Fractional scaling relates more to the actual resolution numbers (width and depth) than to the aspect ratio (ratio of width to depth).
Fractional scaling relates to a Day 0 design decision with X i.e. that it is resolution dependent or, in other words, that UI elements are measured in pixels, not in a real world unit. X is over 30 years old now. The design decision made sense back then. Reasonably displaying an arbitrary UI application on a wide range of screens, varying in physical size and resolution, is not easy.
Except for me. I want FHD or 4K UHD and nothing in between.
I’ll be honest with you. If I were Purism and I had just announced a new revision of the Librem “13” and committed to getting it out the door “early in Q4” … I wouldn’t be changing the panel now. I would take it as feedback for the following revision.
Looking on eBay, a matte 1080x1920 14" screen costs $79, whereas matte 1440x2560 14" screens costs $145 (both screens for the Thinkpad X Carbon). Based on that, I would guesstimate that that Purism pays about $50 for a 1080p screen and $100 for a 1440p screen. I have no idea what BOE would charge to make matte 4K 14" screens, but it is probably something like $300-$400 per unit, if BOE would even make it at low volume just for Purism. Now, if Purism wants a glossy 4k 13.3" touch screen, there are lots of devices using that part and plenty of manufacturers who make it, so it wouldn’t be that expensive.
I have a Thinkpad T450s with a matte 1080x1920 14" screen, which is the same screen as the Librem 14 will have. I can see the individual pixels when my eyes are less than 12 inches away from the screen, but when my eyes are at a normal distance from the screen (around 24 inches), I can no longer see the individual pixels.
I have myopia and need bifocals to see clearly, so I’m probably not the right person to judge, but my poor eyes can’t see much difference with higher resolutions. I was comparing my 1440p phone with my girlfriend’s 1080p phone, and she could see that the display looked sharper in 1440p, but I couldn’t see the difference. What I really notice in displays is the maximum brightness, uneven brightness, and wide viewing angles. I found a couple bad pixels on the T450s display, but I never see them, except if I get up close and hunt for them, so I know that I’m not very sensitive compared to other people.
To those who can’t see a difference at higher resolutions, fire up a YouTube nature video at 4K on an external panel, then back off progressively using the gear icon. At least to me, even FHD vs 2560 is night-and-day, even though they seem visually similar if I just look at individual pixels.
Glossy would be a total deal killer. Apple seems to have embraced it because it’s physically tough and OLED in particular has greater nits than matte. Dropping from 1000 to 400 nits is fine with me if it means I don’t see reflections.
I agree that any better panel would be aimed at the next spins. Purism is too far into the 14 launch to swap out the panel, although perhaps an upgrade option would still be viable at this point. @nicole.faerber : looks like the data here supports that.
Hope I’m not too late to the party, but was just wondering if anyone knew if the plan is for “all of these screens” to have a 60 Hz refresh rate, and if anyone knows what the response times might be. I was thinking it could be nice to have a 144 Hz display with a low response time. But that might also not be of the utmost importance to most people.
I think a 2560x1440 would be wonderful but 1080 is also very nice.
to put it into a more modern context - if you (the random reader) happens to own a 1000R curvature external 2560x1440 monitor then you would have to sit at an exact 1meter range from the CENTER of your monitor in order to have full ERGONOMIC benefits.
that is assuming that the retinal theories they market theses EXPENSIVE monitors are actually true … if not you end up staring at a snake oil external monitor that you’ll likely want to RMA and get a refund as soon as possible …
4k with 2x upscaling would be identical GUI sizes as the 1080p display shipping in the librem 14 without needing fractional scaling. Also software is software and can be trivially replaced[1], but I can’t download additional pixels.
[1] For example, I use sway which supports fractional scaling.
I’d be happy to buy the 4k screen as a separate additional purchase and install it myself if it was shipped as the full display assembly. I’ve already replaced the screen on my xps 13 multiple times.
As of the time of this writing, 18 out of 30 (that’s 60%) respondents want a higher resolution vs 12 (40%) who wants to stick with the 1080p in any case.
There can be costs to Purism over and above the hardware cost of the different panel i.e. the manufacturing / logistics / assembly considerations. Hence:
It depends on whether the (hypothetical) decision from Purism is to offer a choice or to offer only the higher res panel. If the latter then you can see from @Jenny that there is then a further consideration that is not captured in the poll.
How many of those 18 (or 30) will even be actual purchasers of the Librem 14? More precisely, how many will decline to purchase if the only option is FHD but will purchase if something higher res is offered?
(Yes, so I am criticising my own poll. )
All that said, it gives some idea of what people generally think about what res they would like.
If you have average eyesight and at my laptop viewing distance, you can’t justify anything more than FHD on a 14" laptop.
i’m not saying i wouldn’t be interested in a higher than 1080p res panel. i’m saying i wouldn’t BUY a Purism laptop in such a small form factor.
4k panels have a respectable place in OLED TV screens or high-end photo/video manipulations at a PRO level but i don’t want to confuse the average reader further …
another interesting aspect is like you said - what if the MINORITY ends up buying MOST of your products ?
By the way, fullHD screen resolution makes it harder to track you through fingerprinting, because most of (non-mobile) devices in the Internet now have this resolution. See also: https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Is it display going to be Pantone Validated? I would be glad to have such option (or at least to be aware of some display specs) when ordering L14 (with 2560×1440 option).
According to above reference there are three options to choose from (just for comparison within this thread):
– 14-inch Non-glare WQHD (2560 x 1440) IPS-level panel, 60Hz, 100% sRGB, Pantone® Validated, adaptive sync
– 14-inch Non-glare Full HD (1920 x 1080) IPS-level panel, 120Hz, 100% sRGB, Pantone® Validated, adaptive sync
– 14-inch Non-glare Full HD (1920 x 1080) IPS-level panel, 60Hz, 100% sRGB, Pantone® Validated
Perhaps the worst specs above might be the best one to get from Purism, if @kieran agrees. 120Hz version might drain battery relatively quickly but it is just nice to see such offer from ASUS.
That’s a good question but it just goes to show how difficult it is for a small company to keep everybody happy. I was happy with FHD and color fidelity isn’t of major importance for my needs. Other people doing other kinds of work may have completely different requirements.
In my opinion, for a laptop going out the door early in Q4 it may well be too late for changing the panel.
If in the future Purism were going to offer some kind of “premium display” option for the Librem 14 then maybe, of the three options, choose the first option (higher res, Pantone Validated).
@fsflover This will migrate over time, most likely to 4K, as phones and desktops inevitably chase the state-of-the-art in video. In other words, FHD will stick out like a sore thumb by 2025 or so.
Copy that. Good to know regarding the 2 possible external monitors! As for the build in Monitor that is the one that is part of the laptop is that a 60Hz screen? (as apposed to 144Hz)…
I want FHD or 4K UHD and nothing in between.
)