Visual Differences Between The Different Screen Options. Photos?

that's it!!

so I assume SB would run a 16:10 screen, just not be optimum?

 

Here is the Spec from Intel

DisplayPort* 2560 x 1600, HDMI*, VGA

Thats the max res for HD2000/3000 so yea it'll drive a 1920x1200 monitor with no issues.

Anyone saying otherwise that isn't intel, is mis-informed.

 

What the heck is this dude talking about....? I feel bad for his clientele.

 

^^ Dunno, the "dude" is in the testing team for HP Elitebooks and has access to some info. Besides, we all know that official specs are one thing and real life scenario is another. Even if Intel has some inner politics regarding 1080p - we may never know for sure. I was under the impression that all major computing hardware and screen manufacturers agreed on the 1080p res as a new global standard.

 

All you have to do, is take a Sandy Bridge laptop, hook it to an external screen and see what happens. I bet it will work flawlessly on any resolution.

 

I have no doubt it will work.

 

SB IGP not supporting 16:10 would've been a storm so large, we would've seen all over the tech sites (including here on NBR), before the recall even came about.

 

I looked at the images and I'm confused actually. are the images showing like... better color achievements? Cause the extra Gamut makes the screen look too saturated. The standard or glossy screens look more natural.

viewing angles look the same, or am I mistaking?

 

It can look saturated, but check the picture of the V.4 at the bottom which is calibrated, the colors are much less saturated and much more natural, but still clearly better represented than the V.0 and V.1 which look very underexposed.

 

The thing is - how do you define the "more natural"? If you spent last 10 years using 6-bit 60% gamut screens, then yes, everything with higher gamut and color depth may look oversaturated and unreal at first.
Also, you may have to re-calibrate the screen to adjust it to your eyes. I'm using a sRGB profile on my IPS for work and gaming and find it to be the closest to the "natural", but others may prefer AdobeRGB. It all depends on your personal preferences, the work you do, etc.

 

edit

That makes sense. I guess i would need a different image comparison, but If that HP is calibrated as it says, then I might have to upgrade to it.

does someone have a glare comparison between glossy and matte; if possible, both outside and inside a building?

edit - I manly want to see how well the matte reduces the sunlight compared to glossy which isn't anti glare. So I would be willing to pay for matte if it does its job outside.

 

The HP is factory calibrated and only needs adjustments if you're a professional photographer (even in that case many agree that the stock profiles are nearly perfect for their work) and is beyond real if you simply want a nice screen.

I don't have any anti glare screens right now (other than my HP and it's only semi matte. you can check here, the last picture of the screen section is made outdoors on a very sunny day) but from experience, super glossy screens turn into mirrors under direct sunlight making them impossible for outdoor use, while matte panels are always usable outside even with mediocre brightness. BTW, the V4 screen shown by Mythlogic has a very nice brightness of 230-250nits, 86% illumination, contrast 500:1, black 0.5. The stats are very good indeed. The panel should be comfortably usable outdoors even under direct sunlight.

 

While I can see the difference between the standard v.0 glossy and the updated matte, I'm not actually that impressed. Apparently my work Thinkpad w510 has that V.4 95% screen, and I don't think I ever went "wow!" with it either.

Maybe I'm just so used to glossy screens that the matte doesn't wow me, but if I put it next to my older m1530 I don't notice a huge difference in daily application usage.

I have no idea why they dropped $3k on our work W510's though The most we ever use them for at work is outlook, visio, and console cabling with Putty. Heck, most of us just end up gaming on them because the quadro cards and i7 are pretty decent for it.

The hardware is much more impressive than the screen. You notice a good SSD or GPU well before the 95% color gamut vs the 60%, etc.

I guess i just make a terrible display critic

 

Remember that you are looking at the images on *your* monitor. If the images all seem a bit red, likely the monitor you are reading the forums with is outputting a bit red. ;-)

It's kind of like watching ads for the latest TVs on your TV. If the colors make you say "WOW!"... well, it's *your* TV that rendered that color.

The real measure is in the spec, I'd say. I know what the NTSC color gamut looks like, and I know how much of it my current screen can (and can't) render of it. Anything that approaches 100% NTSC is going to look phenomenal. It's important to realize that even fancy flat panel TVs shift away from the pure coded gamut. The color space of any output device, be it RGB with monitors and TVs, or CYMK with four-color process printing, will always have some bias from perfect reproduction. Hence, we rely on color matching hardware that is accurate in detecting all of the millions of colors being presented, and the profiles built by the associated software to get as close as we can.

Between a screen putting out 70% and and one delivering 90% NTSC gamut, the latter is 20% closer to "actual" color. That's a big difference, if your client has a Pantone-certified logo, for example.

