Stock Matte Screen or 95% Gamut Matte Screen? Pros and Cons of each?

This is really the last option to choose before ordering my Sager.

Can anyone list the pros and cons of each screen?

I've heard that the 95% screen has a reddish tint and you need to upload custom color profiles? But I also heard the 95% has better viewing angles, etc.

 

no idea about the 95% gamut but my P150EM standard matte blew me away with its vibrant bright colours and i will never go back to gloss.
so if they are still using the same screens for the 4th gen laptops then they are great.

if you will be doing pro photographic editing then ive heard the higher the gamut the better.

the screen thats on my clevo is a LG Phillips LP156WF1

 

I do adore my 95% gamut display. I'm using one of the profiles posted somewhere here on the forums for it for improved colors - out of box it has a bluish tint and very saturated colors. Regardless I wish I had the standard 72% matte to compare to... I suppose you'd get best details from someone who's used / owned both. It's a bit of a hassle though because with some use scenarios such as photo editing etc you need to make sure that the program has support for color management. The normal matte is much simpler and should still be a decent quality display compared to most.

 

I have a P370SM with a 90% gamut glossy screen and have it plugged to an external Asus VG248QE, which I believe is 72% gamut.

The difference is noticeable if you put them side by side. The best way I can put it is, the 90% gamut screen makes the colors much more vibrant but without a hint of oversaturation. The VG248QE goes to oversaturation hell if I try to increase the vibrance.

 

It's nice but not required. A good external ips display will still be a nice addition for your main place if you can.

 

95% may have a slightly more red hue to it; generally a slightly warm color profile is considered to produce more accurate whites. The gamut can always be adjusted though.

Pros of matte: anti reflective surface, decent viewing angles
Cons of matte: reportedly more "grainy" display than glossy

Pros of NTSC screen: clear image, great color saturation, good viewing angles (about 60º)
Concs of NTSC screen: susceptible to glare, high gamut not very apparent in some applications (such as games)

Just to name a few.

 

There was a batch of 95% that came through about 2yrs ago which had a pretty bad red hue. Those were all replaced but because of that they tend to get that reputation. You can try different color profiles to see which one looks the best to you, or have it calibrated to the best color accuracy.

 

Personally, I would make the investment towards the better screen (95% Gamut) since it's not one of the easily upgradeable components on the notebook.

 

It's actually not that difficult on most machines.

 

It's murder in Alienware.
I must have changed 3 screens in my Clevo. Very very easy to change.

 

On the tint issue: one must distinguish between the tint of the panel itself (which refers to some unavoidable color impurities, part of the manufacturing process, hardwired so to speak) and the cast when not calibrated. Tint is present even with calibration (and most RGB / wide-gamut notebook displays have it, even the Dreamcolor / Premiercolor). With the AUO-made 95% gamut, it's usually red, but it may be green as well (I encountered both). But some, probably most, TN panels suffer from the same tint problem, to a smaller or greater effect (they're white led-based).

This being said, all displays benefit tremendously from calibration, both the wide gamut and the normal gamut. In most cases, the difference is night and day. So no difference in this respect (the need for calibration), unless you get a DC/PC RGB IPS (only available on HP and older Dell workstations), which are factory-calibrated (and even then a good calibration will be superior).

Now, the 95/90-gamut displays (all made by AUO) do have typically better vertical viewing angles than the garden-variety TN model, but some of the better TNs (the 72-gamut 17" ChiMei commonly installed on Clevos and MSIs and some LGs) are equally good in this respect. They also offer a good color space, covering around 100% sRGB, which is the default color space of Windows.

Partly because Win works in sRGB, the wide-gamut screens appear oversaturated. It's obvious when placed next to a good TN - colors seem exaggerated, excessively vibrant etc., particularly with excessive reds on the AUO wide-gamuts. I, personally, do not like it, an prefer the good 72-gamut screens in this respect. I even keep my Dreamcolor on the sRGB rather than the wide-gamut space (it has this useful but atypical option of choosing among color spaces), and love its comparatively more natural colors.

The latter is the only minus with the wide-gamut screens in my view, and it's only a minus unless you need the extended gamut for video/photo processing in 'gamut-aware' sw such a Photoshop.

As for matte v glossy, this is a matter of personal preference. Be aware, though, that while the 15" wide-gamut (95) comes in both matte and glossy varieties, the 17" wide-gamut (90) only comes glossy.

