[FEEDBACK] Framework 16 screen and Linux (why not 4K)

Framework Laptop 16
41

An out of alignment pixel…space sampling…that would make the line appear ‘wider’ /thicker…unless it’s so thin that you can’t tell the difference? e.g. a pixel that’s 1CM wide…and gradually scale down to 1um? (At a distance of around an elbow length away)

So maybe it’s a question of: Can you tell the difference between a single pixel width line vs 2 pixel width line?

How would you render a realistic looking spiderweb at a 1:1 scale? Think realistic, immersive, indistinguishable from reality. I don’t think today’s consumer grade displays are there yet.

Then, let’s take this link:

Let’s take 64 ppd as the 20/20 need. With a 16inch display (16:10), that makes the width of the panel about 34cm. If I were to sit with my eyes around 50cm away, that means have a a left to right sweep angle of about 37.5 degrees.

image
image473×686 27.6 KB

Times that by 64…that lands you at 2400 pixels across…pretty close to 2560.

But there’s the population who may sit closer and / or with better eye sight than 20/20 (128ppd, that’s almost 4600pixel across the 34cm width ). Let’s not rule them out by “you don’t need 4k”…because for them, the next step up is generally 4k. Hell, 4k at 50cm away would cover the entire population.

Design (or options) should be inclusive, not exclusive. So, great, we have 14401600p covered for those who can’t benefit from 4k…but what about those who can?

1 Like
42

Just to add:
The FL13 panel is about 11 1/4 inch across, making it at 200dpi.

The FL16 panel is around 34cm / 13.38 inch, that’s about 191.3dpi. Ever so slightly lower DPI.

The FL13 comes with a higher PPD. (Assuming no one changes their laptop distance between 13 inch and 16 inch units…because laptops have to be within comfortable typing distance)

43

In my opinion 1600p is perfect BECAUSE it doesn’t need scaling at that size. My eyesight isn’t the best but 1440p/1600p pretty much give me the best usable area without needing scaling at the 14-17" laptop range or for 24/27" monitors in monitor distance.

If fractional scaling worked better I’d be more onboard with 4k but as it is it either turns your screen into a 1080p display with extra steps which is a bit too cramped for my liking or is too small to read comfortably.

But then again I am not getting a 16, because it’s 16 inch XD

3 Likes
44

I’ve spent the last 7 years working on a 15.6" 4K laptop display with Windows scaled at 200% and appreciate a nice display, but it is overkill for me.

For my office setting with Windows use case I’m very happy with the decision to go for a 2560x1600 resolution. I’m already worried about how expensive the FrameWork 16 is going to be, and adding a 4K display that my eyes can’t even physically fully appreciate is not worth the extra money and battery drain for me.

3 Likes
45

Too often I see people argue about how the “eye can’t see this or that” or, saying that it’s fine because they’ve used something forever and haven’t had an issue with it.

The facts are these:

  • Given the choice, side to side, people will prefer the screen with higher refresh rate.
  • and people will prefer the screen with higher DPI.

Which of these is actually more important is completely subjective and up to the person.

How much actually makes sense for a person depends on various factors.

For instance, on a desktop I usually have a larger screen that is further away
from me, where my entire arms will rest on the table, then there’s the
keyboard, then some stuff, then the monitor.
When using a laptop, the screen is usually much closer, so if both displays had
the same size, I’d need much higher DPI on the laptop to have the same
experience.

What DPI/HZ can I even see?

That is completely different for everybody. You can see a lot more than
what you can consciously count, both for refresh rate and DPI.

I still run into people who, for whatever reason, think that 25Hz is all the eye can even see.
Just load up the testufo site on a 120Hz phone screen and you’ll instantly be convinced otherwise. And btw. phones usually have >300 dpi these days…

The thing is: more is better and will feel better, and it’s not about being
able to count how many more pixels you see, but, in fact, how difficult it is
to count, and ideally, impossible to count.

But what actually makes sense?

The final truth is, this is a laptop.

