Lenovo Yoga 9i 14 G8 2023 Convertible im Test - Intel Raptor Lake enttäuscht

[NikoB]

No. I accuse some of their reviewers to measure unintentionally inaccurately probably due to using cheap equipment and giving wrong interpretations of the measured values (e.g. if a lightmeter is only capable of detecting 0.03 cd/m² at lowest, the value of 0.03 cd/m² will also be given for anything below).

You are repeating complete nonsense. The reviewers have had hardware calibrators for many years and could previously accurately measure the level of contrast and detect or not detect glow (even by eye). But they previously stubbornly wrote on models with low-frequency PWM that there was an "infinite" black level and did not write the contrast level for this. There were some laptop models, like cheap Asus, that tried to remove flicker (it was NOT found there), but at the cost of a drop in contrast by 2 orders of magnitude at once.

Now, according to the tests, it turns out that new panels have appeared that still flicker, and at the same time, the contrast has still fallen by 2 orders of magnitude. Thus, the key advantage of AMOLED over IPS is completely lost, and the panels are no longer even close to HDR (with static metadata).

What is the point of buying such s*** instead of a normal AMOLED, where the actual black level is much better than 0.0005 nits, as required by the minimum HDR standard? And still get a flickering screen? Under the bulldozer all such series with such screens immediately.

Those. either all the reviewers are lying or you are writing nonsense. Because what's the point of measuring contrast with a calibrator that has a low dynamic range, if they see with their own eyes that there is orders of magnitude better black level? Who forces them to publish this nonsense about a high fake black level, if they didn't do it on purpose before and didn't measure it, if they saw with their eyes that it's actually orders of magnitude better than the calibrator can measure.

Are you able to think logically and consistently? So what did you decide in the end - did the authors lie before, are they lying now, or are you wrong in your conclusions about the reasons for such numbers in the reviews?

Note that high-end Samsung phones will only activate full brightness (> 1000 cd/m²) in automatic brightness control mode when the light sensor detects maximum light. In manual brightness mode they are at first limited to 429 cd/m² (which could be a bit lower than good IPS monitors). If you activate additional brightness you will get 733 cd/m² in manual brightness mode, which should also destroy most monitors (cd/m² numbers refer to the Galaxy 23 Ultra).

I made every possible attempt on the trading floor to adjust and increase the brightness on the S22 (there were several different models there and there were top-end Flips nearby). They all lost to my IPS in terms of brightness, despite the fact that it has 480-490 nits declared at its peak and it is already very old. At the same time, at a large viewing angle, all Samsung S series had a green screen tint with completely spoiled color reproduction, but my smartphone did not, like the Samsung A series, which I didn't like even more.

If I couldn't visually achieve a better visual experience, including the brightness on the screen of several models of the S22 series vs my old smartphone in the lighting of the trading floor, then where does normal brightness and the best picture come from in office lighting?

On the other side, almost all IPS monitors have IPS glow, so off angle picture quality (black level, gamma curve) will decrease fast.

Don't confuse bad color reproduction with black level/gamma. On the S22 series, it is completely screwed up at an angle, which is completely absent on my smartphone and most IPS models. As I did not notice this on the A series, what struck me is that their screens are clearly better than the screens in the top series.

Without burn-in (that only shows up with static content) there is no change in brightness or color gamut over 10 000 hours of usage.

This cannot be, otherwise the same Asus laptops would not have a forcibly enabled utility that prevents accelerated burnout, and the resource of their panels is declared to be approximately 8k hours.

Compare this to a minimum of 15k backlight for any IPS panel for laptops and a minimum of 30 (usually 40k) hours for monitors.

Obviously, AMOLED is here both in terms of color accuracy (dE> 2 is almost always in reviews, and this results reviewers has AFTER calibration) and in terms of resource, IPS is drained to the fullest. They, current versions AMOLED panels are not 100% suitable today for professional work with accurate color and simply because of the small resource, not to mention the harm to health from flickering.

Can you provide any independent, peer-reviewed research on that?

The harm from low-frequency flicker, especially during prolonged work behind such screens, has long been a proven fact. There is enough research on the effect of low-frequency flicker on the Internet.

And recently, a researcher from Samsung indirectly confirmed that they recognize the problems of low-frequency PWM and will try in every possible way to raise its frequency as high as possible in new versions of AMOLED panels. But today they cannot do this, therefore, on large public resources, such as Wikipedia, such articles about harm and with indications of the presence of low-frequency flicker are simply deleted by corrupt Wikipedia owners and their moderators. Because when hundreds of billions are at stake, like when tobacco companies have it, no one cares about the health of their customers. Until active citizens force states to pass laws banning low-frequency AMOLED screens, nothing will change. If everyone is corrupt and on pay, everything is bad. Tobacco companies began to put pressure only after mass harm began among a rapidly aging population. Prior to this, the average age of life was shorter, so cancer and other problems of smoking simply did not have time to take effect. Because flickering effects affect the autonomic nervous system, the harm is more subtle and long-term. And this will affect the future, as will the dragging of smartphones with a SAR of 1W or more (hello iPhone lovers). The longer the population lives, the more obvious such long-term factors of harm to the body.

