Clevo p150 laptop's monitor question.

Does anyone know if the matte finish versions have a significantly less contrast ratio compared to the glossy ones.
I understand the matte has less bright colors, but that is actually a good thing compared to the over-saturated look the 95% gamut would give me.

I put priority on the contrast more so I can enjoy movies better. Also I believe the contrast gives better shades of color you would miss out on in lesser contrast screens.

Right now I have an external monitor for my room. It is one of those VA-panel with only 72% gamut but a 3000:1 static contrast. OMG I feel like I am looking into a canvas not a monitor when I watch darker displays.

tl;dr. Is the glossy p150hm 95% gamut screen significantly with greater contrast than the matte iteration. Practically, is it something that the human eye can/won't distinguish? I want to upgrade to the matte for the convenience; but I love my contrast.

 

Not even the best laptop screens can compete with midrange desktop monitors. Most laptop screens, including the 95% gamut ones are TN, with all their limitations. There is no way you are going to find a laptop screen with a static contrast ratio of 3000:1.

I own a P180HM with a regular glossy screen. Gamut is 60% and contrast is crap (don't know the ratio). I also own a W150 with a 95% color gamut matte screen. From my personal experience I can tell you the following:

- For any work where color accuracy is important, stick with your desktop VA panel. Your laptop's screen gamut may be 95% but the viewing angles, albeit much better than standard laptop screens, will be too narrow not to cause color changes when you move your head around.

- Low contrast not only reflects itself in colors but especially in B&W, since B&W photos are all about the rendition of the greys. I hate my P180HM for movies and photos. Contrast is so low that blacks are dark grey and it is nearly impossible to distiguinsh similar tones of the same color.

- Glossy has seemingly more saturated colors. Everything looks sharper. Downside: reflections. I hate them.

- Matte is slightly less sharp and colors aren't so vivid. I personally prefer it this way, because images have a more natural look to them.

To answer your contrast question: contrast will be defined by the screen itself, not the coating. It is the way we perceive contrast that may be affected by a matte finish. In a mate screen images will look less vivid and a tad less sharp. However, contrast will still be there. Put side by side a glossy low contrast screen and a mate high contrast one and you'll know what I mean.

If you go for the 95% screen it may not be a bad idea to invest in an inexpensive color calibrator. It will definitely improve the image. As for the 60% gamut screens, I doubt it is worth the investment. They will always look terrible, no matter how you calibrate them.

I hope it helps.

 

The answer to your tl;dr question is yes. The datasheets show that the glossy does have a higher contrast ratio than the matte. I believe they're listed as a typical of 600:1 vs 500:1, glossy vs matte.

Here's an Anandtech review of the 95% glossy, in a Dell notebook/
Here's a NotebookCheck review of the matte, in a Lenovo notebook

Taking the measurements from those two screens at face value (assuming correct measurements), it was 692:1 vs 514:1. I'll let you decide whether that meets your definition of "significant".

 

In the end it's all very subjective. Calibrating screens does little good when most applications ignore color profiles ( not to mention that you have to calibrate the calibrator, it all seems pointless most of the time ). I guess photoshop should take them into account so it matters there, but for general gaming and movie watching you just set it to what you like and go with it because no matter which color profile you use colors will still not display correctly. Different apps have different ways of dealing with it and windows itself uses color space(s) that doesn't match any of these screens.

Having said all that I think higher gamut screens are still worth it since you can dial down over-saturation while you can't do anything about what's not there ( colors on a low gamut screen ).

95% gamut matte screen on 150 series looks more like a really good LCD TV while lower gamut ones look washed out especially when you have them side by side. The stock 150HM glossy screen is pretty good though. Lower gamut, but very bright and high contrast, it definitely makes up for the low gamut thing. If they still use the same one it's one of the best laptop screens you can get ( even AnandTech review says that ). Haven't seen the 95% glossy one, so I can't say if it's better or worse than matte version.

 

wow 700:1 compared to 500:1 that's almost a 40% increase. I imagine that would be quite noticeable.

 

In Notebookcheck.com's review of the NP9150 they measured a 440:1 contrast ratio on a matte screen, though it doesn't say if it's the 95% one or not... You should check out the review as it contains detailed brightness measurements as well (it's in german, but it's understandable with GoogleTranslate).

 

The screen reviewed there is an LG panel.