So both the 95-gamut (15") and the 90-gamut (17") are great choices, but if I had to choose a 17" I'd go for a matte LG, specifically the 72-gamut LP173WF1 (it covers 100% of sRGB). The more common 72-gamut ChiMei has some advantages (more bright and contrastful) but some significant flaws as well (much coarser matte coating, yellow tint and while the blacks are very deep, they're also undifferentiated, so you sometimes get strange patterns in dark scenes, at least with some revisions of the CMO1702).

(This is all based on, among others, personal experience with the matte and glossy versions of the 95-gamut, the 72-gamut ChiMei and LG, and the Dreamcolor. But various revisions as well as manufacturing variability may change performance here or there. Nevertheless, I've also tried to summarize the consensus of most users who have posted on these and other forums.)

 

Thanks for that post, landsome! Good info.

 

I opted for the 17" 90% gamut AUO B173HW01 v4 and I absolutely love it. The fact that it was glossy was a bonus, since I love glossy. However all that is moot since I started using an Asus VG248QE external LCD (mainly for the 144 Hz). I have to say I really miss the rich colors on the AUO panel. The difference is especially apparent if you fire up a graphically well-designed game like Crysis 2. The AUO panel simply makes all the colors "pop" and the game just looks that much more photo-realistic.

 

Ironically, for me it's quite the reverse. I absolutely dislike the 'popping' colors of the wide-gamut screens when working in the sRGB space (imagine a movie in which someone is wearing a red sweatshirt which 'pops' at you against the other, natural colors). And very much appreciate the less saturated (only comparatively, though) colors of a calibrated normal-gamut, full-sRGB screen (like the VG248QE).

I must repeat, though: calibration is essential. Most notebooks displays are atrocious when not calibrated (with the blue part of the spectrum typically way out of the charts), and in this respect I've found AUO's wide-gamut screens to fare a little better than the others. Investing 100$ in the cheapest Spyder4 or ColorMunki calibrator is the best investment I can think of, particularly if you have more than one monitor to calibrate.

 

Ah yes I should've mentioned the AUO panel was calibrated by the seller before shipping to me. And I definitely noticed the oversaturation in certain movies, but simply dropping the saturation slider in nVidia control panel fixes the problem.

 

I'm gonna pick up the colormunki smile. It supports multiple monitors (spyder 4, express does not), and is $75 on amazon right now.

 

Lots of good info in this thread.

I've been searching NBR and it seems like a calibration tool (like Spyder4) is almost a requirement for the 95% gamut matte screen.

I have no problem with this. But after using the Spyder4, will the colors looks "normal" (as in not over-saturated) and will the reddish tint that I keep reading about be toned down?

 

If no calibration , i would stay away from 95% if movie, anime and photo are concerned. Though, most game look " better" with high gamut imo.

With calibration, you can get "normal" color for videos(though require some tinkering) and photos, but not on most other desktop and apps.
Unsure about the reddish, It should help , but not eliminate it all together.

 

If the screen is calibrated the colours should be accurate for all applications.

 

In practice they do not. A normal-gamut and a wide-gamut display, both calibrated, both covering 100% sRGB, show different images, with the former consistently more saturated.

The same with, e.g., the Windows desktop and programs the Premiercolor when you switch between the aRGB and sRGB color spaces, though Win works in sRGB.

Two well calibrated normal-gamut displays covering sRGB show very similar images,.

 

Is applying someone else's calibrated color profile for the identical screen equivalent to a good calibration?

I just applied the ICC profile I found on Review Clevo P170EM Notebook - NotebookCheck.net Reviews after ascertaining that my panel was the same ChiMei as in the review.

 

No. Not even. Closer to calibrated perhaps. This goes for any type of monitor including televisions. There is variance even between same models.

Sent from my SM-N9005

 

So basically any of us buying a gaming-grade laptop with a decent screen have to buy a good hardware calibrator or trust that the techs at resellers will do a decent job calibrating for the initial premium? I was pretty sure the ICC profiles were a significant improvement over uncalibrated.

 

It really depends on what you are expecting and need. Accurate color does't necessarily mean better looking screen. Say, if the uncalibrated color temperature is not 6500k, human eye adapts and the overall image you perceive probably is not "worse " than people looking a a "6500k" screen. It is true though after calibration, it helps on gamma and "black scene".Without calibration, you still get what the panel spec offers: contrast ratio, viewing angle and gamut(yes gamut).

