Is flexView really all that?

Message

SCURaja · #1 Post by **SCURaja** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:30 pm

hey all..well I have been using my 23733xu t42 15' with flexview lcd. I have disabled microsoft's cleartype technology..because quite frankly..it doesn't seem to really help with the screen....today my co-worker came in with a shiny new sony laptop...i was astonished and the contrast/clarity of the screen..definitely beat the crap out of my t42..in terms of screen display...
i was just wondering what you guys have done to get the most out of your contrast/brightness and whether you have trueType enabled...
tx

rocketman · #2 Post by **rocketman** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:35 pm

I don't know, am I the only one who doesn't like the Sony XBrite displays or any number of other companies that use the same type of shiny refective displays under different names?
I've used the Sony A290 and S260 and I can't stand using these shiny displays, they show every little smudge and in low light it's almost like looking in a mirror.
I love the display on my new 15" T42, I think it's at least as good as the Sony displays but without the highly reflective coating.

cj3209 · #3 Post by **cj3209** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:47 pm

Your co-worker's Sony probaby has the XBrite LCD which, if I'm not mistaken, is basically a clear film over the LCD that increases contrast but creates reflections (which is why the screen is so reflective).

You can get something similar with the available LCD protectors. Run a search.

SCURaja · #4 Post by **SCURaja** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:18 pm

i did a google search..and came up with protectors..for anti-glare/anti-scratch..
nothing that seems to enhance the display like xbrite..
any other suggestions?

Kenn · #5 Post by **Kenn** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:23 pm

Nushield.

IMO flexview makes a 15" screen 30% better in terms of overall usability/image quality. It's very nice having a slightly brighter, more solid/consistent picture with a much wider vertical viewing angle.

No, it's not glossy, but after the initial "wow" factor with xbrite, the smudges and glare effects really get to you.

Plinkerton · #6 Post by **Plinkerton** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:47 pm

I hate cleartype and I hate the xBrite stuff too. I was really hoping cleartype would be something I like, but it just made everything look fuzzy. It looks kind of neat, but as far as a font I need to stare at all day, I'll take the standard stuff.

The XBrite stuff really is weird to me. It's like starting at a mirror, when I should be staring at something I can read. i guess it really helps outside, but I don't often use my notebook outside.

I guess some people really like it, but for me, I just want normal font, and not a plate glass computer screen. I shouldn't be able to see if I have spinach in my teeth, or who's walking behind me in my computer screen.

lfeagan · #7 Post by **lfeagan** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:11 pm

Plinkerton wrote: I guess some people really like it, but for me, I just want normal font, and not a plate glass computer screen. I shouldn't be able to see if I have spinach in my teeth, or who's walking behind me in my computer screen.

Aw...come on dude. I have conversations with people all the time without ever turning away from my CRT monitor (I have a black background so I can see reflections in it well). Its great having someone start to walk up behind you and you are like "Hello Pat" before they even say anything. It really throws the bosses off guard

. Some of my coworkers this summer had car rear view mirrors and/or those round spherical mirrors you can put on the side view mirrors on their monitors so they could see behind them. It was hilarious to see that when I started working there.

Kenn · #8 Post by **Kenn** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:05 pm

lfeagan wrote: those round spherical mirrors you can put on the side view mirrors on their monitors so they could see behind them. It was hilarious to see that when I started working there.

I was going to mention the same thing. Some of my co-workers have that as well, and those things are incredibly useful. I hate it when I'm working and suddenly get a feeling that someone's standing behind me, but don't want to turn around for fear of looking insecure or whatever...

And while we're at it, I'm much rather know earlier and alone that I have spinich in my teeth rather than later during a conversation with the boss!

Plinkerton · #9 Post by **Plinkerton** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:09 am

I am actually quite surprised of all the people using ClearType. It's not that it's bad looking. It actually looks kind of good in a strange sort of way, but I find myself not liking it when I am reading many lines of text. It just seems to make everything blurry. I messed with the settings a lot also, and never really found anything I liked.

Elhabash · #10 Post by **Elhabash** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:45 am

I switch it on and off. If it is switched off, sometimes I look at the Start button, which looks really edgy and bad, and then I turn it on. After a while I notice that everything is a little blurry, and at this point I turn it off...
I am looking forward to the day we don't need such workarounds anymore...

