forum GNU Linux PowerPC Notebook

Hardware => Suggestions => Topic started by: rabidz7 on January 01, 2015, 04:21:05 AM

Title: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on January 01, 2015, 04:21:05 AM
I recommend using 4:3 display in the notebook. Would that be possible? Also, would it be possible to use a 120Hz display? What about strobing? Could you do a larger, 17" or 18" screen? Can the display be made glossy? If it is possible to do a custom LCD, I would use a 2560x1920, glossy, 120Hz, strobed display. If you can't do a custom screen, I would get the 1440x960 screen that 15" PowerBooks used, remove the matte coat, and run the refresh rate as fast as it can go.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: jjSuper1 on January 01, 2015, 07:14:45 PM
Care to elaborate?

4:3
Not sure why you want a square screen.  This could totally be done, however it would likely be more expensive as this is not the main consumer grade mass manufactured display technology currently being produced.  That = more $$
Secondly, while I believe most games have the ability to deal with a square format, most video content is (and always was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope)) wide screen.


120Hz Display
Refresh rates don't really matter on TFT screens (I'll explain below), and if you are referring to the ability of some modern screens to oversample to 120Hz, or those rare but true 120Hz display panels, then the video chip would need to also be capable of delivering the content at 120Hz.

TFT screens do not refresh in the same way as a CRT screen does, where the image is redrawn at a certain rate. A TFT monitor will only support refresh rates coming from the graphics chip between 60Hz and 75Hz.  The “recommended” refresh rate for a TFT is 60hz, a value which would be difficult to use on a CRT. The “maximum” refresh rate of a TFT is 75hz.  This has to do with the way the LCD driver works.  Since the whole screen is not refreshed at once.   Those fake 120Hz screens use additional hardware to spit out literally extra frames of the same screen image; this has the added effect of reducing motion blur (a terrible thing if you ask me), and would, in a laptop, require additional power.

Strobed Display:
 I will never, even as a gamer, understand the war on motion blur.  If you don't want motion blur, please go back to the 80's when we didn't have motion blur (per se) on our analog video as the frame rate was basically locked at 60 interlaced fps.
Anyhow, if you want the ability to turn this feature on and off, I don't see a reason to not include it (if it is even available in a laptop screen).

2560x1920
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Go learn about display resolution, screen size, and the list of monitors that display this resolution. 
I'm sorry, I have nothing personally against your choice of resolution; a better selection would be 3200 × 1800 (which is 16:9 I know), and is readily purchasable.  If you still want to go square, there is the choice of     2560 × 1700 [3:2] or 1600 x 1200 [4:3]. 
There is a maximum resolution outputable by the DisplayPort standard, but also note that as the chosen resolution increases on a single connection, the refresh rate decreases.

There are always trade offs.
 
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on January 01, 2015, 09:44:48 PM
I prefer 4:3. It's my preference. I like having height over width.

Refresh rates do matter on LCDs. A 120Hz LCD can display up to 120FPS, while a 60Hz LCD can display up to 60FPS. More FPS means that motion will be smoother. I can tell the difference between 90Hz and 60Hz on a LCD, so it is definitely noticeable. There are plenty of true, non-intrepolated, 120Hz LCDs for desktop monitors and some for laptops.

Motion blur is disgusting and ruins the image quality. I want to be able to scroll down a page without text degenerating into a mess. If you like motion blur, turn strobing off, but give people who don't like blur the option to strobe.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on January 01, 2015, 10:28:16 PM
Care to elaborate?

4:3
Not sure why you want a square screen.  This could totally be done, however it would likely be more expensive as this is not the main consumer grade mass manufactured display technology currently being produced.  That = more $$
Secondly, while I believe most games have the ability to deal with a square format, most video content is (and always was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope)) wide screen.


120Hz Display
Refresh rates don't really matter on TFT screens (I'll explain below), and if you are referring to the ability of some modern screens to oversample to 120Hz, or those rare but true 120Hz display panels, then the video chip would need to also be capable of delivering the content at 120Hz.

