Choice between Sager 17.3 72% Matte Vs 90% Glossy

I am having the hardest time deciding between a 17.3" 72% gamut matte screen vs the 90% glossy for my Sager 8270 purchase. My laptop will be mostly used indoors in a largely darkly or medium lit room.

I have read the other posts and the consensus on this forum seems to be that matte is the better choice when used outside or in high light environments. The glossy screens are too distracting, often like a mirror.

Personally, I have used both types of screens before. For instance, I have a Dell 2408wpf monitor, widely considered one of the best lcd panels for its time. Unfortunately, I never was super impressed with the colors even to this day, 3 years later. The colors I feel just don't pop off the screen as much. When I compare it to my macbook pro aluminum glossy screen, its night and day. Everything looks just so much more vibrant and lively. I had similar reactions to the matte screens i see in stores ie, for the Thinkpads. All the colors just seem so dull.

A lot people mention its a matter of personal preference. I've used my glossy mbp screen for 3 years and have never really felt distracted by the glossy screen. Sure i notice the reflections, but its never enough to distract me per say .

So i guess my question to all of you is, has anyone used the 90% glossy screen on the Sagers? What did you think of it? Have you had a chance to compare to the 72% matte one?

Also, I realize technology evolves pretty rapidly, so maybe matte screens have improved a lot since my dell 2408wpf. Have matte screens come such a long way that they would rival what i see on glossy screens such as my mbp ?

 

actually if its AUO B173HW01 v5 then its the same screen with matte coating. also, 72% gamut figure is a little conservative, I remember seeing gamut measured on that screen and its true gamut was closer to 86%. Having had both screens I would go for matte one, - its very close in vibrancy to 90% gamut gloss screen, but with the added benefit of much improved visibility in daylight.

 

if the matte screens are the same as the previous P150EM from last year then the standard matte is brill with very vibrant bright colours and only worth upgrading to 72% if you are doing high quality photo editing or stuff with layers that i know nothing about.

 

Thanks guys for your input so far. I'm 99% certain I am going to upgrade from the stock screen, the display is too important of a component to skimp on. I really wish i could see some pictures of the 90% glossy vs 72% matte side by side or in person so that I can evaluate the differences.

Regarding the comment about how the matte may actually be closer to 86% gamut, is that a true objective measure that is useful for evaluating the vibrancy of a screen? If it is in fact a difference of only 4% i may be willing to reconsider.

As side note, today I checked out the new Sony Vaio 11/13 Pro series laptops and was blown away by their vivid color. Sure enough, they had a glossy coating as well. Doesn't help the matte's case

But please keep the input coming!

 

If you are buying the au optronics b173hw01 panels get the gloss version v4. I have both the matte 72% gamut and the gloss at 90% gamut. If i were asked in hindsight which i would have bought at the beginning it would be the gloss version overwhelmingly cause the colors just pop more on the v4 panel. I originally had the matte v5 which i thought was great but the gloss goes about 10-20 % more in vividness which is important for color reproduction.

Read much much more here
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...-between-different-screen-options-photos.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/665682-np9170-screen-2.html#post8548503

 

I find this post very debatable and factually wrong. Where do you get 86% figure from and have you actually compared both long and hard cause i have(2 yrs with v5, 1 year with v4) and there is no way the gamut on the matte screen is anywhere near the v4 panel. Furthermore the brightness level of the gloss v4 is extremely bright. I have it on 2 bars from 0 level brightness whereas the v5 matte i had to have on max brightness to get any real pop from the screen and even then it is no where near the v4 panel. The whites on the v4 panel are extremely bright can burn my retinas at night dark room.

 

Personally I like glossy screens just because the glint doesn't bother me that much. Unless I'm on the go and im outside, then it drives me crazy.
So on my notebook, i would rather have a matte and my desktop a glossy.

Just depends how much you bring your laptop out.

 

I put a B173HW01 v4 into an Asus G73JH. That laptop is gone now. I still have dreams about that display however. It's the best laptop screen I've ever seen and would love to have it again. Is there something similar I could put into my P150EM? What would the part number be? I want an easy, drop-in replacement. I've never seen a matte screen come close in beauty but, admittedly, I haven't seen anywhere near all of them.

 

B156hw01v7 probably

The choice is really subjective. The 90% glossy will definitely have the wow factor due to more saturated color and glossy. If you think you can handle glossy that then get the glossy. I personally have a 95% glossy, it just wow, but I can't stand it as it kill my eye. My bro using it now and he don't give a damn about its quality, glossy/ matte, lol. He would be indifference if it is a 768p crap screen.

 

actually i got the 86% figure wrong, its 84.6%, so not far off (source: AnandTech | The New Razer Blade: Thoroughly Reviewed. this link also has v4 in there as clevo 170em screen btw, so you can see how they measure up).
btw I too have had both screens and the differences were really small, it could well be that your v5 and my v5 looks different as I have seen this with b156hw01 v4's - my wife's is much grainier / duller than mine, even though both are the same model, just different batch.

 

actually i've just re-read that link and you can see my point about the same model screens not having the same contrast / gamut - new razer blade and old model both use B173HW01 v5, and you can see from the graph how different their stats are.

 

Interesting review and values obtained. I wonder if auo spec sheet is wrong? I do think tho the colors are better on the v4 gloss. As i see based on anandtech review, the v4 is 90% and v5 85%. So the difference is only 5% not 18% as previously thought. My eyes say its more than 5% color gamut difference and the nits brightness is substantially more. Maybe they released slight variations in the v4 who knows but my difference is nightnday..

 

i suspect with matte screens the difference in quality between between batches of the same model is probably due to different matte coating being used.

 

Why is there no 95% matte any more?

 

I have always enjoyed glossy. myself..

 

read carefully, spec is 72%NTSC, the review is quoting %aRGB.

 

Well that is very interesting. This link sRGB vs AdobeRGB vs NTSC: PC Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review suggests 100% argb = 94% ntsc so it seems the 84.6% argb figure is roughly correct with 72% ntsc gamut. Arcticjoe that now explains it and your figure quoted is actually 72%ntsc like manufacturer specs and what i observed. Its not larger as originally thought and my visual observations also confirm this.

Not sure why they(reviewers)dont use all ntsc. If manufacturer uses ntsc then reviewers should stick with that and stop using larger inflated figures. Thnx though i learnt something new today

Moral of the story...stick with the gloss panel

 

My understanding is that it have something to do with coverage vs volume. % volume do not equal % coverage due to calibration and such. So manf cannot spec it as % argb. Highend monitors are actually sold/advistised as %srgb, %argb coverage as they are pre-calibtated.

Argb is actually the mostly used colorspace in wide gamut.

 

Nope. You can't compare them that way.

ARGB and NTSC cover slightly different parts of the visible spectrum. You can't calculate a panel's gamut coverage under one standard with data from another.

 

There is, but its only been available on 15.6" models, no 17.3" 95%

 

laptopscreen.com and/or mythologic(iirc) said once upon of time that those AUO panels were not being manufactured anymore.
Are current clevo/sager machine using those stocked by clevo/reseller or there are separate source?

 

I believe the chimei is being used by new Clevo's as stock panel but not sure if resellers are still able to provide the AuO panels as they are hard to source nowadays.

 

Possible, I bought a P170EM in April, it came with 72%NTSC gamut matte ChiMei N173HGE-L11 CMO1720 panel. I have read mixed opinions about this panel, yet to me it's still the best LCD I have had in any of my laptops.