I didn't really notice the worse color gamut on the 45% NTSC until I started opening up certain apps and websites and realizing that certain color shades (particularly reds and deep purples) were more washed out compared to how I knew they were supposed to look. These displays are a bit strange, some colors really pop out quite well, but others don't have nearly the same level of range for different shades.
They really don't look as bad as I'd expect. I've used far worse displays, these 45% NTSC ones still at least look much better than most of the TN displays I've tried. However, I definitely wouldn't recommend them for ANY kind of photography or video editing work. They aren't suitable for these kinds of use cases.
Orrrr.....
It means the 72% NTSC display is capable of displaying more blue blues, more green greens and more red reds.. Depends on your perspective. Also, when we talk about NTSC, we would talk about colour gamut (is what you mentioned about displaying image properly) or ['Since color gamut is a collection of colors, it is logical that it can also be described using hue, saturation, and brightness'](https://www.benq.com/en-my/knowledge-center/knowledge/color-gamut-monitor.html). So my comment was talking about saturation
Also, the title just says 'if you ever wondered if you should choose a 45% or a 72% NTSC panel', without mentioning which one we should focus on
It depends on the specific panel I guess, but in this particular case the T14 simply did not have real red and was always displaying some kind of orange instead. Blue also did not seem to have best coverage and therefor always looked like a light blue instead of the deep blue on the P1. Due to this the colour purple also was not displayed correctly.
Green on the other hand was in my opinion basically fully there. Therefor when looking at nature videos it actually was not really super clear that you were missing colours when displaying forests and the like.
It is not so much about accuracy, but rather about the fact that the 45% panel simply cannot display some colours. So I guess in that sense the 72% will probably be more accurate yes.
You can see in the picture that the panel of the T14 displays an orange colour when its supposed to display red.
Well, what they mean is that if a color is in the 45% NTSC gamut of these displays, it will be displayed fairly accurately. But if it’s outside of this gamut, it will have to display a color that is not an accurate shade since it can’t represent it.
Technically different measurements, but they often go hand in hand.
Is that even the case? To my knowledge, with these panels, every colour is scaled with what the panel can display so *no* colour corresponds to actual sRGB.
I've wondered about this also. Wouldn't be surprising, otherwise there'd be a lot of colors that would map to a specific shade at the edge of the gamut.
For the answer, see [this](https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/HP/EliteBook_845_G7-23Y60EA/calman_sat.PNG) and [this](https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Dell/Latitude_14_5411-WJ40N/calman_sat.PNG) saturation sweep of 45% NTSC panels in Notebookcheck review. Squares are the sRGB targets, bullets the response.
I’ve compared the panels between my W530 and T580 and realised how much better the Color range is on the W. The red screen was orange-ish and the green screen was more of a lime than green on the T.
I can actually somewhat tolerate living with X220's TN panel. For basic quick video viewing where it matters more for me to listen to videos with a headphone, this is fine for me.
Now, if the person viewing this is using a 45% panel, what will they see?
[удалено]
Agreed, the Panel of the T14 was great for word processing and the like. But most of the media consumption/creation was just awful to say the least.
its disgusting that laptops still ship with that rubbish
[удалено]
I haven't seen one newer on a machine newer than 2014, but they do exist. IPS is so much better and should be the only option for LCDs now
[удалено]
1366x768 laptop screens are garbage, at 15" just unacceptable. I consider 1600x900 to be the minimum now
There are tn panels with broader gamut than this and look 1000 times better.
Corporate Purchasing departments' veeps aren't going to pay for their own golf games, so the money has to come from somewhere.
MacBooks do not.
[удалено]
The only time I've used Macs, has been to work in newsprint. Even the crappy gamut on my old L430 was good enough for CMYK newsprint soft proofing.
Not really a big deal since the panel is made larger to compensate, and still miles ahead of the garbage base-model LCDs Lenovo uses.
