Envy 14 radiance screen vs Envy 15 IPS display comparison anyone?

No, just beer.

 

The reds improve with more beer.

 

@Lvivkse

Good job on eyeing the calibration. That's probably the best that can be done with the IPS screen. Is the Envy 15's calibrated screen using the settings that you posted in one of the threads in this forum?

 

Yessir.

(the pictures I took with my phone don't reflect the actual color, it's not a perfect solution, but it helps for me)

 

You should have taken it down like you originally intended because this is complete garbage information for anyone who doesn't know any better. The absolute worst bargain-bin IPS panel displays are always, always better than TN for viewing angles/color reproduction due to the inherent vertical gamma shift on TN panels even when the display is directly in front of you.

And the "2-4 times faster response time" line is... well, complete garbage too, because it's completely false and dishonest. There are no <1ms GTG response time TN panels and most are actually 6-8ms GTG, which is nearly identical to what you will find on any decent IPS panel these days.



I would strongly recommend anyone who actually cares about the quality of their display ignore the information this poster has offered as nearly all of it is objectively false.

The only advantage of TN panels at this point is a true 120hz refresh rate, and those are about as rare as IPS panels themselves, and only a "feature" if you actually have a laptop powerful enough to truly take advantage of it.

There are no "great" TN's--they're all terrible because of the issues I mentioned above. Some might look a bit less terrible than others, but in the end you're still looking at a gamma shifted image no matter what.

 

The RGB-LED TN panel on my Dell XPS16 destroys the IPS panel on the Envy 15 in terms of accurate color reproduction. Have you not read the threads on the orange-reds issue?

 

The Price is Right losing horn - YouTube

 

Such an excellent first post, don't you agree?...

 

It seemed pretty thought out and detailed, like he knows what he's talking about...and then he just proceeds to drop un-knowledge

I'm sure its more accurate to say that the viewing angles are always better - at least to the extent that they wash out and not into the pink/green spectrums based on your vertical positioning. While color is more consistent (in that it doesnt shift hue, just saturation) that doesn't (especially with what we've seen with the 15!) mean that it's color production is more accurate. My cheap office TN panel desktop monitor I have here sh*ts all over the 15's IPS in terms of color gamut.

 

See above.

Colors can be corrected, vertical gamma shift inherent to TN panels cannot.

 

If you kindly just tell all of the folks who are either living with or returned the Envy 15 with the IPS because of the orange reds (and the Sony SE owners for that matter) how to correct the colors, I'm sure we would all be thrilled.

 

I love when people jump into a thread and start spewing BS. It's obvious that lowkey doesn't know what he's talking about and he hasn't been following the multiple threads discussing the Envy 15's screen.

 

You'd think he was trolling, but that was a complicated troll. Maybe just a lot of spare time.

 

INCEPTION.

I'd like him to compare my notebook's AUO to the 15's IPS.

The stereotype that TNs are automatically inferior isn't backed up by history.

 

I'm aware of the issue w/the Envy 15, but it's nothing compared to gamma shift that cannot be fixed no matter what. Color gamut (or lack thereof) is generally a function of panel backlighting and not the panel itself, and yes whoever is manufacturing the panel screwed up (LG, maybe?), but it's nothing that cannot be fixed in manufacturing from this point on.

I think it's interesting that people who generally will never consider using a hardware calibrator on their display are all of a sudden worried about accurate colors, especially when some of the "better" TN's mentioned here are wide gamut, forcing oversaturated colors in many applications seeing as windows isn't universally color-aware.

 

I think it's interesting that you've come in here and started spouting this line of thought for some reason.

 

Nope. Nope. No.

lol, well isn't that convenient.

and if it's never corrected? will your response be "well, it could have, but they just didn't wanna"?

 

HP is already sitting on a stockpile of these flawed screens. There only recourse is to bury them in the desert and order higher quality ones, or continue on like nothing is wrong.

I see them attempting to sell as many as possible, while they begin manufacturer machines with improved screens in them. A silent update, perhaps?

 

I already mentioned to you how colors can be fixed on any IPS panel display--gamut is a function of backlight, it is a manufacturing issue and not an issue with the panel tech itself, which is superior in nearly every way possible.

I don't know, it's not something they seem to be able to sweep under the rug at this point as the color issues were even mentioned in the recent Engadget review.

