Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: spphoto on October 22, 2006, 05:03:39 pm
-
This seems like a great deal for the $, but am I being naive? Can I use it for critical editing?
thanx in advance
-
Native resolution 1920 x 1200
Claimed viewing angle (vertical) 178 °
Claimed viewing angle (horizontal) 178 °
Brightness 500 cd/m²
Contrast ratio 1000:1
Pixel response time 16 ms
Vertical scan range 76 Hz
Horizontal scan range 81 kHz
Specs look good
-
sorry all, i meant the 20" version: 2007WFP
anyone using it or know about it? dell has it for only about $340
here: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/Product...uctlisting.aspx (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?sku=320-4688&c=us&cat=snp&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&Page=productlisting.aspx)
-
The early production 7 series has some issues but they have been resolved for months. The 5 series tested slightly better, but the 7 is still phenominal. I use the 2405 and absolutely LOVE it, it calibrated perfectly! My advice is to not limit yourself to the 20 - you will kick yourself in the pant VERY soon. The 24 can be had for just $200 more with coupon and shipping deals. I got mine for $650 shipped last November and they continue to fall. Google for 'dell coupon' and keep checking - at least every other month they are cut deeply.
-
sorry all, i meant the 20" version: 2007WFP
The Dell 2005 WFP uses the same Philips 20.1 " LCD panel used in Apple 20" displays. It has good colour and a wide viewing angle. I assume (but don't know) that the new 2007 uses the same panel with newer electronics.
Dell makes its own backlighting. A problem with the 2005 is that minimum brightness is very bright, around 200 cd/m^2, much higher than most people use for photo editing. I suspect (but once again don't know) that the 2007 has the same problem. Dell makes displays for the general computer market where brighter is better.
-
Yes the backlighting is the same - however the 'problem' is simply hype. Yes the *hardware* lower limit is too high, however using the software driver to slightly reduce it into calibration, it is perfect. Just because you have to use software *and* hardware to get it done is not an issue in actual use. People report this 'problem' on forums ad nausium, and having one in front of my face, I can tell it's a non-issue.
-
Yes the backlighting is the same - however the 'problem' is simply hype. Yes the *hardware* lower limit is too high, however using the software driver to slightly reduce it into calibration, it is perfect. Just because you have to use software *and* hardware to get it done is not an issue in actual use. People report this 'problem' on forums ad nausium, and having one in front of my face, I can tell it's a non-issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanx so much,
I have to admit here, that I am a mere novice getting started in serious photo editing. If I just run a quality hardware calibration device on the dell, will it take
care of this issue....or is there something else I would need to do?
thanx agian!
-
kaelaria,
I've also read about banding issues w/dvi.
has this been fixed?
-
Yes they have, and yes all you need is a good calibrator. I use the Eye One, and it's flawless.
-
Hi kaelaria,
What brighness level do you adjust your Dell to?
-Eric
-
Hardware Brightness all the way down. With the current Nvidia drivers, software Brightness is on 41%, which correlates to 82% on the previous generation drivers - don't ask me why they switched scales. RGB are of course at thier custom levels.
-
Hardware Brightness all the way down. With the current Nvidia drivers, software Brightness is on 41%, which correlates to 82% on the previous generation drivers - don't ask me why they switched scales. RGB are of course at thier custom levels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
kaelaria,
I though you just said you let the calibrater adjust the brightness, and don't do it manually? Does your above quote contradict that?
-
No I didn't and that's not how they work anyway. The calibration file does not adjust contrast and brightness. You set those interactively with the calibration program before the color profile is measured and set.
By 'it calibrates perfectly' I mean adjusting the controls gets it into the range prefered by the calibration program perfectly. Then the program does it's thing and viola, you have your profile.
-
Yes the backlighting is the same - however the 'problem' is simply hype. Yes the *hardware* lower limit is too high, however using the software driver to slightly reduce it into calibration, it is perfect. Just because you have to use software *and* hardware to get it done is not an issue in actual use. People report this 'problem' on forums ad nausium, and having one in front of my face, I can tell it's a non-issue.
It is a problem, because if you adjust the brightness in software, you also reduce the available luminosity range per 8-bit channel. Or in other words; you'll have less than the full range of 256 intensities per colour.
This is not a "non-issue". When you're evaluating your images in preparation for printing or display on other, calibrated monitors, you're likely to get "problems".
You can read more about this in this thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11561&hl=dell+2405) or [http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9613&hl=dell+2405]this thread (see quote of Karl Lang by neoprinter)[/url].