 

so what your saying is if I'm seeing red (which I am on the calibrated screen on the v4 pic), then Its my monitors fault? Does that mean I need to take down the red?

edit - but I guess I should leave my colors at default since I'm not seeing an overpowering red normally.

edit - O Ok, I think I get what ur saying. I basically can't see the real colors from looking at my monitor but I would have to see it in person to tell the difference?

 

No its just one of those hard things, you are looking at a picture on the internet of a screen. So you have the camera which may or may not shift colors, then you have the fact that it has to be shrunk down for the web, then you have to remember that your viewing it on a monitor of some quality. So there are a LOT of different steps in there that can change the colors. Thats why its a lot harder to clearly judge monitors with pictures, as there are a lot of steps inbetween your eyeball and the real thing.

 

Exactly!

You said in that one line what I tried to say in four paragraphs.

Now you know why I was into graphics, not writing.

Precisely. Lots of points of entry for errors in the chain.

I also learned long ago that no two people will see color rendition quite the same. Like Luke must trust in the Force, I learned to trust in Pantone and X-Rite. Even if the client thinks his logo is a touch magenta, you can "prove" with the registered numbers that it is accurate to his spec.

(Sidenote: Great example of this is Gap. Their blue logo used Pantone 644. In fact, they made a men's cologne for a while named... "644". Even though I used a Pantone certified printer calibrated using an X-Rite densitometer and (really expensive) profiles, a panel of senior management all saw the reproduction as a bit off. Some saw it too magenta, some too cyan, some too dark, etc. I had to trot out the color matching runs to prove it was dead on. Their marketing guys knew it right away, as they checked my prints with Pantone swatches.)

(Secondary sidenote: I designed the first ever International Store Manager's Meeting for Gap, held at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, back about 1998 or 1999, I think it was. I had to use materials approved by their in-house marketing folks, from special birds-eye maple laminates to the white paint on the walls. I swear to God, before we opened the doors to the attendees, the marketing people were swarming all over my sets, checking colors with Pantone books. I never saw such strict requirements for a closed company meeting.)

 

I am confused a little because on internet you can find V.7 mate screen- is it, practically, V.4 or not???

 

V.4 is the matte
V.7 is the glossy

Also 17.3" pictures are going up now, along with some updated information on the entire line of screens from AUO. Bad times as they are limited. Both the B156HW01 and B173HW01 have been End of Life'ed. Please see each post for specific information regarding their end of life.

 

So, does this mean that the np8130 orders that have not been shipped with the stock 60% gamut, matte screen are screwed or are these screens already in the chassis and just waiting in warehouses to be fitted with a new mobo and be shipped?

 

If I had to guess, I would say most large OEM's like Clevo have a BOATLOAD of these screens both sitting in chassis and in boxes in a warehouse that they aren't going to run out during the production runs, don't be surprised to see later production runs switch over to an LG screen or a samsung. Most of these laptops all have different screens in them as parts and pricing change from their suppliers. So I wouldn't worry too much about what the stock screens are going to do.

And the 17.3"'s are up.

 

I was wondering about that.

When I visited your website yesterday, I saw that the distinction for the 95% gamut matte panels had disappeared and was listed as just a Matte screen.

Hopefully we'll see a new series of high gamut screens.

 

Because we were able to secure a new allocation of those screens we put the 95%'s back up at least until we run out again. As they are a limited quantity now.

 

edit: wups, wrong thread. nevermind...

 

The upcoming Lenovo W520 will be sporting that screen (for at least another year) as well a couple more systems. There's also a 95% gamut + multitouch panel. Anyway, at least some screen suppliers will have it. I wouldn't worry about EOL at this point. Even if it happens, there will be a similar if not better replacement.

 

My goodness, the 17" V.4 destroys the default setup. The difference in viewing angles is huge.

 

Does anyone know if the 15.6" panels are compatible with the m15x?

 

In theory, yes, but I thought the m15x panels are a PITA to remove..........

 

I've done CPU swaps on HP models. After that, nothing's too difficult.

 

no more 17" V.4

 

Wow. I'm glad I finally took the time to check this thread out. The viewing angle alone is probably enough to make me throw in the extra cash for the upgrade.

 

Good luck getting it though. Most places are sold out or in limited quantity. The only place I still saw them was at Xotic

 

Yup, I can confirm that the screens are available in very limited quantities at this time.

 

OK so i have a side by side comparison of the two LCD's on two Clevo Horize B5130 Machines.

Left = Matte, Right = Glossy

While my photo skills leave little to be desired i have tried to give an representation of how they fair. The Matte screen is called the AUO B156HW01 V4

See spec sheet here: http://www.logicalblueone.com.au/docs/B156HW01_V_4.pdf

It has been given some recent spotlighting as it is one of the highest NOTEBOOK Gamut % monitors around. The Glossy LCD display is the standard 1080p model that comes in the Clevo Horize models and to be honest is not bad at all, it is quite good but in comparison the matte LCD really takes the cake.