TFT screens do not refresh in the same way as a CRT screen does, where the image is redrawn at a certain rate. A TFT monitor will only support refresh rates coming from the graphics chip between 60Hz and 75Hz.  The “recommended” refresh rate for a TFT is 60hz, a value which would be difficult to use on a CRT. The “maximum” refresh rate of a TFT is 75hz.  This has to do with the way the LCD driver works.  Since the whole screen is not refreshed at once.   Those fake 120Hz screens use additional hardware to spit out literally extra frames of the same screen image; this has the added effect of reducing motion blur (a terrible thing if you ask me), and would, in a laptop, require additional power.

Strobed Display:
 I will never, even as a gamer, understand the war on motion blur.  If you don't want motion blur, please go back to the 80's when we didn't have motion blur (per se) on our analog video as the frame rate was basically locked at 60 interlaced fps.
Anyhow, if you want the ability to turn this feature on and off, I don't see a reason to not include it (if it is even available in a laptop screen).

2560x1920
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Go learn about display resolution, screen size, and the list of monitors that display this resolution. 
I'm sorry, I have nothing personally against your choice of resolution; a better selection would be 3200 × 1800 (which is 16:9 I know), and is readily purchasable.  If you still want to go square, there is the choice of     2560 × 1700 [3:2] or 1600 x 1200 [4:3]. 
There is a maximum resolution outputable by the DisplayPort standard, but also note that as the chosen resolution increases on a single connection, the refresh rate decreases.

There are always trade offs.

This is not ok, please be more more friendly in the future.
Even if some dosent see that this resolution is difficult to achieve don't mock them.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on January 01, 2015, 10:35:43 PM
I personally would like to see a minimum of 1080 Resolution 15" and a IPS display with good quality. The display for me myself is a very important part of sitting by the computer, Id also prefer a glossy display.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: sradonich on January 05, 2015, 04:24:08 PM
1920x1080 and I'd be happy. Though from the distance from my screen on this PowerBook G4 1280x854 looks pretty nice.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: duga on January 25, 2015, 08:33:06 PM
1920x1080 or 1920x1200 is fine. Preferably not a high glossy screen.

http://www.tweakandtrick.com/2012/06/matte-and-glossy-monitors-clear.html
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: feeef on January 26, 2015, 04:04:09 PM
Happy with 1920x1080 too! It is a standard resolution, perfect for watching /editing movies and for many other things.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: amigabill on January 31, 2015, 09:37:19 PM
I recommend using 4:3 display in the notebook. Would that be possible? Also, would it be possible to use a 120Hz display? What about strobing? Could you do a larger, 17" or 18" screen? Can the display be made glossy? If it is possible to do a custom LCD, I would use a 2560x1920, glossy, 120Hz, strobed display. If you can't do a custom screen, I would get the 1440x960 screen that 15" PowerBooks used, remove the matte coat, and run the refresh rate as fast as it can go.

Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. I myself would prefer either 15" or 17" widesreen with a matte finish. (I really hate reflections and glare that make it hard to see the image onscreen)

I'm less concerned with resolution, though with a standard laptop size we should be able to make more options fit, possibly as addon options if it's too expensive to make as option at original purchase of the laptop itself.

I don't know much about refresh rates or what strobed means for this. I did have to disable the "soap opera effect" on my LED HDTV. I don't know if these details affected that or not.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on February 04, 2015, 02:16:56 PM
At least do not make the screen on this 16:9. If you must have a widescreen, choose a 16:10 panel, such as a 1920x1200 or a 2880x1800 that is used in Retina MacBook Pros.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Raffaele_Megabyte on May 05, 2015, 06:05:46 PM
BTW I think that the laptop must features multiple output video ports and mainly:

1 DVI-I port

DVI-I also called DVI "PLUS", due to its form factor, was present in ancient MacMini PPC also. It features both digital and analogic output so it can be easily transformed into VGA, HDMI and also even S-VHS TV signal 640x480, so the laptop can output also to ancient CRT TV sets or professional TV monitors (it is very versatile sporting universal connection feature)

(http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/img/dvi-out-01.jpg)

1 HDMI port for anyday output to any LCD/LED monitor

1 Displayport rev.1.2 connection, so laptop could output its display upto to 5 Monitors connected in cascade link


http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/video-connections.html
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on May 07, 2015, 05:38:03 PM
I have to disagree with Raffael_Megabyte there. A notebook for me is much about portability and i would rather see one minidisplayport or thunderbolt port (ugh probably expensive) on it to use with an adapter than adding thickness to it.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Raffaele_Megabyte on May 18, 2015, 10:30:22 PM
What thickness? How much thick do you think these ports are?  ;D

