T400 LED brightness & calibrated profile

I measured the T400's LED screen's brightness and it registered 258cd/m2. This is with XP on the brightest setting.


I have also make available my calibrated screen profile for anyone who are interested to use. The original screen is a little blueish for photo work. This will solve the problem but remember every screen is a little different, so please use your judgement. The profile will be available for the next few days or if it goes pass my normal bandwidth allocation.
http://www.dlauphoto.com/temp/t400.rar

You can install the profile to:
C:\windows\system32\spool\drivers\color (winXP)

Thanks and hope it helps

 

thx a lot man and that'll definitely help a lot for many of us here. btw, do you have any comment on the t400's LED screen in terms of quality and performance?

 

Thanks for that. Question: I'm a noob at this - how do I set my screen to this color profile after I install it? (I'm in Vista, if that changes anything)

 

Excellent contribution, s2000hku!

If you want a free upload site that holds your file forever as long as it's accessed every month or so, I recommend MediaFire.

 

Hey, I don't own a T400, but that's a nice share!

Btw, is it difficult to learn how to do this? I'm guessing it requires special tools?

 

I am not sure the procedure for vista. I assume it's similar to XP. Everytime windows boots up, it will load this profile to correct the screen color.

You just needed a screen calibrator. There are many brands. I use the eye1display two. It's very useful.

The T400 LED screen is beautiful. Once you see it, you will know it worths the wait.

 

Nothing like having a resident photographer in the forum…

If needed I’ll be more than happy to host the profile file for you…

 

I just ordered a T400 w/ LED a few minutes ago and will run it through Eye-One when it gets here in a few weeks. It will be interesting to see how consistent the screens are.

 

Hey S2000hku,

First off, thanks for doing this and helping everyone. I was wondering if it's possible to give a step by step procedure to do this in XP for people who don't know much about software stuff

 

Thanks for the calibration. Photography is one of my hobbies and when my T400 arrives it will compliment my Pentax K200D nicely. I'll definately try this calibration if I find the default one not to my liking.

 

Any chance we can get a vista version of the display profile? (Not sure whether or not the profiles are the same between XP and Vista)

I was going to buy the Eye One, and then I saw the price tag for something I'd use only once in the next 2-3 years.

 

I can't find any screen calibrators for VISTA or that are freee

 

here you go, but keep in mind that every LCD is different, it varies depending on the combination of your graphic card, OS, LCD. And even if all of them are identical, there're still differences.

This profile is for t400 w/ integrated graphic, LED running on Vista Ultimate:
If You've downloaded the profile before Sept 3, 12:30am EST. please re-download the new version below
6500K Target Profile(recommended for photo viewing/editing):
http://www.xun-wang.com/temp/t400_integrated_LED_vista_6500K.icc
6600K Profile(native screen color temperature):
http://www.xun-wang.com/temp/t400_integrated_LED_vista_6600K.icc


Installation:
Right click on Desktop ->Personalize->Display Settings->Advanced Settings->Color Mangement ->Add -> (choose the profile you've downloaded) -> set as Default Profile

Load Profile
Option 1: Restart PC
Option 2: download "Display Profile" HERE, open it and choose the profile you've just installed.

Vista Screen Wakup bug Fix:
Issue: I've noticed that there is a bug in Vista, whenever you wake up the screen(from off/sleep/hibernate), it throws the default profile away.
Fix: download "Display Profile", then you must select another profile which contains gamma table tag(It'll have a "(*)" next to it), then select the correct profile again. If you only have one display profile, just download & install both the 6500k & 6600k version above.

Test Images
couple of commonly used test images can be found HERE if you need to compare profiles & difference

//=====updated Vista color calibration bug fix======//
it seems like the Vista color profile bug is quite common. it really started to get on my nerve that I need to use displayprofile to bring the calibrated profile back everytime after UAC prompt, screen lock, scree awake, sleep, hibernation, etc... I ended up having displayprofile permanently opened on my desktop!

The good news is that I have a solution for it, so if you're using a custom profile and experiencing the same problem on vista w/ the integrated graphic, here is what to do:

1) make sure that you have the KB941693 security update installed, if you don't have it, it can be downloaded HERE
2) run "msconfig" -> startup -> uncheck all 3 "Intel(R) Common user Interface", then restart your laptop.

basically step 1) fixes the known vista color calibration bug; and step 2) stops the supplied graphic utility running at the background which keeps resetting the LUT at those situations.

 

Sweet, thanks!

 

I have integrated graphics with Windows XP.

Should I use the Vista profile (integrated graphics) above or the original profile which looks like it came from Windows XP with hybrid graphics?

 

if "s2000hku" had the discrete graphic on, you should probably use mine.

 

Great information. How would you rate the t400 for photo work? I a budding photographer and am having a hard time choosing the perfect affordable system. Are you able to work on the 14” screen comfortably and are LED's superior for this? Thanks in advance.

 

To shinew:

I tried your ICC with my t400(vista home basic,led) and it showed like red-shift ? Can you post some pictures of your original screen effect?

 

I love the screen! It's bright, clear & have this "silky" quality too it. very comfortable on the eyes. Although i wouldn't do any serious editing on it, the vertical viewing angle is pretty bad(color shifts), horizontal viewing angle is good though. You'll be much better off getting a 2nd monitor to run them in dual mode, then you'll be able to fine tune the LCD with its native built-in adjustments as opposed to calibrate the(any) laptop screen and make the graphic card's RGB curves bend like they're doing yoga....

 

I've posted an updated version, which has slightly less pinkish hue to it, you can download it and see if you like it better.

But i think you might still find it too warm. The reason is because I'm calibrating it to 6500 K, which is warmer than most of the default LCDs'(both laptop & desktop) native temp, the default color temperature on those ones are way too cool for faithful color reproduction. I have even seen an LCD with a native color temp of K9200!

I can make another profile without changing the screen's color temperature if anyone needs it. It'll not be suitable for photo editing(viewing) though.

 

makes me want to get the screen repolarized even more now.... i expect the display to be brighter than the t61. conversion to glossy should take care of the vertical viewing angles and increase contrast.

 

Couple of questions for you sir:

1. You said you calibrated for 6500K... what is the default temp on the T400?

2. Can you make a new one with default settings?

3. How can I apply these ICC files?

Thanks!

 

Thanks a lot, still a little bit warmer than I expect though.It is VERY NICE,good job.

 

1 - for mine it seems to be 6600K, the original poster's one seems to have a native color temp of 6700K. This is most likely caused by diff graphic card & OS.
2 & 3 - just posted. see my original posting on the 2nd page.

I've also edited my post & added the link for downloading "displayprofile". It lets you compare diff profiles "on the fly" and provide a workaround for the Vista's profile loading bug when the screen wakes up from off/sleep/hibernation.

hope this helps.

 

I was just doing some examination of t400's LED for my own purpose and I would like to share my findings. I think some of you might find it interesting, especially since this thread is related to faithful color reproduction.

As I've stated in my earlier post, however bright & comfortable the LED screen on the t400 is, it is really not suitable for any serious photo viewing/editing.

I've loaded 2 display profile in to the 3D LAB color space, one is from my 3-year old Samsung 213T running from my desktop ATI Radeon Radeon Pro 128MB, the other running from my T400 with integrated graphic. As you can see from below, the 213T's(wireframe) color gamut is so much larger than the one for the t400, which in real world translate into richer color and deeper tones.




The 1st is a test image, and the dots in the 2nd image below represent number of tones the test image contains. Any dots outside of the inner 3D object are out of the T400 display gamut range.

 

there's no fix for that?

 

None.

Thing is though, that's only half the story. It's comparing the T400 screen to a desktop LCD panel. What we don't know is how the color gamut of the T400 compares to other laptops. Could be worse, on-par, or better.

Shinew: do you have any data for other laptop displays?

Generally speaking, laptop screens are NOT the thing to be using for color-critical work. I know some will be better than others, but I don't have any data to suggest which those are.

 

the W700 should be nice for color-critical work, it also has an auto colour calibration sensor and Wacom board. But of course that comes at a premium.

 

unfortunately there is no fix for it, it's a hardware issue.

below is the comparison between t60(solid) & t400's screen. As you can see, there is not much of a difference in terms of gamut size.


please note that those comparison does not really say as much about how well the screen calibrates as it may look like. Some monitors calibrates much better than others even with the same or smaller color gamut.

 

Just to chime in here the panel on the T400 is a LG 6bit TN based panel.

 

Question: Is there any difference in color saturation between integrated graphics and dedicated (hybrid) graphics?

 

it's probably a yes & no answer. Since the graphic cards are different, they probably have different factory default setting, after calibration there should be no clear advantage with either one.

I've noticed that some people on another thread are complaining about how washed out the t400 screen looks, I just want to report that with a side by side comparison with 3 of my other desktop monitors(all calibrated) viewing various images, my t400's screen does not look washed out all all. Over all I'm very satisfied with the screen. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to do some light photo editing on it, I'll just need to be careful of the vertical viewing angle.

 

I think I'll go home and compare my Samsung T61 panel to my desktop's S-IPS.

 

same here. it's not as punchily oversaturated as some displays out there, it's nice. Colors are good to my eye.

One thought -- if you adjust the gamma slider in the graphics control, the display can seem to wash out as it gets brighter. I'd make sure that hasn't been messed with.

 

My gamma slider hasn't been messed with at all. In fact, with the x4500 graphics, it's set at `1.0' and I can't go any lower! If I increase it at all then it really looks washed out. =(

So far the only thing that looks better on it is to lower the brightness setting to -20 and lower the backlight setting a couple notches. Unfortunately my brother-in-law flew into town and is staying with us this weekend and he brought his 15" macbook pro. It looks amazing and only reminds me how crappy this display looks. =(

 

Updated Vista color calibration bug fix
it seems like the Vista color profile bug is quite common. it really started to get on my nerve that I need to use displayprofile to bring the calibrated profile back everytime after UAC prompt, screen lock, scree awake, sleep, hibernation, etc... I ended up having displayprofile permanently opened on my desktop!

The good news is that I have a solution for it, so if you're using a custom profile and experiencing the same problem on vista w/ the integrated graphic, here is what to do:

1) make sure that you have the KB941693 security update installed, if you don't have it, it can be downloaded HERE
2) run "msconfig" -> startup -> uncheck all 3 "Intel(R) Common user Interface", then restart your laptop.

basically step 1) fixes the known vista color calibration bug; and step 2) stops the supplied graphic utility running at the background which keeps resetting the LUT at those situations.

snclawson, macbook pro's screen does have wider gamut range and it calibrates better. gotta give mac what it deserves. but at almost twice the cost without the ability to customize the hardware, i'm very happy with what I can get out from the t400. IMO t400 is a superior machine over all.

 

So is it possible that the LCD can perform better in Vista than XP Pro?? I'm talking about with Integrated Graphics.

 

there shouldn't be any difference for monitor profiling. But vista is supposed to have superior color management to windows XP.

 

shinew: can you explain the luminance difference in your profile and the original posting?

 

I simply find the maximum brightness on the t400 too blindingly bright. for photo editing, the recommended setting is around 100-140 depending on the type of monitor. While I won't be using the laptop much for editing photos, I find 80%(current settings) brightness to be comfortable to my eyes.

 

Will your ICC profile still be good for maximum brightness?

 

the black point calibration would be affected, but it should be fine for normal daily use. it'll still be better than an uncalibrated screen.

 

i don't know if i can tell a difference with the "native" ICC profile for integrated with vista.

maybe because I"m using XP?

 

it's not related to the OS. the changes in "native" profile is much more subtle than the one for 6500K because you won't see a "global" color change, white & black points are unchanged. If you want to see if your system is loading the profile correctly, use the 6500K one with display profile or restart your laptop.

 

ok, so i tried the 6500 and 6600. it looks like the 6500 profile washes colors out more.

for example: the quoted message box for each of the postings isn't distinctly greenish compared to the neutral background color of the post.

does that make sense?

is that what the 6500 was supposed to do? maybe "making colors more natural" would be a better way to describe it.

 

actually, i take that back. i think it was just the angle i was looking at the screen.

it's a little hard to tell which profile works better with all the resetting. is there a way to switch on the fly?

 

nm... found it. WOW 6500 looks..... red =)

 

so this is a common mistake when people try to compare which profile/screen is better at producing colors accurately. Just because it's more distinct/saturated/contrasty DOES NOT mean it's accurately producing the color or it's superior, maybe the original color is more washed out than you expect... if you really want to critically evaluate your screen for accurate color reproduction, you need a reference print target(like this) with a proper viewing station(like this), darken your room, then compare it with the identical print on your screen.

use "displayprofile", see my previous posting for details.

 

shinew:

1. is your native color profile also using less than 100% brightness?

2. do you have the LG or Samsung panel?

thanks again for all your help!

 

1. mine is set around 80%-85%.
2. yup, LG.