  • More DPI => higher price => shorter battery life.
  • More Hz => higher price => shorter battery life.
  • Many displays to choose from => higher price due to less volume produced for each => shorter batter^WFramework company life.
  • Touch support => you know how this goes…
  • Too little => people won’t buy it

So you have to find a middle ground.

You do not want to target one specific group of gamers, or one specific group
of office workers who just don’t want to carry workstations around or laptops
with too small displays for their work or whatever other group you can think of
for which one specific set of DPI/HZ would be the ideal choice.

Ultimately, I do not believe it is in Framework’s best interest to choose the
most expensive option that’ll satisfy the smallest amount of people.

Would I like more? SURE!
Would I want to pay for it? Maybe?

But ultimately, I want framework to use their experience to choose using their experience, what’s best for the community, balancing the needs with the “wants” in a way that allows this sort of company to thrive and ultimately kick closed-off anti-repair companies’ butts off the market, and I feel like this display may just work out fine!

PS: Fractional scaling support will improve, and you won’t need to buy a new display for it…

13 Likes
46

@WolfgangBlub while I was far from the detail you’ve put in, this is pretty much what I was thinking and trying to say, it’s why I asked if they have plan(s) to release higher resolution panels later time

47

That’s your opinion, am I therefore not a person as I don’t fit your statement?

2 Likes
48

Misinterpret my post however you want. That’s really not the point.

But, fine, maybe the part you quoted was too “strict”, and the wording could be different, and of course, people can choose what - from my point of view¹ - are worse things, if they want. And sure, I haven’t verified the case for every single person on the planet. But I am pretty confident that usually given the choice between two different qualities, most would choose the better. But also, another point I was making is that which one that is is ultimately subjective.

I’m just easily triggered by talks about what human senses can perceive, as that leads to dumb things such as companies targetting 30fps on “average” in games on consoles where hardware cannot be upgraded etc.
I’m sorry.

¹ in case that’s still not clear

3 Likes
49

Higher frame rate is a no brainier, especially once some form of adaptive sync is involved. Worst case you can allways run at lower frame rate without issues.

Higher dpi only really works on systems with well working fractional scaling (stuff like android for example, there moar dpi better), without that going from 1440p to 4k is a step down for anything but media consumption as you get less effective real-estate if you run 200% or stuff is just too small at 100. Once fractional/dpi scaling on desktop gets better we’ll be back to moar is better though.

1 Like
50

Honestly, I’m not sure about that. There’s an argument to be made that people prefer consistency. I still don’t own any 4K displays, my monitor for my egpu is a good old 1080p 60Hz lcd. I will admit that I can occasionally see pixel structures because it’s a big monitor with low dpi, but that doesn’t bother me. If I had to buy a monitor today, I’d look at 1080p because that’s what I use and what I’m used to.

Graphics users are an edge case where higher DPI is a requirement. Likewise with someone who’s sensitive to seeing stray pixels from font hinting etc. However, we can’t generalize based on either of these groups.

You also make the laptop case point where higher resolution and refresh rate would decrease battery life, which definitely has footing.

4 Likes
51

Yes…if you can only provide one option (and one option isn’t really an option)…then you choose on behalf of your customers.

So it seems indicative that one display option is all we’re getting with this initial release? Framework is still small I guess (i.e. they’ve estimated their volume).

Ideally, a laptop designed with choices should let the user decide for themselves where the compromises should be (e.g. battery life)…but we’re not there yet.

Let’s hope we’re getting CPU and GPU optionS for the FL16.

Note: I’m not saying everyone needs 4k, I’m saying 4k should be an option for some of the customer population as they see fit.

52

It’s already pretty dang good… I hope I find 125% comfortable on the 16, I can only imagine how spacious it’s going to feel – especially after using a square all this time

1 Like
53

Seriously. If fractional scaling is working poorly for anyone, you need to switch your desktop environment or your distro to one that works.

1 Like
54

Back in 2015 I was using the Ubuntu version of the Dell Precision M3800. It came with the 15.6" UltraSharp IGZO UHD Touch (3840x2160) display.

