Display screen comparison: HD+ vs FHD

I'm trying to decide which screen to get with my next machine, either a T510 or W510 Thinkpad.

It will be either the HD+ (1600x900) or the FHD (1920x1080). Both are LED backlit, as par for today's displays, but the HD+ seems to come with 220 nits and 60% color gamut, while the FHD is, apparently, 270 nits and a 95% gamut (there is also a touch-screen, which I do NOT particularly want, which comes with it seems a 242 nit screen, same 95% gamut).

Can anybody comment on the difference between these two screens, in terms of overall brightness (in both dark and bright ambient lighting), and particularly the color "sensation": is the 95% gamut just "too saturated", as I've read some reviewers say??

 

If you're doing color sensitive work, a color calibrator is needed to optimize any screen and it will be fine.

 

It depends on the screen size. For 14-16 i'd get 900p HD+. For 17-19 FHD is almost a must have. Some people like 15" laptops with FHD though. Are you able to try both screen resolutions out?

 

OK, thanks. I won't be using it professionally, so that may not be such a big issue ..... unless the screen just won't give a good rendition (for any use) without calibration. Are there built-in tools for such calibration, or do I need to look for some external device?

 

I'd be coming off using a UXGA 1600x1200 high-density flex-view screen, the Lenovo HV150UX1-100 (made by Hyundai-BOEhydis), as is on my T60p, and it's supposed be tops for photo-editing, so I'm not sure the HD+ would be so great. In fact, I've been told the FHD may have better color saturation and "richness" of tone, etc, but is not as accurate coloration as the HV150UX1-100.

I really don't need professional grade color accuracy, but I'd like the screen to be visually pleasing, including bright and accurate enough to watch movies and videos. One thing is that the FHD does come in at 270 claimed nits, whereas the HD+ is only 220. Brightness is important to me.

 

I had FHD on an old Dell XPS p4 laptop. It was great for gaming and photos, but for regular use I like 1440x900 or 1600x900.

 

Thanks, joker. So you feel the res on FHD is too fine for daily use, documents, email, internet, etc.

How about for movies and videos, 900p is good enough??

 

Depends on your eyesight. For those with 20/20, FHD is generally decent to use and not too small.

 

... that's 20/20 *correctable*, right?






//

 

I agree and disagree with this. My eye sight is 20/15. I have a laptop with a full HD (15.6") screen. Yes, I can see it just fine. However, I use my laptop many hours a day. Looking at text for long periods causes strain regardles of a persons eye sight. While a FHD screen is stunning for certain work, I wouldn't suggest it for anyone who will be using it to view lots of text for extended periods, especially if it is smaller than 17". I have also had laptops with 900p and that was the perfect touch on a 15inch. I like the 720 on smaller. Both the 900 and 720 shows a good picture with movies. It's not like moving from a 900 to a 1080 you have that "OMG!" factor. LOL but you do notice a slight difference in sharpness.

Again, I am just wanting people to consider the primary use. If all you want to to is watch movies, game, or edit photos then yes, go FHD and go as small on laptop size as you can if that is what makes you happy. Think twice if you will be reading lots from the screen.

A note on scaling since someone will bring it up. This is possible and works well with some programs but it does not work well with a lot of them. Scaling and zooming makes things fuzzy and you are worse off than before.