Why high gamut screens are NOT suited to gamers

Yes it is by quite a large margin.

However is also has a slightly worse contrast ratio.

 

yup, Max Payne 3. You must be doing something wrong - there is a clear as day shift in colour tone when I toggle between calibrated and non calibrated settings whilst in game.

 

I second this. Gaming has been amazing on this screen, and I haven't done a thing to calibrate it yet

 

Here's an odd question. Has anyone tried (or does anyone even know how to try) overwriting windows "default" color profile, with the one they want to use? Then if windows or a game tries to revert to it, it won't be a problem...

 

My screen looks amazing uncalibrated. I can't compare it to anything but what I've experienced in the past (MBPs, Alienware). That said, this screen is noticeably nicer than my own past laptop screen experiences.

 

This is a good goal.

Also I want to uphold the fact that the stock matte screen is slightly on the blue side, but it is very slight.

 

wont work, default profile is a dummy profile, - windows just doesn't load any calibration when its selected.

 

I just got my 9170 and this thread worried me about my screen choice, but after gaming with it all day today, I'm so glad I got the gamut 95% screen! Gaming on it is so awesome and the screen looks sooo good. The colors are great!

 

Try the fixes I posted in the OP (depending on game) and you will realise how much better it can look.

 

Ok, so i'm looking for get the Clevo 150EM (SAGER NP9150 to be precise) should i order the 95% gamut screen with the xoticpc callibration ? or should i not get it at all ? I would not be majorly playing games either, would it affect everyday usage?

 

Sometimes I see posts on this forum and I scratch my head. The only type of customer who should worry about the "gamut" of a screen is not just a photographer, or an avid photographer, but a professional photographer who earns a living from it, in order to justify the cost for the colors to be as close to what they really looked like on the SLR's CCD and how they'd be printed in hard form (since even for online publications, vast majority of users use stock 60-62% gamut.)

In that case, you have no business getting anything but a large IPS panel anyway, instead of some cramped 17" TN panel.

Wide gamut for games ... that were initially programmed with stock RGB? The mind boggles.

Protip: MY SCREEN LOOKS AMAZING!!111oneone is subjective.

 

i disagree completely. Games do not have to be programmed for wide gamut they still look 10x better on a high gamut screen. I do not do anything related to photography, but since buying my first laptop with RGBLED screen I have only bought laptops with wide gamut screens since. Once you see a properly calibrated high gamut screen its very difficult to go back, everything from simple browsing, to films and photos looks so much more vibrant and crisp.

 

Edit: Was mixing up my facts, re-read first few pages.

 

I still think this super wide gamut LCD looks so much better than anything I've used in the past with laptops for gaming. I disagree with this thread, wide gamut screens for gaming is AWESOME. This screen has more colors, better contrast and brighter, it's better than any other screen I've used in every manner and the matte finish is just icing on the cake, especially since the anti-reflective surface from AOU is industry best.

 

I think those who are buying a high end laptop and are not spending the paltry 60 or so dollars to upgrade to a gamut screen are making a big mistake. i can say without a doubt that my calibrated matte 95% gamut screen on my 150em purchased from mythlogic is by the far the best screen that i've seen/used. I can see details in photos and videos that do not show in my other screens.

i suspect calibration won't matter as much for most, but do yourself a favor and pleaase don't downgrade your screen. IMO, SSD and screen are the two upgrades that you don't want to miss (biggest bang for the buck).

the argument that a higher gamut screen is overkill and you shouldn't get it is ridiculous. the same can be said for audio. just because most audio is streamed in crappy quality does not mean that it's a waste of money to have a nice pair of headphones... for sure, once you've been using high quality cans for a while, it is painful to listen to anything but - even if whatever you're listening to is not lossless

this logic can be applied to every other upgrade too! who can really tell in-game whether you are running on SSD or not? try to play D3 off SSD or HDD and see if you can guess which is which! can't tell? well, SSDs are clearly not worth it then?!

 

I found calibration on the wide gamut screen is needed, I bought it without pre-calibration and it's definately over saturated, makes my eyes hurt after only 1 hour. Much better and comfortable for long term usage after I did some calibration.

