Eizo or NEC

[kgross]

I'm looking for some feedback about what display to get, and so I want to ask you all, the "pros", what you think.

I'm considering either the Eizo color edge CG241w or the NEC LCD3090WQXi. I'm sure they are both great displays but I'd like to pick the best one. I live out in the middle of nowhere so I can't go someplace to directly compare them (the NEC hasn't even stated shipping yet). I've used an Eizo color edge at my office and have been quite impressed, but I've never used an NEC so I don't know what to think.

I know the displays are slightly different beasts (24" vs 30", 1920x1200 vs. 2560x1600 etc.), but they are priced about the same. Also, both have internal hardware color calibration features, which ought to be better than calibrating the color on the graphics card, right? Per pixel the NEC is a better deal, so is the Eizo worth it? The 30" Eizo is priced out of my league, so that's not an option.

I'll primarily be using the display for image processing stuff, and the occasional movie. I do HDR panoramic photography (32-bit per channel 12000x6000 pixel images), and so both have merits. The two most important things to me are the accuracy of the color and the size.

Does the Eizo really have significantly better color? The Eizo has 12-bit look-up tables and 16-bit internal processing but the NEC also has 12-bit LUTs ( I don't know about the processing) and they both claim to have a color gamut that covers nearly 100% of adobe rgb). The NEC is much larger (both in size and pixels), which would be nice for viewing/editing those monster-sized panoramas.

What do you Eizo fans think? How about you NEC fans? Any feedback would be appreciated.

[budjames]

I've been using an Eizo ColorEdge CE240W for about a year. I love it! The hardware color calibration routine is awesome and easy to do. I use an EyeOne which is compatible with Eizo's color calibration software.

I'm looking forward to buying the 30" version once the prices drop a bit.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[digitaldog]

Since the NEC isn't out, the question can't be answered. You can run out and get the Eizo, probably spend a LOT more money but, no one yet can tell you if the money is well spent or not. You'll just have to wait for the NEC to ship or compare the 2690 to your choices.

[ihelfant]

Hi, all -- just to throw another one into the equation, I'm considering both the Eizo CG 241 and the Samsung XL 24 (both a bit over 2000).  Earlier, I was thinking the NEC 2690 WUXI SV might be a cheaper alternative, but it appears as if the luminance values may need to be at least 130 and probably 150 plus for good calibration, from what I've been reading, and even then there's the issue of calibrating w/out being restricted to the SV software.

In my case my primary purpose is to print to an HP 9180Pro (mostly landscapes but with a variety of subjects ranging from architecture to people as well) in a color managed environment under Solux 4700 K lighting for proofs.  The folks over at Color Eyes Pro (that's what I use for calibration with an XRite DTP-94) monitor seem very excited about the new Samsung XL series, and I'm now favoring the XL 24 over the Eizo CG241 and the substantially lower priced  NEC 2690WUXI SV.  I do want the wider color gamut to see if I can effectively carry RGB gamut colors over onto the printer.  For me, the printing is what it's all about. Any reactions (or maybe it's better to say predictions) concerning the XL 24 (ie, do people think it's a definite better bet than the NECs and Eizos in that price range ($2200), especially versus the CG 241?  I've read Andrew's erudite comments about the problematic nature of an 8-bit pipeline with a wide-gamut display but think I've come to the conclusion that it will be best for me, especially as I'll be running it beside a conventional "sRGB" LCD display in dual display configuration.  Any comments are appreciated, and I assume they may shed light on the original post as well.

[digitaldog]

Earlier, I was thinking the NEC 2690 WUXI SV might be a cheaper alternative, but it appears as if the luminance values may need to be at least 130 and probably 150 plus for good calibration, from what I've been reading, and even then there's the issue of calibrating w/out being restricted to the SV software.

This is a problem how?

[ihelfant]

I'm not sure that it will be a problem, quite honestly.  I haven't figured out the exact luminance of my recently set up viewing situation yet (4 solux 50 watt 4700 K bulbs in a track about 6 feet above the viewing area).  The luminance of the proofing area could be adjusted via the wattage plus adding or subtracting bulbs, as I work alone in my office w a window that can be blacked out.  I'm going by the theory that greater flexibility in being able to adjust the display luminance down toward 100/110 is a good thing.  It sounds as if you are impressed by the NEC 2690 WUXI SV (by inference and what I recall of your many postings)?  If you believe it's as good or better a bet than the new LED Samsungs are likely to be, I'm certainly all ears and ready to be educated.  Many thanks. -- Ian H.

PS: I guess I have the impression that the Color Eyes Display Pro software is more powerful and flexible than the SV but am hampered in comparing them by having the former and not the latter.

[digitaldog]

PS: I guess I have the impression that the Color Eyes Display Pro software is more powerful and flexible than the SV but am hampered in comparing them by having the former and not the latter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doubt it (here comes Jack). When the display manufacturer builds software to drive their own software, they usually have far less issues compared to building software that controls their hardware.

[jackbingham]

Doubt it (here comes Jack). When the display manufacturer builds software to drive their own software, they usually have far less issues compared to building software that controls their hardware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow, you pull that out of an NEC marketing piece? If this were true Lacie would be at the top of the heap. They've been doing it longer than anybody. But alas I have not seen them mentioned here in ages. There are countless examples of third party companies making better software. Nikon scanners and Silverfast immediately comes to mind. Eizo Color Navigator and Coloreyes is another good example for many customers. Third party software support for many cameras makes me wonder why photographers aren't screaming about NEC. They certainly would if Nikon locked everyone out.
Monitor manufacturers provide us with sdks so we know how to talk to their displays. Some of them actually adhere to the ddc protocol so no sdk is required, few unfortunately. There are companies, like ICS who have banked their entire survival on monitor accuracy for soft proofing. It's possible that they may know far more about calibrating displays than a monitor manufacturer who's primary task is building monitors. Again the camera example is relevant. The use of ACR versus Canon DPP is I imagine 75%-25% if it's even that close.
I think we could probably find more examples of third party solutions being adopted in the Photo world than manufacturer based solutions.

I will restate my concerns with proprietary monitor calibration just so we're all clear and Andrew doesn't spin this into money.
First lets start with DNG. The argument here is partially against camera manufacturers having secret sauce that might leave you hanging if the manufacturer decided to stop doing what their doing. This could easily occur with monitors as well.
Second the proprietary choice leaves users with no way to really confirm which solution is actually better. How can the consumer possibly make an informed choice.  
Third an existing user of a particular product may not find having to use multiple solutions a positive thing. I have said many times that this reason alone is a good one for manufacturers to look closely at. Large customers using flexible solutions are most likely not going to buy into NEC if they are forced to use two monitor calibration solutions instead of one. I have a fair amount of experience with this item, trust me it's true.
I don't think this is a good thing for the consumer the manufacturer or the industry. Just to shunt this one away, I don't think this has much impact on Coloreyes at all.

[digitaldog]

Wow, you pull that out of an NEC marketing piece?

No need (if its even there). I own the product, and many others.

If this were true Lacie would be at the top of the heap. They've been doing it longer than anybody.

Longer? Who said anything about longevity (oh, you're doing that). Has nothing to do with the points made.

But alas I have not seen them mentioned here in ages. There are countless examples of third party companies making better software.

Indeed there are. And cases where it's not the case. Lets get specific, in this case SpectraView driving the NEC units. If you have some metric (not the marketing stuff you guys use in terms of "accuracy", lets not go down that rabbit hole again, its embarrassing for you), that you drive the NEC "better" than their product, bring it on.

Monitor manufacturers provide us with sdks so we know how to talk to their displays.

And some don't. And that has to be a pisser for you.

Some of them actually adhere to the ddc protocol so no sdk is required, few unfortunately. There are companies, like ICS who have banked their entire survival on monitor accuracy for soft proofing.

Survival? Sounds scary.

It's possible that they may know far more about calibrating displays than a monitor manufacturer who's primary task is building monitors.

Yes its possible. And it's possible they know more and do a lot better job (lets see, you recall Pressview, Barco Reverence V and Sony Artisan)? Add NEC to the group.

I will restate my concerns with proprietary monitor calibration just so we're all clear and Andrew doesn't spin this into money.

So in terms of money and spinning, that you don't have the ability to drive the NEC doesn't have bearing on your disappointment in proprietary monitor calibration?

First lets start with DNG. The argument here is partially against camera manufacturers having secret sauce that might leave you hanging if the manufacturer decided to stop doing what their doing. This could easily occur with monitors as well.

So what's the lifespan of an archived Raw image and the lifespan of a display? Just a bit of a difference? No, if I still had a Radius Pressview, one I had 10 years ago, I could not drive the software under OS X. But then I'd be hard pressed to be using a 10+ year old CRT anyway. My 10 year old Raw file? Yes, I do want access to that data today and in 10 years. Bad analogy Jack!

Second the proprietary choice leaves users with no way to really confirm which solution is actually better.

NOT if you use the silly accuracy yardstick you use. Its quite easy to do if you have the proper tools (a reference grade spectroradiometer and proper software).

How can the consumer possibly make an informed choice.  

One thing they can do is read outside reviews conducted by people who know how to test these things, instead of the marketing hype of the manufacturer (in this case, even someone with a 3rd party software solution).

I don't think this has much impact on Coloreyes at all.

I'd hope so.

[Nill Toulme]

In any event, you're not forced to use the NEC software to profile the NEC.  I did my 2090uxi very nicely with the Eye One software until I got Spectraview.  I like Spectraview much better, not only for the fact that it addresses the monitor's 12-bit LUTs directly, but also for its ease of use.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[digitaldog]

In any event, you're not forced to use the NEC software to profile the NEC.  I did my 2090uxi very nicely with the Eye One software until I got Spectraview.  I like Spectraview much better, not only for the fact that it addresses the monitor's 12-bit LUTs directly, but also for its ease of use.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely! I've also used EyeOne Match and even the new beta colorimunki software with that hardware product on the NEC. You're not forced to use the NEC software but considering the cost (a mere $99) and better, their bundle with a colorimeter if you don't have one, its a screaming deal. The NEC software is also far, far easier to use once you setup the target calibration(s) you wish. Yes, you can switch on the fly from multiple calibration and profiles which is, like the Artisan software, very useful.

[mistybreeze]

How can the consumer possibly make an informed choice?

This consumer spent $80 to listen to Dr. Karl Lang and Chris Murphy at their Color Management seminar at PhotoPlusExpo. There, Dr. Lang said his tests concluded that SpectraView software, when used on NEC monitors, out-peformed third party results. Call me a sucker for a cute geek in a ponytail jumping for joy but I'll follow Dr. Lang to the ends of Delta e.

They're not as cool looking as Apple Cinema Displays but I'll take performance over style any day (within limits). Ever since I've switched to NEC, I couldn't be happier with my monitor choice, its performance, its warranty, and the money I saved. I own SpectraView and the original Monaco Optix xr Pro. This consumer is armed and ready for anything.

[digitaldog]

Call me a sucker for a cute geek in a ponytail jumping for joy but I'll follow Dr. Lang to the ends of Delta e.

He's single!

[jackbingham]

Of course NEC displays work best with Spectraview.  There is no way anyone can make a fair comparison since you can not compare apples with apples. Since no one but NEC can address the internal monitor lut it's a pretty sure bet they'll win every time. So let us not overly guild the lilly. They have prevented a fair comparison for what ever reason good or bad. There is really no way to know if any third party solution might be better.

[digitaldog]

Of course NEC displays work best with Spectraview.  There is no way anyone can make a fair comparison since you can not compare apples with apples.

Sure you can. You can use any number of other software products to compare. Now you're saying, of course NEC does it best (which I also believe is true). So you're now saying, the proprietary solution is best (I don't know how you personally made this discovery), but we all know there are a multitude of products and instruments besides SpectraView one can use. So you're saying that unless NEC opens an SDK for you, this is totally unfair?  

NEC is best but despite the fact other products can calibrate it, its not a fair comparison. That makes no sense. If you simply could not use any other product to calibrate the unit, you'd have some grounds here but we all know, that's not the case.

[Czornyj]

Of course NEC displays work best with Spectraview.  There is no way anyone can make a fair comparison since you can not compare apples with apples. Since no one but NEC can address the internal monitor lut it's a pretty sure bet they'll win every time. So let us not overly guild the lilly. They have prevented a fair comparison for what ever reason good or bad. There is really no way to know if any third party solution might be better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a matter of sense, SV profiler is a third party solution. It was developed by basICColor, and then only badged "NEC Spectraview profiler". You can buy it separetly, and, for example, "adress the internal monitor LUT" and hardware calibrate Eizo CE/CG monitor, some say it gives better results than Eizo's Color Navigator.

I suspect, that Quato's profiler is also a basICColor profiler, it has very familiar functions. So probably there are 3 professional graphics monitors manufacturers on the market (Eizo, Nec, Quato), and it seems that 2 of them use basICColor product (I ignore LaCie, it's NEC with LaCie sticker on it). Something tells me, that clever Germans just made a good product...

[digitaldog]

In a matter of sense, SV profiler is a third party solution. It was developed by basICColor, and then only badged "NEC Spectraview profiler".

In Europe yes, in the states, no. SpectraView is all NEC's baby. Two totally different software packages.

[jackbingham]

Cut the bull would ya. If you can not address the internal lut you can not make as good a profile particularly if the target values are a reach from the monitor's default state. This has nothing to do with Coloreyes. This is a FACT. How can you possibly compare 4 or 5 software solutions when only one has access to all the tools. It does not make any sense at all. You are not comparing apples with apples plain and simple. You can claim the the NEC software does the best job under these limited conditions but you can't say it is as good as it could be because you don't know and can't find out.
Or we could look at it this way. Of course it's better, everyone else has one hand tied behind their backs.

[eronald]

There's one very good reason to use third-party software, namely calibrating multi-head systems.

And a good reason not to use ColorEyes' excellent product, namely that they aren't talking to me, ever since I said their evaluation module was not necessarily significant.

Edmund

[digitaldog]

Cut the bull would ya.

The pot calling the kettle black I say....

If you can not address the internal lut you can not make as good a profile particularly if the target values are a reach from the monitor's default state.

Apparently there's another product from our friends in Europe who do.

And I would say that depending on the native state, you can do a valid comparison when the LUTs are not used. Is having high bit LUT useful outside that state? Yes. And the software I said does a better job than yours, something you've agreed to above is the point here.

This has nothing to do with Coloreyes. This is a FACT. How can you possibly compare 4 or 5 software solutions when only one has access to all the tools.

Unfair advantage, maybe. But we can and should be able to lump your software product with the rest and if the proprietary solutions are better, well end of story. I guess this might be a reason you have a distaste for the NEC product. And its a reason I stated, and you agreed that SpectraView software IS what users should be driving this display with.

You can claim the the NEC software does the best job under these limited conditions but you can't say it is as good as it could be because you don't know and can't find out.

No I can and I have. Even you agreed its better.