Why high gamut screens are NOT suited to gamers

The colours look better this way, - thank you . Now I don't need to worry about profiles. I have the P170EM with 95% matte screen, so it must be similar to yours.

 

95% gamut matte, uncalibrated here. Best screen I've owned by a huge margin, in game and otherwise. Every other laptop now looks washed out and flat (due to poor contrast) in comparison. On all previous laptops I used to have to move my screen to optimize brightness depending on viewing angle because the panels were so poor in that regard. Brightness, clarity, contrast, color pop best describes this screen. I shake my head that people are opting out of the 95% gamut based just on this thread. Silliness! And who cares about $95 on a laptop that costs over 3K. Get real!

 

I also think that the colors look fine without any adjustments, but I assure you that it will look even better if you adjust it in the Intel driver . It's easy to do, and if you don't like it you can put it back to the standards easily. I realized that the colours looked very cold without any adjustments.

 

what profile is recommended for people like me who use the laptop for web, video design and print work. something that best represents what printed colours will look like.??

 

There is no 17.3" matte screen with a color gamut above 72%.

 

Then you should get it calibrated yourself. Only way to make sure of that is to make sure the color on your screen matches your printer. There are guides to do that. Will cost about $150+ for the calibration tools.

 

@hulawafu77 i'll look into that, thanks.

 

It must be a typo of my reseller then. Where can I find a color profiles for the P170EM? It could be interesting to see if it can look even better than it does now.

 

I'm buying a sager/clevo only for photoshop/lightroom.

For photo enthusiasts (not professionals) like myself, 95% is more trouble than it's worth. You need a whole workflow built around it. I haven't been shooting adobe RGB, and so all my previous photos will take a lot of work to get right. You then need the right printer to manage these profiles. All that work, and frankly, if I really wanted to do professional editing, I'll be using a standalone IPS.

There's a reason why the new Dell 2713 chose to go 72%.

So given a choice, I would greatly just prefer a 72%. However given that both of these are TN (albeit among the best), I was curious as to what's the better screen. I guess it comes down to:

Matte vs Reflective (no contest. Matte.)
Viewing angles (less important- especially since this 17 incher is just gonna sit at my desk)
Contrast (difference seems miniscule)

So basically, I see no reason whatsoever to go with 95%. 95% workflow in photography is, imho, really much more trouble than it's worth for photo enthusiasts.

If it were a good quality IPS- that would be a different story.

 

I find a matte screen to be more washed out then glossy screens, which in my head makes 95% colour gamut less worth it over a 95% glossy, if you're doing any professional photo editing or even competitive gaming you would probably have a dedicated monitor anyway. I kind of regret getting the matte screen, because once I go from laptop screen while I'm out and about; back to my glossy IPS desktop monitor, it feels like colours are stabbing me in the eyeballs and I have to wear my glasses until my eyes adjust. Only positive is there are less reflections and less fingerprints.

 

In the P170EM? Do you have the Chi Mei or the AUO V.5?

 

I have the Chi Mei, but will have to double check when I get home.

AUO V5. < isn't that screen 72% gamut?

 

As a guy who's buying this primarily for lightroom/ photoshop...

If I like more saturated colours, I can simply slider- increase saturation or vibrance. I don't want my monitor doing that for me- especially when that's not what others will see when I send them the files.

 

I wanted a new screen anyway since my original was note quite perfect so I went with a V7, I do like the traits of the panel and it does look lovely.

 

What are the specs on that Meaker?

 

would it be the AUO B156HW01 V7 meaker?

if so specs here

 

Its the glossy version of the V4 (basically the V4 without the anti-glare coating).

 

the 9150's top of the line HD LED screen, made to be 95% NTSC colour accurate, has washed out colours?
and the shiner, glossy screen makes colours look better?

so you're saying the high gamut screen is not only bad for gaming but bad for photo editing work as well?

the only pros are no fingerprints (it's not a touchscreen so who cares) and less reflections... damn.

 

the 95% doesn't mean accuracy, but how much of colour spectrum is included; which in turn makes colours more accurate.

it might be ag coating that makes the colours feel a bit flat and less saturated.

i'm not sure how it affects gaming and you wouldn't use this screen to professionally edit a photo anyway.

no fingerprints and reflections are the pros for me, in my experience.

 

"you wouldn't use this screen to professionally edit a photo anyway."

