Thinkpads Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:25 pm**

Hello. I am considering my first Lenovo and I have a noobie question.

I am looking at the new w520 for working on autocad, and I have a question on the differences between the displays.

The w510 offers 15.6" FHD (1920 x 1080) Display (95% Gamut, 270nit). on a chat session with Lenovo this morning, the rep stated that the w520 offers 270 NITS, 16:9 aspect, 500:1 contrast, 90% gamut.

Would anyone be able to tell me if there is a noticeable difference between 95% and 90% gamut?

Thanks in advance.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:50 pm**

You won't notice the difference between 90% and 95%. But both displays will render wildly inaccurate (over-saturated) colors in applications that don't color manage. I'm pretty sure Autocad doesn't support color management.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:02 pm**

Thank you Oliver26n

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:08 pm**

I suspect your tech made a typo; from the tabook,

Some: 15.6" (396mm) HD+ (1600x900) color, anti-glare, LED backlight,
220 nits, 16:9 aspect ratio, 500:1 contrast ratio, 60% Gamut
Some: 15.6" (396mm) FHD (1920x1080) color, anti-glare, LED backlight,
270 nits, 16:9 aspect ratio, 500:1 contrast ratio, 95% Gamut

(Not that it sounds like it will make much difference to AutoCad!)

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:27 am**

Looks like the w520 fhd is exactly the same lcd as the w510. Major disappointment, in my opinion. All the other features make the w520 one of the ultimate 15" workstations.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:51 am**

@Oliver26n, you seem to be speaking from experience. What has been your experience with the W510? Are you an owner? Photographer?
To anyone reading this thread; Let me throw this statement out there for comment because it pertains to this thread. There is actually a model of W510 called 'the photographer'. Do you think that is an accident or by design? What kind of LCD would a Photographer be interested in for Photo editing?

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:54 am**

Harryc> As a photographer and W510 owner I'd say IPS is what we want. Or at least more calibrated output, the red tint compared to precalibrated EIZO standing next to it is quite significant. Unfortunately no calibrator (i1 Display 2) helped much with that.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:04 am**

So, the built in Pantone/X-Rite Color Sensing System is worthless? I was actually thinking of getting one for my W510 machine, but won't bother if it does not do a proper calibration job. Also, opinions welcome on why the AUO FHD LCD in the W510 (and apparently now W520) can't be calibrated properly?

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:56 am**

Hi Harry, I just updated my profile with my equipment, sorry about that. Yes, I do own a W510 w/ the FHD LCD, have owned one for a little under a year. I also photograph intensively and print to a large format Canon printer and mail order printing shops.

Basically, there are fundamental inadequacies in TN displays, especially those of laptops, that make them inappropriate for serious photo editing or printing. No amount of calibration will change that. Professional photographers who print use quality displays to soft-proof their work, often an IPS or PVA variant like the Eizo's, NEC's, or similar. My HP 8740W with the IPS Dreamcolor 2 display is simply worlds better when it comes to black level reproduction, accurate contrast, and giving me an accurate soft-proof before printing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:09 am**

Thanks for the information. It seems strange that Lenovo would create and market a device for Photographers yet many Photogs would say it is inadequate. I wonder if they actually spoke to any before producing it. Just another example of Lenovo being out of touch with their intended clientele I guess.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:23 am**

Not just Lenovo, but just about every other laptop manufacturer out there. Many of these OEMs know that people want laptops, especially photographers (who wants to lug a big desktop around while shooting?) , so they issue a bunch of spin and claim that these laptops are wholly suitable substitutes for desktops. They might be, until it comes to the display, the single most important part of all for me.

Which is why I find the W520 so disappointing, in a way. I love my W510's performance and reliability, but dislike using its display for any more than a quick check of my images. It's a shame, because with a proper PVA or IPS display, the W520 would, hands down, be the photographer's laptop of choice for field use. The X220 tablet is exciting (I have an X201 tablet) with its IPS display, but the W510 is far more powerful and it shows when doing a whole bunch of things at once.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:19 pm**

i wouldn't say it's being out-of-touch with clientele as i would it being a balance of available displays weighed against what people are willing to pay.

in all my years of design and photography, i have never once seen a notebook display capable of true color-correct output for pre-press work. this is inclusive of IPS, AFFS, AFFS+, TN, and PVA variants, LED or CCFL. the best mobile display i have ever seen is in the SXGA+ X60T and X61T. however, it's still 6-bit and doesn't render color anywhere near as accurately as a 10-bit graphics display from NEC or Eizo.

regarding photographers using the W510 or W520 with FHD displays, my guess is that they aren't using them for pre-press work. any paid, professional photographer develops photos on an external display. i would never dream of using a notebook as my only graphics display.

however, anyone good at what they do can use a mediocre display and anticipate the output with great results. this happens all the time with anyone working in CMYK since RGB displays have a very difficult time properly recreating ink output using light. even the best displays require a small amount of anticipation.

lastly, calibration isn't the magical solution in "fixing" a bad display that everyone thinks. you can't force a display to render certain colors if the panel is incapable of showing those colors in the first place. with 99.9% of notebook panels being 6-bit, they are inherently limited with or without calibration.

it really comes down to using the right tool for the job.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:29 pm**

+1 what Erik said.