Stock screen probably won't need any calibration as the colours that can be displayed are limited, doesn't stress your eyes much like the non-calibrated 95% gamut screen.

 

That's anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying your statement is worthless but the OP attempted to explain and justify his hypothesis, responding over and over again that your stuff is AWESOME is not an argument.

If only it were 60 dollars then yes, big mistake. Most resellers charge in the order of ~200 USD for an upgrade to 90%+ gamut.

 

I don't need to justify it by the numbers. This screen is flat out has better colors, contrast and brighter. What do I care if some dude doesn't even know how to calibrate a high gamut screen thinks if it's suitable to gaming. I think it is. And it seems I'm no the only one.

Anyone considering an upgrade between say a 3720QM or a 95% Gamut? Easy for me to say, 95% gamut all the way, for gaming.

You want to discuss the numbers and about how colors etc are off? Maybe you should be in a Pro-Graphics forum where they buy really good IPS panels rather than a high gamut TN panel? I love this panel, but I will admit, it's not professionally calibrated nor is it a IPS panel and it's 15". I think if your a real professional, you'd be using a much larger IPS display. Same goes for teh 15" MacBook with Retina. who cares? It's 15" screen, I wouldn't trust a pofessional who does his work on a 15" MacBook rather than a pro-grade IPS display that is actually big enough to work with.

But for this thread, yeah the 95% Gamut is awesome for gaming and for general use. It's up to the person to decide what he thinks is awesome. I don't care if someone can spend hours backing it by the numbers, for me this 95% Matte is the best panel I've ever used on a gaming machine and I think it's simply the #1 best upgrade I've ever paid for.

 

a better screen is a better screen... why are we arguing this? a higher gamut screen is of a higher quality. It will have better contrast, saturation, and brightness to go along with a wider color gamut. The fact that anyone would argue otherwise blows my mind! seriously do you have eyes? neo the reason you couldnt tell the difference is between two screens in a picture on your laptop is because you were looking at them on some crap screen put in an acer...

 

I have tried all the icc profiles and I can tell you that the v2 is indeed the most accurate. Why? Because I have compared it with an imac, 2 asus laptops, ipad and iphone with retina and without.

When you just installed win7 without updates the screen will look overly saturated. But after you update windows the screen it will be recognised as a lenovo screen. This profile looks indeed a little more beautiful at first but its not very accurate. Thats because most men prefer colder colours. The lenovo profile looks alot more blue than the v2 one. Also a bit more white. At first i prefered the lenovo profile but I found out that the colours were not accurate. I am a web designer so I found out the hard way.

I have also tried to calibrate it with the spyder 4 but that one is even worse than stock. It looks far too yellowish. So if you do wanna calibrate it officially i suggest you buy the X-Rite 1n display.

 

Again. I take your opinion and accept it, but to make it actually useful to us and not just subjective bias, try obtaining comparison photos so all of us can see for ourselves.

If I just want to respond subjectively I can also say: "No ... on a cramped laughable 15" TN panel, I'm not shelling 200 USD for an upgrade, when I can save 40 dollars and get a 22" LED-backlit IPS panel from Asus with rave reviews"

And my argument would be better than yours

 

No one is arguing that it's not a better, including the OP. We're arguing it's not worth the money it costs for most everyday applications if the alternative is a good quality stock gamut screen (or a 24" IPS screen for the same amount) considering the 7970M + Intel HD 4000 debacle the OP outlined. There doesn't seem to be a consistent solution for the profile reversions.

 

Standard matte gets my vote for the reasons described in my OP.

 

What are the stock 17" matte panels usually shipped by Sager btw? Or is it a matter of luck? Also, I don't want to buy a colorimeter, so is it advisable for me to just get a user ICC profile that's popular for the same panel?

 

I need to correct one point that many are making. The stock matte screen actually has a much higher luminance and better contrast ratio than the 95% matte.

I will try to dig out the reviews of the panels but the stock matte is around 375 nits and the 95% is around 275 if I remember correctly.

This difference in luminance may be an important factor for some, if for example you use your machine outside on a regular basis as I do.

Neo - not sure on the screen but I would just use one of the profiles provided by Sager.