@ 95% ntsc colour gamut, why wouldn't you.

excuse my ignorance, but i based the screen upgrade alone on being able to use it to do web print video work.

more importantly what is this screen lacking, is it something a calibration could fix?

can you recommend a more professional screen.

 

As far as a mobile screen you likely won't find anything better, as long as you maintain calibration.

For gaming, I don't think that it's not suited to gamers, just that it's not required for gaming or general purpose use.

 

The problem is not about accuracy- the problem is whether your entire workflow is AdobeRGB (95%) (rather than sRGB, 72%) optimised (ditto for your viewers).

Everyone else uses 72% screens to look at your work. All consumer printers are also 72%. Many cameras also have 72% as default, and many compacts don't have a 95% setting. This means that:

1) Most people won't be able to see or print what you intended with 95% colours
2) Your own video/ photo equipment may not be optimised for 95%, especially all pictures/ video you've taken before buying this screen

So really, it's more trouble than it's worth. Confused? You're not alone. Head over to adobe forums:

Adobe Community: Canon 5DIII conversion of ProRGB or Adobe RGB to sRGB over-saturation

Personally, I only buy 72% screens. Be it a standalone or an integrated screen. That way, all colours look more right. BTW, if you wanted more saturation and 'vividness' by default, you can just go into nVidia control panel and turn on 'digital vibrance' setting. That's true even for the 72%. (at least, that's what my Sager supplier told me... I have no interest in trying it)

 

is it possible to calibrate that 95% golour gamut down to 72% so that what i see is what most monitors show people.

is there a benefit to the 95% screen at all? is it future proof. meaning wont most screens be 95% sooner or later?

cause if now i have to ask myseld why i got that... makes no sense to create a project that looks different to everyone else.


oh and ill check that link, thanks.

 

This thread was partly responsible for me not paying $150 to upgrade to 72% matte. I get my laptop on Tuesday so we'll see if I hate this place or not

That said, I've used regular matte panels before. The only high quality screen I've ever paid for that I felt was worth every penny was the RGB on the M17x R2. Crazy how different that screen looked!

 

If you thought that was worth it, why wouldn't you upgrade your screen on Clevo? Or the 90% glossy? All laptop displays are RGB btw, weird that Alienware would name their display that.

 

You can calibrate it to within sRGB gamut if you want to.
However, it is pointless to talk about color reproduction and accuracy("what other intended you to see") on a TN panel laptop.
Viewing angle - Lagom LCD test
So why brother?

Tweak155 is probably talking about the old alienware which use RGB LED.

 

The 95% can be calibrated to about 97% aRGB. The name still weird to me since most of the newer panels are still RGB LED. It wasn't IPS still, so if he thought that was worth, I'd guess the 90% glossy would be too, not only that, wouldn't surprise me if the 90% RGB was better.

 

I thought it had been discussed before, the old RGB LED have some difference compare to the RGB R+BG LED.

Tb5 was asking about if he could calibrate to 72%NTSC, so I assume he means sRGB.

 

Because ~60% to 72% doesn't sound like a huge step up like 60% to 95%. Doesn't sound like I'll notice a huge difference.

EDIT:

I care more about having a Matte screen. On the M17x, you can't get matte so I just got the best glossy screen.

 

No, it is not. Certainly not in the way you are referring to it, meaning, "show me exactly what others will see". At best, you can (and should) configure your export and colour profile settings.

Many real pros, btw, who need to solve your problem sometimes have TWO panels- one to see how things will look like for everyone else.

 

I hope you like it. For the 72%, there is the LG version, which I don't like because it's not bright at all; and the Chi Mei version, which has great contrast and colour production, but which when I saw in person looked like someone got much too excited with the anti-glare coating (Dell discontinued this screen for that reason). I wasn't impressed with the 72%s I've seen in person at all.

There is a chance the 60% is the AUO, which I've heard good things about. Good luck

Screen quality is a function of many things: eg. how glossy is glossy? like a mirror, or almost transparent, to retain vibrancy without reflection? How matte is matte?

Then you get to colour saturation, contrast, brightness and so on.

Colour gamut profile is probably the last of things I would look for.

 

that is upsetting as hell.

i can't be hooking up my laptop to do work all the time. i work on things constantly and expected the display to be good, why sager would offer something that looks worse and is no benefit to professional use, is weird. just a money grab i assume pretty disappointing. should be getting the laptop today, sadly it may be going back soon if the screen is as bad as some of you guys are saying.

