Looking for a monitor with vivid colors (like on phones)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tobik

Reputable
Oct 30, 2015
12
0
4,510
Hey guys. I have a small 13.3" laptop and I was thinking about getting an external monitor to get some more comfort when working at home (and watching movies).

I was pretty much decided for Dell U2515H. 2K resolution, decent size, IPS. I'm not a gamer so I don't care much about refresh rate or response time. And I really like the small frame. But... then I actually tried it. We have those monitors at school so I connected my laptop to one of them and worked on it for couple of hours. I really enjoyed the space (compared to my 13.3") but I was disappointed about the colors. Even though it's an IPS panel, it seemed so washed out compared to my laptop!

I have Asus UX31a which is ~2 years old model with 13.3" IPS FullHD screen. The screen is simply pleasing to see. Obviously it's not perfect (viewing angles could be better, IPS glow etc.) but pretty much everything looked better on it than on U2515H. I don't know if the monitor is more accurate but as I'm not a graphic designer I don't care about that, I just want to enjoy the picture.

So could you give me some tips? What I'm looking for is basically U2515H (2K, ~25") but with more vivid colors (better contrast perhaps?). Ideally, I would prefer 25" AMOLED display but I suppose they don't make those (I've heard about OLED TVs which are however really expansive) :) The point is that modern phones, tablets or even laptops are getting really beautiful screens (way better than my laptop, not to mention U2515H) so I would like to have something like that on my table except bigger. Is it possible?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Well although I really like and enjoy AMOLED displays, I don't necessarily have to have that. Basically a monitor that would match up with my laptop display (which is also IPS) would make me happy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What laptop have you got? Did you change the picture setting on that Dell U2515H to Movie/Cinema/Theater? If it turns out your laptop display is properly calibrated, then you can't compare the two, unless you enabled that preset on the Dell. If you have hawk vision, and can make out detail on that 13.3" display, then the 25" display is going to look a lot worse in terms of visible aliasing. I'm having a hard time understand your question, to be honest. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The term you're looking for is called color space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space#/media/File:CIExy1931_AdobeRGB_vs_sRGB.png

Pretty much all external monitors cover 100% of sRGB. There are a few specialty monitors which cover 100% AdobeRGB, but they are expensive (they're designed for professional graphics work). Older CRTs cover NTSC color space, which is slightly bigger than AdobeRGB. I believe the AMOLED technology covers more than AdobeRGB but less than NTSC.

Laptop screens aren't as good. There are a few which cover 100% sRGB (most notably the Macbook Pro screens), and a few which cover 100% AdobeRGB (again very expensive). Most IPS-type laptop screens cover 80%-95% sRGB. The cheaper TN screens are usually between 40%-80% sRGB. Notebookcheck.net and MobileTechReview include % sRGB coverage in their laptop reviews. However, the former uses Lab while the latter uses CiE, so the percentages aren't comparable. In terms of saturation, CiE is more relevant (Lab stresses the importance of accurate low-saturation shades more).

MobileTechReview says the Asus UX31a screen covers nearly 100% AdobeRGB. That's why the colors look better on it than the Dell U2515H. The Dell probably only covers 100% sRGB.

Even if your laptop screen and external monitor both cover 100% sRGB, the colors will still be slightly different. To get the colors to match, you need to buy a colorimeter like a Spyder or Xrite i1Photo and calibrate your screens. While this will result in consistent and "correct" colors, most people who don't work with graphics will be disappointed because the colors will appear more muted. Most monitor manufacturers tweak the color curves to increase saturation and make the colors "pop". So people are used to the exaggerated colors, and a correct image seems undersaturated.

Edit: BTW, the web and HDTV is supposed to be calibrated to sRGB. As you can see from the pic, that's actually pretty limited as color spaces go, and a step backwards from the old CRT TVs which covered NTSC color space. I think it was a mistake to scale back the color space coverage, and long-term (10-20 years) as OLED technology improves we're going to transition back to AdobeRGB or NTSC color space.

Edit: Here are some AdobeRGB monitors from Dell. AFAIK all their 2015 refreshes are sRGB monitors, so the older ones are "better" in this respect:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/02/13/dell-launches-a-trio-of-adobe-rgb-monitors-with-even-wider-color-gamut
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, that is very true. However what is not true is that a colorimeter gives you accurate results. I have seen graphs that look great, but colors did not. All I can say is enable Movie/Cinema/Theater mode, which is usually 10-20% off, but far better than anything you can do by eye, especially if you're used to blue grey, or what accurate colors are actually supposed to look like I should say. My experience could be completely different from someone elses, but I'm not going to agree with that. I'm against colorimeters for color accuracy. A Spectroradiometer would be far more accurate, instead of "Hey, nice graph". ;-)

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

The older colorimeters used colored filters which could shift in color with age. Mine started producing strange results after about 4 years. The newer ones are supposed to be solid state and much more accurate.

