Color calibration after installing new LCD panel

I just swapped out my malfunctioning AUO B173HW01 v4 for a Chimei N173HGE-L11.
All colors appear a little bit "off". I am not sure if this is because the new panel is only 72% NTSC while the old one was 90%, or if it's simply a matter of recalibrating the colors.

I honestly never played around with color calibration tools and .icc profiles; I am looking up on Google but I felt that this was the best place to ask, so...

What tool do you guys recommend to do this?

 

Well, you had one of the best panels ever made ... so anything else is bound to pale in comparison (you were spoiled ). Furthermore, going from glossy to matte is another step back; antiglare comes at a cost, after all. Might consider stripping the AG layer to remedy that part.

Concerning calibration; if the Chi Mei is brand new then this won't help since factory work is decent enough nowadays. Used is different; the three led colours shift differently over time (blue is most affected), so calibration would be useful. Could try the ColorHug to diy, or find someone who used a colorimeter on an older L11 and shared the icc. Don't expect miracles; that Chi Mei isn't bad, but the AUO is a different league.

 

Hi t456, thanks for your reply.
That ColorHug tool is quite expensive, I was hoping there was some free calibration software around, I don't know, I'm quite new to this subject. If that's the only thing around, I guess I'll pass.

What I did so far was to use the Windows Display Color Calibration, and I reduced the gamma quite a lot, and things appear less washed out, but still not the same.

I'm quite interested in your statement of saying that the AUO B173HW01 v4 is one of the best panels ever made... I agree it's a fantastic panel, but why in your opinion is one of the best panels ever made?
And also, why do you consider going from glossy to matte a step back, per se?

I wonder though, why don't they make panels like the AUO anymore? Seems like every now and then the industry kinda takes a step back and settles for something less good than what there has been before. Like when they decided that 1920x1200 resolution was not good anymore and they reverted back to 1920x1080 as the average highest resolution for most monitors. And in the case of the LCD panels, they seem to have decided that 90% NTSC color gamut is not necessary and 72% is just fine.

The AUO is very rare now and it's almost impossible to find a defect-free model without buying a large stock of panels, but why don't they just make LCD panels that are just as good, or even better? It puzzles me.

 

There is no free calibration that would do magic. It has to be a hardware colorimeter to get you the right colors.

Now I personally wouldn't ever use a matte screen, colors don't look vibrant and they appear as if someone spilled grease over your screen.

Do this for an example, go to a white webpage such as google.com and look close in the pixels, you will actually see the rainbowish pixels because it's matte.

Now let's forget all that because we have to live with what you have.

What I suggest is to google your screen name and look for a color profile for that then use it. http://www.notebookcheck.net/ usually have a downloadable ICM color profile for every laptop they review so if you search for your screen model you should be able to find a similar profile of the same screen and make sure it is the same size as well.

I myself have purchased a Spyder5Pro colorimeter and it's the best thing I have done to my screen! colors look so natural

 

Good questions; Todd-AO lost out too, so we have 24 fps instead and suffer with either 3:2 pulldown or 4% speedup and non-fluent movement for both. Might be cost, might be simply that having the best tech isn't enough ...

There are a few better panels out there, but these rely on RGB-led or 8-bit colour. As this is more expensive, it's a markup to the laptop's cost and there's only so many discerning customers willing to pay for that. Furthermore, laptop panels are inherently limited by space and power consumption, so anyone truly interested in accurate colours and a uniform display will get a desktop monitor, which can be better, larger and cheaper.

Similar to Matrix Leader6's explanation; the same panel, all other things being equal, will look washed out when comparing the glossy and antiglare side-by-side. Stripped a few layers myself, and this is what AG does:

Spoiler: antiglare finish

A glossy/hard finish would be completely transparent. Note that the haze finish is indiscriminate as to the origin of the light it disperses; both external light (room/sun) is affected, but equally so is the light from the lcd itself.

 

couldn't have explained it better! thanks for the image! that's exactly how a matte screen looks like, utter garbage. I'd take the glossiness / reflections of a glossy screen any time of the day over a washed out greasy matte screen

 

Wow, speechless! Thanks a lot for the insight guys.

Regarding the panels that could be better than the AUO, which ones are they?

 

Sorry to say; none that would be compatible with you current laptop. If another laptop is an option; Dreamcolors. My V5 is on the right; it's identical to your old V4, except it was originally a matte.

Those things are quite unusual; 10-bit colour plus dual-connectors (requires split-off board). Then there's the markup ... with a vengeance.

Heh, ditto , if that wasn't obvious already.

Matte does have a purpose; outdoors or in an office. But can't imagine watching a movie on those things ... or gaming, either.

 

The gamut difference will make non- manged graphics look different regardless of calibation. But mind that 72%NTSC, which is around srgb, is the standard for 99+% of graphic out there, movie, web, photos etc. So you are seeing "more accurate" color.
Game wise, I like wide gamut too.