Just to make sure I have this Matte vs. Glossy decision down solid.

After a discussion with Reflex Notebook regarding some of my final questions about Sager's product line, I have come to realize that I should invest in a better screen now than in a better wireless adapter and thermal paste (I have my own AC5 on hand anyways; I'll apply it should I find heat to be an issue. That shouldn't impair the warranty unless it's apparent I drastically screwed the application up or something). With that in mind, the 8130 comes with three screen options.

The first default screen is listed as " 15.6" Full HD LED-Backlit Display features Matte Surface (1920 x 1080)." Gamut percentage unlisted, and I assume the back light quality will remain consistent between each screen anyways.

The other two options are as follows:

15.6" Full HD LED-Backlit Display features 95% NTSC Color Gamut in Super Glossy Surface (1920 x 1080)

15.6" Full HD LED-Backlit Display features 95% NTSC Color Gamut in Matte Finished Surface (1920 x 1080)

I'm going to estimate that the default, unlisted screen's Gamut percentage is around 60%. As for these two investments (either one costs 100 extra dollars) the matter comes down to the difference between Matte and Glossy. As I understand it, the side by side comparisons are:

Matte:

+glare resistant
+better viewing angles
-reduced contrast
-reduced brightness
-"fishnet" from visible pixel dividers (probably not a problem here since a 15" 1080p has an effective DPI of 147 per inch - which is just insane)

Glossy:

+brighter screen
+better contrast
-heavy glare

Now, I have done my research here on NBR, and already found the excellent supply of images from the boys over at Mythlogic. The problem is that cameras are approximate technologies, and for the most part do not give you nearly as exact an idea of a screen's face-to-face performance. That said, I'll narrow it down to two questions specific to what I'm wondering.

1. How are these screens in regards to colour accuracy? Colour accuracy here means in terms of calibration; holding a specific calibration for a length of time, and how easy it is for the screen to hold a true gray. This is probably going to be something the Matte yields superior results in, since the glossy will reflect colours in the room back at you (especially from your clothes) so really what I'm wondering here is how the glossy compares. Should it still be accurate while also displaying a better quality image in an indoors environment, I might consider this arbitrary anyways. It's worth noting that I do not believe in any such thing as color accuracy in regards to comparing the monitor to other things, since between your screen, other screens, print gamuts, differences in each of our eyes, calibration, colour spaces, gamuts, reflections, area lighting, planet alignment and what side of the bed you gout out of that morning, colour in the end is an extremely subjective thing that I can't rely on to be "accurate" in my work anyways.

2. How are these screens in terms of true black? I know the Glossy wins here, but for sake of comparison I'm wondering how big this gap is. Personally, I grade "true black" performance like this: How dark is Hex code 000000 (or, say, the black boot screen before and during POST) compared to when the screen is turned off, in an unlit room? Of course this value will be significantly wide, since you can only go so dark against the screen's back lighting, but when comparing two separate screens it does help gauge contrast differences for me.

3. How are these screens outdoors? Matte wins, but by how much? Is the Super Glossy option going to be rendered unviewable in any sort of outdoors environment? As I understand it, the battery in Sager computers isn't spectacular anyways, and these are not travel computers. Thus, outdoor use may very well be limited anyways, which could otherwise reduce the importance of this trait.

4. How do these options compare in dead pixel concealment? I imagine that Matte could be easier to hide due to the reduced contrast, but at the same time the increased brightness of the Glossy may blot a single dead pixel out. Reverse is true for a stuck pixel I imagine. Anyone got any input on this?

The computer is for production, primarily, but being a computer I do hope for variety in my uses. I'm certainly not going to rule gaming out altogether.

Anyways, any help would be vastly appreciated. This will be the second last topic I make bugging you guys about my Sager research. I swear!

 

Sorry for not being very helpful, but there's a thread lying around somewhere in this forum regarding all your questions I saw it the other day and forgot the link...

edit: found it after going through a few pages

Here is visual difference:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...-between-different-screen-options-photos.html

More review/info:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...150hm-matte-w-95-gamut-glossy-w-95-gamut.html

Personally, regardless of any slight difference in vibrancy and color. I would always go for matte. I'm liking my UltraBrightView FHD (Glossy) but it hurts the eyes badly. If you plan to use outdoor (meaning on battery), think about this, you have to turn to max brightness on the glossy screen, while it takes a very minimum level of brightness on Matte to see things.

By the way what is your usage/purpose ? Video/Photo editing ?
And no smudges !

 

once you turn the brightness up on this thing, you wont notice any reduced contrast and brightness.

the 95% gamut full HD matte on the highest brightness is probably 100% better than glossy outdoors.

 

The computer's most intensive task will be running Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign at once, as well as some hobby work I do with Blender. Gaming's on the lowbrow, limited to games I won't play on my full station (for ergonomic reasons) and when that station is down for repairs.

If the super glossy finish ultimately nets the better image, I'll probably go with that. It's the direction I'm currently leaning. While outside is viable, it's the minority option here in Newfoundland due to the winter situation. BUT, since Matte has such a huge following here, I wish to hear some input further. Especially on matters of visual design expectations.

Like I said, photos don't help me too much. As a rule, you should always assume photos are lying to you, because for the most part they are. There's a lot that does into a photograph that changes it quite drastically from what the image itself looks like right in front of you.

I guess part of the problem is that, outside of the reseller representatives, it's not going to be too common to find someone who's had a comfortable amount of time with both screens to compare and contrast.

 

I would recommend 95% NTSC Gamut Matte Screen. As for calibration, I only had turn down the red bightness abit. The gray color is fine and black is more of a very dark grey to black when starting up. As for outdoors, it beats my glossy screen np5797 (although its not 95% NTSC Gamut). I have no dead pixels to be able to tell how that would effect the screen. As for brightness, contrast, and fishnet its a non-issue with this screen.

The trade between the two, very bright colors with glare VS. no glare.

As a side note: I haven't had any problem with architectural projects using this screen with either autocad or photoshop.

 

I don't know if these panels are still the exact models used currently, but they were the ones used earlier. Going by these models, you can look at the reviews and tests of the screens in other models that I think also use these.

95% Gamut Matte - AUO B156HW01 V.4
95% Gamut Glossy - AUO B156HW01 V7

The v7 is also the same one in the XPS 15 as the B+RGLED screen, last i heard.
Review Dell XPS 15 FHD Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

I don't know if this particular Thinkpad here carries the v4, but they did use the panel in the T510 and the quality here seems right.
Review Lenovo ThinkPad T510 Notebook (Optimus) - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

 

I remember some claimed that v7 model is also found on the w520 of lenovo. In broader sense, 95% gamut is already exceptionally brilliant and vibrant whether it's glossy or matte. Either way you'll end up with a eye candy that will serve your purpose.

If you truly sought for a display like no other, maybe hp elitebook 8560w with ips dreamcolor would be it.

 

From what I'm gathering about these screens and their outdoors performance, the matte is ultimately better...but still not exactly ideal. It's just better compared to the glossy.

However, I'm pondering how this works out when you are outdoors in shade. Similarly, how each screen contends when you are:

A: back on to major light sources (as in glare hitting the screen), and
B: front on to major light sources (as in light competing with the screen for visibility)

There's also the matter of health. How firmly is it established which screen is healthier than the other for prolonged viewing?

 

I personally decided to go with the Matte screen because it is significantly more usable in environment with high glare and healthier because the anti-glare reduces light reflections on the eye.

I read some academic papers on this issue that recommend Matte over Glossy from health prospective (I do not have them handy), but I am sure you can find more discussions by searching in Google scholar.