And on the rear side of laptops there is always lots of void surface that can be used for adding connection ports and other useful thingies.  ::)
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on May 25, 2015, 09:35:58 PM
What thickness? How much thick do you think these ports are?  ;D

And on the rear side of laptops there is always lots of void surface that can be used for adding connection ports and other useful thingies.  ::)

Arent a more USB ports more useful than DVI ports in that case? or 2 or 3 Mini display ports instead of one DVI port?
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on August 19, 2015, 07:04:39 PM
 :-\
What thickness? How much thick do you think these ports are?  ;D

And on the rear side of laptops there is always lots of void surface that can be used for adding connection ports and other useful thingies.  ::)

Arent a more USB ports more useful than DVI ports in that case? or 2 or 3 Mini display ports instead of one DVI port?

The laptop should have an internal RAMDAC and VGA/DVI-I port for use with CRTs. External active adapters cannot provide sufficiency bandwidth to drive a good CRT.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on August 25, 2015, 06:35:42 PM
Thats a good point @rabidz7 if you wish to use to use CRT, I personally don't but I see the uses of a good CRT monitor :)
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on September 18, 2015, 05:06:19 PM
Perhaps the chassis manufacturer could make two cases: one for a 16:9 screens and one for a 4:3 screens. The rest of the laptop could be exactly the same. If this laptop has a screen wider than 16:10, it will be a deal-breaker for me. 4:3 is the best AR for laptops, period.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: jgospodaric on October 26, 2015, 10:35:29 PM
Hi,

what about 13,3'' display - first you need to gain attention from professionals and students and both require portability and ease of usage in limited space e.g. table in caffe bar, server room, school desk, lerning room, etc.? In this case 1920x1080 is more than enough - again who is in first target group?

4:3 is great as we old schools got used to it, but it's past and will never come back in reasonable price another plus for 16:9(10) is more natural to human eyes  :o Also new kids are not familiar with 4:3, because from birth they are surrounded with 16:9.

If there will be only one port then mini DisplayPort is must to have! If there is physical and financial space then HDMI + mini DisplayPort is nice to have - but I will drop this solution. From my point of view mini DisplayPort is enought you can alwaya attach miniDP to HDMI adapter but wih miniDP you have option for multiple displays daisy chaining.

One more propositions is to go absolutely  with non glossy display.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on October 27, 2015, 06:13:21 PM
Hi,

what about 13,3'' display - first you need to gain attention from professionals and students and both require portability and ease of usage in limited space e.g. table in caffe bar, server room, school desk, lerning room, etc.? In this case 1920x1080 is more than enough - again who is in first target group?

4:3 is great as we old schools got used to it, but it's past and will never come back in reasonable price another plus for 16:9(10) is more natural to human eyes  :o Also new kids are not familiar with 4:3, because from birth they are surrounded with 16:9.

If there will be only one port then mini DisplayPort is must to have! If there is physical and financial space then HDMI + mini DisplayPort is nice to have - but I will drop this solution. From my point of view mini DisplayPort is enought you can alwaya attach miniDP to HDMI adapter but wih miniDP you have option for multiple displays daisy chaining.

One more propositions is to go absolutely  with non glossy display.
The screen should be glossy. The output should be DVI-I. The screen must not be 16:9. 16:9 will be a dealbreaker. 16:10 would be Ok, but I'd prefer 4:3.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: jgospodaric on October 27, 2015, 08:49:10 PM
DVI-I adapters to e.g. hdmi or display port are rare and hard to get. VESA group is more open to open source community. If you put mini DisplayPortyou can easly get miniDP to DVI-I adapter.

Why not glossy -  I don't like to see my self in the mirror :D

I agree 16:10 is  better then 16:9 but its rare . On 16:9/10 you can put two windows split horizontally (total 160 chars)  on 4:3 that is not so good.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on November 05, 2015, 05:13:17 PM
If you put mini DisplayPortyou can easly get miniDP to DVI-I adapter.