Yeah, we'd all like a spectroradiometer or spectrophotometer to calibrate our monitors, but they cost like 10-100x more than the typical monitor. If you're willing to buy me one, I'll gladly accept. :)

Anyhow, colors are mostly an illusion created by the brain. I have printed out two Kodak IT8 color targets using different printer profiles. Indoors, with light coming in through the window, the first looked like it was "correct" and more accurate while the second had a blue cast. Outdoors in direct sunlight, the second one looked correct while the first one had a pink cast. The only way to really see "true" colors is to view the screen in a completely darkened room.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Thank you guys for the answers!

May I ask where exactly you found that information about AdobeRGB coverage on ux31a? I only found that it almost covers sRGB. Which means it should be actually worse than the monitor.

I'm aware of the fact that monitor has way smaller pixel density but that would hardly change the way a perceive the colors... (and when working on the monitor I was okay with the font antialiasing).

I also tried changing the color modes. I switched to the movie/multimedia mode but the colors still felt washed out (much better though). I'd be okay with the colors looking differently on both displays (as I'm going to work only on one of those at a time, I won't notice small differences) but somehow I don't feel like buying a new display which would actually mean going back from what I already have.

I checked those AdobeRGB screens. Funny that their price is coming close to the price of my laptop when I was buying it :)

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I try to clarify :) I'm looking for a monitor (2K, ~25") that would have similar color reproduction as my current laptop. I don't look for accuracy, I look for vividness and contrast. The problem here is that the monitor specification doesn't seem to cover that so I don't know how to identify such a monitor online. As you guys pointed out, color coverage might be the way to go, but from what I found, my laptop barely covers Adobe sRGB so it's actually worse than most monitors yet the picture is more pleasing to see.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is no way to find out which monitor would be the best fit, because manufacturers lie on the spec sheets, and if it's accurate, it's only accurate in their lab, and not in your home. They also measure different things differently, so there is literally no way of finding out unless you calibrate and look at them side by side.

What if your laptop is not that accurate, but you're just used to the vivid colors, much like a vivid preset if I understood correctly? Accurate color is nothing like that, you start with the Warm color or the Theater preset (99% use out of the box settings that is Standard, which displays blue grey and by no means accurate), and adjust the other settings while monitoring a graph such as included in CalMAN which is definitely the most popular out there. If there is a way to find out which monitor is the best fit for your laptop, then I'm not the one to tell you which one it is. Perhaps someone else can, sorry.


All the best!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Definitely my point! I don't pretend that I aim for accuracy. I just want to watch a movie and enjoy it :) I'll try to look more into the Dell monitor calibration and see if I can do something more about it. But the thing is that you can hardly calibrate a cheap TNT display to match an expansive OLED. It's not within the capabilities of the display (i. e. there is only so much you can fix with the calibration). And I have the same feeling about that Dell monitor compared to my laptop. I can't make the colors scream the same way. The question is what defines this ability...

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I think there are two different displays on that model, depending on if you get touch or non-touch.

http://www.mobiletechreview.com/notebooks/Asus-Zenbook-Prime-UX31A-Touch.htm

The Asus Zenbook Prime UX31A Touch has an excellent IPS display with 5 points of multi-touch and 1920 x 1080 resolution. Sharpness and clarity are excellent and the display almost completely covers the Adobe sRGB spectrum for much better than average color gamut.
Click to expand...

I checked those AdobeRGB screens. Funny that their price is coming close to the price of my laptop when I was buying it :)
Click to expand...
Yeah. they use separate R, G, and B LEDs for backlights. sRGB monitors use only blue LEDs for a backlight so are cheaper to make. The LED has phosphors on it which convert some of the blue light to yellow. Yellow is kinda in between red and green, so the backlight looks white. But the poor red and green spectrum results in reduced color gamut.

OLED as you probably know uses subpixels which light up R, G, and B, so are equivalent to the R, G, and B LED backlights. (Believe it or not, this is only half of the equation when it comes to color perception. The other half has to do with the response of the R, G, and B cones in your eyes. They do not respond to only R, G, and B light. So when you're displaying a photo of something on your monitor, it's an approximation of an approximation. That's why sometimes objects in a photo don't look the same color as in real life, even if you've color balanced the picture correctly.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah. they use separate R, G, and B LEDs for backlights. sRGB monitors use only blue LEDs for a backlight so are cheaper to make. The LED has phosphors on it which convert some of the blue light to yellow. Yellow is kinda in between red and green, so the backlight looks white. But the poor red and green spectrum results in reduced color gamut.
Click to expand...

You're talking about those expensive AdobeRGB monitors, right? Not about UX31a. The question is what makes the laptop screen a better screen since the color coverage is probably worse:

Pretty much all external monitors cover 100% of sRGB
Click to expand...

...and my laptop barely covers sRGB.