 

If what you say is true, and it very well may be (though by manufacturing issue I assume you mean the choice of backlight used, not a manufacturing error), it is in practice irrelevant if the implementation of the panel is flawed, as it is in the 15 and the Sony SE. When you just say a blanket "all IPS screens are better", one would assume you mean in practice, which is really all that matters in a purchasing decision. In other words, if you were giving advice to a buyer, which you appear to be doing above, you would say an IPS laptop is always better than a TN with regard to color, which is just simply not true in terms of implementation.

 

This is all lovely theory. It's not the panel: it's the backlight and manufacturing. What's the difference? The panel sucks in the end, regardless of what part or process you want to blame for it sucking.

and seeing as how Sony had the same issue with IPS sucking, isn't it splitting hair to try to deflect blame from the panel when at the end of the day, the display either works right or it doesn't.

 

It isn't the panel, though, and this isn't theory, it's fact. That's the difference. Getting it yet?

It's an issue with the backlight as the color gamut is an extension of the backlight. This is why panel manufacturers such as LG can put the same panel in various displays have one sRGB 8-bit + FRC, and another adobe RGB and true 10-bit. It can be fixed in the manufacturing process whereas TN's gamma shift issues are a limitation of the panel itself and cannot be fixed no matter what.

I'm unaware of the vaio se (is that right?) and what issues it has, but it looks like it's 15.5" 1920x1080--if it has the same color issues as the Envy 15 I'd imagine they're the same panel and both HP and Sony are sourcing them from either AUO or LG. I cannot find this panel in tftcentral's panel database as it's probably too new to be listed at the moment so I can't check for sure but this is likely the case.

As I said before this is a manufacturing issue (and I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here), not an issue with the panel technology itself. A TN or A-MVA/C-PVA panel could easily have the exact same issue with a poor backlight.

I think I should address this again. It isn't HP who screwed up, it's whoever is providing the panels to LG that screwed up and I would be very, very upset with whichever panel manufacturer that is if I was in charge over there. Someone (or a few someones) let this get past QC and allowed these to go into full production thinking no one would notice.

It's odd for LG as they have a pretty good track record for desktop IPS displays seeing as they provide nearly every single 21.5-30" IPS panel you can buy, including the apple thunderbolt display/2560x1440 imac.

 

It's still splitting hairs, the technology can be great in theory but at the end of the day, these IPS panels are inferior displays to their TN counterparts, regardless the reason behind it

 

Agreed. Theory is great and I agree that IPS is a better tech than TN, but at the end of the day the IPS panel in the Envy 15 sucks. The TN panel on my m1330 and Dell monitor are better than it. Period. The end.

 

In agreeing with you guys, I will quote myself from the last page.

 

Finally, a fact I can refute categorically ("all TNs are terrible") Exhibit 1) Sony Z 13.1" 900p and 1080p TN, Exhibit 2) Dell 15" B+RGLED TN on XPS15 - exceptions (and there are more) disprove the rule (and thus I rule! ) BTW, the first half of your statement, "there are no 'great' TNs," is true, but only because I've never seen a TN with decent vertical viewing angles; on all other specs, the best TNs on laptops (not including desktop monitors in the discussion) are otherwise better than most of the IPS displays on laptops today and, except again for vertical viewing angles are even very close to the "champion" HP Dream Color IPS. Numerous tests by Anandtech have extensive info about this.

Otherwise, all I can really say in response to your characterization of me personally and my integrity is: I've been flamed by the best of 'em, even better than you, sir, but this is the first time it took over a month from when I posted til I was flamed, lol! I would have responded sooner, but I felt I had hogged more than my share of airtime on this thread and haven't checked back for a while. Thanks for the "wake up call;" I can appreciate a good assault to my character as much as the next guy.

I guess you have to ask yourself, who do you believe, Mr. [not very] lowkey or your lying eyes? Oh, and, you too rule!. BTW, you coined the perfect term: "unknowledge!" +1

I think it's all the knowledge/"unknowledge phenomenon. Definitely too much time on his hand, also not a happy person. Cheer up Mr. lowkey, we respect your knowledge and you're passion, just not your insults!

Are you sure? (tongue-in-cheek)

If you can't say something positive...I guess you are as frustrated as the rest of us!

