Studio XPS 16 1080p RGBLED Settings?

OK, worked it out, permissions on the folder. Dragged the profile in there instead and now got it running. So, brightness to 40% next thing to tweak.

 

Just to let you lot know I have posted a note on dell forums about the A10 BIOS:

http://en.community.dell.com/forums/p/19294733/19553418.aspx#19553418

Just received my Studio XPS 10 RGBLCD today and its AMAZING !

 

its the best screen i ever worked with (or even seen). not even my friends X_Black Vaio stand a chance in colours against my SXPS 16"..

we compared this wallpaper on our laptops (basic Vista wallpaper) and my screen was just sooo much more crispy and strong.....(i dont even use some colour profile)

 

I am using a 1640 for the past 2 days and i observe this flicker too. It is more like a change in brightness of sorts and when i take the power cord out the brightness increases whereas it was the opposite in my older laptops.Is this flicker a hardware issue or driver issue or its not an issue at all.
Also i read someone mention about a setting called vari-bright.but I am not able to find that on the catalyst control. Any help on this topic would be appreciated.
Thanks

 

Vari-Bright is under Power Play in CCC.

 

This is what i see under power play in ccc.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9744/73433246.jpg

Thanks.

 

The flickering on battery is a hardware issue.

I had my screen (and whole lid unit) replaced and the problem disappeared.

 

Uhm, you're using HD4670. I don't know your CCC's version. I'm using 9.9 (modded) and under Power Play, there's Vari-Bright.

 

why do normal dvdrips appear as low quality when played in the 1640 with rgbled screen.whereas they appear top notch in normal computers.. Also red appears as bleeding red in some cases. infact red appears more rose/pink..

 

Well you're dealing with a higher resolution monitor so a 800x600 video would look much lower quality on a 1920x1200 monitor than perhaps a 1200x800 monitor.

 

I had this problem intermittently from when the laptop arrived, and now all the time. Best way I can describe it is that the screen (16" RGBLED) has a green shimmer right from boot up, whether in safe mode, any screen resolution, etc. Diagnostics report no problem. It doesn't show up in a screen capture or on an external monitor, only the LCD.

I thought it originally may be the graphics card overheating or another issue but the external monitor seems to rule that out.

Any advice appreciated.

 

is there a solution for that ?

 

No as Sephoroth was incorrect with his statement anyway.

The video would look exactly the same.

 

no the video quality of dvdrips (avi files) are not as good as they were on a normal computer..

 

Define "normal computer".

A desktop with a CRT or LCD? There you have your reason. It would not have been due to the resolution.

 

What I meant was greater differences in resolution can result in larger amounts of "video-stretching" which may give a a user a negative impression of the monitor. If what he described also occurs when the video is not stretched/shrunk (i.e. the video isn't being played in full-screen) then the problem likely lies elsewhere (e.g. poor color settings on the monitor or an abnormal refresh rate).

 

And I will reiterate a 800x600 video would not look any different played full screen on a 1920x1200 or 1200x800 LCD. Other factors like viewing angles, contrast ratio and brightness would make the difference. Video is not stretched in the way you think it's up-scaled / resized using bilinear or bicubic algorithms.

 

I beg to differ. A 800x600 vdo will look significantly worse if viewed full screen @ 1920x1200 vs 1200x800, for example.The upscalling will definately introduce artifacting and macroblocking which will be much more apparent at higher resolutions. This is exactly why regular def TV looks 'bad' on a HDTV, as compared to a regular set. As good as scallers have become, they can't make a low-def video become hi-def without compromising quality.

 

Simply not true I'm afraid. The upscaling absolutely does not introduce artifacts or macroblocking when using modern video codecs and comparing this to standard def TV upscaling is completely flawed. You are confusing things on a number of levels.

Firstly standard def TV looks great on old CRT "regular sets" because they are based on completely different technology. Apart from geometry issues and physical size issues CRTs still far outperform LCDs. Most CRTs are also much smaller (up to 36") compared to HDTV LCDs and you are always going to see a reduction in quality when the physical size of your display increases when displaying low resolution video.