I stopped by again at school and did some experiments with the U2515H monitor and my second impression wasn't that bad. Some shades are slightly different and for example orange UI buttons in the software I use don't shine that much. I also tried to play some video and for example in a scene with a guy dressed in a white sweater, the laptop showed more details on the sweater. On the Dell screen, it was just white, like an overexposed part of a picture. I tried to tweak the colors, switch different modes, but it just changed the overall mood of the picture. It didn't bring up the missing details. My personal guess would be that the contrast is worse on the Dell screen (although actually changing contrast in the monitor menu didn't do anything, it just seemed like increasing/decreasing the brightness). Or does it really mean that the laptop is capable of displaying more colors?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

If you're noticing details like that, you should try borrowing a colorimeter and calibrating your monitor. As discussed above, the color accuracy from a colorimeter is not exactly the greatest (still better than no calibration). But their greyscale accuracy is pretty good. It'll help even out your monitor's gamma curve so you don't get parts of the picture which look like they're over- or under-exposed (unless the original photo was over- or under-exposed).

Just bear in mind my original warning - people are used to oversaturated screens, so the common complaint after a monitor is calibrated is that the pictures are now dull and undersaturated.

My personal guess would be that the contrast is worse on the Dell screen (although actually changing contrast in the monitor menu didn't do anything, it just seemed like increasing/decreasing the brightness).
Click to expand...
Yeah, poor contrast ratio (difference between whitest white and darkest black) can create the illusion of more subdued colors. The contrast setting on the monitor doesn't really change contrast. It just tweaks the gamma curve. You don't want to set it too high or you'll lose detail in very bright or very dark areas. Crush the blacks and blow out the highlights in photo lingo. Part of the colorimeter calibration process involves changing your monitor's contrast and brightness settings to find a setting which provides the maximum granularity of detail in both light and dark areas.

The only way to tweak contrast ratio is to physically change the LCD to one where there's less light bleed between and through each individual pixel.

Or does it really mean that the laptop is capable of displaying more colors?
Click to expand...
Without seeing the laptop and monitor myself, I can't say. And no, snapping a picture of it and posting won't really help since most cameras are calibrated to sRGB (and thus the more saturated colors of an AdobeRGB screen would be truncated to the maximum saturation value in sRGB). To see the difference in a pic, you'd have to take the pic on a camera with bigger than sRGB gamut (most DSLRs), save it in a format with an AdobeRGB color profile (JPEG is also supposed to be sRGB), then view it on an AdobeRGB monitor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just bear in mind my original warning - people are used to oversaturated screens, so the common complaint after a monitor is calibrated is that the pictures are now dull and undersaturated.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is that the laptop display both looks more vivid and at the same time displays more details. It doesn't seem like something that the calibration would fix. I don't really notice details like this. It's just that the laptop screen feels better and I was trying to figure out why exactly. So I was looking for details where both screens differed.

I guess this all is very subjective. I should find a specialized store and pick a screen for me just by looking. Unfortunately I haven't seen one and the selection of screens in stores like Best Buy is really limited.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Even if you match the colors on paper, they are likely not going to look the same comparing the two side by side. Add to that the panel lottery/outsourcing that is going on behind the scenes. Also, when comparing in a store, all displays are set to what's known as the store/torchlight mode, designed to get a customers attention by displaying as bright as they can, and as blue as they can. However, you'd be surprised how many compare picture quality between displays at the store, and not at home in the environment you'll be using it in. I don't think there's an answer to your question, vivid modes aren't calibrated factory modes. The only factory calibrated mode that is somewhat consistent across all displays using that model number is the Theater mode. What they do is have 1 monitor, calibrate it, then apply that to all the other ones, if one panel is using a slightly worse, or slightly better panel, the colors are going to look different, and would never ever be able to match eachother. There's a lot to this, and good luck finding one I guess.

All the best!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you guys.

One last things: so what are the parameters in specs that would affect this the most? I. e. are there any signs that sort of indicate that this particular display is good? I guess that those professional Dells are really good but also a bit out of my price range. So if we stay in the "mid class", is it possible to at least guess the quality of final picture without actually seeing it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, there is no way to judge picture quality on the internet, reviews can be inaccurate but more accurate than marketed specs. Professional monitors don't need recalibrating as often as consumer grade, and typically also come factory calibrated rather than doing it yourself. The difference between having to calibrate is usually years between professional and consumer. That's about it that seperates the two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Which one of these 3 similar tech monitors should I buy?"
'Whichever one looks good to your eyes'
"But how can I tell before I buy it?"
'You can't. Your eyes are different than everyone elses'.

Similarly...
"What mouse should I buy?"
'Whatever fits your hand'

HID things are very hard to recommend or pinpoint.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
'You can't. Your eyes are different than everyone elses'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize that. Sorry.

Professional monitors don't need recalibrating as often as consumer grade, and typically also come factory calibrated rather than doing it yourself. The difference between having to calibrate is usually years between professional and consumer. That's about it that seperates the two.
Click to expand...

Well, what about the underlying technology/features? The way I understand it each display has a certain potential which you can tweak by calibration (to get more vivid or more accurate colors etc.). I mean... I can hardly expect to get the same results from a cheap LCD display and expensive OLED display just but calibration, right? So when I was asking about the parameters I sort of meant the parameters that determine the potential. For example the technology is one of those (like in general I can expect more from IPS than from LCD) but is very rough (there are lots of IPS monitors with very different color delivery).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom