goes....
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 9
5/2/05 at 5:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by manuginobli
Thanks for the quick responses and all the help everyone...I have my 9300 set to 1440x900 right now, and it still looks pretty sharp -- Although I consider myself to have real good eyesight, at 1920 x 1200 things look quite small and it hurts my eyes after awhile. I'll continue to tweak things and see how it goes....
Wow 1440x900 actually looks damn good.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 9
5/2/05 at 5:25am
The LG screen, anyway, does not look real sharp on 960x600. You can add it as a custom resolution with powerstrip. It depends on the type of resampling the panel is using.

The Sony WUXGA looked perfectly sharp at 960x600. The LG looks pretty good on just about any non-native resolution, though it's not quite as sharp as 1920x1200. The Sony A190's panel wasn't quite as good at non-native rendering.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, you can't get better than native display viewing. You can get, at most perfect rendering of it: if you have a panel that can recognize that the resolution is an integer fraction of the native resolution, it should look good.

The native WXGA+ panel looks better at WXGA+ than the WUXGA will.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 9
5/3/05 at 9:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdbaker82
Wow 1440x900 actually looks damn good.
How did you manage to get all this for $1500 ?

And thank you all for the info as I was confused for long time as how those other resoulions will look on WUXGA. I'm plaaning to buy one with 512RAM and 128MB X300 ( Just to save some $150)

regards,
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › 9300 Screen Question - Not Samsung/LG related!