Not So Mellow Yellow: The iPAQ 1940 Screen

[Jason Dunn]

There's been quite a bit of discussion lately about the screen on the iPAQ 1940/1945. The iPAQ 1910 had the most drop-dead gorgeous screen that I've ever seen on a Pocket PC, so like everyone else, I assumed that they'd keep the awesome screen on the new 1940/1945 series. It would appear that they did not. :| In the photo below, I've shown a close-up of the 1910 on the left, and the 1940 on the right.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-intro.jpg" /><br /><br />The following photos were taken using a Canon G2, maximum quality, minimum image compression. The camera was mounted on a tripod, no flash was used, and for most of the images the lights were off. There was some ambient light coming from my LCD monitors not too far away. The photos were taken from a few different angles and elevations, so this should give a fair representation of what the 1940 screen really looks like from most angles.<!><br /><br />The photos are all original, and they have not been re-touched or modified beyond changing the file name, so they're somewhat large in file size. The EXIF information should still be intact. Here are the photos: <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-01.JPG">Photo 1</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-02.JPG">Photo 2</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-03.JPG">Photo 3</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-04.JPG">Photo 4</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-05.JPG">Photo 5</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-06.JPG">Photo 6</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-07.JPG">Photo 7</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-08.JPG">Photo 8</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-09.JPG">Photo 9</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-10.JPG">Photo 10</a>, <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ipaq1940screen-11.JPG">Photo 11</a>. The Pocket PCs used in these images are the iPAQ 1910, 1940, 22215, and 5550.<br /><br />The root of the problem seems to be the inability of the 1940 to display whites. On the default home screen theme, where everything is blue and green, it's difficult to see the yellowish hue. But on anything with a white background (like Pocket Word, system settings, and many others) the yellow obvious and glaring. Hopefully this gives you curious folks enough raw data to analyze. ;-)

[Jeff Rutledge]

Wow! That is a huge difference. That's really too bad. Hopefully most won't have a 1910 to compare as I think the 1945 is a great device (at least on paper, haven't seen one in person).

I'm always envious of my wife's 1910. It can't do what I need it to do, but it is gorgeous!

I wonder why HP went this direction???

[Kevin Remhof]

To me, it almost look like it's meant to be that way. Remember when people using terminals would change to really-scary--colors because "it's better for your eyes"? Bizarre.

[entropy1980]

Wow those are some big pics !!! 8O

[that dan guy]

When I saw the 2215 for the first time I thought the same thing I had a 1910 a 5555 and my dell to compare it to and it was the worst looking of the bunch. I even tried to adjust the screen and It didn't look as good as my dell even. I am glad that I am not crazy because I have been thinking about buying the 2215 and was dissappointed because I thought the screen looked so crappy.

danno

[Ed Hansberry]

Oh come on. That isn't an inability to display white. That is the "Old Man's Yellowing Hair" theme. :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

AHA! I found the answer: on the back of my 1940 it says it's the "iPAQ 1940 Smoker's Teeth" edition. So that explains the yellow.

:|

Ok, not really, but I tried to make sense of it. :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

Wow those are some big pics !!! 8O

I didn't want anyone asking for a higher-res version. That's the maximum size my camera can do. :twisted:

[Macguy59]

@Jason

It's hard to tell by photo's,. but how did the 2215 display compare to the 1940? Dang I was all set to buy the 2215 in about an hour ($285)

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Wow... Just from the photo displayed on the post, the difference is quite noticeable. I have the 2215 and I don't notice anything lacking from the screen when indoors, but when outdoors, there's obviously something funny going on there. I'll take my 2215 over that yellow though... heck, I'd almost take my old 38xx and it's purple over yellow...

[Chris Spera]

This is a bit disappointing... I have yet to see one in person, though.

BTW, I tried calling the local Best Buy, and they don't have one. They also don't know if or when they will get them.

CompUSA has them... I am trying to supress an urge to puchase one from them and tell Best Buy to stick it.


Christopher Spera

[Jason Dunn]

It's hard to tell by photo's,. but how did the 2215 display compare to the 1940? Dang I was all set to buy the 2215 in about an hour ($285)

The 2215 can do whites very nicely, and is a well-balanced screen. The 1940 has strong contrasts than the 2215 and a "richer" tone to it, but the 2215 is still a good screen - I don't see anything wrong with it.