EDIT: Panel specs

This is backed up by reviews which show the stock matte actually has increased luminance and contrast compared to the listed specs: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-XMG-P502-PRO-Clevo-P150EM-Notebook.72895.0.html

Taking into consideration these facts along with my OP there's no contest IMO.

 

LOL. Didn't even connect that this has the same screen as my HP. (original post here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/hp-...-1080p-lcd-vs-sager-auo-v-4-95-gamut-lcd.html)

I loved the screen on my HP. Well at least I know that I have a spare.

 

Where are those profiles? I've been looking all night. It's certainly not available on their site.

 

I'm confused. LG and AOU are not the same. LG license a lot of tech from Hitachi/Panasonic whereas AOU has their own.

 

Zippyshare.com - Sager NP8170 - AU Optronic B173HW01 V5 - Matte Bright 6.zip

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...wf1-tlc1-lgd0285-glossy-lg-np8170-p170hm.html

 

-sigh-

I suppose I'll just wait to receive the laptop, check for which panel it is, then ask for that specific panel's available ICC profiles.

I can't believe that there isn't a convenient page on Sager/Clevo's site where you have a list of panels and a list of their ICCs. How hard is that?

 

I was in a dilemma trying to decide between the stock screen versus the 95% gamut for the fear that the stock screen will look faded or washed out and whether the 95% will actually be worth the additional dollars. However after doing a lot of research I decided to take my chance with the stock matte screen. I have to say that I am loving the stock matte screen on my P151EM. It's definitely sufficient for my needs without having to spend extra dollars for the 95% gamut. Although if those problems mentioned in the OP are fixed, I certainly wouldn't mind owning a 95% gamut.

At first I thought I was going to get an AUO, but after I looked through the profile with HWinFO64, I found out that it's a LGD02D9. However there seems to be several versions of this and I think the one that I have is the same screen found in Dell Precision M4600 which seems to be better than the one in the Schenker XMG P502 PRO Although I'm not sure if the screen in Dell and the one in Schenker are the same. I tried both of the profile from the website and the profile from the Dell Precision seems to be better than the Schenker XMG. The profile definitely shows how blue the screen was originally .

 

Ok if you are a gamer I've found a better fix for this issue which isn't as accurate as using a custom ICC with non linear gamma curves but it's not too far off and the changes are persistent in all 3D games and applications.

The iGPU controls the LUT so I experimented with the very limited colour controls in the Intel control panel to match the Matte V2 profile I posted on the first page as close as possible.

The settings are as follows:

• Under 'Red' set 'Brightness' to 1 and 'Gamma' to 0.9
• Under 'Green' set 'Brightness' to 1 and 'Gamma' to 0.9
• Under 'Blue' set 'Gamma' to 0.8

Save these changes to a profile and you are good to go.

I will post this to the first page.

 

Overall I don't think that the 95% isn't nice, it's just that it's overkill. It's like buying a $2000 LED TV for your 5 year old who only watches the Disney channel. Sure it looks great, but it's spending money on features that will never be utilized or appreciated.

Although at times, depending on the OEM, you don't have much choice. It's either the crappy stock screen with narrow viewing angles and washed out colors or the $200 upgrade to a higher resolution and high quality screen. But in the case of Sagers/Clevo's we fortunately aren't stuck in that predicament. The stock screens in these Clevos are usually the quality screen upgrade in most other OEM machines.

 

This is me hating you for being right...

 

IMHO 95% NTSC glossy screen is great choice, i have never tweaked the calibration, nor paid for one, and i think its the best screen i have ever used. Maybe the matte model is trickier?
Anyway, i must add that i got a free upgrade promo o i did NOT pay extra for this screen, i probably wouldnt have.
My only point is that at least glossy 95% gamut screens work great, i have tried several games and seen nothing but perfect images.

hope it helps people decide.

cheers
Voz

 

Thread may have been started with good intentions, but it was a failure from the beginning, due to lack of comparison photos.

I still say that the gamut is a small part of the puzzle. Look at the data sheets and choose the screen with the best contrast, saturation, viewing angles, and brightness. Right now, more often than not, that title still goes to the more expensive screen options.