And I'm not interested in the topic of research on TV panels - everything is different there. It's a dynamic picture. And on monitors and laptops 90% of the time, static work with text, where the harm of flicker is maximum.

[Mr. Franz]

The reviewers have had hardware calibrators for many years and could previously accurately measure the level of contrast and detect or not detect glow (even by eye). But they previously stubbornly wrote on models with low-frequency PWM that there was an "infinite" black level and did not write the contrast level for this.

There are still recent notebookcheck reviews that correctly state both black level as 0 cd/m² and contrast as ∞:1.
It is not a thing of the past, it is only intermixed!
Most other review sites (including the most renowned display reviewers such as Vincent Theo and RTINGs) also agree on ∞ contrast for OLED. 

There can be many reasons why some reviewers on notebookcheck deviate. Foremost the lack of knowledge, which lead some authors to blindly adopt values measured from their devices while those who know their stuff do not. It is also possible that some are new in their jobs / work only as freelancer / received new cheap lightmeters as replacement of high-grade old equipment / ...

You are repeating complete nonsense.

Again:
One of those OLED notebooks measured by notebookcheck with an allegedly increased black level / decreased contrast demonstrably did not have it. I had that model before my own eyes, it was completely glow-free / absolute black to the human eye.

Have you ever seen even a single recent released OLED with glow in absolute darkness that would verify high black levels / low contrast measure? I doubt so.

In such a case there would be a massive outcry of users on hifi and consumer electronic forums. But there is none.
 
All OLEDs (with exception of very old models released over ten years ago) feature absolute black, because they are able to turn their pixels completely off. This is a commonly accepted fact and has not changed with recent models.

I made every possible attempt on the trading floor to adjust and increase the brightness on the S22 (there were several different models there and there were top-end Flips nearby).

Why should the measurments of all reviewers be wrong? Even cheap lightmeters are perfectly able to measure brightness (unlike black level).
I have an OLED smartphone and IPS display in front of me that also prove you wrong. The OLED smartphone is brighter.

confuse bad color reproduction with black level/gamma.

A distored gamma curve leads to bad color reproduction (it´s like misty haze). Rainbow effects on OLED are mild compared to this effect, only kick in at really steep angles and (as you also admit) not all OLEDs do have it (including the new S23 models).

This cannot be, otherwise the same Asus laptops would not have a forcibly enabled utility that prevents accelerated burnout

So RTINGs is lying with their test?

The thing with burn-in is, that pixels age differently. OLEDs have huge (!) capacities to re-adjust the light loss due to aging. That is not the problem, the problem is to detect the exact amount that is needed.
In case of long static content, most OLEDs actually overdo it (a test by the German site "chip" showed this). If e.g. red pixels were used much more than green and blue, the red pixels will not glow less but more afterwards and will cause burn-in by having more brightness than it should have. The pixel is not (!) at the end of its capacities when there is burn in, it is just wrongly adjusted.

and the resource of their panels is declared to be approximately 8k hours.

Source?
LG OLEDs do have an official live span of 100 000 hours since the models from 2016 (see "LG: OLED TV lifespan is now 100,000 hours", Rasmus Larsen, flatpanelshd).

The harm from low-frequency flicker, especially during prolonged work behind such screens, has long been a proven fact. There is enough research on the effect of low-frequency flicker on the Internet.

So it should be no problem for you to name one peer-reviewed publication (preferably a double-blind trial with a proper control group setup)?

And I'm not interested in the topic of research on TV panels - everything is different there. It's a dynamic picture.

There are people using TV screens as their monitor. That is perfectly possible (except for the burn-in issue of OLEDs).
Flickering for sharper motion (aka motion blur reduction techniques) is also a thing for monitors (especially for gaming and scrolling). A lot of monitor manufacturers advertise this.

[NikoB]

There can be many reasons why some reviewers on notebookcheck deviate. Foremost the lack of knowledge, which lead some authors to blindly adopt values measured from their devices while those who know their stuff do not. It is also possible that some are new in their jobs / work only as freelancer / received new cheap lightmeters as replacement of high-grade old equipment

Experienced authors write on this site, who can easily determine by eye that a certain calibrator is lying. Or not lying. And it's true, AMOLED screens have become substandard with low contrast. I'm sure of the second, not your false statement. Because if there is no flickering, it burns out much faster, and the price of dc dimminng is just a drop in the dynamic range, and hence the level of contrast. Hence the color stripes on the top LG TVs - the usual typical banding on the fill with gradients for all AMOLEDs. That is why they calibrate disgustingly - in most reviews, dE is greater than 2.

All OLEDs (with exception of very old models released over ten years ago) feature absolute black, because they are able to turn their pixels completely off. This is a commonly accepted fact and has not changed with recent models.

Reviews on NB write exactly the opposite - there are no objections from the mass owners. =)

Why should the measurments of all reviewers be wrong? Even cheap lightmeters are perfectly able to measure brightness (unlike black level). I have an OLED smartphone and IPS display in front of me that also prove you wrong. The OLED smartphone is brighter.

