Thinkpadders Rejoice (*LARGE PICS*)

[RealBlackStuff]

The resolution mentioned there (for TP X1 Yoga) is: (2,560 x 1,440 pixels)

To get at the screen ratio, first divide the vertical resolution 1440 by 10 = 144
Then divide horizontal resolution 2560 by 144 = 17.77777, NO GOOD.

Next, divide the vertical resolution 1440 by 9 = 160
Then divide horizontal resolution 2560 by 160 = 16, BINGO.

Result: 2560x1440 is still the same crappy 16:9.

[bgx]

When i said i want the same screen, i meant the same technologie (OLED), NOT the same aspect ratio of course.

This screen is in a TP X1 Yoga, they didnt change the aspect ratio for it (still the bad 16:9).

I ve been a promoter of 3:2 for a long time.

It might be easier to get OLED on 3:2 than LCD btw. Supply is scarse though, but we can only expect it to be better, all the more when LG will be in the danse for OLED laptop screen as well (next year?).

[Ibthink]

I don´t think a 3:2 OLED screen has any chance of appearing in the ThinkPad Retro. Getting a custom 16:10 IPS screen into production seems to be costly and difficult enough. With 3:2 OLED it would be much more expensive of course. And 16:10 did win the polls after all...

[bgx]

3:2 and OLED are 2 disconnected things.

3:2 OLED is the dream. I know it wont be in the first iteration, because the first iteration is 16:10.

Now, concerning 16:10, OLED should be feasible as an option. Probably not on day 1, but if everyone asks for OLED, then LG will start producing screen for laptops, and we can hope for it at some point (may be the next year on the x93 next year iteration, as x300->x301 keeping the same shell).

I also expect 3:2 to become stronger than it is now for buisness laptop, and then we can hope for lenovo to eventually catch up (they tried in the X1 tablet). Again, by that time (2018), OLED should be stronger as well, and hence 3:2 OLED should be a reasonable option.

Just look at the test of the OLED.
Consumption is reasonable wrt same resolution IPS, unless you have 80% of white.
life expectancy of the OLED screen seems reasonable as well, although only time will tell, and contacting the early adopters in 1 year would be more informative.

For the rest, the OLED just blow the IPS screen. Better black (that we all know), but also much better colors (i have to see if it is bad calibration or just constrast make it much nicer) and outdoor viewability better, altough the peak light emition is lower.

[Puppy]

For the rest, the OLED just blow the IPS screen..

Maybe the first generation until manufacturers find a way how to cheapen the technology. The same has happend with LCD IPS-based displays. OLED has also its sort of issues. Limited lifespan, irreversible permanent image retention, higher power consumption for white colored background compared to LCD and so on.

Properly manufactured LCD IPS-based display without all these cutting cost tricks that has cheapened the technology during last few years is still the winner I think. Unfortunately Lenovo priority is the lowest possible component price regardless of the device price tag (see P50 and P70 terrible displays). I fear this won't change for the Retro ThinkPad as well

[Ibthink]

I too share the enthusiasm for OLED. This is the single biggest advancement in panel quality on Notebooks ever - a much bigger step then the move from TN to IPS. However, we should be aware of the problems as well - the longevity has gotten better, but its still a weak point. Also, for OLED screens, you need coverglass - this is the reason why it was put on the X1 Yoga first, and only the X1 Yoga for this year. The X1 Yoga has a glossy OLED screen, hopefully we can have at least semi-matte OLED screens in the future.

I think if the X1 Yoga OLED is a success, Lenovo will start to put these panels in other models as well.

In the long term, I hope mLED can succeed OLED. mLED just seems like the perfect panel technology.

Maybe the first generation until manufacturers find a way how to cheapen the technology.

You say cheapen, but some of the things you criticize also are connected with high-res displays. Pentile matrix displays for example were developed to lower the power consumption on high-res displays.

Of course, IPS today is much cheaper to produce then it was 5 years ago, and it is much more common, even in cheaper machine.

[Puppy]

I think if the X1 Yoga OLED is a success

Wait three years and then check again how the display looks like. Wondering what exact issues are covered by warranty, especially the image retention.

I would still prefer solid LCD IPS-based panel but this is what you can't expect from Lenovo anymore.

Of course, IPS today is much cheaper to produce then it was 5 years ago

Compare the matching quality please. If 12 years old IPS display is more issue-free than newer 4 years old, there is noticeable quality drop. I am talking about cheapeing the technical parameters, not the product price itself. Manufacturers found the way how to make the initially good technology more crappy while it still have the (priceless) IPS tag. Unfortunately LED backlight contributes to it more than expected.

OLED is a good option for small mobile devices now but the technology is still not so mature and proven for large displays. BTW first LCDs had the same size limit issue until the separate voltage driving for individual display sections was discovered. That's also the source why some display flickers displaying some specific pattern (pixel-walk).