 

Imo, precise calibration on a non stationary TN display is kind of counter intuitive considering the color shift you get. Just tune it to whatever look most natural /best to the eye and be done with it.

Getting wide gamut display increase the change you can get popping colors but at the same time, chance of color tint (or bad color in general)

 

Well this thread was fail from the beginning since good gaming panels are high gamut to begin with. I don't see why laptop panels should be the exception. And I certainly hope in the future high gamut panels will be the standard.

 

Not sure where you get the idea gaming panels are "high gamut"?

 

The funny thing is that all the clevo resellers themselves will tell you that unless it is a laptop for your work in model/ photo editing (photo editing =/= changing a picture to black and white or shades of a color + blur and pretend you're a pro on facebook) it's overkill. I guess people just want to make sure they have the best of the best.

 

I've succesfully loaded the V2 icc file and the results are great. However when I wake the laptop from sleep mode the calibration settings have reverted back to normal. Any ideas on what's causing this?
All settings are still checked correctly, however when I uncheck and recheck them it becomes clear that the ICC wasn't active anymore.

 

That's just it. People think they are getting the best of the best too when it's not entirely true for their application. Kind of like people that put 94 Octane gas in their car that is designed for 89 Octane and not quite understand that higher octane requires higher compression to burn effectively. I think this can be called the "Mac" effect.

 

Another thing for people persuaded that the higher the gamut is, the better the screen quality is : Display Myths Shattered: How Monitor & HDTV Companies Cook Their Specs | Maximum PC . I'm 100% sure that if we told quite a lot of people that in fact the lower the gamut is the better the quality, we'd have many people campaigning for lower gamuts. Or if we told you about a screen with 500 million colors or 1 billion, etc etc

 

You can say whatever you like, but my 95% NTSC is by far the best screen i have ever used.

 

I don't really care what the excuses are, but I don't see any issue with these 95% panels. Regardless if I'm not a photoshop professional. These I think should be standard. Not an upgrade, standard. We should be getting fantastic panels with great contrast/color etc.

Do you all realize that TV panels are of much higher quality than these laptop panels? They are 20,0000:1 contrast, ours are 700:1. Give me a break, and I'm pretty sure watching TV is hell lot less professional than pretending to be photoshop pro on facebook is.

Far as I'm concerned, none of these arguments make sense to me, not anymore. High gamut, high quality panels on gaming/high end laptops should be standard.

I don't understand any excuse of why someone wouldn't want the best color accuracy and contrast they can afford. None at all. You stare it 100% of the time using your laptop, it's what you look at most, might as well look at something awesome.

 

So I just ordered an NP9150 with the stock matte screen, but I was just informed that all (stock matte/glossy and High Gamut Glossy) but the high gamut matte screen are on back order until the 21st. Now I plan on reading this thread when i get a chance, but 20 pages will take some time one a phone. If I mostly game, CAD work, but not stuff like photo editing, would thr $65 upgrade be worth it for the gamut display? Do the work arounds described do a fairly good job of fixing any issues or complaints users have? If i have xotic calibrate yhe screen, will that make games look nicer or do the color problems still exist? I really want this computer before christmas, but if the stock matte screen is better than the high gamut matte screen, I can wait.

 

That's why I linked an article that discusses this... matter, and even evokes the issue of the OP. Also, I don't agree about TVs, I have always found the image on a good computer monitor much better than any TV. Which is one of the reason why you don't pay for a TV when you're looking for a computer screen (price isn't really an argument, 40" hdtvs cost about the same as a 24", but I might agree that one of the reason is the higher input lag on tv's).

 

This thread was not fail from the start at all, but I'm tired of making the same points over and over.

I discussed the issues and I've posted potential solutions.

Take it or leave it.

 

My point is that for the money, is it worth it? For most users, no. Would I complain if it came standard? No. But same issues still apply, higher gamut means more likely for colors to shift and require more frequent calibration. But most people don't care, although after buying a calibration tool I can tell when a screen is fubar. I've had both screens side by side and I can say the 95% is nice, but not really any significant improvement over the stock screen for general and gaming use.

 

I like TPLCD95.icm best