This is where I think you are getting confused. Increasing the resolution of a screen does NOT decrease the quality of low res video. Increasing the physical size of the screen would do however because as you rightly state you can't make low-def video become high-def.

 

I'm not confused at all. However, you may be though. First of all, no video codec or scaler, no matter how modern, will make a low def video look as good as a native hi def video. Why? Because the resolution and detail just isn't there to begin with.

Second, nowhere did I mention anything about a CRT TV. Fixed pixel displays and CRTs are two very different beasts.

Finally, do this for me please. Take a nice, high quality 50x50 pixel desktop icon. Paste it into Photoshop. Then bicubic scale it to 1000x1000 and tell me if it still looks fine. I bet it won't. Why? Because you took a picture that is supposed to be displayed on 50x50 pixels and made it instead display it on 1000x1000. Bottom line, you can't simply scale indefinately. There is just so much you can scale before the picture starts getting blocky and blurry, the result of displaying a low-detail image on a high-def canvas.

Reading your comments, one would think that playing a 320x240 video in full screen on a 1920x1080 monitor would look as good as playing a native 1080p Bluray movie. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

 

Lol you really have got yourself in a pickle. I suggest you re-read my previous post. I actually AGREED with you that you can't make standard def look high def but I'm not sure why you are even using this as an example as it's not related to the original statement in any way.

Again your second example is completely flawed and you are just confusing things for no need. If that 1000 x 1000 upscaled icon was viewed full screen on a 1920x1200 LCD and a 1200x800 LCD it would look exactly the same on both.

This is my whole point. In the original example the resolution of the screen is irrelevant. The 800x600 video would look pretty much identical on both screens. It is only when you physically increase the size of the screen that you would notice any difference (less definition / more blurred).

Having said that with good video processing the picture could be enhanced using sharpening filters or dedicated hardware processing like ATI AVIVO or nVidia PureVideo and the 800x600 video could be made to look BETTER on the 1920x1200 screen.

Either way the 1200x800 screen would not be the better screen to display a 800x600 video, sorry. If the video was 1200x800 then we are talking about something else entirely as 1:1 pixel mapping would provide the best picture possible.

Regarding your last comment about comparing 320x240 video with 1920x1080 I think you've lost the plot, we are comparing screen resolutions here not video resolutions.

 

Agreed, iata. jfdube has got things a little mixed up since he has failed to take account of physical display pixel size and viewing distance.

 

Wrong again. Simply put, there is only one truth: the more you scale an image or video, the more blurred and blocky it will become, even on the same size screeen. Therefore, a 800x600 scalled to 1920x1080 will look worse then if scaled to 1200x800, for example. Much less video information has to be 'invented' and 'made up' by the scaler to account for the extra pixels to fill.

Bottom line: a 800x600 video needs to be scaled to 2x its size on a 1200x800monitor, and over 4x its size on a 1920x1080 monitor.

As for my TV example ealier, its been proven, again and again, in countless forums, that std-def TV looked so much better on those older 480p plasmas then they do on 720p and 1080p ones. SAME SIZE TVs. Why? less (or no) scaling involved.

Scaling = making up information that is not there to begin with.

In any case, lets agree to disagree on this one

 

Going on your third flawed argument if we scaled that 800x600 video to a hypothetical 192000000x108000000 resolution but displayed it on the same sized screen it would be ridiculously blurred and blocky? No, it wouldn't at all.

Why are you comparing the HDTV example to this. There is far more going on than you realise. The lower res plasma will pixel map 1:1 which as I've already said will provide the best picture possible. Most 480p plasmas were also a lot smaller than current 1080p 50" or 60" models. The video processing and upscaling in a lot of older TVs don't come close to the processing power available in a modern laptop.

Time to stop digging before you can't get out. Anyway, this is going completely OT and will be my last post on the matter.

 

LCD screen with 1024 X 768 resolution.

 

guys you cant compare a TFT/LCD screen(TV or whatever) with a RGBLED screen when it comes to resizing resolution..............

a RGB screen works in that each pixel have a cluster with diodes on a single chip, ( W(white) -LED works in that each pixel have one diode one a single chip)

scaling from 1920x1080 to ex, 1280x800 doesn't affect much at all quality-wise on a RGB screen.