[HTK]

Seems that this is a soft issue...
the "input" and "sounds" icons are white! ( at least whiter than the background ) check picture number 6
so the hardware can display the white ?
but the software ( maybe the color scheme ) is messing up... seems like some white tones are shifted to yellow
take a look at the "owner notification" icon, on the horizontal lines pretending to be phrases, you can see some white pixels lost on the yellow background.. like the magic wand from photoshop selectin with a tolerance of zero the white color, so the RGB (1,1,1 ) is still white, but the RGB(0,0,0) is somewhat shifted to yellow..

someone should try to open a picture of a white wall or something... with lots of gradients and things like that...

remembering, this is just my opinion based on the pictures, but lets hope it is the correct diagnostic, so an update could fix that

[SHoTTa35]

@Jason

It's hard to tell by photo's,. but how did the 2215 display compare to the 1940? Dang I was all set to buy the 2215 in about an hour ($285)

it's obvious that the contrast on the 1910 is the best, Bright colors!! rich blues and greens and reds... on the 2215 they look kinda washed out. To me tho (without the direct comparison all the time) the colors on the 2215 looks good and i'd never take it back and get a 1910 or 1940 for that matter. I wouldn't even want a 5555 if it meant i had to give up my 2215 to use that! I LOVE THIS THING!!!! BEST PDA EVER!!!!! (in my opinion that is)

[kuyars]

I think we need to email the URL of this piece to someone at HP.

Anyone know of a good person to email it to?

[caywen]

It's not like it turns dark blue with black text. It's a light yellow, so things are still easy enough to read. When viewing photos and stuff, it's not noticeable at all - in fact, I think it makes photos actually look slightly better... Not that I wouldn't want it more white though.

The 2215 has more serious display problems, though. It has wavy refresh lines that are annoyingly everpresent. I thought it was just one unit, but of all 10 units I have so far seen, they all exhibit the same screen wavyness. Ugh. I'd rather have a yellow tinge.

:pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2: :pukeface2:

[Zensbikeshop]

I think we need to email the URL of this piece to someone at HP.

Anyone know of a good person to email it to?

Carly Fiorano (or whatever her name is) :wink:

[mjgroff]

Transflective LCD screens (and other LCD's too) are made of many layers of plastic film each attempting to bend and diffuse the light. If the bending is not done right, you get a screen which is darker towards an edge. If the diffusion is not done correctly you get a screen that is difficult to read at an angle. There is also a one-way reflective layer to provide day light visibility. This layer blocks some light. If this is not even over the spectrum, the light can get a color tint. A tint can also be caused by the light source. Bad fluorescent light sources tend to have blue or violet tints but white LED lights, as used in recent PDA LCD's, can have a warm (yellow) tint. The liquid crystal layer can also introduce a color tint when pixels that are fully off (white), which are never perfectly transparent, block the spectrum unevenly.

I once heard from a LCD panel sales person of a pink screen resulting from each layer having an individual deviation from the spec. within acceptable range but towards red so when they were all stacked together the net affect was an ugly pink screen. This iPaq's yellow tint could be a result of a similar situation, which means this problem may be corrected when models using the next batch of LCD come out. This also could be a design characteristic that was tolerated to gain some other benefit. Nine times out of ten the benefit is probably cost savings but it could be something like reduced power consumption.

What frustrates me is that it is possible to design a screen which performs well in every regard. In the TV and flat panel display market, manufacturers know people make purchase decision based on the quality of the screen. In the PDA market, it appears consumers don't care so much because manufacturers know they can get away with using sub-standard displays. This irritates me to know end because I am very particular about the display. To me it is the most important part. I stuck with my Casio E125 for a long time because of it.

[saabcaptain]

As an owner of a 1945 let me make a few comments.

1. The pictures are accurate showing how yellow the unit can get but don't fully convey what the unit looks like in real usage.

2. In regular usage, hold the unit in your hand and viewing the screen at a normal angle, the yellow is ALMOST gone. Tilting the unit slightly causes the yellow tint to *slightly* begin. At off angles it gets very yellow.

I also have a Canon 4 megapixel camera and took the following pictures which I feel give an accurate representation of what white looks like on a 1945 at normal angles...

http://home.comcast.net/~dcorsi/1945.jpg

[T-Will]

WOW! I didn't realize the 1940 was that bad...I thought they were using the same screen as the 1910...guess not. What was HP thinking? :bangin:

[Jacob]

For whatever reason it's happening, it just looks like someone "relieved themselves" on the screen...:pukeface:

I have seen threads on Brighthand where some say on their units it's not even noticable - in those photos it's more than noticable though.

