90% Gamut Matte vs. 72% Gamut Matte

[Kevin]

That's not as universally true as he lays it out. Things will not be "off", if the screen is calibrated. It's a pretty rubbish suggestion, imo, to tell people to avoid the more vivid screen. I have a 90% AUO screen, and you will never want to go back, once you've had it for a while.

Also, the 90% Matte is a brand new screen which no one has gotten hands on yet.

[jaug1337]

That's not as universally true as he lays it out. Things will not be "off", if the screen is calibrated.

Also, the 90% Matte is a brand new screen which no one has gotten hands on yet.

Ah thanks, thought of that, but wasn't quite sure.

Hopefully NotebookCheck will probably gets a hands on a laptop with the newest 90% matte ASAP, they tend to do that.

[Ivy Bridge]

Also looking forward to the 90% on my matte screen....aaaannnnddd 5

[Kevin]

Ah thanks, thought of that, but wasn't quite sure.

Hopefully NotebookCheck will probably gets a hands on a laptop with the newest 90% matte ASAP, they tend to do that.

Well, just guessing, it might be the same exact screen I have, meaning a variant of the AUO B173HW01 V.4, just without the glossy treatment.

Whatever it is, I want one if the specs are decent.

[Baenwort]

I wouldn't know (just sayin') never ever heard of this.

Any source Baenwort? Would greatly appreciate it, this seems odd..

I think wide gamut is fine, provided that you calibrate and profile it (with a hardware tool like Spyder or ColorMunki) and use color-managed software like Photoshop or other image/video editing software. Otherwise colors that you adjust to look fine on your wide-gamut monitor will look hopeless on most other monitors.

The other thing is that unless the wide-gamut display has an sRGB mode, the windows desktop (and other non color managed software such as video games and internet browers besides firefox with the color management plug in) will look rather gaudy. This is because the display is only 6 or 8 bit typically which means there is a fixed # of colors that can be mapped for display. As you increase the spectrum of colors beyond what the software/system allows for(and everything game/windows/internet is set for 72% or less) the image that you see up will not be accurate to what it should be.

This is most easily seen at the far ends of the spectrum in the way colors such as reds and greens show up as neon or overly colorful. This is the opposite of the problem people complain about with low gamut displays (colors are dull, etc) as in both cases everything is not the sRGB(72%) that is standard gamut. But it's less obvious, because we're used to it.

One reference would be this site which gives examples and deals mostly with the problems of Internet and image viewing.

A more neutral reference would be this site.




Another way of thinking of this is to visualize color gamuts this way.

Draw a circle. This circle represents all colors possible (I think it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 billion)

Draw a square inside the circle with the corners touching the circle. This represents the gamut of colors that can be produced using wide gamut displays.

Draw a triangle inside the circle with the corners touching the circle (but not at the points as any of the corners of the square) this represents the gamut of colors that can be produced using the sRGB color model of displays

Now, imagine that each of the two(square and triangle) have a grid inside them. When your computer wants to display the bluest blue it sends 0,255 which corresponds to the far corner of each shape.

However, the frequency of light that is put out by the display is different(the circle, or real color). Everything that is not wide gamut aware(color managed as it is often called) is expecting that triangle mapping so when they want a certain blue they send a number. However, your wide gamut display actually outputs a different frequency then they expected.

Now, some of the better wide gamut monitors have a sRGB mode where they try to correct the color that is displayed so that they match again. However, I don't know of any laptop displays that have such a mode.

What color management aware software does is use a ICC profile made by a hardware calibration to correct so that when a image wants a certain blue that used to be 10,240 in sRGB it tells the display to send out 30,200 as that is what is ment to be displayed. Unfortunately windows doesn't support this so each program has to do it itself.

Which most don't.

[LLStarks]

Any chance that the 90% will have the same ghosting problems as the 95%?

Also, I'm looking at replacing my 95% for the 2nd time because of the aforementioned problem. Should I get another one even though I have no specific need for the high gamut?

Or is 60% gamut going to drive me nuts?

