Is NTSC 45% Display Any Good?

Can't find a good answer to this commonly asked question, so I'll rephrase it.

I have a Hp 550, 11 years old and an Asus Aspire, which is 12 years old.
The specs on these machines do not mention the NTSC 45% or 72% colour gamut,
only the resolution and Graphics card. There is no mention of the screen quality.

As far as I'm concerned the quality was good enough for my requirements, I'm not
a Gamer or Photographer.

What I don't want, however, is worse quality than those old laptops so I'm wondering if this
45% jazz is a get-out for producing low quality display screens.

I'd like to hear about peoples experiences with the NTSC 45% Display screens/Monitors.
Are they OK for everyday use or is the picture quality poor.
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
These fora belong to PC Specialist who sell custom built high-end and gaming PCs and laptops and we can't offer specific advice on other builds I'm afraid. However, since your question is of a general nature I'll leave it here to see whether others can offer some general advice. For more detailed hardware specific advice you'll need a more general forum like Tom's Hardware.
 
It's not about other builds.

The Laptops you are selling specify NTSC 45% or 72% ...

Like This:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Starting Specification:

Intel® Core™ i3 / i5 / i7 U-Series CPUs
Intel Integrated Graphics
60Hz FHD Panel (1920 x 1080), 45% NTSC <<< This is what I'm talking about!
Multi-Colour Backlit Keyboard
SuperSpeed USB 3.1
HDMI Output Connection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ETC ~~~
I am considering a purchase.

My question is about the quality of the NTSC 45% units. How do they compare to older laptops
where the NTSC 45/72 spec is not given. Are they similar or worse?

What is the user experience?
 

Gavras

Master Poster
It's not about other builds.

The Laptops you are selling specify NTSC 45% or 72% ...

Like This:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Starting Specification:

Intel® Core™ i3 / i5 / i7 U-Series CPUs
Intel Integrated Graphics
60Hz FHD Panel (1920 x 1080), 45% NTSC <<< This is what I'm talking about!
Multi-Colour Backlit Keyboard
SuperSpeed USB 3.1
HDMI Output Connection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ETC ~~~
I am considering a purchase.

My question is about the quality of the NTSC 45% units. How do they compare to older laptops
where the NTSC 45/72 spec is not given. Are they similar or worse?

What is the user experience?
Why are you using a colour gamut measurement with screen quality (image quality).

It’s a bit like comparing ARGB and sRGB to see if a screen is good or not.

The question is, when you are asking about NTSC do you know what you are actually asking and how it relates to A&S RGB?

do you know how to compare NTSC % to the other two?

Then you need to understand what types of backlights, what levels of contrast and brightness, even the type of screen finish, gloss, Matt etc.

oh and if VA, TN or IPS (ish)

So the question is, do you know what you are asking?

If so can you phrase it more technically please.

God, NTSC that’s a Spam throw back to 1980’s
 

Bhuna50

Author Level
.

God, NTSC that’s a Spam throw back to 1980’s

@Gavras. It might be a throwback but it’s probably a question a few have because PCS do state NTSC percentages when talking about their laptop screens and it was a question I had when I was looking but in all honesty I never fully understood what it meant.

Googling it helped me see that 72% NTSC is 100% aRGB or something like that so I just assumed it meant better colour spectrum or display etc and went for the 72% NTSC screen over the 45 one with the philosophy that 72 is better than 45 as it’s higher. lol. For an amateur photographer that processes a lot of photos perhaps I should try to read more about it.

What would be nice to know for future reference i suppose would be wtf does it actually mean in terms of quality of picture / display.

So many terms get banded about and re laptops some of these are probably throwback.

Pantone
NTSC
aRGB
etc.

Thanks

Andy

PS. And that’s before we then go onto the benefits of a 1440 monitor rather than a 1080 laptop screen [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks to all who have replied. I anticipated some of the answers.

When the BBC was evaluating various schemes for the introduction of
colour television, they looked at NTSC (American) SECAM (French) and
PAL (German).

We all know the gag about NTSC. The SECAM one was: System Essentially
Contrary to American. When PAL was finally chosen it was dubbed
Peace At Last.