[saabcaptain]

More photos:

In Hand (http://home.comcast.net/~dcorsi/1945inhand.jpg)
Not so yellow (http://home.comcast.net/~dcorsi/screen.jpg)

[kuyars]

saabcaptain, you're right, the photos you posted look very normal.

What causes me concern is that I've been following these threads a lot...both here and on Brighthand and plently of members have posted pics of their 194xs. One thing I've noticed is not that the screen is yellow in any case, but the fact that the degree of yellowness is extremely varied in any number of angles.

So yes, I've seen some pics shot straight on that are perfectly white, and others I've seen shot straight-on are perfectly yellow!

So the concern is that there is simply too much variation going on here.

[Jeff Rutledge]

WOW! I didn't realize the 1940 was that bad...I thought they were using the same screen as the 1910...guess not. What was HP thinking? :bangin:

Exactly! I mean, they put out the 1910 and everyone raves over the screen, saying it's the best they've seen. I remember every commentary and review on these things when they first came out was "awesome screen" or "incredible display" or something close.

So, naturally, the logical thing for HP to do is make a "new and improved" unit that looks just the same, but replace the piece that everyone already loves. :roll:

[jnunn]

I certainly hope that this is a firmware issue where perhaps the blue sub-pixel is under represented instead of non-upgradeable optical problem. I did notice a grid pattern in Jason’s images (thanks for the hi-res, smart move) and the contrast is clearly inferior to the 1910 which leads me to believe that 1940 screen is a different model from the 1910. To me, the tint itself takes the 1940 out of the set of devices that I am likely to purchase.

The larger issue here, though, is HP’s credibility. HP marketed the 1940 as within the same family and as upgrade to the 1910. Had the form factor changed from the 1910 then HP would designate the 1940 with a number outside of 19xx. I suggest that the screen is analogous to form factor: the screen is how the device “looks” when the user is using the device and is at least as important as button position, etc. Hence, when the new model has an inferior screen to the previous model then HP should change the model number for the simple reason of customer expectation. HP’s difficulty is that started the low cost series at 1900 so it does not leave much room to maneuver. If HP’s earlier model number decision made it impossible to remove the 1940 from the 1910 set of expectations then HP should have preempted the complaints and returned orders by releasing images of the 1940 screen beforehand. To do otherwise is to benefit from the 1910 while not delivering the quality of the 1910 which (especially when you consider pre-orders) is fraudulent.

I do not agree with others who may say that the 2210 screen is good or who may look beyond this tint issue. HP acquired the iPAQ as simply the best in breed where points like best screen quality and optimum speaker position were differentiators and sources of pride in the iPAQ owners. HP’s release of the 1940 and the 2210 damage the iPAQ name where previous pride in quality have been replaced by second rate components and expediency.

Still, I wait for 2004 for my next PDA purchase. Sadly, the only contender so far is what I have read of the Tungsten T3. I truly hope that MS and its hardware providers can pull out of this malaise. For me, this discussion of over: it’s the weekend now and time to hit the city and sail a regatta.

[Thinkingman]

I am honestly very surprised about the 1940/45 having that screen. The 1910 by far out does it in clarity and looks. Heck, wiht the 1910 you are proud to own it and figure people around you are envoius. The 1940/45 just isnt so. I am not jealous nor envious of that. I think the 2215 looks good and the 5500 appears to be ok as well. Frankly, every ipaq model should meet the exact same standard. I believe they do this in order to cut corners. They will give you "this", such as a cf card or whatever else, but they are going to take away "that", being a good screen. All Ipaq models should be meeting the exact specifications and they are not!
I agree, we should email Carla Fiorina:) mmmmmm, I know it is posible and it is worht looking into:)

[Ed Hansberry]

The 2215 has more serious display problems, though. It has wavy refresh lines that are annoyingly everpresent. I thought it was just one unit, but of all 10 units I have so far seen, they all exhibit the same screen wavyness. Ugh. I'd rather have a yellow tinge.
I've never seen waves on my 2215.

[saabcaptain]

Someone mentioned the photos showed a grid pattern on the 1940. My Canon S400 4 megapixel increases the (as does Jason's G2 Canon) grid much more than it appears in real life. The grid is truly almost invisible in the 1940, much more so than the 2210 series.

