Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: imac vs eizo?  (Read 17111 times)

Michael Hoth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
imac vs eizo?
« on: October 27, 2013, 01:36:14 am »

hello together, i cannot decide what unit i should take.

buying an apple mini with an eizo cg276 or an new imac.
are there really so many diffrences in those monitors?

want to use it for larger fineartprinting.


best michael

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2013, 02:50:09 am »

No idea of the colour gamut on an iMac but they have more contrast/punch than an eizo and are usually not uniform. The iMac will not give you true strong greens/reds and more shadow detail with a CG class eizo (from my observations not measurements)
I wouldn't contemplate colour critical work without a high quality monitor.
Logged

elolaugesen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2013, 11:46:05 am »

I only print fine art on matt papers.

Have used a An Apple Cinema for years.  quite happy. But only sRGB.
 Always problems matching screen with print (did all I could to make sure environment, screen brightness etc.  were fixed as discussed and documented on this site)  but never quite right.  Created sample prints until colours matched (I never say perfect(impossible to do anyway), because it is always in the eyes of the beholder)  and most/many artists actually want their work to look brighter, sharper etc. for prints to sell.
 
Bought a three year old EIZ0 CG222W.   what a difference.  Adobe RGB 92%.  Color navigator software using spyder 4 puck for profiling screen etc etc…..  my screen now matches prints more/better than in the past I can now get away with one or two sample prints.
Do not have a light booth.  use grafilite  ott lite and day light outside.

cut my work in half….    will never go back.  Would rather buy another high quality monitor.
cheers elo
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 03:20:48 pm by elolaugesen »
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2013, 12:55:08 pm »

Here's a new and somewhat interesting test I just came up with to try out the gamut performance of your display.

Create a color fill selection in a new photoshop Lab color space document in Photoshop's Color Picker of L60,-30,-30, convert to your custom display profile and then assign any number of wide gamut color spaces (i.e. AdobeRGB, CIERGB, ProphotoRGB) to see if you get an intense Cyan you're eyes have never seen before in nature or in your entire life. If the Lab color cyan fill barely changes or just gets lighter or slightly more saturated, your display color gamut is incapable of rendering what a Fuji Frontier DL430 inkjet can output on glossy paper.

I just accidentally discovered this "out of this world" cyan recently printing to a Fuji Frontier DL430 ink jet printer at Walgreens sending an image I shot of a cyan dress primarily made up of the Lab numbers above converted to the Fuji's DL430 ICC color space and having the tech operator screw the settings up that cranked up the saturation unintentionally creating this unbelievably deep, intense and rich looking cyan.

My DSLR and my sRGB gamut LG 27" LED display cannot capture (even processed in Raw ProPhotoRGB space) or preview this cyan shot from the Fuji glossy print lit under full spectrum light and instead only renders it as a normal sky or baby blue with a bit of yellow.

I can't even show you what this cyan looks like by posting a shot of it because sRGB and AdobeRGB won't reproduce it. The DL430 icc printer profile's 3D gamut analysis shows this cyan located outside of AdobeRGB's color space. I also have not seen this cyan reproduced on any commercial offset or digital press, but then I don't go to tech conventions and check out the latest technology.

Here's the Fuji icc profile I converted to...

http://products.fujifilm.eu/support/color_management/photographic/frontier_drylab.html
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 01:45:38 pm by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2013, 01:38:56 pm »

I've downloaded a shot of this print depicting the intense cyan dress next to how my Epson NX330 reproduces it. Both are in their original encoded space with the jpeg processed straight off the camera in AdobeRGB and the edited Raw in ProPhotoRGB.

They both have been left in their respective color spaces meaning they weren't converted to sRGB so you must view in a color managed browser.

You are welcome to download and convert to your display profile and then assign any number of wide gamut spaces including the linked Fuji icc printer profile.

BTW none of them are even in the ballpark in reproducing the intensity of this cyan viewed under full spectrum light.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 01:40:48 pm by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2013, 07:59:43 am »

want to use it for larger fineartprinting.