-
If this was a discussion about 100% accurate professional equipment I would agree. But the almost imperceptible amount that it needs to be dimmed (which yes, in an 8 bit environment will cut the available resolution of the gamut by a small amount) would be an issue. This however, is not - it's just a guy at home like me, who will not even be able to see the difference nor would ever need to. If you actually had one, you would know, and would know how much people blow this out of proportion without ever actually using one.
My prints match my screen as well as I can see with my own eyes.
-
If this was a discussion about 100% accurate professional equipment I would agree. But the almost imperceptible amount that it needs to be dimmed (which yes, in an 8 bit environment will cut the available resolution of the gamut by a small amount) would be an issue. This however, is not - it's just a guy at home like me, who will not even be able to see the difference nor would ever need to.
The guy wrote, and I quote:
Can I use it for critical editing?
"Critical editing" does not imply regular home use. It implies that the original poster wants to do, well, critical editing.
If you actually had one, you would know, and would know how much people blow this out of proportion without ever actually using one.
Read the linked threads instead of making and posting wild assumptions.
You're handing out what is, in my opinion, bad advice, based on those assumptions.
Sure, it might work for your "guy at home" purposes, I'm not disputing that, but that wasn't what was asked for.
-
I'm a guy at home, and I do critical editing. I guess our definition of critical editing is different. I'm not a studio using it to make a living. I use it to critically edit my shots to make prints. Incidently the gamut of the monitor, even dimmed, is beyond paper/printers to the best of my knowledge.
-
I guess I should clarify, yes I am a guy at home, but I intend to submit to an agency.
I'm looking for all input here and it's been apprecieted from both of you.
...so if this is for an agency (albeit a small one), can I reley on the dell?
also, the dell has a composite video in port. My camera connects to the "video in" port on a tv, and the camera's lcd is displayed on the tv, can I do the same with the dell's composite video in port, or is that different?
Thanx!
-
...so if this is for an agency (albeit a small one), can I reley on the dell?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no idea, I have never done so (yet), and am not aware of how critical that is to doing so. Hopefully someone who has, or knows, and has used the Dells can comment.
-
also, the dell has a composite video in port. My camera connects to the "video in" port on a tv, and the camera's lcd is displayed on the tv, can I do the same with the dell's composite video in port, or is that different?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, you can.
-
jani,
I checked out some of those links,
the first question was about a guy that had the OLD dell 2405, it's been replaced with the 2407 version.
did you see this quote on your link by 64dynamic :
"But, to be fair to Dell, I just got back from a client's place where I calibrated their brand new Dell 2407WFP 24" display and to my surprise it let me dim the backlight to 115cd/m2. A first for Dell in my experience and in all I've read from Dell owners in discussion forums (I know that previous versions of the 24" couldn't dim below 200). Either Dell is catching on, or this is a fluke. Time will tell..."
Any comment. the 2007 wide is only ~$340! Would you still say it shouldn't be used for critcal work?
-
Yes, you can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
have you hooked up your camera to the dell?
-
No, I used that function once when I was visting some relatives. Other than that I have not had a use for it.
-
No, I used that function once when I was visting some relatives. Other than that I have not had a use for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
kaelaria, so your saying that you have indeed hooked up your camera to the dell successfully ONCE. So it did indeed work, right?
-
No, I used composite out to a TV set. I don't even remember if my 5 series HAS a composite in like the 7 series, I have not had the need to look, I only use DVI. If you are asking me if I'm sure it works, yes I am - composite in is composite in, on a TV, or monitor.
-
did you see this quote on your link by 64dynamic :
Yes, I did.
That is one of the reasons why I pointed out the links ...
Any comment. the 2007 wide is only ~$340! Would you still say it shouldn't be used for critcal work?
If it can't be dimmed enough, it shouldn't be used for critical work. If it can be dimmed, it probably can be used, since the colour profile from calibration can be used to compensate for almost any other weaknesses in colour representation.
Kaelaria's post indicates that you have to dim it quite a lot in software, which really isn't a good thing for colour and brightness accuracy. He also appears to have a different idea of what "critical work" means than what's usually understood by the term.
This does not necessarily mean that you will experience problems with it, but it increases the likelyhood significantly.
I realise that this may not be the advice you want, but I really can't tell what you might find acceptable or not. But when colour management experts (and I'm not one of them) state quite clearly that LUT adjustments of brightness should be avoided, it's a good idea to pay attention.
-
Kaelaria's post indicates that you have to dim it quite a lot in software
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I said no such thing. I gave the settings for a couple versions of the nvidia drivers. The change is in fact barely noticeable at all. The current setting is 41%. The default setting happens to be 50% for this driver. The percieved change in brightness between those two is very, very slight, not 'quite a lot' at all. If you have the current nvidia drivers and appropriate card yourself, try it out and see.