[Macguy59]

It's hard to tell by photo's,. but how did the 2215 display compare to the 1940? Dang I was all set to buy the 2215 in about an hour ($285)

The 2215 can do whites very nicely, and is a well-balanced screen. The 1940 has strong contrasts than the 2215 and a "richer" tone to it, but the 2215 is still a good screen - I don't see anything wrong with it.

Thanks Jason. I went ahead and purchased it. A good price I thought, for a New unit still sealed in the retail box :D

[Kevin Daly]

This is certainly disappointing, and I hope HP will take note (not do a repeat of their "Dust, what dust?" performance over the Jornada 560 series).
However, it may not be realistic to expect exactly consistent screen quality between different releases. It's not always possible to obtain the components in sufficient quantities from the same supplier, and there are unpredictable elements in the manufacturing process.
Let's hope for the best anyway 0X

[qmrq]

This is a bit disappointing... I have yet to see one in person, though.

BTW, I tried calling the local Best Buy, and they don't have one. They also don't know if or when they will get them.

CompUSA has them... I am trying to supress an urge to puchase one from them and tell Best Buy to stick it.


Christopher Spera

Go ahead and tell Best Buy to stick it... :)

CompUSA > Best Buy... at least around here.

[Scott R]

A few comments:

1) As I mentioned in the earlier thread which touched upon this issue, I've played with a 1940, 1910, and 2215 up close at a CompUSA, but don't own any of them. I had a very difficult time telling the difference between the 1910 and 1940 and did not notice any yellowing affects on the 1940 at normal viewing angles. Further, I did notice yellowing on the 1910 when tilted, leading me to believe that the screens were the same and that this was not a new issue. That said, Jason's photos clearly show a difference between the 1910 and 1940, leading me to believe one of two things:
a) The type of lighting may effect this. Perhaps the indoor lighting at CompUSA minimized the effect?
b) There are quality control problems such that some devices exhibit this problem significantly more than others.

2) Jason, kudos on the super-high-res photos, but do yourself (and your bandwidth) a favor and crop them. There's a lot of extra black space around them which serves your readers no particular value yet will add to the bandwidth every time someone views them.

3) After seeing the 1940 compared to the 2215 up close, I stand by my opinion that the 1940 is the better screen (to my eyes, anyway), though the possibility of QC problems concerns me.

Scott

[roberto_torres]

Jason:

Can you or someone else from PocketPC Thoughts contact HP about this, with your reputation they will definitely hear you.

Also I consider this might be a software issue as someone else mentioned. In picture 6 the keyboard icon on the 1940 looks perfectly white among the yellowish background, this means it is possible to display pure white on the screen somehow. This could be corrected by software patch.

[madbart]

I can't believe how everyone expects "BMW" performance when paying the price for a "Mini".

HP are now competing more and more for the "consumer" customer and as a result cuts have to be made to put products at a price point.

If you look at the Palms how would you compare a Zire to a Tungsten?

I bet Dells next unit will not be as good as it first!

At the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you want the best, buy the 5550! :wink:

[kuyars]

I can't believe how everyone expects "BMW" performance when paying the price for a "Mini".

HP are now competing more and more for the "consumer" customer and as a result cuts have to be made to put products at a price point.

If you look at the Palms how would you compare a Zire to a Tungsten?

I bet Dells next unit will not be as good as it first!

At the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you want the best, buy the 5550! :wink:

The thing is, we're not expecting BMW performance out of this unit. Far from it. All we want is a screen that isn't yellow under non-extreme angles! Have you seen the screenshots over here or on Brighthand? If you haven't, then take a look. You'll see that there are units that even when viewed directly straight are extremely yellow! If having a white screen is too much to ask, in your definition, then I'm not sure what else to say...

Here's a link to one of the threads discussing the yellow. You'll notice that one guy has an extremely yellow screen even when viewed straight on, and the other guy has a screen that is nice and white. I realize that this is the lowest end ipaq, but come on, there should be a little more consistency than this...

http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=68f34f19001471639cf209affba9b8dc&threadid=83350

[madbart]

Then if that is the case vote with your dollars and purchase a competitve product other than HP.

[Jason Dunn]

Someone mentioned the photos showed a grid pattern on the 1940. My Canon S400 4 megapixel increases the (as does Jason's G2 Canon) grid much more than it appears in real life. The grid is truly almost invisible in the 1940, much more so than the 2210 series.

