Why high gamut screens are NOT suited to gamers

Have you read the Nvidia forum post I linked to in my OP?

Yeah that's true, even standard gamut screens can be tinted but not usually anywhere near as extreme as having an uncalibrated high gamut screen.

This thread isn't really about about achieving deadly accurate colours, although that can be a major benefit, it's about configuring a high gamut screen to be a pleasurable experience whilst gaming.

 

However, it does help when you're showing off to some guy in Best Buy who thinks the G75 is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

Can you use another screen (iPhone/iPad, other laptop) to try to fix your calibration by getting colors the closest you can?

 

Not really no. You need to use a hardware calibrator or a pre-configured profile.

 

will this work for diablo3 ? also what about dota 2? or is this only towards "graphic intense' games?

edit: have to bookmark this page since i was in the market for the 9150w/95%ntsc loll. also will show this to my friend, he has a 8150w/95%ntsc, should work fine right?

 

Diablo 3 has fullscreen window mode already

 

I liked this post.

+1 gj

 

I'm just curious is this reset of calibration the result of all types of calibration?

I'm planning to buy my own spyder4elite and am just curious if it would reset during gameplay.

 

where can I find other preset profile for the 95% gamut screens like the one in the original post?

 

Those are on Sager's website for download. Though I don't think need em. I think these panels look great gaming. Just me, at least.

 

I've uploaded all the profiles I found for the 95% matte:

Zippyshare.com - Colour Profiles for 95 Matte.zip

 

Honestly don't use any of these profiles. If you are going to get a notebook calibrated, then do it right.

LCD calibration are highly dependent on the environment and lighting you are in. That's why Sager for example does not recommend you get your notebook calibrated. Because it will be calibrated in the lighting that the tech is using, not yours. It's dumb.

The only one I would venture to possibly use is the default calibration from Lenovo, but really just use none or calibrate it yourself.

Zippyshare.com - TPLCD95.7z

 

Well, I just got my laptop about two hours ago, still setting everything up, but one of the 5 profiles from Sager's 8150 set of calibrations works well enough for me.

Either I got lucky with the calibration, or I'm blissfully ignorant to what this screen has the potential to look like, because it looks really good to me. So glad it's not a nightmare like I thought it would be from this thread =p.

 

Sorry but that's absolute codswallop.

Just because your personal lighting environment doesn't match that of the hardware calibrator does not mean you shouldn't use the profiles. The lighting conditions in which you use a laptop generally changes all the time anyway so it's rather a moot point. An uncalibrated wide gamut screen is so far off the mark you really have nothing to lose, plus the V2 profile looks great in a wide variety of lighting conditions. There's nothing dumb about it at all and I find it a bit ignorant in you saying so.

Oooooh 2000th post

 

That's funny, V2 is the one that works best for me, and it does look really good.

 

Actually your posts are the hogwash. These LCD stock are ready to go, they are not so far off as you claim. And yeah, I would never encourage anyone to just try a random profile you post on the net.

 

A random profile that I posted on the net? The three main profiles are from Sager themselves and what harm does it do trying them out? None at all. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I will leave it at that.

 

Iata is right, generic calibrated profile for 95% gamut screen works well for most screens of the same model. Variation between batches of those screens is very minor - I have two laptops with 95% screen, both using the same icc profile, both look near identical.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

I think this is scaring some people. Not calibrating the screen isn't going to have the screen look like garbage if you're not used to a calibrated screen. These panels are by no means crap, and this shouldn't prevent people from upgrading (or choosing the stock) screen. Once you see the screen in person it's going to look great. Calibrate it and it'll be more accurate. Whether accurate is better or not is preference (or possibly necessity depending on your usage)...

 

As I've said before hizzaah an uncalibrated standard gamut screen will look better than an uncalibrated high gamut screen. This is true of my old SXPS RGBLED and it's also true of this 95% matte panel. At no point do I call these screens crap. I actually mention how stunning they look once a colour profile is used.

This isn't about scaring people, it's about stating the facts in a clear fashion which I have done in the OP.

