E6400 LED backlight screen problem

hi all, this is my first post here and I need to say that I come from Taiwan and not good at English.

I got my E6400 last week and I found that everything all right except the color of LED screen, it's awful.
The color of the screen is pale, i had tried to calibrated the graphic settings but it doesn't improve too much.
Also, i saw some posts here said that the LG screen is better than the Samsung screen, but I can't agree with that because my screen is LG.

Is it normal for LED backlight screen that the color is more pale than the CCFL backlight screen or just the screen of mine had some problems?

 

High brightness causes reduced contrast. Try reducing the brightness. Full brightness is only needed when working outside.

John

 

Comparing the LG screen (unless there is another LG model being used), compared to a my high-end CRT monitor, the LG colors are pretty close to the same, a little too yellow on the green, but that is just the LCD TN panel technology limitation and being 6-bit rather than the full standard color 8-bit. they are other ultra minor color differences, but now we are comparing with a CRT, right next to the laptop.
When I draw on my laptop, go home and look it on my monitor, I never go "Oh crap the colors are all wrong", I am always satisfied with the end results.

If you want a screen to compare, you can't go wrong with a high-end professional grade CRT screen, as it beats any LCD in all aspects except thickness (and precision which gets lost over time) .

 

Really? How about geometric distortion? Reliability? Weight? Price? Color Gamut?

 

A high end professional grade CRT is very reliable and doesn't have geometric distortion, as such monitor is comes with a high end well shielded VGA cable, and is packed with options to fully adjust the image from the monitor menu. Price, is cheaper than LCD's. Mine 17inch, 1600x1200 @ 85Hz (no flickering), was in 2004, 400$ (now if you want the 10, 12bit+ screen, of course they are way more expensive). To get something like this in LCD technology, granted it's bigger (22inch) but the resolution is less (1600x1050), is in the 1500$ canadian. Yes, you may say "Yea but on 17inch you can't even see your mouse", Sure I can, just fine actually without increase the DPI, in fact I can put it at Xtreme HD (2560x2048) and I still see everything fine, maybe increase the DPI for best visibility (if you ask I don't put it at that resolution as it 60Hz and that makes the screen flickers). The thing is, what an CRT can do that and LCD can't is change the size of each pixels on the fly. This is why there is no issue.

Color Gamut is I THINK 96% of Adobe RGB, 92%- NTSC if I remember correctly.
An standard LCD is a 6-bit, that's A LOT of colors that don't exists vs the 8-bit scree (that means several million color less).

You also have a system where bright colors turns brighter in proportion of the rest of the screen. In other words in a image or game where you have a sun... you feel the sun light. As the cathodes becomes more powerful at the sun and less powerful on darker areas. This feature does exists in LCD... but you better have a big wallet. Remember I paid 400$.

Reliability surpasses the LCD in lifespan. Did you ever walk and found someone trowing an old black and white CRT TV or the early color TV... most of the time they STILL work! We have a TV, 27 years old a Sony Trinitron, and it still works to this day. Sure the colors are faded a bit and a lot of it's precision is gone, but hey 27 year! And you still have a visible and understandable image output. Most LCD's uses CFL, and their life span is 5-6 years, I was told.

Also, you don't have backlight bleeding, nor uneven backlight.

Weight is of non importance. I don't know about you, but since when you carry an a computer monitor everyday. Beside it's just an empty tube. It's heavy because it's bigger in size so harder to hold. And yes, it hold fine for many years on a IKEA table.

The problem with CRT technology, is that well yes its not good for laptops, but I mean the reason why it got drop-out, is that there was a time where people did not understand "you get what you paid for", it was always "I dont' care what! I want the CHEAPEST computer EVER!" In result, we have an: ugly, design less, beige boxes, with a flicker mania screen with the least amount of adjustments feature combines with not so sharp image (as the magnets are not really powered to cut cost), with the added most uncomfortable flat mouse, and the system is louder than a house vacuum.
So when the LCD came out, people were like... WOW no flicker! WOW sharpness! And look how thin it is. Today, the - average computer user/computer illiterate wtv you want to call them - are starting to understand that if you want something good you have to pay up. But, that effects was enough to kill the CRT monitor.