I honestly don't notice a grid pattern on either device - digital cameras can sometimes pick up TOO much detail. :wink:

[Jason Dunn]

2) Jason, kudos on the super-high-res photos, but do yourself (and your bandwidth) a favor and crop them. There's a lot of extra black space around them which serves your readers no particular value yet will add to the bandwidth every time someone views them.

1) I have 1200 GB of bandwidth to use per month. Bandwidth is not a concern.

2) Cropping the images would mean double-compressing the JPEG, which I didn't want to do - I wanted the images to remain "pure".

3) I'm a little short on time right now Scott, so if it's all the same to you, I'll decide myself the best mix of quality vs. time.

[Chairman Clench]

If you look at the Palms how would you compare a Zire to a Tungsten?

Actually, the Zire 71 has a BETTER screen than the Tungsten|T and is also much better than most of the PPC screens out there. IMHO, the Zire 71 has the best PDA screen out there... now if they would just make them bigger...

I bet Dells next unit will not be as good as it first!


Considering that Dell's next unit will be the X3, which is a lesser unit, you are correct. I think what most people are referring to, however, is that you wouldn't expect an "upgraded" version of a product to actually be downgraded in some regards.

When Dell replaces the X5, I bet the replacement isn't a "downgrade". You mention your 5550... that isn't a "downgrade" from the 5450. This is why some people are disappointed... you would expect the 1945 to build on the strengths of the 1910 (size, form factor, screen) and improve the areas that were lacking (CPU, memory, etc.).

[Chairman Clench]

The larger issue here, though, is HP’s credibility. HP marketed the 1940 as within the same family and as upgrade to the 1910. Had the form factor changed from the 1910 then HP would designate the 1940 with a number outside of 19xx. I suggest that the screen is analogous to form factor: the screen is how the device “looks” when the user is using the device and is at least as important as button position, etc. Hence, when the new model has an inferior screen to the previous model then HP should change the model number for the simple reason of customer expectation. HP’s difficulty is that started the low cost series at 1900 so it does not leave much room to maneuver. If HP’s earlier model number decision made it impossible to remove the 1940 from the 1910 set of expectations then HP should have preempted the complaints and returned orders by releasing images of the 1940 screen beforehand. To do otherwise is to benefit from the 1910 while not delivering the quality of the 1910 which (especially when you consider pre-orders) is fraudulent.

While I agree that it was a mistake for HP to not include the 1910's great screen in the 1945 it is hardly fraudulent as you suggest. In fact, if you look at a 1910 and a 1945 side by side, there are several changes to the case / form factor. There are also several exterior detail changes between the two.

Consumers can't assume anything. HP never stated that the 1945s have the same screen, as good a screen, or a better screen than the 1910s, therefore there was no fraud.

That being said, someone should hit the moron at HP who made the decision to downgrade the screen on the 1945 over the head. What a dumb decision that was. HP comes up with a winning PDA and then they screw it up with one major dumb decision.

When the 1910 was released, there were all kinds of folks who wanted the form factor and the awesome screen, but needed better performance, battery life, SDIO, and BlueTooth. HP meets all those needs and then screws up the screen... bizarre.

I looked at a 1945 at CompUSA today and if you hold it in just the right position, it isn't too yellow. Any slight movement and then BAM! Yellow again.

[Chairman Clench]

The 2215 has more serious display problems, though. It has wavy refresh lines that are annoyingly everpresent. I thought it was just one unit, but of all 10 units I have so far seen, they all exhibit the same screen wavyness. Ugh. I'd rather have a yellow tinge.
I've never seen waves on my 2215.

The one I looked at today at CompUSA did demonstrate the wavy lines... it looks like a refresh issue. I looked at one at Best Buy too and it also had it. It isn't constant, but when there is a screen re-draw it seems to happen for a second. As soon as you blink, it is gone.

Not a deal-breaker... but it is there. I am glad that yours doesn't do that... I hope this isn't a quality issue.

[Scott R]

1) I have 1200 GB of bandwidth to use per month. Bandwidth is not a concern.

2) Cropping the images would mean double-compressing the JPEG, which I didn't want to do - I wanted the images to remain "pure".

3) I'm a little short on time right now Scott, so if it's all the same to you, I'll decide myself the best mix of quality vs. time.Hey, if you want to degrade your site performance, that's your call. I'll make a mental note to myself to not give you free advice in the future. You may have nearly unlimited bandwidth, but I doubt your server is capable of delivering significant amounts of bandwidth all at once without degrading site performance, and double-compressing the JPEGs would have little to no affect on portraying how yellow a screen is. But again, do what you like.