[Ibthink]

Granted, every new technology has some issues...and in some ways, every old one has too.

The LCD industry is declining it seems. Just days ago Samsung announced they will spin-off their OLED development and manufacturing, and try to sell the unprofitable LC Display Business to a Chinese company. IPS displays are common and cheap now, there is not much profit left in it.

OLED today is obviously much better then OLED six years ago. We have OLED TVs now too, so the screen size isn´t really the issue here, longevity still is. Although if we think back to the CCFL days, the longevity of displays back then was often pretty limited as well.

The 12 year old IPS display wasn´t LED (as you mentioned). And back then, IPS displays were outrageously pricey. IBM even had their own display joint-venture with Chi-Mei, called International Display Technology (IDTech), which initially manufactured some of the IPS displays for ThinkPads. However, this wasn´t profitable. In 2005 the factory was bought by Sony and the rest of the joint-venture was just absorbed by Chi Mei. Lenovo doesn´t have their own display development.

[Puppy]

Although if we think back to the CCFL days, the longevity of displays back then was often pretty limited as well.

My NEC 2090UXi monitor has CCFL backlight. It runs 14 hours a day for 9 years and it still looks exactly the same because of the active compensation. It just matter of whether the manufacturer wants to do it right or cheap at first place.

And back then, IPS displays were outrageously pricey.

This is not an excuse for such quality decline. The cost of the panel as IBM part (we know that original parts were always overpriced) was $400 that time. Considering the technology development and increasing (yes increasing, if you compare exact specs now and five years ago) laptop prices, there is no reason why at least similar quality is not available, very likely for lower price now. Unfortunately the current development is about how to make it as cheap as possible and crappy together.

Lenovo doesn´t have their own display development.

No need to. Microsoft does not have it either and can provide good quality 3:2 custom resolution displays without basic flaws like low PWM. The NEC 2090UXi monitor has panel manufactured by LG and designed by NEC, that's why it is equipped with A-TW polarizer, so rare these days. Again, it is just matter of willingness to do it right. Lenovo wants to do it cheap but cheat on customers later. I understand it is not possible to have a $400 panel in a $800 laptop. But Lenovo way to use the exactly same cheap display part in both E560 and P50 models is treating customers like idiots.

[Bibin]

As an aside, I also have an NEC 2090UXi and it's a great monitor. It's super bright and has many, many hours on it, yet it's doing very well.

[Puppy]

As an aside, I also have an NEC 2090UXi and it's a great monitor. It's super bright and has many, many hours on it, yet it's doing very well.

It had been available for 7 years without noticeable price drop during all the years (at least over here). Some products are just so good to be replaced in short time. Similar to famous Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 lens introduced in 2009 and available till now.

[evening_hunger]

The resolution mentioned there (for TP X1 Yoga) is: (2,560 x 1,440 pixels)

To get at the screen ratio, first divide the vertical resolution 1440 by 10 = 144
Then divide horizontal resolution 2560 by 144 = 17.77777, NO GOOD.

Next, divide the vertical resolution 1440 by 9 = 160
Then divide horizontal resolution 2560 by 160 = 16, BINGO.

Result: 2560x1440 is still the same crappy 16:9.

I have a PhD in applied mathematics, and I swear I have no idea what you just did.
What I do however understand is this:
1440/2560=0.5625
9/16=0.5625

[RealBlackStuff]

I was a mainframe programmer for well-known banks, such as Bankverein, UBS, Zurcher Kantonal Bank, Bank of Ireland, Bear Stearns and many other famous companies such as Hoffmann-LaRoche and Ford.
I simply applied LOGIC, which is the only thing a good programmer needs to understand.

[TPFanatic]

Aspect ratio can also be got by dividing the horizontal count by the vertical count.

2560 by 1440 and all 16:9 screens have an aspect ratio of 1.77.

Our favorite 4:3 screens have aspect ratios of 1.33.

The bigger the aspect ratio, the wider the screen is.

[evening_hunger]

I simply applied LOGIC, which is the only thing a good programmer needs to understand.

Happily this doesn't apply to academics, how dull life would be

[bgx]

Logic is the only thing a researcher needs (of real science i mean. Not sure maths app applies as real science). Sorry.

[evening_hunger]

FIY physics is applied mathematics. But people like Feynman indeed have said on multiple occasions that there's no logic in physics. So you may be right!

I'm not criticizing RBS's method of aspect ratio calculation. It is indeed a handy technique, sometimes possible without a calculator. So please, let's not mix algebra and analysis into it, it's just throwing insults which, I have to admit, I have started. Sorry. Won't happen again.

Anyhow, I guess what I tried to say is that pixels (not sub-pixels) are square, until we get to OLED in which case I don't know. And so, it's just enough to know their numbers, at least in modern screens. But perhaps I'm wrong, I seem to recall 15''6 laptop with 1280x800?

[ajkula66]

I seem to recall 15''6 laptop with 1280x800?

That resolution would be applicable to 15.4" which is 16:10.

Its 16:9 counterpart would be 1366x768 in 15.6"

[Summilux]

Some products are just so good to be replaced in short time. Similar to famous Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 lens introduced in 2009 and available till now.

Seven years isn't considered exceptional longevity for a lens, though.

(Also I wouldn't quote the infamous Ken Rockwell, even if his lens index is said to be somewhat sane. This website is much more trustable although it doesn't yet cover the most recent stuff.)

[evening_hunger]

What's infamous about him?

[RealBlackStuff]

I'm not criticizing RBS's method of aspect ratio calculation. It is indeed a handy technique, sometimes possible without a calculator...
I seem to recall 15''6 laptop with 1280x800?

(Those laptops were 15.4")
To get at the screen ratio, first divide the vertical resolution 800 by 10 = 80
Then divide horizontal resolution 1280 by 80 = 16, BINGO.

Result: 1280x800 is still the semi-good old 16:10.

[TPFanatic]

For reference,

16:9 is 17.7
5:3 is 16.6
4:3 is 13.3
5:4 is 12.5
1:1 is 10

Bigger the number, wider (SHORTER) the screen is.

[Summilux]

What's infamous about him?

Alle.

The dude's been caught "reviewing" equipment he didn't even lay his hands on.

He's a despicable, incompetent marketer ; not a photographer.

[evening_hunger]

Thanks. Yes there is this strange smell about Rockwell, the way he writes gives this away. I particularily don't like his total lack of modesty. Plus the fact he contradicts himself on numerous, numerous occasions. But I admit he did fuel my interest in some of Nikon's gear. I photograph analog, and I was using KR's info a lot when choosing my Nikkor lens as a base (to be precise, resigning from expensive f1.2 and going for not-expensive f1.4). Sorry for offtop.

[evening_hunger]

I'm not criticizing RBS's method of aspect ratio calculation. It is indeed a handy technique, sometimes possible without a calculator...
I seem to recall 15''6 laptop with 1280x800?

(Those laptops were 15.4")
To get at the screen ratio, first divide the vertical resolution 800 by 10 = 80
Then divide horizontal resolution 1280 by 80 = 16, BINGO.

Result: 1280x800 is still the semi-good old 16:10.

Yes thanks. Man I'm missing 16:10. I've been using a 16:10 Inspiron for almost a decade, always loved the screen. In fact it was funny: I started off with 1280x800 which broke after like 5 years. Okay so I switched the screen: unknowingly I was triple-lucky! as it turned out... As my next Inspiron screen, bought from france-ecrans, turned out not only to be IPS but also 1680*1050 ! Such an increase. Back then I didn't even know what IPS was, so I was struck not only by the ease of changing it, increase in resolution, but also great colours.

Years later switching to x220 was in fact a degradation in screen/pixel estate. I keep seeing the Inspiron every now and again as my in-laws use it, and I'm still amazed. I mean even going from 16:9 to 16:10 for five minutes is like a man can breathe. I don't even want to think of 4:3 as it would make me cry of how [censored] existence has become:)

I keep finding myself looking up ebay listnigs for x61 or even T410, which was at least 16:10 and not yet so slow. Who knows...

[TPFanatic]

IPS 1680x1050?

I know the WSXGA+ screens in the T500, at least the LG ones, are bright, have wide viewing horizontal angles, typical vertical, and really good colors and brightness. But they're TN.

[ajkula66]

IPS 1680x1050?

News to me as well, and I believe the information to be incorrect.

[evening_hunger]

Yes. Well last time I've been there I put my x220+IPS next to that inspiron and checked view angles. I'd swear they were identical and I don't think any TN could do that.
But of course, if you're so suprised I guess it's an incentive to check it. So I expect to see that computer during summer vacations. I'll disassemble the screen and write down panel serial, then check it on panelook.com and we'll settle this.

[ajkula66]

I'll disassemble the screen and write down panel serial, then check it on panelook.com and we'll settle this.

You really don't have to go that far.

Moninfo should report the information from EDID just fine. Should that fail, there's other software that will do the trick. Most likely there's no need to rip the system apart.

I'm "so surprised" because no one ever mentioned an IPS 15.4" 1680x1050 laptop LCD *anywhere*...not here, not on NBR or anyplace else...so the prevailing wisdom has been - for about a decade now - that such a panel simply doesn't exist.

[600X]

I'd swear they were identical and I don't think any TN could do that.

You'd be surprised how good some TN's can be. Some have no color shift whatsoever when viewed from the top. Only when viewed from the bottom, their true nature is revealed.