 

No. An RGBLED screen is simply a TFT that has a backlight using a combination of Red, Green and Blue Leds to provide its back light rather than cold cathode tubes. You may be confusing things with an OLED screen, but they aren't quite here yet...

 

I must say it feels quite good partaking in the creation of "internet wars" .

 

well, when i compare my fenomal Ultra sharp True life to my RGB screen in 1280x800 (both wuxga from start) i see quite big difference in games.

details are way way sharper on my RGBscreen in 1280X800 then my splendid Ultra sharp True life........thats a fact

 

I tried the diagnostic tests and in that it showed me color bars and asked if u see any color bars.. y/n.. it means the lcd is fine.
I still find those screen flickers / brightness changes.
Could this be any software issue ? is there automatic brightness adjustment anywhere ?

 

If you get the flicker then you have a faulty screen.

 

or a bad driver

 

Well personally speaking it was a faulty screen.

Dell replaced it and the problem went away.

I tried everything before hand to try and fix it including multiple driver versions.

 

Am gonna do the same.get it fixed.

 

Received my XPS 16 with 4670 and I have the flicker problem...

I've tried the diag tests (fn key while booting), saw the colors bar and said n to the question. The screen went black while earing repeated beeps...

I was curious if you were having the same results at this test with your NEW non-faulty screen?

Cheers.

 

Yeah same results.

The tech support agent just used that as the reason to replace the screen but I think it's actually a bug in the diagnostics program.

 

managed to get a Spyder 2 and calibrated by RGBLED display - Attached is the icc monitor profile file:

Attached is a file called "Spyder2express.icm.txt" - Download it and remove the .txt file extension and you will have the original file (the forum software doesnt allow me to upload .icc files for some reason).

I copied this file from:
C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color

Not 100% sure how you would set this as your default as the Spyder software did that for me. My display looks amazing now - Much less blue and pictures taken outside seem alot more natural.

Would be interested in feedback on this file to see what others think.

I also set my display brightness on mains and battery (both in ths BIOS and in the power settings) to be both 50% for both.

 

Great profile Mark - thank you +rep.

It has slightly more contrast than cedm's profile - this one's a keeper

 

Thanks! I would say it looks awesome on my screen as well, maybe better than the previous profile I used (StudioXPS16_Native_Portable_lum40%_06-07-2009).
I think the red and blues are a little better with yours.

Do you know if you calibrated using the screens native white balance (not 6500k)?

 

not sure - how can I find out ?

I can rerun it if we all want to sync up with the same settings !?

 

You install ICM files in display settings/advanced/Color management. But I don't see how this interacts with ATI's Avivo settings. On my system, changing the ICM file doesn't actually seem to make any difference to the display, unlike the CCC Avivo settings.

 

Hmmm on further investigation I think the contrast has been upped slightly too much. On some photos I lose quite a lot of shadow detail.

alpine read the thread -- you need to use a LUT loader if on Vista or enable an additional option on Windows 7.

 

I'm not an expert on this field, but I'm sure there should be a setting in the calibration software, maybe under advanced settings, that let you specify that the calibration should be based on the screens native whitebalance.

Maybe someone else can correct me if i'm wrong?

 

Ah well, I'm not going anywhere near Vista, and my beta Win 7 has expired, so I'm running XP at present!

 

Just discoved some dirt on my coloromitor sensor on the Spyder 2 Express and reran the calibration again. Attached is the latest ICC file (version 2):

(Note: delete the .txt extension to get the .icc extension)

 

Nice, I notice the saturation is down a touch in this one. Even better.

I assume you set ATI CCC settings to default before calibrating?

 

You are using CCC brightness at 50% and setting the bios at 50% as well?
Isn't that kind of dim?

 

no seems ok to me - to be accurate I am actually using 8/16 in the BIOS for battery and mains

 

thank you for the great color profile!

 

will try it, curious if i get better then with my origianl settings...