Benediction:
While this discussion thread has, shall we say, lost respectfulness at times , it's good to hear people finally focusing on the issue of the lousy screens mfrs have been slapping on even monster laptops for years. Given the uniformly awesome quality of the (yes, lowkey9, IPS!) tablet screens and those pesky rule-disproving exceptions of great TN screens, I'd like to think the toothpaste is out of the tube and it aint going back: there is now at least one good-to-excellent display available for most laptops sizes, and most of the mfrs have definitely gotten the message about resolution, even brightness, hopefully they will get the memo about color, contrast and viewing angles soon. And given the awesome power and endurance of even $500 laptops with crappy screens today, it's hard to imagine that many mfrs will see the opportunity to spend up to $100 extra on their displays, double it for profit, and produce very powerful laptops with gorgeous screens for $700-$900. I am almost giddy to think about the products that will be rolling out in the second half of 2012 and first half of 2013, especially with a budget of up to $1,500. Could actually be enough to claw my Sony Z13 out of my cold, ....hands.

 

This statement is too sloppy.

Here is the cleaner more accurate statement(s).


-The ips display on the envy 15 has inferior color reproduction to many TN panels

-The ips display on the envy 15 has superior viewing angles, especially vertical angles to almost all TN panels - less color shifting which in turns effects the first area at certain angles.

-the ips display on the envy 15 has better/worse contrast and black levels than standard tn panels. Have not heard anyone mention this, so this could be either better or worse.



The last is a question, the first a huge drawback, the second a huge perk. Saying this ips is just inferior, implies a sort of blanket statement about all of its characteristics. It's like saying a bmw 3 series is inferior to a corvette because it has lower horsepower, leaving aside any other perks the 3 series might offer.




Anyway, it's still a good thing people are making a big fuss over this, its not a deal breaker for me, but the fact that its out there makes it a bigger deal breaker for people who would not otherwise have had an issue with it. And that may goad hp into supplying a better panel later on.

 

I'm obviously not comparing it to all TNs, just ones in the same range - like the Radiance in the 17

The only thing I found better about the IPS was viewing angles - which was a marginal + at best, especially when you sacrifice having a normal color gamut and lose saturation.

 

Sloppy is what we do best.

Seriously, you make excellent points, but to be a bit analytical, I take issue with your last bullet point question, "...[does the] display on the envy 15 have better/worse contrast and black levels than standard TN panels?" [emphasis mine]. I think we can agree that there is no accepted definition of a "standard" panel, be it Tn, IPS or otherwise. The issue at hand is how the E15 panel compares to the best of the Tns, which are found in most of the models competitive to the E15. On that issue, I have not found published measurements for the E15 of the brightness, black levels or contrast (the latter being the ratio of the first over the second), but words have been used to characterize the brightness as "good, not great" (I think someone said 250 nit), and the contrast and black levels "very good."

But the measured values of the above-mentioned best TN screens (see notebookcheck.net and anandtech.net both of which do instrumentation measurements) yield good-to-superb specs: brightness levels of 230-350 nit, contrasts of 600:1 - 1,146:1 (Sony Z2, 900p) and black levels of .4 - .26 (also the Z2 900p). Moreover, most of these top TN panels also cover the entire sRGB spectrum and nearly all of the Adobe RGB. I would submit that, from anecdotal evidence, the IPS screen on the E15 would fall on the lower end of these, still in the top 10% of all notebook screens. One last comment on this: almost all of the "premium TN panels" (I know, there's no accepted standard for "premium," but I'm referring to the ones that have been cited in this thread) have horizontal viewing angles nearly as good as IPS panels - over 160 degrees. No comparison with vertical angles, but except in rare occasions, I find the 15% or so vertical angle fine, even for someone standing above me as I am focusing on it on a desk level. So I think that benefit of the IPS technology is a bit of a red herring except for the less common needs for that flexibility. (By the way, I'm too lazy to link the sources for my statements above - all from the two sources I've mentioned - but I would be glad to if someone can't find them or is a naysayer.)

All things being equal, I would always prefer an IPS display over TN, but at current prices and competitive offerings, the TNs still get the nod from me.

I do agree completely with your final paragraph: it's all-good that people are so focused on display quality. Also, to do more justice to your point about the specs on displays other than color accuracy, I completely agree that most users are only beginning to catch on to the significance of those measures. If you don't read test results in notebookcheck.net or anandtech.com, you wouldn't have any idea how different screens perform, and as an OCD screen perfection fanatic, having A/B compared many, you can rely on the better specs providing the better subjective viewing experience, though there are imbalances (eg, Sony Z 1080p vs. 900p: former has wider color gamut and resolution, former is far brighter with much better contrast and lower black levels), so even here, not all excellent screens are created equal and people do have different preferences and needs (eg, color gamut and accuracy for graphic artists, brightness for outdoor use, etc.), but there again, you can normally trust the lab measurements (not mfr specs!) to guide you.