 

Spoiler

I wasn't callin you out specifically, just sayin my piece The OP is very good, you've presented some great facts and I agree with a lot of what was presented. Just trying to make sure people know that they shouldn't be deterred from buying an upgraded screen based on opinions of those who have used calibrated monitors.

 

Hey guys, is 95% color gamu 1920x1080 (glare type or matte type) better than RGB 1920X1200?
Thanks

 

Let's refer back to the title of the thread .....

 

What's wrong with the title?

The simple fact is they aren't suited to gamers, hence the post.

Let's refer back to the OP....

 

Correct me if I am wrong since I quickly read the topic.
With a 95%color gammu you cannot impose calibration setting on a lot of games running fullscreen but that would work for games in window if you impose it with some kind of program (not sure about this last part).

So Diablo3 would look great in full window but so-so in full screen?
If that is the case, would it be possible for someone to post the two screen shots to get an idea of what we are talking about.

 

I understand your frustrated that several games ( mostly from 2004-08 ) are not working like you would like them but you post about how these screens are not suited for (all) gamers is a little extreme.

Others have pointed out games that do work without issue.

Additionally the majority of pre-orders that I saw had high gamut screens. So where are all the others having issues?

 

No one has pointed out that games work without issue. One user alone has stated that there is a work around using PowerStrip for a select few games. CS:GO, DiRT 2, DiRT 3, F1 2010, F1 2011, FUEL, L4D2, Portal 2, C&C 4, Deux Ex HR, L.A. Noire, PES 2012, ARMA 2 are all recent games which do not work. I actually have yet to find one game in my current library which does work with the PowerStrip hotkey method.

People haven't posted about the problem as they probably didn't know any better. I didn't for a long while with my old SXPS RGBLED until I put a game into windowed mode. Once owners try using a profile along with one of the methods I described in the OP they will realise how much better their screen can look whilst playing full screen games. None of this is an issue with the stock standard gamut screen which is the whole reason I made the post. Gamers generally don't just play one game they play a selection and this whole colour profiling in games is a mess, as this thread has proven.

Oh and I'm not frustrated, just glad to give everyone a headsup.

mqlpideste - yeah I'll try and get some pics taken over the weekend.

 

Very informative iaTa... I reached the same conclusion after a week of post sifting and went with the 60% matte. Don't do much gaming myself but color profile support on Linux is spotty even for general use. Windows 7 also cannot comprehensively implement them. As somebody who uses a wide range of programs I would rather have consistent colors than prettier results sometimes, imbalance usually, and a whole lot of fuss always.

That said, those with the 95% point to its brilliance when calibration is working, which should be most of the time for a typical buyer. And such a person isn't going to be bothered by some color discrepancy. Clevo sellers would not market the option as they do if their inboxes were filled with such complaints.

See this thread for comparison pictures of the different screens. Note that the 60% AUO has been replaced by one from LG.

 

for anyone wanting a fast and semi decent calibration software only solution ... plus its free. its nit quite as good as a high end hardware calibrator but does a respectable job.

Calibrize

 

This is gross overgeneralizing.

 

I have yet to see one high gamut screen in a laptop where that isn't the case, however I was referring to the screens offered in the P150EM.

Desktop monitors are a complete different kettle of fish as the majority have built in sRGB emulation.

But thanks for pointing out one comment I made in 8 pages. Incredibly constructive.

 

Yeah, this uncalibrated screen looks way better than any non wide-gamut screen I've seen so far.

Just tried, every impressive in how easy it is to use and immediate the changes are. +Rep, awesome.

 

Certainly that can be the case. I don't have a high gamut screen and wondering if I would notice the difference.

If you have time could you post a screenshot of maybe some picture when calibrated and another of a game that is not behaving?

 

Wouldn't worry about it. All game artists use sRGB calibrated monitors and games are developed that way.

 

Apparently the people who made BF3 had extremely red tinted monitors though.

 

Hogwash. BF3 employees guaranteed had sRGB calibrated. All game studios would, it's standard.