BTW - is the FHD display 6 or 8 bit? I have T60 IPS now, which is very good to any laptop, but it is 6-bit and when I place it near my calibrated Eizo it looks like a joke. But it is great for example for atelier-photo taking or something like that. It is also great to look at compared to any TN garbage.

The next thing is, what the hell they mean by 95 % "gamut"? Is that RGB gamut, or Adobe RGB, or any other marketing-[censored] gamut? In all materials I could see from lenovo thay are saying "95 % gamut" which means nothing at all. I did not measure the FHD display yet, but I really doubt that it is near any real-world gamut. I am also the same skeptical about the color calibratror. Guys, please take in mind, that any LCD that can do 95% AdobeRGB is the same price as the whole lenovo laptop, and the same is about the calibrator. Only using logic, this could not work. Even calibrators on new Eizo 245W are useless, and all serious people are calibrating them with external calibrators that costs the same as the panel. (And I am not going to the next-level problematic of calibrating that calibrators...)

My next point is the PPI of the FHD resolution on 15,6 inch panel. For me, it is not workable. On 17", lets say OK on a edge, but on 15"? I worked on FHD W510 for a while, and my eyes were tired after 5 minutes. If I order the W520, it will be with HD+, just because the resolution.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:44 pm**

erik wrote:i wouldn't say it's being out-of-touch with clientele as i would it being a balance of available displays weighed against what people are willing to pay.

Well, to that comment I would say that HP managed to release the EliteBook 8540w with an optional 15.6" IPS LCD within the last year, and I believe it was a very good seller for them. An interesting side note (with the 8540w) is that their main FHD display in that model is an AU Optronics...you guessed it B156HW01, the same LCD as in the W510, and possibly W520. So why couldn't Lenovo offer the IPS LCD as an option too? I've heard the 'available displays' argument used here over the years and that comment was never a direct quote from Lenovo, thus end-user opinion.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:59 pm**

At the bottom of the following article are side-by-side photos comparing the Dreamcolor 2 display on the HP 8740w with an RGB-LED backlit display:

http://www.techinferno.com/2011/03/01/h ... ow=gallery

The color calibrator works wonders with the W700, BTW, but that's a whole different animal than the W510/W520/W701.

The display is probably the main thing that killed the W701 in the graphics-professional market, particularly in comparison to Dreamcolor 2. And if you put a graphics tablet in the palmrest (I love the graphics tablet on the W700), that's the market in which you're competing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:03 pm**

commander - it's 95% NTSC gamut and more than likely 6-bit. i have a W510 with FHD on the way and will see what i can find out once it lands on my desk.

harry - i wouldn't doubt it's a popular option but it would be difficult to glean a meaningful ratio of professionals vs. enthusiasts from popularity alone. point-and-shoot cameras outsell DSLRs by somewhere around 10:1 but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to photographic quality or professional use. it's just sales numbers.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:12 pm**

Do you have any reasonable calibrator? If the FHD is 6bit TN panel and can do 95% NTSC I will be amazed.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:12 pm**

erik wrote: harry - i wouldn't doubt it's a popular option but it would be difficult to glean a meaningful ratio of professionals vs. enthusiasts from popularity alone. point-and-shoot cameras outsell DSLRs by somewhere around 10:1 but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to photographic quality or professional use. it's just sales numbers.

Well, you brought up the 'what people are willing to pay" as an argument for Lenovo not including a quality IPS LCD in the W510. So I simply pointed out that the IPS 8540w was a good seller, meaning that HP must be doing something right. I don't recall ever mentioning a sales ratio. In other words, you were inferring that Lenovo could not build a quality affordable laptop for Photogs because of parts availability and cost. My point is simply that HP has done it, so why couldn't Lenovo?