A random ICC is pretty much a gamble, it may work or it may not.

 

You really only need accurate colors if you plan on sharing pics or graphic design to other people and you want to make sure you're providing them the most accurate colors as possible. For gaming you can pass on it. If you try different color profiles tha t have been posted just stick with the one that looks best to you.

 

Indeed, the variance is so large that sometimes applying profiles made for other individual screens of exactly the same type result in terrible images.

Yes, I would say so. But if you can find many ICC profiles for the same model you can check them all out and see which seems to suit you best. Just make sure that you test with a sufficiently large sample of images.

This being said, I once used about a dozen different profiles for a CMO1702 / N173HGE from notebookcheck to compare them with what the Spyder4 generated for my screen and none of the former were even close. Same with half a dozen 95-gamut AUOs.

Or if you just want to watch movies or play games the way they were designed by their makers.

 

I may as well add my opinion, I have currently, on my Clevo P370EM, what I believe to possibly be the 72% gamut matte screen, I have previously owned both a P151EM1, and a P150HM, both with 95% gamut matte screens, which were simply amazing, this screen, while quite nice, is quite grainy due to the matte film, much more so than the 15 inch screens of the P151EM1 and P150HM.

I recently owned an Alienware M17x r4, which I've given away to a friend who's Qosmio fried itself (protip for laptop manufacturers, don't put a full voltage mobile i7, and a 75 watt fermi GPU in a chassis with a single fan, Toshiba have always been retarded when it comes to design of functional hardware).

Anyway, I found I quite liked the glossy screen on that, it was definately not a 95% gamut, but I'd say it's around equal colour quality of my 72% matte I have currently, Glossy basically equals a much clearer image, while matte results in grain, and lower brightness, the lack of reflections is quite nice, I admit, but I prefer image quality it seems.
As I like the glossy Alienware screen, I've opted to eventually purchase a 95% gamut glossy screen, which actually looks amazing.

 

You probably have the Chimei CMO1702 / N173HGE, which has a rather grainy coating. It's common on MSI, Clevo, Asus and other brands. I had one as well and the LG 72% gamut is much better in this respect.

 

Yeah after seeing and taking apart my alienware 14 so many times the past few months I'll agree 100%. Seems like they are trying to discourage modding with the setup despite the fact that they actually encourage it.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

This thread is kinda old, but I have to ask : Nobody has been more than a little bothered by the oversaturated red on the 95% ? And also, applying these arbitrary icc profiles do not take care of that problem. Not a surprise, really because there is an apparent conflict going on with Windows calibration on one hand versus Intel HD Graphics bulls..t manual calibration on the other. Not very precise is it ? I have an IPS 27" display next to my laptop, and the colors are way more consistent out of the box. The red on my laptop is all over the place, and the only way to deal with it seems to be through the step-by-step windows color calibration, skipping all the stops but the color balance where I turn down reds with a slider...... :-(
None of the color profiles I have tried, posted here or at Sager, have done squat about the extreme reds. Now of course I am stuck with this makeshift solution....

 

PushT have you calibrated it with a setup like Spyder?

 

No, I havent.... Should I ? Will it be worth it on this screen ?
To answer my own question a bit, I will be changing my laptop for a new one pretty soon but It would be nice to have a calibrator around for later anyway.
So it's worth it you reckon ?

 

You are the only one who can answer that question, is it worth it for you?

 

As Meaker said its up to you. Each screen is different so it may fix your colors. Get one that you can use multiple times like the Spyder4 Pro.
I do own one myself since I have multiple monitors and like to calibrate each one. And for future monitors or notebooks as you mentioned.

 

Thanx! As far as I can see it would be worth it for me, since I already have one 1440p IPS monitor and I am going for another 4k IPS as soon as the price and specs are right. Meaker, just to be clear the reason I was asking the question in the first place was in case people had positive experience using professional calibration on that particular laptop screen. I cannot know that myself since I haven't tried ;-)
I will look through calibator reviews and find one to buy then. I appreciate your responses.

 

Every screen improves to a good degree with calibration in terms of colour accuracy, it's a question of if that state is worth it to you. To some users it simply makes no difference.