Thank you for sharing this initial information about the Framework Laptop 16 screen! However, in my opinion, some important informations are missing:
You didn’t specify the technology used for the LCD panel: Is it an IPS panel?
I’m pleased to read that the DCI-P3 colour space is 100% covered. But I’m also curious to know the coverage of the Adobe RGB colour space, as well as the colour depth (in bits) that the screen is capable of displaying.
The 165Hz display frequency is satisfying from my point of view, but I’d like to know if the screen is capable of a variable refresh rate compatible with VESA Adaptive-Sync and AMD FreeSync.
Thank you in advance for any further informations.
I am a bit confused as to why the choice of a 16:10 ratio considering there seems to be a decently sized bezel below the display.
Looking at the photo and measuring the distance of the pixels, there should be more than enough room to fit a 3:2 display that simply extends farther down; in fact, maintaining the current 2560 pixel width, there should be enough room to fit around 1800 pixels vertically (which is roughly a 1.42 ratio; compare that to 3:2’s 1.5 ratio and 16:10’s 1.6 ratio).
Having been recently reminded of the following bug, ideally the EDID for the internal panel should have the maximum refresh rate as the first listed value in the EDID so that you’re not locked to 60Hz when trying to use a lower resolution on Linux (probably most notably 2560x1440, but it applies to really any resolution that is less than the full resolution of the panel):
Ah, true. I forgot that there are actually existing panels of the exact same size as the Framework 13", so the same is probably what’s happening here with the 16".
Are there any OLEDs on the market that could fit the framework 16? Frame.work doesn’t need to come with OLED, but if they made it easy for those of us who are planning to only use OLED - then myself and many others would switch. Happy to install myself and pay extra for the priviledge.
Keep in mind, most oled panels use a very different pinout to lcds and require different voltage rails so you would very likely need a converter board too.
I’d love to hear about the availability of ortholinear or ergonomic split keyboards with blank keys for the Framework Laptop 16. This is a decisive criterion for me.
The biggest thing for me is whether this will have FRC “10-bit” color or not. True 10-bit is far too expensive to make (and still rare on most consumer monitors), but even FRC, properly tuned, can make a difference. That’s the only way I can see the monitor being as both as bright and color accurate as it claims to be well as having the color gamut they claim, too. 100% P3 generally doesn’t happen without FRC. Which tells me that IF the panel has it, it’s pretty much going to look better than any other laptop monitor on the market.
I hope you’re wrong.
I’m willing to give up a mini-led screen given their novelty -perhaps making them inaccessible to a small company, but not good colour quality.
Since the Framework Laptop team has published information about the screen in this deep dive, which is clearly not deep enough, it would be nice if they could finish informing us about it, even if it’s to tell us that certain characteristics are not yet fixed or known.
Not sure why you would say that. 1.07 billion colors is just a flashy version of saying 10-bit RGB input, and a display wouldn’t necessarily be HDR capable just because it supports 10-bit RGB input. I’d guess no consumer display is actually capable of rendering a billion colours, regardless of input format. Apple uses the term to market 8bit+FRC panels that target DCI-P3, but those definitely don’t render the entire 10-bit RGB range.
100% DCI-P3 is a wide color gamut. It’s the color space targeted by most HDR displays and most of them don’t reach 100% coverage, although the top HDR TVs are all 99%+ (ref: Our TV Picture Quality Tests: Color Gamut - RTINGS.com )
I think there are a lot of people here that know a lot more about screens than I do. I also want to stress that I consider Framework now as one of the most innovative companies out there, and personally as my favourite laptop company now. So this is more of constructive criticism towards a friend so to say.
As was mentioned here before, I am sorry, but the screen is simply not large enough for this product and I wanted to mention this in this forum again (it was mentioned also in a post above). It has to be said, for a product so close to literal perfection, this is such a shame. The engineer responsible, talking to the supplier, and then deciding to put in a 16:10 aspect ratio screen and try to make up for a gigantic chin - I am sorry, it is not good enough. I has to be said at least.
What I believe is that it was ultimately a choice, i.e. the company opted for repairability, magnets, etc. rather than a bigger screen. The transparency photo in the blog points to this direction aiming to explain the chin. But it is in 2023 not a competitive screen size. Sorry. I fear these choices made will make this laptop a niche product.
In any case, despite this all other specs are literally ideal. As if someone had build a screen that I could have ordered. Perfect.
Coming to accept the chin now, this is the last comment on it… ;).
PS: I am only writing such posts here as this product is so close to perfect that I am allowing myself to put ridiculously high standards here. I guess 1800 pixels was not possible, fine, I understand.
@Nich_Trimble, 16" is definitely by itself large enough for anything. My point was that given the form factor of the notebook, the screen should for this notebook simply be bigger. And here screen-to-body ratio comes in which is my point. In recent years high-end laptops have gotten an ever larger screen-to-body ratio, something that was celebrated among laptop enthusiasts and not many are willing to go back. The 16"Macbook Pro is a Masterpiece, I had it, but it also has a much smaller chin.
However, all this could be subjective which I understand - some people simply look for other priorities in a laptop. But there is a second level here:
The Framework 16 has the goal to be more than a laptop. It is a platform focusing on future upgradability. It could be a DJ turntable. So what matters is the barebone structure that is the core platform. And here, there are two elements that you can never upgrade: first, the thickness (they did a great job), and second that chin. The Framework 16 (rightly) has the goal to compete with leading laptops in 2027 by way of upgrading. But Lenovo and others are for example working on rollable screens that expand upwards. Given such competition, a chin from 2020 is going to be an issue for customers in 2027.
I would also hand it to Framework that they could have built it differently and that it was a choice to focus on fast repairability and sacrifice 1-2 cm of screen to magnets. My only fear is that it will curb sales, and that this issue is not going to go away.
All this being said, I am going to pre-order. It is just a choice that I think may affect sales.
@Adrian_Joachim Lol, I hope this is not true ;). It would show that companies that are not having the right goals have all the resources, while those companies that are trying to do the right thing can’t because of limited resources.