I've done some "dabbling" with fine-art-repro on an unpaid basis off and on for several years, so "consider the source".
http://berean.zenfolio.com/130302_edwards_art
 
Originally, I downplayed the importance of having a very-good to excellent monitor, but I've since changed my opinion. Fine-art-repro is perhaps one of the more demanding aspects of photography, especially as far as accuracy. You really, really want to have the best WYSIWYG you can cost justify to evaluate and compare the original, the image on the monitor, and the print .... realizing that the gamut and dynamic range of the paper + ink is limited.
 
Theoretically, if your lighting and work-flow are done really, really well, and really, really consistently, there might be less priority to have an absolutely top-of-the-line, very expensive monitor like the eizo. Theoretically, a "by-the-numbers" approach (a'la Dan Margulis?) seems like it should apply. Maybe I'm the only one this applies to, but theory and practice diverge in my case. E'tu?
 
I suppose a lot of the eizo vs imac decision would depend on how much you are charging, your annual revenue and profit margin, how high your customer expectations are, and your competition. For me, a mid-range IPS monitor with 98%+ coverage of the Adobe-98 gamut, and hardware calibration are what I can cost justify.  I've given up on doing serious repro. Too difficult, too demanding, and, for me, gets old after a while. YMMV.
 
Opinions differ, but my impression is that fine-art-repro is much more about accuracy than "artistic interpretation".  With "normal" photography, you can rarely hold the original scene and print next to each other.  But my impression that "side by side" is the norm for repro, if not the "gold standard".
 
If you rely on a sRGB-class monitor, I'd think you'll do a lot of trial-and-error printing.
 
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: [ot] Evaluate oog colors with Walgreen Fuji vs CostCo DryCreek profiles?
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2013, 08:06:35 am »

I just accidentally discovered this "out of this world" cyan recently printing to a Fuji Frontier DL430 ink jet printer at Walgreens

Interesting. Have you done something like this with Costco's DryCreek profiles? My understanding is that each Costco has specific profiles for the pair of printers they typically have ... wide Epson inkjet and Noritsu/Fuji high volume wet(?) printers.

How about something similar with a color profile from a 12-ink printer like Canon ipf5100?
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

Michael Hoth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2013, 09:05:05 am »

thank you for your interessting and konstructive answers!

related to your answers it would be better to buy a printer first (epson 3880) and check my worklfow and the print results with my calibratated (colormunki) imac.

best michael

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2013, 09:21:57 am »

related to your answers it would be better to ...

Not meaning to be nosy, but with only 7 posts so far on LuLa and very little in your profile, you're even more of a forum newbie than me. I took a brief look at your website and several previous posts. I don't want to be over-estimate or under-estimate your experience and expertise level.

Also, I think I may have incorrectly assumed you were interested in repro of fine-art rather than printing your own images. Or not?

Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing answers to questions such as:
* How you have been getting prints done so far?
   ** If by others, why do your own printing?
* How long you have been doing fine-art-printing?
* Self-appraisal of your experience and expertise with ...
   **  printing, color-management, photography in general, repro, etc.
* Current equipment, such as camera(s), lenses, printer(s), lighting, software, etc.
   ** Your website implied you have medium format equipment? Digital?
   ** From previous LuLa posts ... you  have Canon 5d2 and some very nice L lenses?
   ** You're considering an Epson 3880?
   ** 400 to 600+ 8x8" mostly b/w prints a year?
* General, brief description of your workflow
   ** a previous post mentioned "fineart printing for photographers" ... Uwe Steinmueller
* Rough idea of your budget for hardware/software
* If you want to do this professionally,
   ** prints for yourself?
   ** to sell your prints to others?
   ** how high your customer expectations are?
   ** to print other people's images for them to sell?
   ** Your competition's quality and pricing
   ** part-time or full-time expectation
   ** make enough to write-off your expensive toys,
   ** or enough to have a profitable endeavor
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 09:50:43 am by l_d_allan »
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: [ot] Evaluate oog colors with Walgreen Fuji vs CostCo DryCreek profiles?
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2013, 11:24:11 am »

Interesting. Have you done something like this with Costco's DryCreek profiles? My understanding is that each Costco has specific profiles for the pair of printers they typically have ... wide Epson inkjet and Noritsu/Fuji high volume wet(?) printers.

