Precision M6400 screen color as blue push/tint

Can you pass this? -> http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp

Did you ever tried to read technical documentation on these different manufacturers screens BEFORE posting here your conclusions that they ALL use 6 bit DACs? I guess you will be surprized about the number of manufacturers using 8 bit per color DACs on LAPTOP LCDs. And you will suddenly realize the color gammut is actually depends on the backlight spectrum as well as DAC - and the CCFL backlight spectrum is the the limiting factor for color coverage on these 8 bit DAC based CCFL displays as backlight canot produce wide enough spectrum. LED solves the spectrum problem of backlight and this is it. It is up tom the manufacturer to calibrate it right, as wide spectrum is wrtless if you white point and gama is incorrect.

 

Lenovo will be much better choice for CS4 than m6400 with LED. m6400 with CCFL is not usable for design or photomaking of any kind.

 

I never said, that all notebook builders only use 6bit displays. I just pointed out, that Dell isn't offering cheap or bad technology! Here is the actual LCD line of LG LG Overview All new notebook screen are 6bit! Just the RGB-LED uses 8bit! Therefore your anti Dell postings are more or less stupid, because all manufactures that use LG Displays will get the same as Dell.

Ridiculous! Any prove for that?
Btw. Lenovo is really well known for their great and bright notebook displays.

 

I guess I am just dense, because I'm still lost.

The information I was trying to get was an objective statement, not opinion or how the screen looks to someones eye.

I want to know whether the RGB LED in M6400 is CAPABLE of being calibrated correctly when using something like the i1 Pro and ProfileMaker 5 or another profiling software of equivalent level. The results of this kind of profiling of the screen are very specific and will compare the screen to the Adobe RGB or SRGB standard, showing exactly how far from the standard the screen sets up.

If anyone has done this level of calibration for the RGB LED screen, can you tell me if it calibrates at or very close to the standard? If it does, then it must match my other calibrated monitors extremely closely and will also work with our profiled printers. I'm not worried about shift of colors over time, because we re-calibrate every two weeks. We also retain multiple profiles using different lighting, depending upon the lighting where the finished product will be viewed.

Separate question - If the CCFL screens in the M6400 are 6bit, what is the CCFL screen in the W700 and who makes it?

 

Intoxicate,
BTW Lenovo is using 8 bit per color DAC in W700 CCFL - go do RTFM.
DELL XPS M1710 has 8 bit per color DAC in true life screns - go RTFM. As maybe you don't know, but RTFM meand READ THE FU**& MANUAL.

So far as through all the posts you did here, one the same same thing - you do explain people that they are wrong and stupid, that and m6400 DELL screens are fine, that you say that spyder 3 works well on LED screens...
The facts are opposit - I saw that , go check on goole - looks like except for you on this planet noone managed to calibrate LED with spyder 3 correctly and not only on m6400
You posting misleading and incorrect information all the time...
Not sure that to think about you.

CARL, go read page 8. All answers are there. Check the example of the yellow pin shade, if you have problems figuring out 2^6 per color.
You want objective? 262K colors and 16M colors hmmmm... 262k seems to suck for graphic designers big time!
Regardin the manufacturer of W700 - no idea. But looking at their HW manual for W700:

Main display
v 17.0-inch, 16M colors, WSXGA+ (1440 × 900 resolution) TFT color LCD
v 17.0-inch, 16M colors, WUXGA (1920 × 1200 resolution) TFT color LCD

Second screen (some models)
v 10.6-inch, 15M colors, WXGA (1280 × 768 resolution) TFT color LCD

If you still don't trust me because I am dell-angry and sure stupit too:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/pc/pccbbs/mobiles_pdf/43y9442_02.pdf
table 7

Dell m6400 HW spec:
Dslay
Type (active matrix TFT) 17 inch, WXGA+ LCD, 17 inch, WUXGA, LCD or RGB LED, RGB LED Edge 2-edge glass
Maximum resolutions:
WXGA+ (CCFL) 1440 x 900 at 262 K colors
WUXGA (CCFL) 1930 x 1200 at 262 K colors
WUXGA (LED) 1930 x 1200 at 16.7 M colors
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/wsm6400/en/setup/D446C0MR.pdf

DELL XPS M1710
Type (active-matrix TFT) WUXGA
Maximum resolution
1920 x 1200 at 16.7 million colors

Viel Glück für Sie.

 

Simply read what I write. I didn't say all manufactures use only 6bit display nor did I call you stupid.

I was relating to LG displays, which obvious aren't used in the W700. I pointed out, that all manufactures of LG displays (beside the RGB LED screen) will get their actual 6bit screen (e.g. HP, Lenovo, Dell...). That you just pull this down to a M6400 vs. W700 comparison... well what'd I say??

 

First, I want to say that didn't read all the posts here since I don't have the RGBLED screen, so I can't comment on it, but some of the misinformation in the last few pages somehow bothers me and I will try to clarify some things since this conversation isn't going anywhere.

Actually, if you had read the real technical documentation from the companies that actually manufacture the displays, you would have known that almost all notebook screens use 6-bit LVDS interface and can produce only 262K colors, the rest is achieved through conventional (spatial) dithering, which emulates 16.2M colors, then there is the more advanced (temporal) dithering also known as Hi-FRC, which results at 16.7M. Of course, neither of them is perfect and also some implementation could be very annoying and that will vary among the manufacturers.