I find it interesting to see the amount of reflection given off on the glossy displays as well courtesy of the flash in certain pictures. Although this is pretty obvious I don't notice it on a normal basis but when side by side it's really blatant.

The AUO screen gives off really really good colours and it has a much better viewing angle that maintains screen brightness and colour (see last few photos). Before i get trolled, there has been no adjustments done to the colour settings. Both are on completely standard and with the same brightness etc.

This is without a doubt the best notebook LCD screen i have ever seen and is certainly worth a look. If you want to leave people envious of your LCD this is the one to go for. A great combination for those looking for use in photography/design.

Note for those with most 15.6" notebooks this display will also fit those (ASUS G53 owners for example).

Link to photo's. Warning 52mb file.

www.logicalblueone.com.au/docs/MattevsGlossy.zip

If you want more examples let me know what specifically.

 

Damnit... Made me spend another $150

 

Just to chime in here. After seeing the matte screen, despite it not having a much better color gamut than the stock glossy, the contrast was definitely better, and maybe because of no glare or what I don't know, the colors actually looked better all around.

If a matte screen is still being offered in a few months, and I save the pennies, I may just have to go with that one. I was overly impressed.

 

Hey ht, I'm pretty sure the matte screen is the one with the higher color gamut

 

Default = 72%
Matte = 72%
V.4 Glossy = 90%

 

I have the V.4 in my machine and while the color and brightness are amazing the contrast and backlight bleed are a little rough.. Still overall an amazing panel aside from the stuck pixel it has ..

I went through 3 different V.4s and all of them had issues in the end so i just had to pick one when it was all said and done because i wanted the screen , it seems finding a perfect one was next to impossible (or atleast that's what i was being told) .. Thankfully the stuck pixel is on the far right hand side of the screen you can never see it looking straight on to the screen but yeah its there and just knowing that bugs me .

Great screen though and even compared to my IPS WFP 3008 2560x1600 desktop screen it holds up pretty nice for a TN panel..

Brightness and color are most important to me followed by contrast lastly.

 

You have the 15" or 17" V.4?

 

I have the 17" one ..

No 15" machines for me ever again unless it weighs 2 pounds and sports a 485mGTX then ill sacrifice the screen size for portability .

 

Could you talk about this a little more? How bad is the light bleed? Did more than one panel have dead pixels? What are some of the other issues. I'm concerned about this!

 

Out of the 3 panels i received 2 of them had stuck pixels ..

The 3rd screen had 2 dead pixels which were invisible to the naked eye but after a day of using the 3rd screen and the one i thought i was going to keep a little blob appeared in the middle of the screen almost looking like water stuck inside of the screen but you could only see it on certain colors like beige or light blue backgrounds.

So because of that blob and it being in the middle of the screen i had to decide which of the other 2 screens i was going to keep at which point it became obvious because the other screen i had came with a BRIGHT white stuck pixel on the left edge of the screen so i certainly could not live with it ..

The bleeding is fairly obnoxious during the boot cycle but after that its a non issue and while gaming etc i never see it so its something i can deal with but i know people 1000 times pickier then myself, so yeah your mileage may vary..

I got these screens from a reseller on these boards who i shall remain nameless because in the end they were trying to help me but could not seem to get me a good screen and they were also kind enough to let me hold all 3 screens for me to decide if i wanted to keep any of them , i certainly wanted one just not with imperfections, which i dont think is asking to much when your paying a premium for something ..


Brightness and color 9/10 maybe even 10/10 for a TN screen

Contrast and backlight bleed probably a 6/10

 

Bleeding + stuck pixels = terrible screen. I'm surprised you're okay with it quad.

 

You are right and i am surprised as well but i went through so much over the course of lets say 2 weeks trying to get a decent screen that in the end i just decided to settle for second best vs nothing at all..

Other options for getting the screen were ordering it directly from Taiwan paying with Western Union and possibly being sent another bad screen and having to deal with shipping it back if they even accepted returns..

The V.4 screen is a very difficult screen to get a hold of as most resellers on the Web claim to have it but sell compatible screens like the V.0,LG, Hannstar etc and i knew i wanted the V.4 for the juicy colors and incredible brightness..

So in the end am i happy ? sorta ..

Not happy about the situation but neither am i unhappy i guess is the best way to describe it ..

 

For the 17.3". The 15.6" V4 is Matte with a 95% gamut.

 

Well looks like I bit the bullet and upgraded my screen too... That was the upgrade I was most pleased with when I got my XPS so I hope this time it will be the same way...

 

Mythlogic, can you comment on the vertical viewing angles for the matte screen? I didn't pay much attention to that when I was there. The vertical angle of this stock screen is starting to drive me nuts.

 

That bad? I thought you said it was pretty good at first...

 

Even from the pictures he posted, one can see that the stock screen has atrocious viewing angles. That's partly my main motivation for avoiding it.