 

Actually, the screen itself is a joy to look at. There's no doubt in my mind that its a great quality screen, though not because colors look saturated (accuracy, not saturation, is the key for photo work) but rather for its better contrast, viewing angles and brightness.

It is just that, for photo work particularly, wide gamut is really not the easiest to work with.

Ps- Dell's new awesome 2713 ultra sharp is a 72% for this exact reason. Doesn't stop it from being the external ips I'd get in a heartbeat.

If I were you I'd read up extensively about Colour management. If its too much of a problem for your workflow, THEN send it back. The screen itself is, however, a pretty good one. As far as laptop screens go, at least. I don't think your problem will be with the screen itself.

 

It's the V4 without the awesomeness

 

Nobody says the screen is bad. NO ONE says that. The only issue is the screen is not suitable for gaming IF you don't calibrate it. By default it will likely have a blue tint to it. But that again is because it's uncalibrated.

I don't know where you read the screen is bad. Color accuracy and wide gamut, it's very very good. For viewing angles, not as great, it's a TN panel, not an IPS. But everyone knows that buying it.

Sager sells these machines as gaming machines, not professional. Professional cost 2-3X more than these. IPS Display + Quadro would easily reach $5K for a proper professional workstation. If you were really serious, you'd get the HP EliteBook with DreamColor display and FirePro or Quadro.

You have some serious misconceptions about Sager and this display.

When I bought this machine, the screen was a $95 upgrade. A real professional IPS display upgrade is $1000 or more in laptops.
- Just because some companies like Dell and Lenovo have opted to use this V4 display instead of the IPS displays they used to have doesn't mean the V4 is the same professional grade screen, it just means Dell and Lenovo are cutting costs.

 

^ ... i was more worried about the calibration aspect. most likely will buy a pro one.

the screen is nice... a bit over saturated and gamma was a bit high out of the box. only played skyrim on it and it looks wonderful.

 

I've only heard people say the AUO V.5 is bright and vibrant, so that may be a Chi Mei issue..And yes, it's a 72% gamut screen.

 

Hex2Bit - Software by Mike Walters

I'm using this tool to make sure no game can change my ICC profile. And it works. Crysis 2 and Warface both changed my profile to the default, blue tinted. This application prevents it, it's awesome.

 

Well got my standard matte display but unfortunately it came with a dead pixel. Also the coating used is way too thick. Needless to say it is going back.

 

Wow thanks, didn't know such thing existed

 

Yeah I tried program that when I originally started this thread and it didn't work.

I found PowerStrip worked much better, although the Intel colour tweaks are the best solution (if you have switchable graphics) as they stick in everything.

 

I use the intel-settings that you suggested, iaTa, for my P170EM, and I think it looks better, but my screen would not be characterized as a "high-gamut screen". Are there also profiles for lower gamut-screens/standard matte screens, or is it only necessary to calibrate "high-gamut" screens?

 

I think you're in the wrong thread, standard matte is not high gamut.

Yeah I know this thread has a few tools, but they didn't work for me. CryEngine 3 defeats me, Crysis 2 and Warface. I posted on CryDev and someone suggested it. Simple and it works.

 

Alternatively, you could try reading the threads you're posting in.

 

I have a sager NP8150 and I opted for the 95%gamut screen, not only does this screen look better than any laptop,desktop lcd/led screen I have ever seen. I will also opt for a wide gamut monitor on all future purchases. Once you had 95% you cannot go back to 72%
in win7 I used the color management tool to cut down on the red so my collection looked correct, I never looked back after that . maybe the blood is redder in BF3 on this LCD but I have never noticed the overly red picture in games , just on skin tones of people
This is just another way to look at this problem

 

I don't understand all the fuzz about this high color gamut display.

I own an m17x r3 with an AUO v5 panel that is supposed to have 72% color gamut.

I also own a Dell ultrasharp 2007wfpb s-ips.

Imo, there is nothing special about high gamut tn panels except they are disgustingly oversaturated(similar to how gs3 sampled screen).

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

72% is not high gamut and it's also why we calibrate the high gamut panels, so it's not oversaturated. There is no good panel for Alienware ATM through Dell.

 

High gamut display happens to be the better spec panel in laptops, and saturated color look more vivid?
I admit glossy 95% have color that screams(especially gaming and such), but still prefer my matte sRGB for daily use.

 

I use Photoshop a lot to edit photos. Which color profile is the best for Matte 95% V4? There are many profiles that were found here which made me confused...

 

The best is to use one matched to your printer or calibrated with your own device if accuracy actually matters.