Scott

[dcharles18]

Two things. One, I think it is sad that a manufacturer's cheapest, lowest end device now has the best display. Two, seeing these pictures just severly decreased my desire for a 2215. I may just stick with my 3900 a little while longer.

[Serge]

As an owner of a 1945 let me make a few comments.

Hi

have you, or do you know someone who has benchamrked these H1940 ?

Alots has been said on it but still no real review, non benchmark, which would help more in a purchase decision than these screen issue hat still remiaon secondary to me

[Ed Hansberry]

Hey, if you want to degrade your site performance, that's your call. I'll make a mental note to myself to not give you free advice in the future. You may have nearly unlimited bandwidth, but I doubt your server is capable of delivering significant amounts of bandwidth all at once without degrading site performance,
Do you have any idea about the site performance? The server load? The bandwidth available at any given time? It is like saying putting an extra pair of shoes in the back of a Porsche is going to degrade performance. It is, but who cares?
Two things. One, I think it is sad that a manufacturer's cheapest, lowest end device now has the best display. Two, seeing these pictures just severly decreased my desire for a 2215. I may just stick with my 3900 a little while longer.
The 1910 though has been effecitvely discontinued and I am sure HP was looking for ways to cut costs. Keep in mind that for the same money, you now get more RAM, a ROM file store, SDIO support and bluetooth connectivity in the 1940 over what the 1910 had. For that, you sacrifice a bit in the screen quality.

As to the 2215 screen - I like it. It isn't as crisp and clear as the 3900, but after using my 2215 for 2 weeks, I picked up my 3900 and was stunned at how much larger it feels. Plus, the dual slots is just absolutely killer.

[tccox]

Please note that when I received my replacement Dell Axim two months ago I noticed the same "yellowing" as compared to my original Axim. And this has been much discussed on the Dell Boards. Best guess was dell changed suppliers in mid production. Maybe Dell and HP are now using same supplier.

[dcharles18]

As to the 2215 screen - I like it. It isn't as crisp and clear as the 3900, but after using my 2215 for 2 weeks, I picked up my 3900 and was stunned at how much larger it feels. Plus, the dual slots is just absolutely killer.

Something to keep in mind, thanks. I was really hoping to see a 128MB version of it (2215) though.[/quote]

[DavidHorn]

Well, I'm not getting a 1940 anymore. I was on the verge of ordering one, and now I've changed my mind.

Sorry, HP , but I'll get a 1910 instead, since the screen is the main choosing point when I get a new PPC.

Jason: How about a poll about what people most look for when they choose a new PPC?

[munyip7]

I wonder if it's possible to find a 1910 replacement LCD screen and fit it into a 1940? :roll:

[Exempli Gratia]

I looked at a 1945 at CompUSA today and if you hold it in just the right position, it isn't too yellow. Any slight movement and then BAM! Yellow again.

Seems that, since the angle of view plays such a role in the tinting, it's not a software issue. They can't just compensate and make it bluer or less red/green, then it would just look bad at a different angle.

Also, viewing the 1945 lieing flat on a desk distorts the screen so that the new background in the Notes, Calendar, etc apps is not even visible. This takes away the color crispness advantage the 194x has otherwise.

I've had the 1945 for a week now, and am NOT getting used to the yellow. :( Will likely return it on Monday. Unfortunate.

[GadgetMan]

Jason,

How do these HP models you photographed compare to iPaq 3950/70 screenwise?

I would be interested to know, as I have Ipaq 3950.

Cheers,

[Jason Dunn]

How do these HP models you photographed compare to iPaq 3950/70 screenwise?

No clue. I've never owned a 3900 series. :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Hey, if you want to degrade your site performance, that's your call. I'll make a mental note to myself to not give you free advice in the future.
Scott, we always appreciate advice -- but, unless it's important for the thread, please use the Contact form above. I don't think Jason was trying to put off your advice; rather, he had already spent many hours on the post and had about 6,000 other things to work on yesterday -- and the post had gotten trashed in the middle, so Jason had to do it again -- it really was just being stressed for time, nothing more. Also, with detailed images like these, double-JPEG artifacts are really noticeable at times.

