What kind of screen should I get?

[vidds]

Is 1600 x 900 good enough, or is it necessary to go for a 1080p?

Also, is it hard to work with a glossy screen? Should I get a matte screen?

[jagabo]

I can't use anything less than 1920x1080 these days. Matte or glossy depends on your lighting conditions. Think if the screen as a mirror. If there are any lights behind you that you would see in a mirror you won't like glossy.

[johns0]

Im happy with my 20" lcd monitor 1600x900,if i want bigger i switch over to my 37" lcd tv.

[edDV]

Is 1600 x 900 good enough, or is it necessary to go for a 1080p?

vert -- 1080p in gets scaled to 900p ... Any scaling = loss

horiz -- 1920, 1440, 1280, 720 all get scaled to 1600. Nothing is native.

Get 1920x1080

[jagabo]

Is 1600 x 900 good enough, or is it necessary to go for a 1080p?

vert -- 1080p in gets scaled to 900p ... Any scaling = loss

horiz -- 1920, 1440, 1280, 720 all get scaled to 1600. Nothing is native.

Get 1920x1080

You think he's talking about a TV? I thought he was talking about a computer monitor. The Desktop will run at 1600x900, no problem.

[edDV]

Is 1600 x 900 good enough, or is it necessary to go for a 1080p?

vert -- 1080p in gets scaled to 900p ... Any scaling = loss

horiz -- 1920, 1440, 1280, 720 all get scaled to 1600. Nothing is native.

Get 1920x1080

You think he's talking about a TV? I thought he was talking about a computer monitor. The Desktop will run at 1600x900, no problem.

But not as good for watching 1080p TV on it.

Also side by side docs are better at 1920x1080.

[vidds]

I'm talking about a laptop for photo and video editing.

[edDV]

I'm talking about a laptop for photo and video editing.

Explain "photo and video editing" more but if that is your prime goal IMO it screams 1920x1080.

Ideally you would also have eSATA or USB3 (for second drive) and a decent display chipset (AVIVO HD or PureVideo HD) ... or are you editing only SD?

[budwzr]

The real answer is if you have the extra moola, it doesn't hurt, but don't scrimp on CPU, mem, and video card.

[edDV]

I only edit video or use Photoshop on a laptop as last resort.

You can buy near state of art but expect double $$ vs. equivalent tower.


But you didn't say state of art. Explain what you are trying to do.

[budwzr]

I do all my editing never seeing anything but the small preview window, and in "Preview Auto" mode, so it's not even the highest rez for the preview window. I never see the final output until AFTER render. Then if there's an issue, I go back and make adjustments.

Even if you get a super-hi-rez monitor, it won't help you edit.

[edDV]

Even if you get a super-hi-rez monitor, it won't help you edit.

Agree but a 1920x1080 monitor will help evaluate source and monitor filters before the final encode.

[budwzr]

Even if you get a super-hi-rez monitor, it won't help you edit.

Agree but a 1920x1080 monitor will help evaluate source and monitor filters before the final encode.

Oh really? How so? No way you're gonna get realtime playback from the timeline in 1080 size. The computer has to generate the FX live. Sure, Vegas will get it faster if you let it loop for a while, but no way is it going to show Best/Full frames.

[vidds]

I'm getting an intel i5 (probably a sager) and a class 2 or 3 gpu (according to notebookreview.com) and sony vegas. Wanna make sure I have enough workspace on the screen when editing with video tracks and photos, mostly non-HD video.

[vidds]

The thing is I don't like the glossy reflective screens and I was aiming for a matte 1600x900. The matte 1080 screens are really expensive so i would rather get a 1600x900 matte then a 1080 glossy, if it's workable.

[jagabo]

What screen size are you used to working on? Going to a smaller screen will feel cramped.

[vidds]

I haven't used vegas before, i've used win movie makeron a 768 screen and that felt a bit stuffy.

[vidds]

actually I could get a 1080 matte screen but only with a nvidia 520m, would that be good enough?