[Ryan]

I think wide gamut is fine, provided that you calibrate and profile it (with a hardware tool like Spyder or ColorMunki) and use color-managed software like Photoshop or other image/video editing software. Otherwise colors that you adjust to look fine on your wide-gamut monitor will look hopeless on most other monitors.

The other thing is that unless the wide-gamut display has an sRGB mode, the windows desktop (and other non color managed software such as video games and internet browers besides firefox with the color management plug in) will look rather gaudy. This is because the display is only 6 or 8 bit typically which means there is a fixed # of colors that can be mapped for display. As you increase the spectrum of colors beyond what the software/system allows for(and everything game/windows/internet is set for 72% or less) the image that you see up will not be accurate to what it should be.

This is most easily seen at the far ends of the spectrum in the way colors such as reds and greens show up as neon or overly colorful. This is the opposite of the problem people complain about with low gamut displays (colors are dull, etc) as in both cases everything is not the sRGB(72%) that is standard gamut. But it's less obvious, because we're used to it.

One reference would be this site which gives examples and deals mostly with the problems of Internet and image viewing.

A more neutral reference would be this site.




Another way of thinking of this is to visualize color gamuts this way.

Draw a circle. This circle represents all colors possible (I think it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 billion)

Draw a square inside the circle with the corners touching the circle. This represents the gamut of colors that can be produced using wide gamut displays.

Draw a triangle inside the circle with the corners touching the circle (but not at the points as any of the corners of the square) this represents the gamut of colors that can be produced using the sRGB color model of displays

Now, imagine that each of the two(square and triangle) have a grid inside them. When your computer wants to display the bluest blue it sends 0,255 which corresponds to the far corner of each shape.

However, the frequency of light that is put out by the display is different(the circle, or real color). Everything that is not wide gamut aware(color managed as it is often called) is expecting that triangle mapping so when they want a certain blue they send a number. However, your wide gamut display actually outputs a different frequency then they expected.

Now, some of the better wide gamut monitors have a sRGB mode where they try to correct the color that is displayed so that they match again. However, I don't know of any laptop displays that have such a mode.

What color management aware software does is use a ICC profile made by a hardware calibration to correct so that when a image wants a certain blue that used to be 10,240 in sRGB it tells the display to send out 30,200 as that is what is ment to be displayed. Unfortunately windows doesn't support this so each program has to do it itself.

Which most don't.

Thanks for the insight, gave me basic understanding of the color spectrum and stimulated me to read more about sRGB and AdobeRGB.

I've used very good screens(95% Gamut Matte/Glossy, 112% sRGB RGBLED IPS screen), and was very thrilled with my screens - never did I know that the programs each used different color reference, screwing up whatever calibration tool I used on them for accurate colors.

I personally use Spyder 3 Express, and whenever I turned on a full-screen app, the calibration would revert back to the bluish tint. I thought it was just the loading, but now I see how the extended gamut isn't worth it for most apps..

Personally I can live with 72% Gamut - it covers the entire sRGB spectrum. I'll look more into this color gamut for consumers / gamers, and report what I can find.

[Baenwort]

Thanks for the insight, gave me basic understanding of the color spectrum and stimulated me to read more about sRGB and AdobeRGB.

I've used very good screens(95% Gamut Matte/Glossy, 112% sRGB RGBLED IPS screen), and was very thrilled with my screens - never did I know that the programs each used different color reference, screwing up whatever calibration tool I used on them for accurate colors.

I personally use Spyder 3 Express, and whenever I turned on a full-screen app, the calibration would revert back to the bluish tint. I thought it was just the loading, but now I see how the extended gamut isn't worth it for most apps..

Personally I can live with 72% Gamut - it covers the entire sRGB spectrum. I'll look more into this color gamut for consumers / gamers, and report what I can find.

That would be great. I'm writing off my cuff as it is crunch time around here and although I don't think included any errors I haven't researched the topic since windows 7 came out.

[hellrazor]

Thanks baenwort +1 rep power. I think I'll stay with standard screen after that enlightening info.

[BenWah]

I guess windows 8 is going to be in the same boat, where video games will run uncalibrated?