The fractional scaling was the initial issue. Everything looked tiny. Text, icons in games, etc. So you adjust the scaling.

Some apps (the browsers IIRC) had their own scaling, and had to be adjusted separately. It was easier to just use the zoom function for the browsers.

Some apps, especially those that used older Java interfaces (routers, remote connections, jwdp, etc) did not work well at all. Sometimes you could specify command line parameters to adjust those. Sometimes, if you had the code, you could add the HiDpi support yourself. Some you just gave up on using.

That was my experience on a 4k touchscreen display on a laptop 8 years ago.

Today, I currently have the FW13 set to 200% and often zoom out on Chrome to 80%.

When I bought my Framework 13, the screen size was the hardest to get used to. I had also been accustomed to having a touchscreen, so missed that. With the FW16, I can get a slightly larger screen, better resolution and eventually a touchscreen. It won’t be as good as my external gsync monitor, but it will be better than the one I am using on the laptop right now.

55

I was using 1366x768 acer laptop with 15.6" screen and I saw the pixels. But seeing pixels was never a problem. The screen was never a problem and the laptop was almost never using its fans on idle. The laptop is probably 8 years old and it’s the best purchase I’ve ever had because it’s still alive and doesn’t even spin fans on idle even now.

It was never doing any ghosting BS and it was only 60Hz. I’ve never needed to think about scaling the resolution down because it was at the sweetspot already. I’ve never needed to think about fractional scaling.

I used the same site from above to calculate DPI info: DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator

My old screen (the 8year old laptop):

image
image1056×151 39.7 KB

I run my current laptop that has 2K 15.6" screen via Xorg with 1920x1080 at 0.72 scaling factor:

image
image1060×151 38.7 KB

So I kept the same PPI value because I wanted this density. This is the best resolution. At least for me and my “insignificant programming tasks that aren’t even remotely about gaming so probably I don’t know what I talk about when I compare displays”.

Also my current 2K built-in display does some kind of burn-in white-on-gray ghosting that changes after some time when I visit different webpages. So… here’s to the “fancy best 2K omg monitors”. Just make a good f-ing monitor, not 2K.
Of course my current monitor runs at 165Hz but I’d choose to remove the ghosting instead of pushing the monitor into this refresh rate.

2K sucks. 4K sucks even more.
I’m too lazy to figure out how to scale up every font in my system when I set resolution to 2K. I want one setting that works instead of buying a display that costs too much and not ever using it.
Just my 2 cents.

1 Like
56

Don’t think fractional scaling is an issue anymore.

The fractional scaling issue is basically a non-issue on recent Wayland builds. I have been using fractional scaling on my system for the last few months with no noticeable issues.
one monitor at 100%, one at 120%. Dragging windows between them, you can sometimes see that when the window is across both displays at the same time that one side is crisper than the other, but when fully on a single monitor they always render perfectly.

I’m using KDE Plasma though, different desktops may have different experience.

I’m perfectly happy with a 2560x1600 resolution on a 16".

1 Like
57

X11 Plasma also works with fractional scaling with the only limitation of having to use the same scaling on all monitors. However I still prefer it, since global shortcuts work, screen video capture works and no issues with KVM software like Barrier/Synergy.

1 Like
58

I just want to echo what some others have said about fractional scaling on KDE Plasma’s Wayland session. I use it on my Framework 13 at 130% scale and I really have no issues with it ever since they added the feature to let X11 apps scale themselves, and I anticipate no problems using a Framework 16 at that resolution.

6 Likes
59

Does anyone know if the Linux AMD drivers support sRGB emulation? It seems the Windows drivers do, but I’ve found no details on the Linux side.

With how almost nothing is functionally color managed on Linux, I am hesitant to get a device with 100% DCI-P3 coverage.

1 Like
60

It certainly appears so.

colord is integrated with KDE Plasma or Gnome, and should just work. (you might have to install it, depending on your distro)

I can assign different colour profiles to each of my monitors (and my printer, but it’s a monochrome laser one, funny), it even supports building icc profiles from calibration devices (never had one, so can’t help here)

2 Likes