How about something similar with a color profile from a 12-ink printer like Canon ipf5100?


I've been off and on checking out color repro quality (both for combined accuracy and gamut performance-rarely achieving both) at several local one hour labs since 1999 starting with a service bureau startup's Fuji Pictography 3000, several Noritsu & Fuji Frontier wet labs and now this Fuji DL430 dry lab at Walgreens. I don't have access to other printers you mentioned except 7880 wide format Epsons which are accurate to my limited color gamut sRGB workflow.

The dilemma I just discovered with the DL430 is that doing test prints for accuracy in the past was usually pretty good (especially with Noritsu's) using DryCreekPhoto database profiles but unintentionally limited my ability to "realize" what other color potentials these newer machines could output (from prints viewed under full spectrum light-not in-store flotubes) because most of their 3D gamut models were always either well within AdobeRGB with most right around sRGB and just under it.

I emphasize the word "realize" because 3D gamut analysis doesn't allow you to picture in the mind's eye what a certain color would look like that technically hasn't been seen before and happen to fall outside lets say AdobeRGB due to the fact most devices can't reproduce ALL the possible colors of that space, thus forcing an adoption of "Out of sight, out of mind, so why bother and just go for accuracy" mentality.

I mean what photo print test target of a real world scene would contain colors outside of AdobeRGB since we don't know where to go in the real world to photograph it? You'ld have to carry a spectro with you everywhere to test for it.

The DL430 cyan color discovered by accident by the operator leaving "Auto Correction" on within the Fuji MS software while in the printer driver space/RGB data as well got me to "realize" in my mind just exactly what those colors look like that fall outside AdobeRGB. I now have a real world test target (in the form of a photo on glossy paper) that shows this intense cyan but can't find a capture device or display to reproduce it.

Strange and interesting dilemma, wouldn't you say?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:37:43 am by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: [ot] Evaluate oog colors with Walgreen Fuji vs CostCo DryCreek profiles?
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2013, 12:38:43 pm »

I've been off and on checking out color repro quality (both for combined accuracy and gamut performance-rarely achieving both)

Interesting. I hadn't thought of there being a trade-off, but I suppose there is. When trying to evaluate a printer profile, I do try to understand DE2k, and also the gamut volume reported by ArgyllCms colprof.

Like the old Engineering Econ 101 dilemma: Which do you want, accuracy, gamut performance, or reasonable cost? Pick two.

Quote
test prints for accuracy

I'm curious how you do that ... eyeball of test prints ... side-by-side if possible?

Quote
... I emphasize the word "realize" because 3D gamut analysis doesn't allow you to picture in the mind's eye ...

I infer you are referencing ColorThink? GamutVision? Or a utility from ArgyllCms? Or X-Rite software? Or ???

Eventually, I want to better understand the difference between Relative-Color intent, Perceptual, Absolute, and Saturation.

Quote
Strange and interesting dilemma, wouldn't you say?

That pretty much summaries my current expertise with color management ... to my shame I'd admit. Humbling.
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2013, 01:11:50 pm »

buying an apple mini with an eizo cg276 or an new imac.
are there really so many diffrences in those monitors?

I've done a lot of side-by-side comparisons particularly between the Eizos, NECs, iMacs and Apple Cinema Displays over the years. Every time I and calibrate them I'm surprised at the side-by-side results. I'm a demanding, super picky printmaker myself and have long recommended Eizo's and NEC's to my clients. It may not be politically correct for a color management consultant to say this but, I have to admit, when they are really exceptionally calibrated, Apple's latest iMac and Cinema Displays look really good next to a much more expensive Eizo or NEC. Half the battle here is getting an excellent calibration and I've found that i1Profiler produces exceptionally smooth gradations and shadow detail on 8 bit displays. You would think that a 16 display would have a big advantage but the results speak for themselves, and visually there can be very, very little differences. Years ago high bit displays had a much bigger advantage then they do today, IMO. There are several brands of 8 bit monitors that utilize the same IPS wide angle LCD viewing technology (which is essential) that Apple uses in theirs (and Eizo and NEC for that matter), so there are lots of options to choose from.