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:30 pm**

i never said availability was lenovo's reason. rather, i raised it as one factor to consider.

besides, is the W510 FHD not a high-quality display? is the W510 not a better machine than the HP offering? was the LG FHD IPS panel available to lenovo at a reasonable price?

last i checked, the X220 was the only IPS-based 12.5" system available and it's being offered with an LG panel with outstanding statistics. perhaps lenovo is using this as a litmus test to glean potential sales assumptions in larger systems. if lenovo is to lose points on the W510, so be it. however, i wouldn't generalize too much based on their push for an IPS-based business ultraportable. that seems like a step in the right direction to me.

regarding "popularity," i'd like to know some solid sales numbers on HP's dreamcolor systems. they seem to be popular discussion topics in forums but i have yet to see any definitive sales figures of their IPS panels over systems with standard TN. for all we know, they aren't selling that well. without solid numbers, it's just end-user speculation.

personally, i'd rather see IPS panels in everything but the overall point still remains in notebook panels not being the end-all, be-all to photo editing, graphic design, pre-press/pre-flight work, or any other color-critical application. yes, IPS has a measureable advantage over TN, but that still doesn't mean it's the final word. the final word still remains in an external display.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:41 pm**

commander wrote:Do you have any reasonable calibrator? If the FHD is 6bit TN panel and can do 95% NTSC I will be amazed.

i used to own a $1200 GMB camera/display/printer professional colorimeter setup but wound up selling it to fund more useful toys. i also sold my large format epson and now print offsite when necessary. my NEC 30" is internally calibrated, eliminating the need for calibrated ICM files in the OS. over the years i've also learned to trust my pantone guides and haven't been wrong yet.

so, i guess the short answer is 'no.'

regarding the panel being 95% NTSC and 6-bit, check pages 5 and 6 of the B156HW01 V4 datasheet: http://www.notebook-lcd.ru/pdf/B156HW01_V_4.pdf

it clearly shows it being both 6-bit and 95% NTSC. be amazed.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:24 pm**

erik wrote:regarding "popularity," i'd like to know some solid sales numbers on HP's dreamcolor systems. they seem to be popular discussion topics in forums but i have yet to see any definitive sales figures of their IPS panels over systems with standard TN. for all we know, they aren't selling that well. without solid numbers, it's just end-user speculation.

No major manufacturer of laptops releases sales volumes at the model level. You know that, and I know that, so therefore we both know the value in discussing it.

erik wrote:... it being a balance of available displays weighed against what people are willing to pay.

erik wrote:i never said availability was lenovo's reason. rather, i raised it as one factor to consider.

True, you said it was a balance between availability and cost.

erik wrote: besides, is the W510 FHD not a high-quality display? .

Never said it wasn't, I love mine. The discussion is about Lenovo marketing a laptop towards Photogs and not delivering what is useful to them. That's how I started it anyway.

erik wrote: IPS-based business ultraportable. that seems like a step in the right direction to me.

I'm all for an IPS X220, no argument from me on that.

erik wrote: ...overall point still remains in notebook panels not being the end-all, be-all to photo editing ... IPS has a measureable advantage over TN,

Definitely not my field of expertise, so I guess the only comment I'd make here is that if IPS is advantageous for Photographers over a TN panel, it seems to me that an IPS LCD would be a solid component to include in a laptop that is supposed to be used by Photographers.

I feel that I am repeating myself in some of the comments above, so lets move on to a more meaningful discussion, shall we?

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:23 pm**

Wow, this topic attracted a lot of passion! I never saw the photography-geared advertising myself, but I'm sure it was nothing but nonsense. A full gamut screen simply isn't necessary for 95% of photography. More important, in my opinion, is accurate black levels and contrast. But for the first time, my 8740w lets me accurately soft-proof prints both when sending them out to printers, and when doing the job on my printer. The ability to match up print to screen so accurately is simply amazing after all the crappy TN and supercharged RGB LED TN screens I've used.

Serious printers and photographers would use 30" NECs and EIZOs (like erik) because that was imply the only game in town. Things have changed, though. These Dreamcolor screens are a real alternative if you don't want a desktop and the big $2500 display.

I don't know how great the X220 display will be. IPS displays for photographers are typically built with photographers & artists in mind. It's not necessarily a natural progression of the display being IPS. The multi-touch layers on my X201 degrade the viewing experience and accuracy of the display, too, so hopefully the X220 is offered in a wacom pen only form.

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:12 pm**

Oliver26n wrote:...I never saw the photography-geared advertising myself, but I'm sure it was nothing but nonsense.

Certified by the most stringent ISVs.
Designed primarily for performance, the W Series is the most powerful notebook in the ThinkPad® family, which comes with legendary ThinkPad reliability and durability.

Photographers, light CAD/CAM users, digital content creators and other industry pros require proven performance and stability with today's demanding applications. An extensive independent software vendor testing and certification process verifies that your ThinkPad W Series can run some of the most demanding, graphics-intensive workstation applications.

Reference - http://shop.lenovo.com/us/notebooks/thi ... s/features

Posted: **Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:59 pm**

FWIW, here's a notebookreview.com poll shedding some light on what proportion of HP EliteBook 8740w owners buy that machine with/without the Dreamcolor 2 display option:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/hp-busi ... w-166.html

Sorry, no such poll is available for 15".