YOU CANNOT USE THOSE ADAPTERS WITH ANY QUALITY MONITOR. They ONLY SUPPORT TINY RESOLUTIONS AND REFRESH RATES. READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

Oh, and your other point is dead wrong, too.
Here's some DVI to HDMI cords on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dvi+to+hdmi

And the DVI to DP cords:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dvi+to+DP&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Advi+to+DP


Again, CONSIDER READING before posting.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on November 14, 2015, 04:46:09 PM
If you put mini DisplayPortyou can easly get miniDP to DVI-I adapter.

YOU CANNOT USE THOSE ADAPTERS WITH ANY QUALITY MONITOR. They ONLY SUPPORT TINY RESOLUTIONS AND REFRESH RATES. READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

Oh, and your other point is dead wrong, too.
Here's some DVI to HDMI cords on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dvi+to+hdmi

And the DVI to DP cords:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dvi+to+DP&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Advi+to+DP


Again, CONSIDER READING before posting.

You are not a moderator here, do ease up that attidude please.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on January 15, 2016, 01:11:20 AM
I would prefer DisplayPort, because it's the most modern connector, second place HDMI.

Don't hit me, just a opinion :-)
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on January 17, 2016, 12:24:32 PM
I think min displayport would be the best option since it could slim the notebook maybe? or maybe even thunderbolt 3 could be an option if we would be ready to pay for that.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: rabidz7 on January 22, 2016, 03:12:10 PM
mDP would make sense for most LCDs. But because CRT use is important for many people, VGA out with a strong DAC is extremely important. Perhaps a DAC with 5th order filters, like old Matrox GPUs. Most DACs on modern systems suck bad. Something capable of clean 400MHz with clarity comparable to an AMD 7970 would be OK. Clarity comparable to a Matrox Parahelia would be incredible.

I'd like to add that a 16:9 screen would likely be a deal-breaker for me. I would not mind 16:10, but I prefer 3:2 and 4:3.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on January 23, 2016, 11:26:25 AM
I see some people lobbying for old school style display while others are considering a more modern display. To satisfy all people ee should be able to find a middle road? Maybe a more modern display on the notebook itself and a VGA port on the side (althoigh i personally would find it clunky) would be a proper solution?
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on January 23, 2016, 04:10:00 PM
What are the advantage of a CRT display?
I like old school, 4:3 if I have a choice. But the aspect ratio isn't that important for me
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: mpasteven on January 30, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
I am personally fine with the 1440x960 display as it is on the PowerBook G4 (A1138, PowerBook5,8). I prefer glossy though as the image appears sharper and I can use my display as a mirror if needed to see what is behind me. A DVI connector would be the best of both worlds as you could use analog VGA and then use a digital adapter if required.

I do use a 4:3 1024x768 display for a desktop, however I prefer the screen as it is on the PowerBook G4 since there is more screen real estate which can be used for displaying wider lines of code without having microsized fonts.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on February 01, 2016, 04:18:00 PM
The only 4:3 notebooks I'm aware of are Panasonic ones.
16:9 are more ordinary these days. Maybe cheaper to get?
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on February 05, 2016, 04:54:43 PM
Here are a few display ODMs I think:

Pegatron
Quanta
Compal
Wistron
Inventec

Over here you could buy displays:
http://www.made-in-china.com/multi-search/Laptop_Screen/F2--PV_1410020000_15024_165074,1410020000_37316246_13481247,1410020000_336064_165084,1410020000_80664_165094--CD_LCD-Display-Catalog/1.html
http://www.hktrx.com/supplier-102027-laptop-lcd-screen
http://www.amazon.it/LP156WH2-LP156WH4-Connettore-Posteriore-Sinistra/dp/B00DDS1SRA/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1454687656&sr=1-1&keywords=LCD+Schermo+Display+15.6%22
http://www.screentekinc.com

Edit: Here is a chart of the best notebook displays:
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Notebookcheck-Notebook-Display-Charts.119792.0.html

13.3 inch:
Chi Mei N133HSE-EA3

15.6 inch:
LG Philips LP156WF6
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Casper on February 18, 2016, 02:15:14 PM
A 16:9 1080p 15" matte LCD display is the most ergonomic and economic choice I think.