If you see any professional who colors are important for what he does, that can't cash out the price a high-end monitor, you will notice that will use a CRT monitor (well no more, as they are not in production anymore).

Other advantages: no response rate issue, no input lag, no ghosting and no view angle limitation, no blurry image when using non "native" resolution. To have the all in one solution in LCD screen you need 2 screen. One for the colors, proper backlit etc... and the other one for watching movies and playing games, else you have a color mess due to the terrible response rate which make you feel you took some acid. OK, I am exaggerating... for entertainment purposes, but you get my point.

Read more on LCD technologies, and the downside of each LCD panel technology, here (worth a read!)
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3584

 

No geometric distortion on "high-end" CRT's? Analog VGA cables and the limiting bandwidth? The rest of the post continues your trend of picking data that fits your argument...

Not too long ago, for a brief time, I designed LCD driver circuits. I am familiar with the state of art in LCD technology. I have also used CRT's for CAD work for decades. I will never go back to CRT. LCD"s have surpassed them in every aspect, with the exception of viewing angles. Response time is not important in CAD work, but the modern over-drive techniques have made that a non-issue, unless you happen to be one of those who want to make that an issue.

 

Well of course there is, what I am saying it's not visible.

Dude it's analogue. The CRT is analogue therefore needs to receive an analogue signal, else you have lag as you need a system to convert digital signal to analogue. In it's all it's life VGA showed no sign of resolution limitation.

riiiight. I present both cases. As I said, if you have a LCD that cost more than a high-end computer for sure you can be the closes to a CRT... but compare price.

Yes, if you willing to cash the money... OR you have OLED which has the ability to give the same, apparently (we'll see once it's out) the same great image quality of a high end CRT monitor (and of course, like the extremely expensive LCD's, has room for more than 8-bit displays, from what I read on it, without costing so much.), this includes contrast ratio, backligth bleeding, color accuracy, sharpness, response time, input lag, and response time. Can also be made flexible.

Over-drive technique helps, but it doesn't solve the problem, also can cause inverse ghosting. Moreover, it presents itself with downsides, as explained here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2009/02/06/the-dark-side-of-overdrive/1

 

OK, but you said there was none in your previous post

Dude, the data coming out of the graphics processer is digital. You have to do a digital to analog conversion if you use an analog display. Now think about what speed the DAC's need to run to display 1920x1200 at 60 Hz, not to mention higher resolutions. To state that analog VGA has no resolution limitation is to show an ignorance in basic signal processing. It's analogous to vinylphiles saying that vinyl has infinite resolution .

No sense prolonging this argument. You stated your position, if we could call it that, and the millions of users using digital flat panel displays have stated theirs .

 

Yes, but your GPU is not only significantly faster than any internal circuit than what would be included in a monitor. Also, the GPU knows that, and can perform proper measure to sync everything.

I already played games at 2560x2048, just to see. It's fine.. well I mean the GPU power is not powerful enough to handle these games at max settings, but adjusting the graphics accordingly, it play fine. I got all my line lines on the screen (of course flickering as my CRT can't produce this resolution at any higher than 60Hz).

Your right, but it supports the highest resolution than a single GPU setup, available in the market today can produce.

Doesn't mean anything. For example, did you ever hear electrostatic speakers with a base (you need the base as the speakers can't produce base). Go to you local audio shop and ask to try them out. Don't break them because it's more expensive than the average price of a car.
You'll be on the floor bowing in front of them, and for the next week you'll battle with your headphone and speakers settings as you'll notice how sucks that technology is. But, they are not famous... my point is that doesn't mean it's widely use that's it's superb. Most people prefer their 100$ 6-bit panel LCD where green is pink, the screen is soo bad they need to put a ultra glossy plastic film so that your distracted by the light and yourself (mirror effect) so that you don't notice all the flaws. And by accident on this decision, well it allows light to pass more easily, so you have a cheap way to make colors look "vivid" then what they really are.

Anyway, read both links, and you'll have a better understanding of good displays.

 

John Ratsey is wrong. High breightness is needed and better then dimming it. no matter were you are. inside or not.