-
I said no such thing. I gave the settings for a couple versions of the nvidia drivers. The change is in fact barely noticeable at all. The current setting is 41%. The default setting happens to be 50% for this driver.
If the driver uses a linear scale for brightness, that's 18% down, limiting your effective RGB values from 0-255 to 0-209, unless I've miscalculated something, and before a profile is applied, you're at almost half the amount of available colours.
That's "quite a lot" in my book.
-
Here is the exact difference, judge for yourselves. These is at full, and down to 41% brightness.
-
Hey - thanks to this thread, it reminded me that I had not done a calibration in several months - since the monitor was basically new! Now that it aged a bit, it's even closer! The new setting is now only 46%! Here's a shot from i1 tonight (ignore the other sliders, those are all the default positions)...
-
Here's the new, current setting to compare:
-
print screen......WTH
-
print screen......WTH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Give them enough rope...
How does a "discussion" like this turn up on an otherwise serious and usually informed web site?
-
I knew some ignorant person would make a comment about that
It's a print screen adjusted with a curve in PS to match the curve (input and output values) from the driver. If you had an nvidia control panel you would see the next tab holds a curves graph to adjust just like PS.
So you guys continue to think you're all-knowing, even though you're making comments about and giving 'expert' advice about hardware you don't even have Those of us with the 2405's know we have a great monitor (not perfect) and are happy - and that's all that matters!
Hey, maybe today you'll find an article about a new monitor you can read, and then you'll be an expert on that one too
-
So you guys continue to think you're all-knowing, even though you're making comments about and giving 'expert' advice about hardware you don't even have
I think part of the problem is your in-your-face attitude and that you're not providing enough information to give the "correct" opinion on what you post.
May I suggest that you tone down your style a bit, and take a bit more time composing your posts, so that you can avoid this, as well as provide the pertinent information?
Those of us with the 2405's know we have a great monitor (not perfect) and are happy - and that's all that matters!
I had a 2405 briefly, and I quickly found out that it was unsuitable for colour critical work.
Have you tried creating a granger rainbow and viewing it on different, calibrated & profiled monitors?
-
Posting style doesn't effect the facts of a discussion, it's mearly an excuse for someone to bring up to divert attention.
I have compared the Dell to my other monitors using my photos, yes, and they all look identical as far as I can see. I have also comapred prints done via the Dell to my other monitors, and they all match as far as I can tell. No I have not used or heard of a granger rainbow, but I'll look into it.
-
Reading the description of it here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/may_2006.html (http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/may_2006.html)
I don't think it will be of use to me. Since it says it's out of printer gamut, you would need to have the comparitive monitors next to each other to really use it. While I do have a few in my office at home, my other main system is here at work, and I'm not going to drag it home just to AB test.
I have used some of the test samples above it, and my own work to verify setups, which is what really matters to me. The monitor still outshines the prints as far as available gamut, the colors are accurate, my prints come out exactly as I see them. What else can you ask for?
-
I owned a Dell 2405 briefly, running it in tandem with a 20" Apple Cinema Display.
I returned it, as I didn't feel it was suitable for critical image editing.
I wasn't so bothered by the brightness, and I was able to calibrate it fairly well with Coloreyes software.
What bugged me was the extremely limited viewing angle. You only needed to move your head a couple of inches and the tonalities in the shadow areas of the image would change (lighten, as you looked more obliquely). Even if you fixed your head in a vice, the tonality of an image would change as you dragged the image from the centre to the corner of the screen.
The Apple displays, using SIPS panels, have none of these viewing angle issues.
Elliot
-
Yes I do notice that, but for me personally it doesn't bother me, it's so slight. But yes, the monitor is not perfect, that is certainly present.
-
Yes I do notice that, but for me personally it doesn't bother me, it's so slight. But yes, the monitor is not perfect, that is certainly present.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I agree, the viewing angle problem is fairly subtle. I might have accepted it, if I hadn't had an Apple Cinema Display, sat right next to the Dell.
I'm curious to know whether the latest 24" Dell exhibits the same symptoms? And how about the 24" iMac?
Elliot
(The other reason I didn't get on with the Dell 2405, was that its screen rotation function is not supported on my generation of Mac - the G5 dualcores that were introduced last year.)
-
Posting style doesn't effect the facts of a discussion, it's mearly an excuse for someone to bring up to divert attention.
So the following you wrote was just to divert attention? Why?