16:9 is now the most common form factor, 16:10 would also be a good choice, but I dob't know if it's as widely available. It's a good format for both modern media consumption and productivity. 4:3 isn't really an option anymore, not if you want a modern laptop.

1920x1080 is the optimal resolution I think. Plenty of sharpness, yet not battery draining high. 720p for laptops is really getting outdated for modern machines.

15" is a good blend of productivity and portability. As a student, 13" is a bit too small to keep 2 documents open next to each other, 17" is a bit too large and cumbersome for students.

As for display finishes, I prefer matte. For outdoor use  and my sanity. Glossy displays have beautiful colors, but the fingersprints drive  me crazy, dust and filth aren't easy to clean and the glare can be really annoying. Matte is more a jack-of-all-trades coating.

Title: Re: Display?
Post by: duga on February 28, 2016, 09:18:25 PM
>15" is way too big, both in space and weight. 13.3" is the sweet spot IMHO.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: alecb on April 05, 2016, 05:02:04 PM
I vote 1920x1080 if it's something like 13''+.  I really like high def stuff but typically that makes it more expensive. I think this project would benefit from having a cheap model that will enable devs to buy it out of curiosity / on a whim. Shouldn't be too high end, at the same time the display should be good enough for very clear text, and have decent viewing angles / not too reflective.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: nemesis on April 05, 2016, 10:19:33 PM
I vote 1920x1080 if it's something like 13''+.  I really like high def stuff but typically that makes it more expensive. I think this project would benefit from having a cheap model that will enable devs to buy it out of curiosity / on a whim. Shouldn't be too high end, at the same time the display should be good enough for very clear text, and have decent viewing angles / not too reflective.

I agree on that heigh end stuff is nice but we should keep the price in mind so curious people might get interested.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Gert on April 11, 2016, 12:42:13 AM
I think 13"+and at least 1440x960 would be good, and I strongly prefer matte display.  I fact I'd even go so far that a glossy display would be a deal-breaker for me. Maybe both options could be offered, glossy and matte?

Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Stemby on April 16, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
Maybe both options could be offered, glossy and matte?
I found this page (in Spanish) quite interesting:

https://slimbook.es/tutoriales/slimbook/77-detalles-de-nuestro-anti-glare-matte-skin

Ciao!
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: mpasteven on May 04, 2016, 01:16:48 AM
Most LCDs are naturally glossy, the matte you find on screens is just an added sheet for the most part.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on May 06, 2016, 06:42:43 PM
Okay, than I go for glossy (with a matte sheet in the package)
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: cyrano on June 01, 2016, 04:43:57 PM
More than half of the LCD panels that are being produced today are native DisplayPort. Especially laptop ones in the popular 13" and 15" 16:9 format.

Price wise, that is the way to go. 4:3 will be way more expensive.

An external DP port is less interesting than HDMI because HDMI is far more universal when it comes to external monitors available everywhere. I mean, how many TV's have you seen with a DP port?

DVI or VGA aren't needed. The number of DVI monitors is fairly limited. And while there are boatloads of VGA screens everywhere, implementing it is relatively costly as it needs a DAC. Most chipsets for laptop screens these days seem to have HMDI and DP only. And HDMI to VGA/DVI/whatever adapters are very cheap and easy to get.

Supporting VGA well would also mean a lot of extra work, as some of these screens aren't multisync at all and some have rare resolutions.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on June 01, 2016, 05:44:08 PM
Good points you made. But don't forget DisplayPort/ HDMI cable.
I would go for DisplayPort
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: cyrano on June 01, 2016, 06:40:27 PM
HDMI is cheaper because it has a far wider market...
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Amitari on June 02, 2016, 07:36:38 PM
Ugh, I wouldn't like 16:9 at all, 1080 vertical is way too low.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Shiunbird on June 03, 2016, 11:56:51 AM
Ugh, I wouldn't like 16:9 at all, 1080 vertical is way too low.

+1.
1920x1200 please.
Or anything 16:10.
Title: Re: Display?
Post by: Carlos on June 04, 2016, 06:07:08 PM
Over 95% of 16:10 notebooks are coming from Apple, AFAIK.
IMO, 16:10 is like 4:3. More exotic these days.