I have a professional eye. I see that IPS is better always. Shall we argue further? I have a luxmeter with 0.01 lux accuracy.

A distored gamma curve leads to bad color reproduction (it´s like misty haze). Rainbow effects on OLED are mild compared to this effect, only kick in at really steep angles and (as you also admit) not all OLEDs do have it (including the new S23 models).

Again you write some nonsense. We are talking about a green tint at angles on Samsung's top-end AMOLEDs. All without exception. I just didn't watch S23.

In case of long static content, most OLEDs actually overdo it (a test by the German site "chip" showed this). If e.g. red pixels were used much more than green and blue, the red pixels will not glow less but more afterwards and will cause burn-in by having more brightness than it should have. The pixel is not (!) at the end of its capacities when there is burn in, it is just wrongly adjusted.

)))))))))) Is that why almost all AMOLED reviewers on this site can't even calibrate with dE below 2? Straight from the factory? What will happen to this s*** after 1-2 years of working 8-12 hours a day? I don't even want to think about color accuracy - when the blue LED burns out ...)))

Source?

Asus, otherwise, why at "100000" hours a dynamic screensaver from the factory, if IPS has only 15k hours, but no one puts such screensavers there? ))))))))))))) You know how to think at least a little with your head and at least have some critical thinking and common sense. I yes...)))

Source?

Asus, otherwise, why at "100000" hours a dynamic screensaver from the factory, if IPS has only 15k hours, but no one puts such screensavers there? ))))))))))))) You know how to think at least a little with your head and at least have some critical thinking and common sense. I yes...)))
I just do not believe in 100k hours, because I personally saw LG TVs burn out in large shopping centers in demo mode, even with a dynamic picture but in a certain format. Approximately 6-12 months - and you can already see the difference in brightness, where there was a black zone and where there was a dynamic picture for 16 hours a day. Sellers also confirm this in conversations. So 100k hours is a lie of marketers and you bought it ... =)

So it should be no problem for you to name one peer-reviewed publication (preferably a double-blind trial with a proper control group setup)?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038456/

There are people using TV screens as their monitor. That is perfectly possible (except for the burn-in issue of OLEDs).

))))))))))))))))))))))) it is some kind of schizophrenia. You just stated above that there is no burnout. Hahaha.

I think that you are just a troll who is trying to shake the topic with starvation. But in reality, you have nothing to cover.

[Mr. Franz]

Experienced authors write on this site, who can easily determine by eye that a certain calibrator is lying.

The writers here are experts on notebooks, not on display technology.
The fact that the Yoga 7 14 G7 was measured with 0,05 nits, but has no glow, clearly shows that there was a lack of knowledge in coducting this measurement and the author was not capable of or did not want to check measurements by eye.

AMOLED screens have become substandard with low contrast.

As long as there are no OLEDs with glowing Blacks in absolute darkness, this is a false statement.

Because if there is no flickering, it burns out much faster

Flickering has nothing to do with burn-in.

Reviews on NB write exactly the opposite - there are no objections from the mass owners. =)

The site has barly any user traffic. Within the small number of users commenting you have found already one who is pointing this out, that would be me.

I have a professional eye. I see that IPS is better always. Shall we argue further? I have a luxmeter with 0.01 lux accuracy.

It get´s more and more laughable.
Modern high end OLEDs of smartphones crush standard IPS displays in terms of brightness. Whether you like this fact or not.

We are talking about a green tint at angles on Samsung's top-end AMOLEDs. All without exception. I just didn't watch S23.

You should. It proofs you wrong. Again.

I just do not believe in 100k hours, because I personally saw LG TVs burn out in large shopping centers in demo mode, even with a dynamic picture but in a certain format.

Burn-in can occur long before the life time of pixels is reached.
Pixel life time refers to the brightness capabilities of pixels not whether or when they can burn-in or not.

You just stated above that there is no burnout. Hahaha.

WTF, I never stated that there is no burn-in for OLEDS.

[NikoB]

Flickering has nothing to do with burn-in.

Complete nonsense. The longer the glow of the diodes at 100% brightness in the period, the lower their resource. This is why low-frequency PWM is used, because it is the only way they can increase the life of AMOLED to complete burnout and complete destabilization of color reproduction.

The site has barly any user traffic. Within the small number of users commenting you have found already one who is pointing this out, that would be me.

Judging by the continuous contradictions and frank technical nonsense, you are apparently trying here for a salary from LG/Samsung and other AMOLED manufacturers.

Tech-savvy consumers avoid current AMOLED products. But yes, there are not so many of them in the general crowd of illiterate consumers. But how can this surprise anyone, as in politics, where an insane majority rules?

Modern high end OLEDs of smartphones crush standard IPS displays in terms of brightness. Whether you like this fact or not.

Of course not, and I, as a pro, can see it well with my professional look.

You should. It proofs you wrong. Again.

nose pulled tail stuck (c) It just says that they have some other problems that have come up that I have not yet seen.

I never stated that there is no burn-in for OLEDS.

Hahaha - why then a screensaver from burning on AMOLED, which is not from the factory on IPS? Stop making me laugh, it hurts already...