So you guys continue to think you're all-knowing, even though you're making comments about and giving 'expert' advice about hardware you don't even have
This is really quite unnecessary.
Reading the description of it here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/may_2006.html (http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/may_2006.html)
I don't think it will be of use to me. Since it says it's out of printer gamut, you would need to have the comparitive monitors next to each other to really use it.
No, all you need to do, is to compare your monitor with and without adjustments, to see what you're losing.
If you recall the thread I posted a link to, in my tests, the 2405 had significant posterization effects compared to the far cheaper and older Samsung. While viewed independently, the Dell looked fine. But it wasn't fine, and that gave me problems.
I have used some of the test samples above it, and my own work to verify setups, which is what really matters to me. The monitor still outshines the prints as far as available gamut, the colors are accurate, my prints come out exactly as I see them. What else can you ask for?
If it works for you, then it works for you, but you've just admitted that you also see some of the problems with this monitor. Why recommend it to someone who specifically asked for something suited for critical editing?
-
Read more carefully. I said posting style, not attitude. How I compose my posts is not equal how I think of myself.
Oh, so your comments are acceptible and mine are <fake Brittish accent>'really quite unnecessary',</fake Brittish accent> - gotcha!
Yes I realize I am losing a touch, that's been said many times. As I have also said, the gamut of the monitor is STILL way beyond that of the prints - so for the end result for me - the print - no, I am not missing a thing.
Again, 'critical editing' means different things to different people for different jobs. Is this a good monitor for a top level pro that needs 100% perfection? No, of course not - that's why those particular specifications means you are investing in a $4000+ or whatever peice of hardware! No one thinking about or asking about a $400 monitor is obviously in that profession. This thread is about a home user, making some and sending out for some prints, maybe selling some if possible - same as me. Non-pro and obviously so. Don't twist the words around to justify your clause. We are NOT talking about top level equipment OR needs. 'Critical editing' in this thread does not mean 100% accurate.
As I said - this is an EXCELLENT monitor that calibrates VERY well - but it's not perfect. I do not hesitate to recommend it to any home user, it's a fantastic deal.
I'm home now and just brought up the granger rainbow. I see no posterization effects whatsoever, so perhaps it was an early issue on the sample you saw. It is certainly not on mine. The colors are a continuous gradient all around.
-
I would recommend the Eizo CG19. It is worth the $1600.00.
I have used the Dell in question. I have used the pink cinema displays.
The Eizo is the only one I make critical decisions with.
And yes,
I work at home.
I am making critical color decisions.
I submit images to agencies.
I sometimes sell prints.
But seriously, buying monitors is truly a pain, and a leap of faith. I bought the 24" CE240W Eizo. It was not appropriate for a production environment. It had a terrible viewing angle which would only allow one person, sitting perfectly centered, to see the image as it should be. Moving side to side the shadow information would brighten and darken. The numbers that are posted as specs are useless. You can get a $200.00 and a $4000.00 dollar monitor with the same specs. I bought it from a pro camera store that gave me my money back no questions asked.
So maybe you should have your monitor calibration device and your computer all ready to go when the new monitor shows up so that you can run it through its paces. And buy the monitor from a place that is good about returns.
-Eric
-
Hardware Brightness all the way down. With the current Nvidia drivers, software Brightness is on 41%, which correlates to 82% on the previous generation drivers - don't ask me why they switched scales. RGB are of course at thier custom levels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have a 2007WFP and I want to make sure that I understand your comments. I would like to understand the issue of viewable tone range when a monitor is calibrated. I have the 2007WFP and the Colorvision Spyder2 calibrator. I think the Spyder2 does a good job on the hues (colors), but I am unsure of the tones. When I look at a Colorsync target (the one that is out on the web), I cannot see the full range of the gray stepped scale on the chart.. the last 4 bars or so are indistinguishable... look black. Should the calibration assure that I can see the whole range of grays? I ask this because I have the hardest time getting the tones the same between my monitor and print... the hues look pretty accurate (printer is an Epson R2400). Prints are usually darker than my screen. I have tried turning down the monitor, but then even more of the stepped gray scale on the target are indistinguishable. What is your experience with tone on your monitor?
Thanks!
-
Mine match exactly, both hues and tones. Yes you should be able to see all the gradations. I would suggest you go back through the calibration software, it sounds like you simply don't have the steps correct.
-
Mine match exactly, both hues and tones. Yes you should be able to see all the gradations. I would suggest you go back through the calibration software, it sounds like you simply don't have the steps correct.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks... one more question... you see all of the gradiations even when the screen is at the lowest brightness setting?