As for the mirror-displays, how are they in the sunlight? I have problems with my normal display at times, when it's bright outside. Are they worse or better?

Ghostrider · #11 Post by **Ghostrider** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:50 am

Plinkerton wrote:I hate cleartype and I hate the xBrite stuff too. I was really hoping cleartype would be something I like, but it just made everything look fuzzy. It looks kind of neat, but as far as a font I need to stare at all day, I'll take the standard stuff.

I think the same way!

I have seen the crystal clear fonts of a T41 @1400*1050 in our company and was surprised that I could read everything without any problems. I am used to sit in front of 21" or 22" Monitors and thought that such a high resolution would be ridiculous on a 14" screen - but it has proven the opposite!
So why clear type? I tested cleartype myself and tried all options of cleartype. NONE enhanced the clarity of the fonts - they just turned fuzzy, blurry... BOLD: Yes. Better to read: No. Maybe it's programmed for people who used to sit in front of VERY old blurry CRTs and want to have this "it looks as usual" feeling.

Xbright: Never seen it yet...

Plinkerton · #12 Post by **Plinkerton** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:14 pm

XBrite's that really reflective screen. Like when you go into Circuit City, and watch the people walking around behind you when messing with the notebook.

They do look more vivid and bright, and colorful, but I just hate the reflectiveness. It's weird to see stuff moving in my screen besides what's on the computer moving.

SCURaja · #13 Post by **SCURaja** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:08 pm

bounce for interestin topic

so far..we're only at 30 votes..its still too little a number....im curious what the majority is using

eistea · #14 Post by **eistea** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Plinkerton wrote:I am actually quite surprised of all the people using ClearType. It's not that it's bad looking. It actually looks kind of good in a strange sort of way, but I find myself not liking it when I am reading many lines of text. It just seems to make everything blurry. I messed with the settings a lot also, and never really found anything I liked.

Yes, it adds a little bit of blurriness and first time I had to switch it on, switch it off and on again for comparison. But finally I came to the conclusion that fonts looks much better with ClearType enabled and now I don't want to miss it anymore.

Do you really consider the text on the left to be more readable?

rocketman · #15 Post by **rocketman** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:12 pm

I was thinking of trying ClearType but after seeing you befor and after example I've changed my mind.
I do find the left side easier to read than the right.

Ghostrider · #16 Post by **Ghostrider** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:20 pm

The example ist nonsense because it is all typed italic. Normal text shows smaller differences. BTW: This is not the way truetype functions - that is just antialiased text.

Nope - try cleartype yourself on your own display without font smoothing and make your decision then by browsing the web, using the explorer and doing some word processing.

But PLEASE don't believe such an optimized example without thinking twince about it.

Or do you just read italic text all the time? I don't think so.

eistea · #17 Post by **eistea** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:35 pm

Ghostrider wrote:PLEASE don't believe such an optimized example without thinking twince about it.

The example shows exactly how ClearType works - at least on my system. And as long as non-italic texts are not only consisting of orthogonal strokes, I can't see the point in your argumentation.

MichaelMeier · #18 Post by **MichaelMeier** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:39 am

Ghostrider · #19 Post by **Ghostrider** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:45 am

MichaelMeier wrote:As long as you do not have an LCD screen in front of you, there is no possible way to experience ClearType. The point is: it uses subpixels (the red, green and blue dots that form one single pixel) to do the text smoothing.

Only a digitally controlled LCD screen can be used to produce that result. It has to be in its native resolution as well or it wont work.

Instead of only showing the (in my opinion) stupid picture from Microsoft it would be better to give a ling to their page where the technology is explained.

Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx

100% agreed. No "picture" can reproduce the cleartype effect. Except if you take a photo of your TFT-screen with and without the use of cleartype.

eistea · #20 Post by **eistea** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:53 am

MichaelMeier wrote:As long as you do not have an LCD screen in front of you, there is no possible way to experience ClearType. The point is: it uses subpixels (the red, green and blue dots that form one single pixel) to do the text smoothing.

Only a digitally controlled LCD screen can be used to produce that result. It has to be in its native resolution as well or it wont work.

Instead of only showing the (in my opinion) stupid picture from Microsoft it would be better to give a ling to their page where the technology is explained.

Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx

You are my hero. Please go back to my post. Read it again, and answer yourself the following questions:

Do you really think Plinkerton tried ClearType on a CRT?
Do you think he has no idea at all of how ClearType works?
Do you think posting your link would have made sense when asking him if he really prefers the somewhat sharper non-CT over the more "typographic" CT representation of the same text?

And last not least: How do you think we could find out if an unsatisfying CT is well configured, if not with such a "stupid picture" (which almost exactly shows the before and after effect...)

eistea · #21 Post by **eistea** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:11 am

Ghostrider wrote:100% agreed. No "picture" can reproduce the cleartype effect. Except if you take a photo of your TFT-screen with and without the use of cleartype.

Ever tried the "Turn on ClearType" button at http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cle ... uner/1.htm? Depending on the checkbox state the surrounding text on this page should be either matching the left or the right side of the image on the same page (at least it does on my Thinkpad UXGA display

) There should be no visible difference between "real" text and the corresponding text in the image. Therefore this picture seems to be quite a good reproduction of the ClearType effect

apoll0 · #22 Post by **apoll0** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:36 am

This is standard:

This is clear-type:

and that's how they appear on my laptop screen (and similar with my lcd monitor).

Which do i prefer? Who gives a sh!t. Which is better? It's a personal preference. Stop insulting other just because they don't like the same thing you like.

eistea · #23 Post by **eistea** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:31 am

apoll0 wrote:Which do i prefer? Who gives a sh!t. Which is better? It's a personal preference. Stop insulting other just because they don't like the same thing you like.

It's not solely a personal preference. Besides raised blood pressure also settings and configuration via the online tuner may have an influence on the subjective impression.

Ghostrider · #24 Post by **Ghostrider** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:37 pm

apoll0 wrote:
(Images removed)

Which do i prefer? Who gives a sh!t. Which is better? It's a personal preference. Stop insulting other just because they don't like the same thing you like.

Yes, it IS a personal preference. But the person who started this thread asked for other opinions.

What I can see in your screenshots is what has been said here before:
Cleartype makes the fonts look a little bit blurry.

But there is also a new aspect that I did not realize before: Bigger fonts look better than smaller fonts. Take a close look at the screenshots you posted. The lines with small letters (Joined date, Number of posts, date of post etc) look grey instead of black because of the Cleartype "enhancement".
The bigger fonts (in the posting itself) are still black.
My conclusion is that bigger fonts are truely enhanced by cleartype but smaller are not. The smaller fonts are rounded and have thicker lines but because of the lowered contrast (grey instead of black) this "improvement" is equlized by the contrast loss.

For me and my use (I would not increase the font size to have a bigger enhancement by the cleartype effect) cleartype is not useful.
I'll try it with my T42p that will arrive this week... but I'll stay with the sharp hairlines instead of the softened fonts.

fbrdphreak · #25 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:31 pm

To bring this thread back on topic.....
My T42 2373-NC1 purchased in August has the 15" SXGA+ 1400*1050. I never saw anything advertised about the FlexView screen on it, but the viewing angle is ridiculously great and brightness is better than most non-"X-brite" notebooks that I've seen. Do I have a FlexView screen? If not, what differentiates FlexView? Thx & sorry the ignorant question

eistea · #26 Post by **eistea** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:22 pm

fbrdphreak wrote:Do I have a FlexView screen? If not, what differentiates FlexView?

Uhm, I'd say: a ridiclous viewing angle and brightness better than most non-"X-brite" notebooks

If the colors and shadows stay (almost) the same and only become slightly darker, even when viewed from most extreme horizontal and vertical angles you propably own one.

fbrdphreak · #27 Post by **fbrdphreak** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:10 pm

Its interesting that FlexView was never mentioned in the specs. I bought it through my school, so I could see them not mentioning it and since its a custom model bought by my school, IBM doesn't have much info on the specs for the series. Hmm

SCURaja · #28 Post by **SCURaja** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:02 pm

thanks for the feedback...

i've actually switched...i guess i didn't set my clearType correctly, i set it via the m$ link, instead of setting it via the control panel. The examples seemed to be more appealing.

I've switched..and so far i'm liking it....
we'll see how long it goes tho..

Is flexView really all that?

Do you have M$ ClearType enabled?

Is flexView really all that?

Who is online