Laptop display comparison awards top marks to Lenovo
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 28th 2009 5:06PM
posted January 28th 2009 5:06PM
It's not exactly the most extensive round-up, but photographers looking for suggestions on a laptop to pair up with their DSLR would do well to check out Rob Galgraith's latest comparison, which takes a look at the late-2008 MacBook Pro, the Dell Mini 9, and a pair of Lenovos (the W700 and T60). Not so surprisingly, he didn't have too much positive to say about the MacBook's switch to a glossy-only display, but other than that, he found that it mostly held up against its predecessor. It apparently wasn't able to match up against the two Lenovo offerings, however, which came in at number one and two in both color accuracy and viewing angle tests. The W700, in particular, proved to have color accuracy "on par with a fine desktop display," a feat enabled in no small part by its built-in calibrator. He was also especially impressed by the Dell Mini 9, which actually beat out the MacBook in terms of color accuracy, but fell a bit short in viewing angle tests. The fact that it also fits nicely in a DSLR bag certainly doesn't hurt things either. Hit up the link below for the complete breakdown.
[Via thegadgetsite]
[Via thegadgetsite]
I think this is another example of Apple putting Macintosh down the list of their priorities. A couple of years ago Macintosh would of been at the top when it comes to colour accuracy.
Funny you should say that, OSX works quite well on my XPS M1330. And the pricetag was a lot lower than your fabled MBPs. And it had better specs. And it has a replaceable battery and user-serviceable parts. The only reason "Dell's don't run OSX" is because Apple refuses to let their software run on other manufacturer's hardware, it's not like Apple PCs are better in some way.
Get used to it. The day Apple switched from PowerPC to X86, you lot lost any right to brag about being different.
@Dakrisht
For a Moment, I read your name as Dark Shit LOL, sorry but its so obvious
Same here
Taht is buecsae the hmuan biarn can fgirue out waht smnoee is tynrg to say as lnog as the frsit and lsat ltetres are the smae.
Color accuracy comparison? That doesn't make much sense.
Colors can be re-calibrated on any display. Apple traditionally uses different default gamma and color temperature settings from most PCs. Why? Personal preference of some design engineers at Apple, or who knows... Thus Apple's default settings might be less accurate at certain lighting conditions but that doesn't mean that the displays are worse than the others. If someone doesn't like the default settings then re-calibration is always an easy way to fix that. According to the linked article, the author has not performed calibration on any display before performing the measurements.
My recommendations for an un-biased review would be to first perform a calibration on each display, then redo the measurements.
The only metric that can describe the goodness of a display hardware is the color gamut. The gamut describes the range of colors displayable by the hardware in the CIE xyz color space. Any specific color setting in the display driver represents only a certain subset of all the colors available in the gamut.
Have you considered reading the original post???
They compared screens AFTER calibration, and actually tried it with a whole set of different calibration units.
"In all cases the displays were profiled with a monitor profiling package consisting of a colorimeter or spectrophotometer for screen measurements and software to create the profile. The profiling tools we used are described at the end of the article. The key point to remember for now is that we did all evaluations with a profile loaded that produced the best result, so that each display was putting its best foot forward."
Taken from the first page of the article. It's almost like you didn't even look at it.
And there is no way that a screen can solely be measured by color gamut. I could have a screen that could display more colors, but does so less accurately. That's why they calibrated the screens, and then looked at how accurate the colors were. It's done this way in any good monitor review I've seen.
But that would be a really lame cop out from apple if they used it.
"Pictures on our screen look like Elton Johns clothes closet becouse that's the way we've allways calibrated them."
My bad. Haven't seen the calibration paragraph while browsing thought the article.
@zzebi
"According to the linked article, the author has not performed calibration on any display before performing the measurements."
Really? Read the first sentence in the 5th paragraph.
"In all cases the displays were profiled with a monitor profiling package consisting of a colorimeter or spectrophotometer for screen measurements and software to create the profile."
"My recommendations for an un-biased review would be to first perform a calibration on each display, then redo the measurements."
My recommendation would be for you to read the article before commenting. Rob Galbraith is a professional photographer with an outstanding reputation for technical knowledge. He would never make the mistakes you've claimed or even offer the lame explanations you've posted here.
yeah. when you take DSLR shots of your super shiny models and super shiny ... objects... that want to be advertised in a super shiny way, naturally you edit these shots on your super shiny Mac... because mac is all about creativity, coolness and this shiny...ness and so on. An when you have editet your pictures on your shiny mac, and they look great on your shiny mac, then they will also look great on every other shiny mac. so where ist the problem? by far not the first compatibility issue with macs.
what i wanted to say:
apple, you want to make that professional gear. why do you build laptops with screens that do not fulfill these requirements?
Next time try reading the article. If you think the only metric that can describe the "goodness" of a display hardware is the color gamut you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
The real problem here is that Apple is using TN displays in both the MacBook and MacBook Pro. The one in the Pro is much better than the MacBook, but it's still a TN == shitty.
Lenovo only uses TN panels in their cheapest notebooks, most of the rest of them are better. Even my four-year-old X41 Tablet has an S-IPS display. Good screen + ThinkNipple == ThinkPads are still the best laptops, period.
wow,this guy needs serious help.thinkpad.,??didnt they fold n go under right before widescreen became the standard a few years ago,what a dee dee deee!
Love Lenovo...
Hey, what about VAIO AW series? The screen has 3LED technology and it's the only one that can reproduce 100% of Adobe RGB. None of this models can.
That 18.4" screen is the the best one any photographer could ever get. Sorry guys, but AW is the winner here .