-
'Lowest' doesn't mean 'too dark'. Mine happens to be at the lowest setting and is still slightly too bright, hense my need for further reduction via the software. If you go through the steps, you should be properly calibrated - your settings may be different - it's really not important hwo the settings compare, as long as you end up with a proper calibration - then the end results are the same.
Also, if you are getting the extremes washed out, perhaps your ambient room light is too bright. I work in the dark.
-
Yes the backlighting is the same - however the 'problem' is simply hype. Yes the *hardware* lower limit is too high, however using the software driver to slightly reduce it into calibration, it is perfect. Just because you have to use software *and* hardware to get it done is not an issue in actual use. People report this 'problem' on forums ad nausium, and having one in front of my face, I can tell it's a non-issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is baloney, particularly when the intent is for critical (or even just accurate) color work.
Reducing the brightness via software (on the display or in the video drivers) reduces the overall tonal range the display can use and that has a negative side effect on color rendition as well. I've covered this extensively in other threads and so anyone looking for details can search around.
One thing I will add is that if you do adjust the LUTs to dim the display and the color meter reads the display as, lets say 120cd/m2 when in fact it's 200 (sans LUT fiddling) it is not going to actually be that dim. Despite how much you try to fiddle with software, to reduce the brightness of the display, a display that is too bright will always be too bright.
Case in point, my displays. My primary monitor is a ACD 20" and the secondary is a Dell 2005FPW. The ACD dims down via hardware without issue, the Dell is 200cd/m2 at it's dimmest hardware setting. Fiddling with the OSD on the Dell, I can get EyeOne Match to measure the dell at 120cd/m2 just like the ACD. Unfortunately, this is just not the case as windows are noticeably brighter on the Dell. ColorEyes also gives me the same false reading.
For me, this is no issue, since my focus is on the ACD and the Dell is only used for holding tool pallets. However, someone trying to use a display like the Dell as their color-editing display will run into accuracy issues and there is no way to get around them using software.
I've done extensive testing on my Dell, trying various combinations of profiling and fiddling, I've measured the tones, tried to smooth grayscale gradients using ColorEyes and it is not possible to get the display to calibrate well enough for critical color work. You cannot alter Ones and Zeros in any way that will alter the behavior of a devise operating in the physical world.
If critical color work is the goal, skimping on hardware to save a couple hundred will always net you less than what you want.
Oh... and more important than the display is your ability to perceive color with your own two eyes. Just because you can't readily see (or in some cases even aware of) any issues, it does not mean they do not exist. For critical work, the idea is to minimize variables you can control so you can more easily work with what you can't. Using overly-bright displays is counter-productive to that goal.
-
What's baloney is how people blow it out of proportion. As I've said many times - yes it happens, but it is BARELY noticeable. I don't contest that this is an inappropriate choice for absolute pro critical work (but then again show me an LCD that isn't, compared to a perfect CRT). However that is NOT what this thread is about, so that is a moot point. Every monitor doesn't NEED to be lab spec perfect, it simply isn't used to that degree. That's my whole point.
#1, this issue is VERY small in reality, but the harping on the internet makes it sound like a HUGE issue.
#2, most of the harping is done by people that don't even have one of the monitors.
It would be exactly like me, going around in Leica forums telling everyone the M8 is fatally flawed because of some purple fringing.
In reality I read a snippet about that. It may be an issue, it may not be. I have no fricken idea, I have not even seen an M8 let alone touched one, et alone own one, have used one, have seen the problem or worked through it to know.
Unless the info was coming from someone that has gone through all fo that, it's called making a mountain out of a mole hill, the same way people talk about many things on forums, including the 2405.
So you can call baloney, salami or whatever you want - the 2405 is still a superb monitor for non-top-professional work - again, what this thread is about.
-
Yes, I did.
That is one of the reasons why I pointed out the links ...
If it can't be dimmed enough, it shouldn't be used for critical work. If it can be dimmed, it probably can be used, since the colour profile from calibration can be used to compensate for almost any other weaknesses in colour representation.
Kaelaria's post indicates that you have to dim it quite a lot in software, which really isn't a good thing for colour and brightness accuracy. He also appears to have a different idea of what "critical work" means than what's usually understood by the term.
This does not necessarily mean that you will experience problems with it, but it increases the likelyhood significantly.
I realise that this may not be the advice you want, but I really can't tell what you might find acceptable or not. But when colour management experts (and I'm not one of them) state quite clearly that LUT adjustments of brightness should be avoided, it's a good idea to pay attention.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]