3 ms·

That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. (What's your delta-E?) Viewing angles are not great either. [1] An 8-bi

by phonon 6y ago

That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. (What's your delta-E?) Viewing angles are not great either. [1] An 8-bit IPS panel with 100% sRGB would likely be superior for most purposes. It's also a 17.3" screen vs. 13" which was what was being discussed. I did the photography and color grading for a published coffee table book on a monitor with less than 97% AdobeRGB. I would have liked a better monitor, but it worked out....Lightroom and Photoshop have nice tools to help. If you're doing HDR video editing, get an HDR display. If you're doing professional video/picture editing, get one with a wide-gamut and good color accuracy. For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. [1] http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_738.html http://www.panelook.com/B173HW01%20V4_AUO_17.3_LCM_overview_...

bscphil 6y ago
> That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days. I would get something better if I was purchasing it today. But I would find it difficult to give up the wide gamut with all the work I do with photos (personal and travel photos). The profile says the white point ΔE 2000 to daylight locus is 21.86. I don't understand exactly what this is, but I know it isn't very good. The viewing angles are indeed quite bad, though actually a bit better than most other TN panels I saw during that era. My point wasn't that this was the best screen you could get, even at the time, just that an sRGB screen isn't impressive at all - Apple's MacBooks hit 100% sRGB in 2014 at the latest, going by one I profiled with my colorimeter. MacBook Pros have been at ~100% Display-P3 for years now, and HP has a laptop at 100% DCI-P3. > For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. I just don't know that this is true. HDR video is becoming a bigger and bigger thing. Image codecs that support 10 bit+ color depth are becoming widespread; the iPhone takes photos with HEIC by default. I assume that eventually consumers are going to want to be able to view movies in HDR on their laptops, if we aren't there already.
- phonon 6y ago
  ΔE 21.86 isn't just "not very good", it's unusable for color work. (I would call it "shit-tier", in your parlance). Why did you even use a colorimeter and not calibrate? Sorry to say, that's a much bigger issue than being able to show more intense greens. You're just wrong. Someone asking for a "good screen" should be entirely satisfied with a screen with 100% sRGB gamut, a good ΔE (<3) and off-axis viewing angles, much more so than just a screen with a larger gamut. (And yes, sure go get a laptop with 100% DCI-P3, HDR 600, etc. I'll wait...)

by phonon 6y ago

bscphil 6y ago

> That's a 6-bit TN panel, with a decent gamut. Color accuracy will be so-so, most likely. For sure, I grant that there are much much better panels these days. I would get something better if I was purchasing it today. But I would find it difficult to give up the wide gamut with all the work I do with photos (personal and travel photos). The profile says the white point ΔE 2000 to daylight locus is 21.86. I don't understand exactly what this is, but I know it isn't very good. The viewing angles are indeed quite bad, though actually a bit better than most other TN panels I saw during that era. My point wasn't that this was the best screen you could get, even at the time, just that an sRGB screen isn't impressive at all - Apple's MacBooks hit 100% sRGB in 2014 at the latest, going by one I profiled with my colorimeter. MacBook Pros have been at ~100% Display-P3 for years now, and HP has a laptop at 100% DCI-P3. > For most people, 100% sRGB will be pleasing and accurate for most purposes. I just don't know that this is true. HDR video is becoming a bigger and bigger thing. Image codecs that support 10 bit+ color depth are becoming widespread; the iPhone takes photos with HEIC by default. I assume that eventually consumers are going to want to be able to view movies in HDR on their laptops, if we aren't there already.

phonon 6y ago
ΔE 21.86 isn't just "not very good", it's unusable for color work. (I would call it "shit-tier", in your parlance). Why did you even use a colorimeter and not calibrate? Sorry to say, that's a much bigger issue than being able to show more intense greens. You're just wrong. Someone asking for a "good screen" should be entirely satisfied with a screen with 100% sRGB gamut, a good ΔE (<3) and off-axis viewing angles, much more so than just a screen with a larger gamut. (And yes, sure go get a laptop with 100% DCI-P3, HDR 600, etc. I'll wait...)