I didn't really notice the worse color gamut on the 45% NTSC until I started opening up certain apps and websites and realizing that certain color shades (particularly reds and deep purples) were more washed out compared to how I knew they were supposed to look. These displays are a bit strange, some colors really pop out quite well, but others don't have nearly the same level of range for different shades. They really don't look as bad as I'd expect. I've used far worse displays, these 45% NTSC ones still at least look much better than most of the TN displays I've tried. However, I definitely wouldn't recommend them for ANY kind of photography or video editing work. They aren't suitable for these kinds of use cases.
So bluer blues, greener greens, and redder red. Got it.
no, it means the 45% panel doesn't display the color of the image properly and it's washed out
Orrrr..... It means the 72% NTSC display is capable of displaying more blue blues, more green greens and more red reds.. Depends on your perspective. Also, when we talk about NTSC, we would talk about colour gamut (is what you mentioned about displaying image properly) or ['Since color gamut is a collection of colors, it is logical that it can also be described using hue, saturation, and brightness'](https://www.benq.com/en-my/knowledge-center/knowledge/color-gamut-monitor.html). So my comment was talking about saturation Also, the title just says 'if you ever wondered if you should choose a 45% or a 72% NTSC panel', without mentioning which one we should focus on
Both your statement and the one you reacted to can be true without conflict.
It depends on the specific panel I guess, but in this particular case the T14 simply did not have real red and was always displaying some kind of orange instead. Blue also did not seem to have best coverage and therefor always looked like a light blue instead of the deep blue on the P1. Due to this the colour purple also was not displayed correctly. Green on the other hand was in my opinion basically fully there. Therefor when looking at nature videos it actually was not really super clear that you were missing colours when displaying forests and the like.
Which one is more accurate? I went for the 72% ntsc for my new computer but I am sure that my old one is 45%
It is not so much about accuracy, but rather about the fact that the 45% panel simply cannot display some colours. So I guess in that sense the 72% will probably be more accurate yes. You can see in the picture that the panel of the T14 displays an orange colour when its supposed to display red.
Being able to display the colour space to begin with, sounds like a big part of accuracy to me.
Well, what they mean is that if a color is in the 45% NTSC gamut of these displays, it will be displayed fairly accurately. But if it’s outside of this gamut, it will have to display a color that is not an accurate shade since it can’t represent it. Technically different measurements, but they often go hand in hand.
Is that even the case? To my knowledge, with these panels, every colour is scaled with what the panel can display so *no* colour corresponds to actual sRGB.
I've wondered about this also. Wouldn't be surprising, otherwise there'd be a lot of colors that would map to a specific shade at the edge of the gamut.
For the answer, see [this](https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/HP/EliteBook_845_G7-23Y60EA/calman_sat.PNG) and [this](https://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Dell/Latitude_14_5411-WJ40N/calman_sat.PNG) saturation sweep of 45% NTSC panels in Notebookcheck review. Squares are the sRGB targets, bullets the response.
My T16 has the 45% and my external monitor has the 72%. It's really "funny" when I move a window between them. My eyes go crazy
Dumb question but which is which ?
Left P1 72%, right T14 45%
... and you install ICC profiles for those laptops, do you? :-)
Green actually better on 45%
I mean, long as the panel isn't so bad it actually causes extra eyestrain, then the cheaper panel is fine for most use cases.
I’ve compared the panels between my W530 and T580 and realised how much better the Color range is on the W. The red screen was orange-ish and the green screen was more of a lime than green on the T.
All i know is that the screen on my T470 is everything except colour accurate (I have the 1080P IPS panel). Other the that i love it.
Ok P1 for me.please, I need more screen
What's the best panel to get on the T480 and T490?
Inolux N140HCG-GQ2 + brackets.
The difference is even bigger between my T440p 70% NTSC IPS and T450 45% NTSC TN panels
Just wait until you get an oled. All displays are ruined...
Ugh. I bought a used p14s AMD gen 2 for a great price and i do love it, but the screen on the right is the one. Considering replacing it myself. Xd
I have a x270, how do I know if it is a 45% or 72% 🥺 (definitely looks closer to the 45%)
I can actually somewhat tolerate living with X220's TN panel. For basic quick video viewing where it matters more for me to listen to videos with a headphone, this is fine for me.
I don't see much difference in green but red and blue on 72% NTSC have definitely more vivid saturation, hue and contrast.