Now the 17" RGBLED LG panel (LP171WU5) is one of the recent exceptions, which is advertised as 8-bit display and we even debated quite a lot when it was announced whether that is another trick or not. Also, there might be a few others but that's just a speculation at this point and it's not confirmed, plus they aren't 17" anyway.

If you find the part number of your display, which is easy in most cases (PC Wizard/Everest) but not always, you can read the actual specifications of the displays on the sites of their manufacturers (LG/Phillips, Samsung, AUO, CMO etc.), you could even find PDFs with more technical details for some of them.
http://www.lgdisplay.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd300_j_e.jsp (digital catalog at the bottom)
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/lcdpanel/productList.do?upper_fmly_id=601&fmly_id=611
http://www.auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=notebook&func=items&items_id=2
http://www.cmo.com.tw/opencms/cmo/products/notebook/?__locale=en

This below is a good summary, it gets updated frequently, and may save you some time although it doesn't include every single notebook panel:
http://lcdtech.no-ip.info/en/data/laptop.lcd.panels.htm

It's 6-bit, Lenovo admitted that on their blogs even before the release of the notebook and of course they got bashed to death for that, and for the fact that is TN, which is normal since ThinkPad users were spoiled with IPS panels (6 bit again) before and now they classify any TN as "crap", which is another topic, and which isn't far from the truth but the current stage of the notebook display industry is all about profit, the quality more or less died two years ago with the last IPS panel offered in notebook, and it's only the tablets that still use this thechnology now. The only thing your could do now is to at least get a better TN instead of the typical for notebook industry TN rubbish from the ice-age.

Read Matt Kohut replies, he works for Lenovo and is one of the people who run their blog.
http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=153
http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=175

It used 6-bit displays as well, there were a few suppliers such as the LG/Phillips (LP171WU1), Samsung (LTN170U1) etc. it's easy to find the one you have and check out the specifications.

Perhaps, it about time for you to learn what marketing is and how is used as a tool to fool ignorant and naive consumers, then you might eventually realize that you shouldn't believe in everything you see and you should always try to double check any information, especially when it's coming from notebook companies's sites.

Ages ago, people believed that if a display is a advertised as 16.7M that would mean 8-bit, yes but that was before most manufacturers started playing dirty marketing games and advertise most displays as "over 16M", "millions of colors" and the most arrogant but often seen "16.7M", that's the case with many desktop monitors as well, so you can't really rely on these type of statements to be indicative of the color depth of the display anymore.

Two photographers even tried to sue Apple for their "support for millions of colors" statement they put next to all of their 6-bit displays but they didn't find enough people for class action suit.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/05/lawsuit-over-mac-book-mac-book-pro-displays.ars
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...les-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.ars

 

Very well written and it certainly explained a few things for me.
+rep (as if you didnt have enough )for the time spent to write all these stuff and clarify the matter.

 

Dreamer - Thanks for the calm and erudite reply.

So, I gather the W700 is a 6bit CCFL TN panel just like the Dell CCFL panels. However, it apparently manages to do great dithering to accomplish its 16M colors, unlike the Dell CCFL displays. According to my interpretation, the Dell/HP RGB LED panels, in contrast, are 8bit and do not use dithering.

Based simply on what is available on the internet regarding these laptops, not the manufacturers' marketing claims, it would appear that a properly calibrated M6400 or 8730W should work very well for Photoshop. Note that I am ignoring all other aspects of the laptop, such as, build quality, etc.

While I don't expect any laptop to meet the level of critical color of our NEC Spectraview II or Eizo CG series, it does seem like the M6400 is worth a try.

 

The W700 uses a better TN (still 6-bit) panel with dual lamp CCLF backlight, hence the 72% Adobe gamut and the 400 nits brightness, it's probably much better than most notebook displays out there. (Just for comparison purposes, the one in Dell is a standard (single lamp) CCFL, 50% gamut, 260 nits, according to Dell).

There are two reviews about it here with more details about the screen than usual as the reviewer is as photographer, so perhaps you could ask him if you have any additional questions, that would be easy.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4010312
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=348886

Then, there is this article that compares, or at least tries to, a few displays including the one in the W700.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9320-9876


Otherwise, I would personally rather try the RGBLED screens before the Lenovo one and if it didn't work out for one or another reason, Dell/HP have good return policy, Lenovo doesn't have any. Also, there are many owners of the M6400 around, and not as much but still enough of the HP 8730w, so I guess you could talk to them in the owner's threads here and in the HP section, particularly about the performance in color-managed applications like Photoshop.

Btw, the 18.4" Sony AW with the optional RGBLED backlight screen is worth researching as well, they claim even wider gamut of 137% Adobe for it, the Dell is 100%, but I can't tell you anything more about it, check out its owner's thread, I haven't read it recently so I'm not sure what's the situation is at the moment. Of course, that's not a workstation-class model, rather a consumerish product. Still, if the screen is the most important factor, consider it as an alternative and Sony is the only you could see in person depending on where you live of course, so that would be where I would start from.

Good Luck.