Laptop Screen Resolution

[peterasmith]

I am having a difficult time doing the seemingly easy calculation of comparing pixel size on my 19" CRT to pixel size on laptop monitors.

I am trying to decide between 1024x768 and 1400x1050 for a 14.1 inch laptop screen. is the 1400x1050 similar to 1600x1200 on a 19' CRT.

Anyone have any personal experience with the 1400x1050? I would love to be able to fit more onto my screen.

 

[RyanM]

Simple math here.

1400 pixels wide over a 14" diagonal screen. We need the width of the screen.

The ratio of height to width is 3:4, and we know that a right triangle with sides of 3 and 4 has a hypotenuse of 5. The ratio of hypotenuse to the sides increases linearly, so we can make a ratio:

14/5 = x/4, where x is the width. Solve for x gives us a width of 11.2"

1400 pixels / 11.2" = 125 pixels per inch.

Out 19" CRT, using the same calculations, has a width of 15.2"

15.2" * 125 pp/i = 1900.

So, what does this mean?

It means that in order for this 14" to have the same pixel density as a 19", the 19" needs to be running something around 1920x1440 (which is, coincientally, the same resolution I run on my monitor, and the same resolution most people's EYES BLEED at.)

Personally, I would JUMP at a 1400x1050, because I like having as much desktop space as necessary and my eyes have yet to complain about running resolutions this massive. Most people, however, would sooner gouge their eyes out.

YMMV.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Only one addition, the 19" CRT probably has a visible area of 18", which gives an answer of approximately 1800x1350.

You're better off going to a computer store and looking at a laptop with that resolution, then asking other people's opinions.

 

[peterasmith]

My primary goal was not to ask for another persons opinion, but to reproduce a DPI comperable to the 1400x1050 resolution of a 14.1' laptop on my 19' crt.

A comment on the calculations. Isn't a 19" (18" viewable) screen is square as for as I can tell. I think that it is the pixels that have the aspect ratio of 4:3. Isn't a 14.1 inch" laptop screen also square in general (unless otherwise advertised)?

Therefore in a 18" viewable there dimensions are ~12.73" per side. This gives a lateral resolution of 125 dpi and a vertical resolution of 94 at 1600x1200 resolution

The laptop screen (assuming a square) is 10.0" on an edge. Giving a horizontal and vertical resolution of 140 DPI and 105 DPI respectively equivalent to a resolution of 1780x1335 on my monitor (a resolution which my old tube cannot reach ).

OK plan B go to a store...

Thanks for the help.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Nope, screens are 4:3. My 14.1" laptop screen is 11.25" x 8.5"

 

[RyanM]

ooops, forgot the whole "viewable" thing. The recalculations are correct, though.

And I've never seen a square monitor. They're ALWAYS 3:4, and these days, occasionally 16:9. Never 1:1.

 

[jeffbui]

1400x1050 looks great on my T42P. Works fine for me and I'm used to running 1280x1024 on my 21" Nokia CRT. It just takes a little bit of getting used to. You have to also remember that you're usually closer to your notebook screen.

 

[thuned]

your face is usually a feet or two closer to the laptop screen than a desktop monitor.

 

[vegetation]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I run on my monitor, and the same resolution most people's EYES BLEED at.)

Sigh, I never understand why people make this comment unless they are using DOS or some old-ass operating system that doesn't allow them to change display properties. Everything in windows can be sized, EVERYTHING. To say your "eyes bleed" at a certain resolution is like saying a 1200dpi laser printer is ridiculous because the dot pitch is way too small and you could never read a documented that's been printed out. Well guess what, the laser printer sizes the fonts so they are normal to read, except the output is crisper with the higher dot pitch. It's no different than with a monitor, except it's not done automatically, you need to spend a whopping 3-5 minutes configuring.

 

[aakerman]

I'm running 1600x1200 on my 19" CRT, and 1400x1050 on my 14.1" notebook.
The CRT res is actually a bit more straining on the eyes (only a bit though) - I think it has something to do with the fact, that you
sit much closer to a notebook, and also that LCDs tend to be sharper than CRTs.

If you're already running 1600x1200 on your CRT, then go for 1400x1050 on your notebook, I'm confident it'll be just right!

just a note: 95% of the widescreen notebooks are actually 16:10 and not 16:9

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: vegetation

Originally posted by: MachFive
I run on my monitor, and the same resolution most people's EYES BLEED at.)

Sigh, I never understand why people make this comment unless they are using DOS or some old-ass operating system that doesn't allow them to change display properties. Everything in windows can be sized, EVERYTHING. To say your "eyes bleed" at a certain resolution is like saying a 1200dpi laser printer is ridiculous because the dot pitch is way too small and you could never read a documented that's been printed out. Well guess what, the laser printer sizes the fonts so they are normal to read, except the output is crisper with the higher dot pitch. It's no different than with a monitor, except it's not done automatically, you need to spend a whopping 3-5 minutes configuring.

What I'm saying is that ANYTIME someone comes over and sits at my computer, the first thing out of their mouth is, "Jesus christ, how can you read type that small? My eyes already hurt."

And that would be intentional. Keeping the default dpi setting allows me to cram an assload more info on the screen.

Nice diatribe, though. Sorta irrelevant.

 

[Confused]

I've used 1400x1050 on a 14.1" screen, and currently use 1600x1200 on a 15" screen, and I would NEVER go back to anything lower now. The extra desktop real estate is absolutely awesome, I can easily have a web browser, email, and two Office application open on the screen, and see everything pretty nicely, as each basically has a 800x600 screen to itself

In Word, you can also place two pages next to each other, and I can read both perfectly comfortably.

However, the best advice so far is to go and compare the two in a shop, and see which you prefer. Everyone at work also sees my laptop and says "How the hell can you see that?", and my response is "pretty easily", but then these are the people who i've had to go to and set their 15" TFTs to 1024x768 and then apply a Group Policy to prevent them from changing it back to 800x600! After a couple of days of complaining they get used to it.


Confused

 

[aakerman]

vegetation -> messing with settings only goes so far.. anyone who has ever used a fixed resolution that was too high for them, knows this.