Posted: **Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:20 am**

@Harry

doesn't look like they were emphasizing photography in particular, or the FHD screen as appropriate for it. The ISV certification is to ensure reliable operation of professional software. One thing I like about Lenovo's: stable and practically no crashes/blue screens in a year.

Posted: **Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:56 pm**

Harryc wrote: Well, to that comment I would say that HP managed to release the EliteBook 8540w with an optional 15.6" IPS LCD within the last year, and I believe it was a very good seller for them. An interesting side note (with the 8540w) is that their main FHD display in that model is an AU Optronics...you guessed it B156HW01, the same LCD as in the W510, and possibly W520. So why couldn't Lenovo offer the IPS LCD as an option too? I've heard the 'available displays' argument used here over the years and that comment was never a direct quote from Lenovo, thus end-user opinion.

Has anyone looked into the compatibility between the the 15.6" IPS Harryc says is offered with the 8540w and the t/w510/520? Other than the panel itself, if the B156HW01 is shipped in the HP, what else is changed when you order it with the IPS panel? If nothing, wouldn't it give us a chance of swapping one into our thinkpads that support the same upgrade option? -- Would be an awesome project. Though I'd imagine if it could be done it would have, never hurts to ask.

Posted: **Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:58 pm**

I think there would be some problems beyond merely fit. The HP panel is a 10 bit per channel panel and probably requires 30 bit output from the graphics card. It also uses HP designed software to switch between color spaces on the fly.

Posted: **Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:51 pm**

The W520 FHD screen does seem to be the same 6-bit AU Optonics screen mentioned in threads for the W510 (and if the manufacture date is correct, they had quite a stockpile of them!):

Code: Select all

Monitor
  Windows description...... ThinkPad Display 1920x1080 
  Manufacturer............. Lenovo
  Plug and Play ID......... LEN40B2
  Data string.............. B156HW01 V4
  Serial number............ n/a
  Manufacture date......... 2009, ISO week 1
  Filter driver............ Monitor
  -------------------------
  EDID revision............ 1.3
  Input signal type........ Digital
  Color bit depth.......... Undefined
  Display type............. RGB color
  Screen size.............. 340 x 190 mm (15.3 in)
  Power management......... Standby, Suspend, Active off/sleep
  Extension blocs.......... None
  -------------------------
  DDC/CI................... n/a

Color characteristics
  Default color space...... Non-sRGB
  Display gamma............ 2.20
  Red chromaticity......... Rx 0.676 - Ry 0.314
  Green chromaticity....... Gx 0.215 - Gy 0.665
  Blue chromaticity........ Bx 0.141 - By 0.069
  White point (default).... Wx 0.313 - Wy 0.329
  Additional descriptors... None

Above, erik had posted a link to the datasheet for the B156HW01 v4:

...regarding the panel being 95% NTSC and 6-bit, check pages 5 and 6 of the B156HW01 V4 datasheet: http://www.notebook-lcd.ru/pdf/B156HW01_V_4.pdf...

While it's not really acceptable for photography/prepress work, having purchased the color calibrator will at least mean I was a lot less time than I did adjusting gamma curves to try to get something out of the truly awful screen in my T61p

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:21 pm**

I just want to share my experience with w520 FHD panel.

In my setup I use Apple Cinema Display 23'' (3 years old), Dell U2311H and the w520.
All 3 have been recently calibrated using HueyPro.

Not surprisingly the Cinema Display shows the best colors and the Dell is not far behind.
But the w520 still shows over saturated colors.

In my free time I often do fashion photoshots and I would never use the w520's screen for post-processing photos.

But for normal computer use, the screen is perfectly fine. It miles better comparing to the screen on my ThinkPad X300.

Posted: **Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:29 am**

I was investigating about that gamut and quality thing and finally I can tell you where is the "but".

It is all about that "gamut" word. Professional grade monitors mean by gamut "gamut coverage", but mainstream and low-end manufacturers mean by gamut "gamut volume". If you seriously work with photography, or pre-press, you probably working in sRGB, A-RGB or NTSC. If lenovo tell you that they have 95 % NTSC, it is not mean they cover 95 % of NTSC 3D gamut model, but that the volume of 3D model on their screen is 95% of volume of gamut NTSC 3D model. Yes, that mean, that this has no relation what so ever with the gamut coverage, so theoretically you can have 100% volume gamut, and the screen cannot reproduce a single one color of that gamut. The reason why manufacturers are doing this is simple - marketing - the numbers are bigger. This also solve the miracle when on anandtech you can see 120% gamut monitors etc. This is [censored]. Then people here are disappointed that the colors are oversaturated, ugly, non-real etc. They are there, but they are wrong.

Thinkpads Forum

w520 vs w510 display

w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display

Re: w520 vs w510 display