Any news on 95% gamut screens

Some of the resellers here hopefully know.

Are the 95% gamut screens just temporarily out of stock or are we looking at some kind of end of product line, which would be insane, but not all that surprising.

It's 2014 and good laptop screens still seem almost impossible to find. I hope ultra high ( useless ) resolutions are not the new trend. They really are useless since you either don't see anything, too small or you have to scale it down so what's the point. Sorry, but the stupidity of the whole thing is something I have difficulty getting over.

 

think theve been discontinued. no idea about the 72% though.
ive got the standard matte screen and its the best screen ive ever owned.

 

The 72% matte is still being sold aswell as the 90% glossy.

 

No word on any new 95%. The 72% and 90% are for 17.3" screens, the 95% were 15.6".

 

Hi Hutsady, is there any way I can confirm my reseller has installed a 95% gamut screen and not the standard matte screen? It doesn't mention anywhere on the box that the 95% has been installed, simply says "15.6 FHD (1920 x 1080) LED Matte". I did order the 95% gamut screen.

Cheers

 

download HWinfo64 from my sig below which will show you exactly what hardware you have.

 

Many Thanks MrDJ.

Sent from my LG-D802T using Tapatalk

 

The lack of the AUO B156HW01 v4 95% panel is due to the AUO manufacturing line, basically the demand for the panel from multiple laptop ODMs is not high enough at the moment and so they have stopped the production line for this specific model panel. It is possible that production will start at some point in the future, but there's no confirmation of this.

Supply meets demand and so, wether we like this or not, we have to accept the fact that panels like this will only be manufacturered if the demand for them is there. And of course, we're talking about production runs of thousands of units.

 

If it's just the 15.6 inch version. Then it will probably get replaced by the UHD screens.

 

As long as they have a matte version I'll not mind.

Glossy, while maybe better 'clarity' for di-hard gaming, I have found damages my eye with how long I'm required to stare at the computer screen.

And if I was to purchase a 'matte anti-glare cover' why not just get a matte screen at the start? (for those who will undoubtedly ask that).

 

I agree. Matte should be the standard, glossy is horrible from my perspective.

 

It should always be a choice

 

more importantly it should still be able to at least cover the entire sRGB color space and up to 100% of NTSC gamut. That is more important than matte or glossy.

Some of us use these for video, photo editing and colors need to be there and accurate. Problem is that most, I'd say 99% of laptop screens do not qualify for this. They don't even come close to sRGB gamut ( which would be 70% of NTSC colors ) and even when they do they aren't accurate ( disproportionate coverage of blue areas or whatever ).

I still haven't seen a screen that looks better than this Auo 95% matte.

IPS, retina, 983463 x 123454 resolution, whatever they throw in there they mostly look like crap because they only cover about 60% of NTSC gamut

 

IPS screens will give higher colour accuracy, especially after calibration. The 95% gamut display has been obsoleted at this point.

 

IPS screens give you better viewing angles. That's it, nothing else.

IPS screens can be just as bad or good as any other. Most of them fall into the bad category, low gamut, bad color accuracy and so on, and they give you slower response which matters if you play games.
New Alienwares have IPS screens and they look like crap. Mac retina is IPS, looks like crap too and that is supposed to be one of the more accurate ones color wise.

In other words unless it's one of those ridiculously expensive IPS screens like HP Dreamcolor it's probably crap with better viewing angles. So, great now I can see a crappy image from every angle.

 

I thought IPS innately represents/can represent more colors better than TN?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Every type of technology has a bell curve, the average is simply higher for IPS displays, this can be for various reasons but I did check colour charts for the existing crop before committing to that statement.

 

Even if that were true it doesn't mean much. Compare my Clevo's 95% gamut screen to the Alienware's IPS. Right away just by looking at them it's obvious that Clevo has a better screen. Even if IPS is somehow more accurate ( I doubt it ) it can only display about 60% of NTSC colors which doesn't even cover the HD tv standard.

In the end it's the same thing. You need to pay for a really good IPS screen otherwise IPS is just another marketing acronym. So far IPS screens we have as options on laptops are mostly crap.

 

nope not even close, my X230 with IPS is on a good day 64% sRGB, my rMBP 15" is calibrated at about 90% sRGB, and I have seen a number of consumer laptops end even external IPS screens that can not even hit 75% sRGB.

that AUO panel that was an option in the Sager/Clevo models and also found in a few of the Lenovo T and W series units is still substantially more color accurate than most laptops out there. as was said it is becoming harder to get a fairly accurate panel unless you want to or need to shell out the money for Precisioncolor / Dreamcolor 10 bit IPS panels which are in the full aRGB range.