Read the article. Accuracy is generally more important than a larger gamut. A highly accurate monitor with a decent gamut looks better than a less accurate monitor with a 100% gamut.
How does the Vaio hold up in the accuracy department?
Sorry, but I purchased an AW for that purpose but got rid of it. A nice screen isn't enough to overcome the huge downsides of the Sony machine overall. The Sony 18.4" display is also lower resolution than the competition's 17" screens yet it makes the machine too big for any standard travel bag.
CraigJ, the article never suggested that the Sony AW wasn't up to the competition and it didn't emphasize accuracy over gamut. There's no reason to believe that a wide gamut RGVLED display is inherently less accurate, though traditionally notebook panels are 6 bit and that can lead to problems when the gamut size is increased.
Only one problem, the Lenovo's are still running windows...I'd rather be kicked in the nuts than give up my Mac operating system and freakin fantastic track pad...
This is the apple fanboy's default answer.
As mentioned in these comments did anyone including the RG say the OS has anything to do with the comparison? Fact is fact and it has a shittier panel in there. You can check your own mac forums that talk about this all the time (what turned me away from buying a macbook). Your OS isn't going to make your color look better if you need it accurate for work.
@Ming Han Chung
I agree that the OS is not going to magically make the display better, but it does have to be considered that the Mac OS is much better for colour management across devices, which is fairly important if you intend to print your pictures.
As noted elsewhere, I find it odd that Apple managed to score such an own-goal with the 15" MacBook Pro's display. I can only hope that the 17" version is much better and that they address the issues with the 15" version.
Unfortunately (for you), Photoshop CS4 64-bit is only available for Windows - useful for pros with 50MP medium format digital cameras and who couldn't care less that their computer isn't shiny. Probably won't matter for the vast majority of MB and MBP users who use their "professional" laptops for MS Office and surfing the web though.
If Lenovo brings back the S-IPS panels (that were available for the T4x series) to the current T-series, they could potentially attract a lot of hobbyist photographers who aren't able to afford a w500 or w700.
Unfortunately, there will be no S-IPS displays in new Thinkpads as the original manufacturers were unable to produce these rather small displays in the amount and quality asked for by IBM/Lenovo.
I am not sure if the Tablets are equipped with IPS panels, as well, my X60T sports an AFFS-panel which seems to be a proprietary technology to improve viewing angles.
In the "example" of the glossy screen, when on hover it shows it in a lit room the values change unrealistically. For example, notice the "46" jersey:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/2798_glossy_screen_dark.jpg
http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/2799_glossy_screen_light.jpg
I think the author of this "study" just might have a dell agenda. But you know what? So what.
That's unlikely. These guys are traditionally Mac users. If they had a Dell agenda they'd have tested Dell's best workstation RGBLED displays.
Well from firsthand experience, I can tell you the T61p has monitors not even remotely worth the time of photographers. Lenovo's screen quality has significantly deteriorated since the end of flexview IPS screens.
Mac pro is not a pro solution. End of story.
The $250 Dell Mini (see: SlickDeals) has better color reproduction than a $1,600+ MacBook? Don't tell the fanboi's. This reviewer will be receiving death threats.
on the contrary, this means the fanboys will be arrested. I say tell em.
wow,after reading this, im gonna go out n trash my sony 17" sony vaio 1080p laptop w/bluray. NOT!!!!!!!!!what a dumb ass selection,i have yet to see a laptop with better color/resolution/contrast than a sony vaio 17" 1080p laptop.,this mofo is smoking crack or those leenovo manufacturers gave him a free laptop.,btw i only paid $1050 for sony 17 " 1080p laptop w/bluray.4gb ram 350 gb etc
Shugg,
The so-called Sony AW is still nothing less than a 6 bit LCD - which mean that a larger color gamut is pretty much useless - infact banding would look worse if it really did have the gamut that they promise. I advice you to speak properly or shut up and go check-up on the models that was included in the test.
Sorry, but i can't stand Sony fanboys who think they bought the definitive best because it is Sony, it has XXXX---brite technology and other useless terms. It is Sony, it is overpriced. Granted their LCDs are good, but a far cry from even the current gen Macbook Pro LCD.
I know, because we currently use Sony 18.4" AW series (civil engineer) - and macbook pros in conjunction. These are the only choices for us, since we can get a good discount when buying many. I'm still using a T60p that i bought as a personal laptop with UXGA flexview, and i must say the TN panels are still a very sorry excuse. Rather pathetic that the industry is not doing something about this.
Thanks to Sony for trying at least.
SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND MAC VS PC WARS. BUY WHICHEVER ONE YOU WANT AND KEEP IT TO YOUR FUCKING SELF IM TIRED OF EVERYONE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR GOD DAMN OPINIONS ON PEOPLE.
sony psp ftw
sony psp ftw
Who's going to do color balancing for print in the field?
This test has nothing to do with 'which laptop is best for digital photographers'.
Lenovo need a new marketing team.
I'd be tempted to buy a lenovo laptop, but I still hate the case design. If they could match the bodywork on some of the newer HP laptops or the newer Dell laptops, I'd pick one up in a flash.
' I'd be tempted to buy a lenovo laptop, but I still hate the case design. If they could match the bodywork on some of the newer HP laptops or the newer Dell laptops, I'd pick one up in a flash. '
Well each to his own, but in my view Dell and HP are ripping off Apple's design aesthetic and creating cheap, ugly copies; Thinkpad has quite a reputable, distinctive bento box design which has won several awards. But it's not to everyone's taste.
I have the W700 and can safely say that the screen is excellent; however the RGB panels from dell, hp and the "17 MBP may end up being slightly better.