You may have nearly unlimited bandwidth, but I doubt your server is capable of delivering significant amounts of bandwidth all at once without degrading site performance, and double-compressing the JPEGs would have little to no affect on portraying how yellow a screen is.
Nah; our biggest load problems are from the database/phpBB processing. The server could serve JPEG's until it's blue in the face (i.e., Apache can saturate the 100mbps link with JPEGs to the rest of the datacenter). I think the only real benefit of JPEG cropping here is for the end-users' download times. We generally try to honor that, but the amount of size saved due to pure cropping would have been negligible.

OK, enough on this; let's get back ontopic. I'll split any further discussion on image optimization if I come across it. ;)

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Jason,

How do these HP models you photographed compare to iPaq 3950/70 screenwise?

I would be interested to know, as I have Ipaq 3950
IMHO, the 3900 screen is just one tiny notch below the 1910, which is the best in the PPC world, so the 3900 is really good. The 2215 is quite good - better than most, but it does come after the 1910 and 3900/5400 (same screen). I am quite pleased with my 2215 screen after having owned a 3900 for the past 9 months. After you use the 2215 for a few days, you can only tell it isn't as good if you lay it next to a 3900.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

The 2215 has more serious display problems, though. It has wavy refresh lines that are annoyingly everpresent. I thought it was just one unit, but of all 10 units I have so far seen, they all exhibit the same screen wavyness. Ugh. I'd rather have a yellow tinge.
I've never seen waves on my 2215.
I DEFINITELY see them when viewing my unit in direct sunlight.

[Ketsugi]

Jason, is that article title ("mellow yellow") a reference to an old song called "Try to Remember" or "Try and Remember" or something like that?

It sounds very familiar.

[Ed Hansberry]

Jason, is that article title ("mellow yellow") a reference to an old song called "Try to Remember" or "Try and Remember" or something like that?

It sounds very familiar.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?Mellow_Yellow.html

[Thinkingmandavid]

I thought Jaosn was referring to the drink mellow yellow 8O
It seems to me the drink was the same color as the screen on that pic beginning the post :wink:
Just a note, it sounded as if Jason had taken personal what Scott said, and had lashed back. Just a note:)

[DanNotDan]

Maybe it is a song about a drink? Or a drink about a song?

Does anyone know if HP has commented on the screen yet?

[pixelator]

The 2215 has more serious display problems, though. It has wavy refresh lines that are annoyingly everpresent. I thought it was just one unit, but of all 10 units I have so far seen, they all exhibit the same screen wavyness. Ugh. I'd rather have a yellow tinge.
I've never seen waves on my 2215.

Ed, I have seen the 'wavy' lines - what he's talking about (I suspect) is the jittery refresh lines like some old EM-500s had, my E-750 had and the Genio e500G had (as well as the Maestro). It's a jittery, flickery effect of scanlines moving up the screen. If you wiggle the device a bit and look at the blue area at the top of the screen (assuming you have the stock Today theme), you can see it. I also saw uneven lighting near the bottom of the 2210/15 screens I've seen. Not good. I agree with the guy who says that the 1945 screen is better, even with the yellow tinge at certain angles.

b

[dequardo]

Isn't it possible (likely?) that this is a trade-off for much improved battery life vs. the 1910?

mike

[jherubin]

I have noticed this same problem between the Viewsonic V35 and V37 as I mentioned here: http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=141851&highlight=#141851

[Dr. Grabow]

I suppose this has been beaten to death, but yesterday at Circuit City they had the 2215, the 1945, and the 3900 series side by side. The 1945 had a *pronounced* yellow cast to the screen when compared to the others, and the only way to get rid of the yellow, and then only partially, was to hold the 1945 with the bottom tilted away from you in the vertical plane about 30 degrees. A real shame, since it's such a nice unit otherwise, but the 2215 and 3900 screens were vastly superior. I can see where the yellow added enough "murkiness" to the screen as to make it irritating ...

[PJE]

Hi All,

I checked out the 1940 against the 1910 and 2210 at CompUSA and noticed that both 19xx displays had yellowing issues, although the 1940 had a more pronounced yellowing of the whites.

I also discovered that if I held the 1940 upside down at the angle I normally used a PDA (top of screen tilted away) then the display was almost perfect! Has HP's supplier simply installed one of the LCD's layers upside down by mistake?

Thoughts..

[mv]

Yap. Whites looks yellow. And Yellow looks pink!!! :devilboy: :devilboy: