Panasonic VVX16T010J00 vs Samsung LTN156HL02

I'm planning to 'downgrade' my display panel from my current Sharp 3840x2160 LQ156D1JX01 (amazing quality but have become tired of the glossiness) to one of the following two matte options:

Panasonic 2880x1620 IPS (£180.47) or Samsung 1920x1080 PLS (£46.25)

Already had experience with the Panasonic panel (when I had my P35X v3) and liked it, but wondering if it's worth going back to a FHD screen again because Windows 10 doesn't seem to be the miracle cure for 3rd party software scaling support, as I was hoping it would be. My reservations about the Samsung panel mostly boils down to the fact that it's a 6bit colour display vs the 8bit colour display of the Panasonic - how much of a difference does that make? Is it really noticeable?

Just would like to know your opinions.

Thanks!

 

my understanding is all screens are glossy at the beginning and matte ones are covered with matte plastic sheet at factory, so if it was my computer, I would probably try to find matte screen protector and put it on original screen myself. however I can't help you finding high quality matte screen protector.

 

Already tried that. The one I bought is fairly decent (and expensive) but unfortunately adds a lot of 'grain' to the display. I don't recall my previous matte screens being so 'grainy' so I suspect the manufacturers use superior quality matte coverings.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Nah; it's just that your panel has uncommonly high ppi (282). Panel manufacturer takes that into account (and opts for very fine grain), but an aftermarket film is tailored for general market panels, so ~125 ppi or less. Try asking Photodon; their 25% film ought to do for smartphones/tables, equally high ppi lcds.

 

Pretty certain the ones I bought are 25% too. Certainly expensive enough for it!

 

Sure, but it's not the 25% that's the problem. Amazon article states compatibility with 15.6" 768p laptop models. That translates to 100 ppi; your UHD has nearly three times as many pixels. Hence that film is waaay too course/crude for such a high density panel, causing all kinds of distortions. The 4H hardness is a nice feature though and it'll probably do pretty good on a 768-900p panel.

 

So I bought the wrong product? D'oh!

Is there any UK equivalent to Photodon so that I can avoid having to pay and wait for the international shipping? My Google search is not finding anything yet. It's just that shipping costs as much as the actual product itself from Photodon and there is no estimate available for when it might actually arrive.

EDIT: nevermind, I'm going to order a cheap sample pack from them to judge the quality of the screen cover. The shipping for that doesn't cost very much and I can see how long it takes to arrive too. I'm probably still going to go ahead and order a matte screen in the meantime as I'm assuming it's going to take a long, long time for that sample pack to get here seeing as I'm going for the cheapest delivery option. I don't want to wait that long.

Thanks @t456 for the help! Hopefully if their screen covers are of good enough quality I'll be able to order a full sized one and continue to use my glorious 4K HDPI display in matte form.

 

No luck either, pretty difficult to find suppliers for such films period. Photodon shipping time is roughly a week and a half, might order a $5 sample pack first (edit: already have, it seems). Think MXH or MXF will do, but better see them in situ. Do expect 6-bit to make a pretty big step backwards when you're used to 8-bit and the Panasonic has actually worse gamut than your current Sharp, not to mention that price ...

The P35X v3 has a slightly different revision panel than the Panasonic and the Sharp 01 hasn't been reviewed, but the 02 has ( Zenbook NX500JK). Here's all two exact + two equivalent panels side-by-side:

Spoiler: 4x 72 pct. NTSC panels

These are the NTSC and sRGB colour spaces and their spectrum calculated as surface area in order to make comparison possible ("cm²" is just for reference; it's the ratio that matters):



Since 72% of 158 = 114 and sRGB 100% = 114, you might very well think that ' 72% NTSC = 100% sRGB' ... and you'd be dead wrong !!!

A percentage NTSC is counted as long as it fall inside the NTSC triangle, but a large section of that triangle falls outside of the sRGB triangle, so you cannot count these percentages towards sRGB as well.

This is the best case scenario for 72% NTSC when it comes to sRGB-equivalent:

Spoiler: NTSC 72 pct. - best case scenario

The black area (hard to spot) is 114, the white area is 109, so that's 109/114 = 96% sRGB. Mind that 72% NTSC is a minimum requirement, so most panels will do slightly more, making >96% sRGB possible (panel's actually more than 72%, but less than 90% NTSC).

Now, here's the worst case scenario for 72% NTSC:

Spoiler: NTSC 72 pct. - worst case scenario

The black area is, again, 114, but the white area is merely 69, equating to 69/114 = 61% sRGB. That's a difference of more than 1/3rd the entire sRGB spectrum !!! In reality it's not that extreme; triangle's less blue, more towards red, but as bad as 70% exists.

Back on topic; both panels are 72% NTSC, yet the Panasonic's IPS (left) and the Sharp is TN-like (right):

Spoiler: VVX16T028J00 and LQ156D1JX02 - sRGB gamut

That's a 10% sRGB difference measured in favour of the 'rubbish' TN. The left spectrum also highlights the problem with the presumably 'superior' IPS panels; blue. The contours in this example are run-of-the-mill; most IPS panels are underwhelmingly poor in the blue/green area.

So ... bottom line; keep the Sharp.

 

Thanks for the explanation! The terminology for measuring colour gamut has always been hard for me to wrap my brain around, but I understand it a bit better now I think

They have reviewed the LQ156D1JX01B panel here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Clevo-P651SE-Schenker-XMG-P505-Barebones-Notebook-Review.127978.0.html

Spoiler

Looks like it's 80% sRGB coverage. So the Panasonic and Sharp -01 panels are tied in that regard. From reading the review of the -02 panel you linked, it appears that they had calibrated the panel, which is why they had superior results with that one.