Now, with all that out of the way:

I will not be at peace if I buy a laptop which pcspecialist, not me,
specify as ** 60Hz FHD Panel (1920 x 1080), 45% NTSC ** and I find out
it's a turkey.

I'm ok with a 60Hz refresh rate. I just want to know what the user experience
is. I'm not interested on the relative merits of the specs.

It stands to reason that 72 > 45, but the difference isn't 27 it's £300 for
a laptop with a 15.6" monitor. A laptop without Gigabit LAN too, apparently:


Now. Do you own a Laptop with "45% NTSC" in the spec?

Are you happy with it? Is it so bad that you would pay an extra £300
to get one with "72% NTSC" in the spec.

It's the user experience that I'm inquiring about.
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Thanks to all who have replied. I anticipated some of the answers.

When the BBC was evaluating various schemes for the introduction of
colour television, they looked at NTSC (American) SECAM (French) and
PAL (German).

We all know the gag about NTSC. The SECAM one was: System Essentially
Contrary to American. When PAL was finally chosen it was dubbed
Peace At Last.

Now, with all that out of the way:

I will not be at peace if I buy a laptop which pcspecialist, not me,
specify as ** 60Hz FHD Panel (1920 x 1080), 45% NTSC ** and I find out
it's a turkey.

I'm ok with a 60Hz refresh rate. I just want to know what the user experience
is. I'm not interested on the relative merits of the specs.

It stands to reason that 72 > 45, but the difference isn't 27 it's £300 for
a laptop with a 15.6" monitor. A laptop without Gigabit LAN too, apparently:


Now. Do you own a Laptop with "45% NTSC" in the spec?

Are you happy with it? Is it so bad that you would pay an extra £300
to get one with "72% NTSC" in the spec.

It's the user experience that I'm inquiring about.
IMHO, it's a completely valid question.

45% NTSC is quite low and certainly reduces quality, it will only be found on very budget options. Personally I would avoid.

If looking at NTSC values, then 72% would be the lowest I would go for gaming, for anything creative I'd be looking at 99% for colour accuracy, but then I wouldn't be looking at a gaming laptop anyway as the screens aren't designed for that purpose.
 

Gavras

Master Poster
Personally classing anything as NTSC is pointless marketing.

it’s far more important to know if it’s VA, TN, IPS and then what sRGB rate is.

some decent articles here that explain in some depth (no pun intended) about Gamut.

personally I would not use anything below 72% NTSC (however even that is not quite the full story - read articles).

In to photography - do not use laptop screen use a decent IPS screen that has full support for photography and decent reviews.






now, while I would never go for a laptop with 45%, however if someone is using it for O365, email, google etc then not an issue.

There are plenty You tube videos around showing the difference, the laugh is though you need a decent screen to tell the difference.

A good example of colour gamut etc at work is when you have a laptop connected to a decent second screen and drag an image between them, you invariably have one with more vibrant colours.

would someone be happy with their 45% NTSC laptop, depends what they are using it for and what they have come from.


there are changes coming within the industry as how we register colour levels is completely different depending on a huge number of things, and comparing screens almost become pointless, 27“ 1440p TN versus a 32” 1080p IPS versus a 48” 4K versus a 24” 8k

A huge lot depends on the backlight, type of technology, etc, laptops usually have rubbish backlights.

someone find a big hole and bury this marketing rubbish of using NTSC, the world has moved on a bit.
 
Thanks to @Gavras and @SpyderTracks.

I was looking at 15.6" laptops only but the price difference
between a 15.6" Initia with NTSC 45% and a 17.3" Initia with NTSC 72%,
for the spec I wanted, is only £52.

The difference between the 15.6" Initia and the 15.6" Fusion IV (NTSC 72%),
at the basic specs is £300.

A bit strange that, considering the poorer specs of the Fusion IV generally,
like max RAM only 32GB and no HDD. I'm not too worried about portability
as I mostly use a desktop and the laptop is for holidays and when the other
half is on the DT.

I'll also have Linux on it so that saves £100. Most of that (£89) got eaten
by having to get an i7 cpu. The i5 is out of stock and I don't want to
wait until after December 31st to find out what I might have to pay then.
 
Top