X220 IPS - OK for photo editing?

This is not another topic about light bleeding or burn-in

I've read that the IPS screen is only 6 bit, and so has a low colour gamut.
Now will this actually have much of an affect?

The main purpose for this laptop will be my photo editing work station while on the road. Northing too intense, just your typical lightroom and photoshop adjustments.

I need an ultraportable that I can squeeze 1gig of internal storage in, and this laptop seems like the only one that can do it at the moment (and no i will not settle for external drives, i only plan to have one external for backup). But yeah I'm just concerned that the screen may not be good for colour reproduction etc.

any comments?

 

i use mine for photo editing all the time.   as long as you check color-critical work on a proper graphics display later then you'll be fine.

the biggest issue is that reds are slightly orange.   this is true of every LED IPS/AFFS panel i've encountered.   the older CCFL AFFS panels had the most true colors on any notebooks but then you're limited by the hardware despite an excellent display.

buyers need to understand that nearly every notebook panel is 6-bit, including ones who claim to be 8- and 10-bit.   the panel datasheets say otherwise (most of which are limited to 262,000 colors).   if there's truly an 8-bit notebook panel out there then i welcome someone to produce a panel manufacturer's datasheet to back that up.

photo editing on a notebook is a compromise no matter what system you use.   there's no way around that.

 

The question becomes if the X220 LCD is not suitable for your purposes, what can you get that's better?

 

Apple Macbook
Sony VAIO

Either may have a better screen than the X220 IPS.

Can't say the X220 IPS is bad. It just does the job.

 

It would seem unlikely a TN panel even a good one would best an IPS panel.

 

If you need the true 10 bit panel, go for a true mobile workstation, DTR, like an older 8740W, with the Dreamcolor 2 screen. Course it ain't cheap, but you get a 16:10 RGBLED, IPS screen.

 

I've posted my color gamut chart before, but I'll attach it here again.

As was mentioned before, the reds are orange, and the blues are more cyan colored. The gamut is only about 65% sRGB, which is a bit of a downer. Otherwise, the gamma curve tracking is pretty decent, so is the contrast and overall uniformity of the panel.

Personally, I can't do color critical video work on the LCD...

 

While the MBP (don't know about MB) and a few of the Vaios are decent for a 6-bit TN panel, they are no where near good, let alone matching any IPS panel IMO.

 

The colours are quite nice, but the screen might be too small for photo editing.

 

Sony and MBP no and no.

it may not be the best IPS on the market in a laptop but it is better than the TN's in the MBP's for certain. even just having the 178 viewing angles alone makes a world of difference compared to any TN panel.

color wise its pretty good but as was said do a color match to a calibrated screen in the end. if you REALLY need true colors in a laptop go find an Eitebook 8560W with the 10 bit IPS dreamcolor screen.

10 bit IPS displays in the Elitebook 8740W/8760W 8540W/8560W

Some info from HP regarding the screen:
Contrast Ratio 800:1 typical
Brightness 210 nit typical
Backlight RGB LED
Viewing Angle ±89° Horizontal, ±89° Vertical (typical)
Technology Type 30-bit In-Plane Switching (IPS)
Color Depth 10-bits/color
Display Colors Over 1 billion colors (native mode)

Color Gamut Coverage CIE1931 (x,y) CIE 1976 (u',v')
NTSC 109% 129%
AdobeRGB 114% 127%
sRGB 154% 148%

http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-news-reviews/503121-hp-8740w-review-full-metal-jacket.html

yes for screen size but not quality. my DC2 screen calibrates a bit better than my Apple Cinema Display and can pretty much hit my HP and Eizo external monitors. IMO all you HAVE to sacrifice is a 20-32" screen for a 15 or 17" and an extra $1000-$1500

 

I don't think there is any better options available on the market for laptop of this size. That being said, it's the size of the screen that makes it rather inconvenient to do photo editing. If you are going to use the laptop at home or office, getting an external monitor is a must for this sort of work.

 

so HP claims.   can you produce a datasheet from LG, not HP, showing that these displays are truly 10-bit?   manufacturers can claim anything.   i want to see evidence from the source.

 

I dont have the LG datasheet but I believe Charles Jefferies or Aikimox have it on hand. I will contact Aikimox to see if he can send it over to me.

all applications including everest, video drivers, AVID, Photoshop and Lightroom show it as 10 bit. my spyder 3 unit also by calibration data shows it well over the 16.7 milion color range

Calabration data puts it in between the Apple Cinema display 27" and the Eizo ColorEdge CG275W sitting on my desk.

 

Sure, just put in the P/N into Google? While I'm well aware you said over 16.7M, just for clarification: 16.7M = 8-bit, 1B = 10-bit.

 

i'll bug chaz and see if he has a copy.

i still have my doubts that it's truly 10-bit at the hardware level though but we'll see what LG claims (if anything).

 

Thanks for all the tips/comments. Yeah i was considering the sony z, but you are forced to buy their expensive SSD and it only goes up to 500gb.

I actually want 1600x900 on a 13" ultraportable, and the LG P330 might deliver that for me. But as i need this within two months, it looks like my only option is to go the X220 with lower res and slightly smaller screen. Oh and I do not want a mac.
And my budget is 2000, so that and my requirement for an ultraportable rules out that heavy HP.

 

I wish I had a copy of the datasheet but I don't.

There was a debate for some time in the HP forum about 10-bit support; it simply wasn't there when the 8740w was released. I'm not sure if anyone confirmed that it actually worked. I use my 8740w in the standard 8-bit mode only (I'm not sure how to take advantage of 10-bit, TBH).

For higher resolution on a smaller screen, you could consider the Sony VAIO Z but it is not an IPS panel. 1920x1080 on a 13.1" screen is tempting though, you have to admit.

 

LG won't share the specs with the world since the screen is not produced for the world but for HP alone, that's a special arrangement. The screen does work @10-bit but there's a complex OS/driver/software problem to make use of the potential.

As for the photo editing, I don't think the X220 can come anywhere close to the DC2 screen. I'd rather grab a RGBLED TN. Viewing angles alone can't turn a mediocre gamut and small res screen into something it wasn't meant to be.

2cents

 

I do use Photoshop a bit on my X220i. I'm not really any sort of screen color expert, but here's what I know - when I use my X220i the contrast is good and if I adjust my position when using my X220i, the image doesn't change. It's a vast improvement over previous 12" ThinkPad screens and is better than all but a handful of screens being offered today. To me that's worth $50. I have no doubt that the screen on the HPs with the DC are better, but it costs 3x as much. The screen should be better.

 

Can we stop talking about the HP? I need an ultraportable!

So the reds looking orange is concerning. is this something that is noticeable, or just something you notice on thorough testing?

 

it's noticeable if you compare the X220 to a calibrated graphics display.   like any notebook, you learn to work around it.   if you know something should be red then you trust the color picker rather than the visual display.   if it looks orange but the value is 255,0,0 then you know it's red.

like i said, as long as you check color-critical work on a proper graphics display later then you'll be fine.

the X220 is definitely "OK" for photo editing as long as you compensate for it.   it's worlds better than TN.   i grab my X220 for mobile work long before i do the W510 and my W510 has the venerable wide-gamut FHD panel.   reds are off on it, too, even after proper setup and calibration.

 

The reds are off, probably when compared to the sRGB spec. I'm sure the reds are probably closer to the required adobeRGB primaries.

 

No doubt bigger laptops have better screens, but those who actually need to use photoshop at an event will not lug anything big. Biggest I've seen are 13" Macbook Pros.

 

Not sure. The Mac is glossy! The Vaio Z is nice (I only know the 1600x900) and colours very rich but vertical viewing angle is poor. You need to keep adjusting the angle of the lid to see colour and contrast properly from top to bottom. Even then the sweet spot is very small. For general work it's a very nice display though.

S

 

The DC screen is not as good as most people think.

There are three reasons to divulge in great details

1. sRGB performance is useless. This is purely software solution( Not Hardware +software ) and it is mainly based on the oem product designed by Portrait Display.

2. 10 bit Gamma correction does not guarantee color accuracy.

3. It also lacks uniformity and brightness distribution.

Given the same amount money, I would choose workstation instead.

You need to check up the screen ( especially Manufacturing date ) and do frequent warm-up of your screen before the calibration and profiling.

It is recommended that native Delta-E ( as opposed to Daylight 6500K ) should be no greater than 3.

 

thanks for the advice.
I think you've sold me then. for the price and small size, i think i can accept it's limitations. as i need this within two months, i think the chances of the lg P330 coming out in time, and being suitable, are minimal.

 

It is hard to determine where it has 10 bit Look-Up Table or 10 bit Panel.

I would choose 10 bit Look-up table with 8 bit +FRC Panel instead, because 10 bit Panel even for high-end laptop is not a viable option.

 

excellent.   i'm sure you'll do just fine with it.   besides, no one else has a display even remotely close to this quality on anything this small.   it's hard to beat that.

agreed.   my suspicion all along has been a 10-bit LUT over 6- or 8-bit hardware.   having seen the "magical doohickey" on the back of the DC2 panel and an LG label for what was originally a 6-bit TN panel, i suspect there's some trickery going on there to create a so-called 10-bit display.   since it needs a driver to work, software interpolation is highly likely.

 

Google "LP171WU8" , you will find this panel cheaper than the price listed on HP Website.

 

My unit dims when you go to a black screen. This will pop up when using a crop tool that darkens the photo to show the crop. It takes about 5 or 6 seconds for the screen to go back to regular brightness.
The reds are also annoying.

Viewing angles are great though, which is good for remote display shooting. I'd probably get the new mac air if I could do it again, though.

 

I had to use my X220's display for photo editing throughout the summer. When I eventually got my Dell U2311 hooked up to my X220, I was a bit bummed to find that my summer's post processed photos all seemed to be oversaturated. I see now that this was due to to the X220's more muted colors, and my resultant over-saturating of the photos.

I just found this thread when I did a search about this topic. Very informative thread, and if you want to learn something, make sure you read Erik's posts.

Anyway, I love my X220, but I will have to keep the characteristics of it's display in mind from now on.

Wayne
Waynenummela.com

 

Well. We now know that the X220 IPS only spans ~60% of the NTSC gamut (or whichever gamut it was), so it's rather expected.

 

Have you tried calibrating it?

S

 

You can turn that auto-dimming off...

 

It must be impossible that an MBP has the quality of an IPS in the x220!? I have the x201t with outdoor screen and when we, complete amateurs, compared them so did everyone vote for the x201t. Also the x201t had anti reflective layer and brighter background light and way better viewing angles because of the PVA screen.

However, today my x201t has developed light leaks. But I have not heard of this from the IPS screens?