 

Have you done side by side comparisons with one machine equipped with the default screen, and another with the AUO V.4?

 

So by your own admission all game studios use sRGB calibrated monitors during the design process of their games and yet you will not entertain the idea of playing a game whilst using an sRGB colour profile which will allow it to be presented as the developers originally envisioned on your wide gamut screen? I rest my case.

You also choose to rep someone (no offence KCETech1) who provides a manual colour calibration tool which will have nothing like the accuracy of a hardware calibration profile made specifically for your screen which I have already provided for you. I have even detailed how to get those profiles working in full screen games in the best way possible. You simply cannot calibrate a screen without using a hardware device and I'm not sure why you're even using the tool if all this is 'hogwash' as you say it is.

Yes I have.

 

Nope, your profiles were not made for my screen. They were made for someone else's screen in their own lighting condition. I would highly dissuade ANYONE from using the profiles you've posted.

 

5 of my previous laptops had rgbled screens (2x sxps16, 2x m6400 + m6500), my previous p170hm had a 90% gamut glossy and my current laptop has a 95% gamut matte, as does my wife's machine. For all of those screens I have used icc profiles downloaded from the net and most of the time they were a perfect match. there were a lot of profiles uploaded for my rgbled screens that looked plain horrible, so there may be differences between some people's screens or they possibly do not know how to calibrate them properly.
there were almost no visible differences between the same models of panels using the same profile, even though some of them came from different batches.
hell, I even tested 90% 17.3 profile on my 95% matte and it looked nearly identical to 95% matte profile.

 

So will the profiles given in OP work with a 95% glossy screen? I want to try out some profiles for my P170EM.

I'm also colorblind so chances are I won't see a difference regardless but everyone else will. lol

 

I have tried the posted profile on auo b156hw01 v4 and v7, and auo b173hw01 v5 and v4, - it looks nearly the same on all 4 screens, which i guess you would expect as they are all so called "b+rgled screens", so they all would be using the same panel tech.

 

I tried the V2 ICC profile provided, and before that i did my own calibration with
the method in this thread : http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/668070-lcd-test-calibration.html

I found that i was close but the ICC profile was much better

 

Hmmm, I think "Lenovo Thinkpad LCD Monitor" profile look best

 

if its the one windows updates automatically installs for you its actually completely flat - it does not change your colours at all from defaults.

 

this thread is increasing pretty fast..

so basically this screens is pointless till you calibrate it with the V2 right?

 

It depends which one looks best, after reviewing the other profiles again, i found that V3 profile looks best, V2 had a tiny tint of red

EDIT: This if for my certain screen, V2 might look better on your screen than mine or it might be some other profile

 

I have a Dell u2410 and I've never had a single problem with mismatched colors in any game anywhere at any point in time... I'm calibrated to Adobe RGB if that makes any difference (Not just in Adobe RGB mode, I'm actually calibrated too) All my games look incredibly deep with high gamut

I also have the high gamut matte for the P150 and it also looks vastly more amazing than any laptop I've ever owned. I haven't calibrated it yet, but with the included profile it still looks fantastic.

 

That's because your monitor has a built-in sRGB emulator which applies colour correction to the input signal.

Unfortunately that is not possible in a laptop panel, we have to use software.

 

Thanks for the info.

I went through the steps and set the monitor to the V2 profile, indeed there is a massive difference in color, with a shift towards being warmer. When it comes to computers I'm pretty dumb, but did get the 95% gamut screen on the basis that I'd be doing a fair bit of photo editing/ processing RAW photo files, and also some simple photo montages.

For those who are using the V2 profile, how accurate is it, in your opinion? I'm looking specifically for color accuracy rather than getting the profile with the most 'pop' or contrast or saturation. Although of course I'm also aware that the printer would likewise need to be calibrated to the screen, otherwise all the printed photos will vary vastly from what appears on screen.

I'm coming from a 4 year old Macbook Pro whose screen appeared to give results closely matching that in prints, without going through any callibration steps, but unfortunately I don't know anything about that Macbook screen!