To buy an IPS FHD laptop display, or to not.

[bluestar2k11]

That is the question.

I've gotten picky lately, if not spoiled, on OLED technology (Vita, Galaxy SII etc..) so I've been looking to upgrade my desktop display from an older TN panel (2007). But more to the point, i'm in the market for a new laptop, as OLED is not an option for laptops as of yet (And stupidly expensive when it does become so heh)

I'm being forced to pick.
I've read IPS displays have greater colour accuracy, saturation and vibrance and get closer to OLED displays then standard panels (I assume the other laptop is a TN panel) but sometimes have potential issues with speed.

So i'm here seeking help from the wise ones of toms^^
I can go with the follow 15.6in IPS FHD matte display:
http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np6652-clevo-w650sr-p-5846.html

Or I can go bigger with a 17in FHD matte display:
http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np7370-clevo-w370st-p-5841.html

The gpu's are different, partly because the outcome of this discussion may help decide which to go for among other elements I'm looking at. I don't need excessive power really, mostly be used for retro gaming and a dualbox for FFXI, a higher end gpu would mostly be for future proofing against an MMO switch to a modern MMO like FFXIV, Everquest Next etc.. or maybe if i felt up to Tomb raider. Along with media playback and on-the-go use. But this is a separate discussion.

Some laptops I'm looking at have an option for a higher NTSC colour gamut, what does that mean exactly?? Will that matter in any of this?

So skipping the gpu difference....
What would be the verdict on the display?

Is an IPS display going to warrant taking a penalty to size and power for better display output that i prefer? or is 17inchs going to be better and adjusting the digital vibrancy in the nvidia control panel a better path? (Keep in mind, I don't run 1080p resolutions even though it can do so, I typically find 1280x960 the most comfortable resolution for me.)

 

[Prostar Computer]

The 90% NTSC option is a screen with more color accuracy, vibrancy, and saturation. They look really good, especially the high gamut glare type screens. Most often I think suppliers/OEMs use the AU Optronics screens. These screens are largely for photo editing enthusiasts/professionals, however, as they need the more accurate color gamut, and although modern games look better, I've read they don't take FULL advantage of the color saturation.

IPS displays look great, though the TN panels viewing angle really isn't bad. It sounds like the IPS might be a better fit for you, though I will say the 90% screens look great in their own right.

 

[bluestar2k11]

The 90% NTSC option is a screen with more color accuracy, vibrancy, and saturation. They look really good, especially the high gamut glare type screens. Most often I think suppliers/OEMs use the AU Optronics screens. These screens are largely for photo editing enthusiasts/professionals, however, as they need the more accurate color gamut, and although modern games look better, I've read they don't take FULL advantage of the color saturation.

IPS displays look great, though the TN panels viewing angle really isn't bad. It sounds like the IPS might be a better fit for you, though I will say the 90% screens look great in their own right.

So higher NTSC rating would give better colours, but may not be fully taken advantage of in games, esp older ones i assume? But IPS would generally look good all the way around?

The only thing that bothers me about the IPS laptop is it doesn't have a backlit keyboard, which is quite important since the system will be used a lot in dark rooms. But the greater overall display is quite tempting.

If I picked a laptop screen with a 72% gamut or greater I would more or less achieve the near similar results?

There's the Lenovo Y510P with Sli'd 750M's for graphic power, with a backlit keyboard, while it doesn't have a dvd drive internally (Which is a bit of an issue) it has a standard screen but the option of a 95% NTSC display, what kind of outcome would that give me vs the 17in above with only 72% gamut? (If I went either of those ways vs the IPS display)

How does profession colour calibration work? Would that be of any use on some of these displays? It's a lot cheaper (since it doesn't change the LCD panel) then adding in a different screen.

 

[Prostar Computer]

So higher NTSC rating would give better colours, but may not be fully taken advantage of in games, esp older ones i assume? But IPS would generally look good all the way around?

Basically, yes.

If I picked a laptop screen with a 72% gamut or greater I would more or less achieve the near similar results?

Compared to what? If compared to the IPS, then I still think the 72% by comparison would not be quite as good. If comparing the IPS to the 90% display, then it's a tradeoff; IPS won't have the color vibrancy and saturation the 90% does, but it will yield noticeably better viewing angles at least.

There's the Lenovo Y510P with Sli'd 750M's for graphic power, with a backlit keyboard, while it doesn't have a dvd drive internally (Which is a bit of an issue) it has a standard screen but the option of a 95% NTSC display, what kind of outcome would that give me vs the 17in above with only 72% gamut?

I don't quite understand the question.

How does profession colour calibration work? Would that be of any use on some of these displays?

If we're talking about pre-sale calibration, then it doesn't work (sort of). It will get things to look as accurate as they can, but the issue in pre-sale calibration is that the monitor needs to be calibrated for the environment it's in. Having a technician calibrate the screen in a warehouse with fluorescent lighting won't do a lot of good if you use the laptop in your bedroom with soft incandescent lights placed differently, or are in direct sunlight. Professional calibration once you have it, however, will make a different in color accuracy, but not so much in saturation and vividness (that's where higher gamut NTSC comes in).

 

[bluestar2k11]

That helps quite a bit actually^^

My question about the Lenovo system was if larger screens with a low NTSC amplified any shortcomings in colour or hide it better. But i get the impression it might show any shortcomings more then a high NTSC smaller sizes screen.

Going to be a bit debatable. But I've got some good ideas now, thank you for your help^^

 

[Prostar Computer]

Ah, in that case no. The larger screen MIGHT come from a different panel manufacturer, in which case you might get different quality. But inherently, a larger screen does not equate to higher gamut.

I realize I've thrown a lot at you, but I'm glad it has helped!

 

[Gaius Gracchus]

Technically, the AU Optronics "IPS" screen is not really IPS. [http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm]

We had a true IPS screen on a Lenovo x220 and also ordered the 1980x1020 Au Optronics 'FHD' (AHVA) screen on the Lenovo T440s. I could tell IMMEDIATELY that the latter was not as nice as the IPS. The viewing angle was not nearly as good. At an angle you can see a light glow. The colors did not seem as good to me, although the screen did look sharp and fairly good straight on.

The x220 is a smaller screen so the lower resolution did not matter as much, but resolution aside, the IPS technology is our preference.

Which is not to say some people would not prefer the other screen -- the problem I see is that the characteristics are different with AHVA vs IPS and they should not be marketing them dishonestly by incorrectly labeling them as IPS when they clearly are not.