What I'm surprised to see are the black point differences between matte surface Eizo/NEC and glossy glass displays. I've long been a fan and user of matte surface displays with less reflections. Apple's older iMacs and LED Cinema Display have horrible reflections that I can't stand. Apple's new "fused glass" displays found in the latest iMac and retinaMacBookPro (rMBP) really do reduce the reflections to an acceptable level. What's interesting is what happens when we compare the blacks and shadows on an image on a matte surface NEC/Eizo display side-by-side to a low reflection, fused glass iMac/rMBP display. The matte surface displays have a weaker DMax while the fused glass displays have a much darker black point. For someone that prints on a paper that also has rich blacks (like Baryta papers) the difference is really quite significant. The matte surface display can't simulate the printing process's rich blacks anywhere near as well as the fused glass display can - it's just that simple. Seeing the same super rich blacks and shadows onscreen prior to printing to a baryta paper is really nice, and the same goes with the deep dark saturated colors that approach full black.

I work primarily with night photography and images that are full of delicate, extreme shadow detail and dark saturated colors. It sounds kinda odd but I've come to really prefer looking at and developing my images on my rMBP display instead of my nice large matte surface desktop displays that cost me so much! I can't wait for someone to come out with a 30+" 4K fused glass display - I'll order 2 as soon as someone does.

I can lighten the black point of a rich black display to match the lighter blacks of a matte printing process, but can't darken the black point of a matte surface display. So I recommend the fused glass displays to those that print on papers with rich blacks. But for someone that prints primarily to cotton rag matte surface papers I'd still recommend a matte surface display for them.  I'd even go so far as to recommend 2 displays - one matte and one fused glass for those demanding printmakers that print to both types of papers. Having both can really go a long way towards putting you in the right mindset that's conducive for the printing process your preparing your images for.

A few years ago I wouldn't have thought I'd ever say I like glass displays but our processes and thinking evolve if we're open minded to these changes. That's my $0.02!
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

l_d_allan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • Berean photos
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2013, 01:33:44 pm »

but, I have to admit, when they are really exceptionally calibrated, Apple's latest iMac and Cinema Displays look really good next to a much more expensive Eizo or NEC.

My understanding is that Apple, Dell, HP, and others mostly use IPS monitors made by LG. You can find LG's webpage with specs for the sRGB and Adobe-98 coverage, and figure out which vendor is using which monitor for a specific model. (don't have the URL handy right now). That's my 2¢

Quote
What I'm surprised to see are the black point differences between matte surface Eizo/NEC and glossy glass displays. ... It sounds kinda odd but I've come to really prefer looking at and developing my images on my rMBP display instead of my nice large matte surface desktop displays that cost me so much!

Very interesting.

Quote
I work primarily with night photography
That's an interest of mine, also. I'll take a look at your web-site.
Logged
retired in Colorado Springs, CO, USA ... hobby'ist with mostly Canon gear

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2013, 01:37:55 pm »

Quote
test prints for accuracy

I'm curious how you do that ... eyeball of test prints ... side-by-side if possible?

Yes, viewed under daylight balanced/full spectrum light either under a direct sun beam on my porch or my T8 5000K flotubes at my desk next to my display. Clipped sRGB data in saturated flowers printed on Noritsu wet labs 5 years ago created darker, less saturated flat color blobs, not so on the DL430.

Quote
I infer you are referencing ColorThink? GamutVision? Or a utility from ArgyllCms? Or X-Rite software? Or

Eventually, I want to better understand the difference between Relative-Color intent, Perceptual, Absolute, and Saturation.

I was using Apple's Colorsync Utility for the 3D gamut comparison. I can't exactly prove if this cyan is falling outside of AdobeRGB which is why I wanted those with displays having that gamut to test if their display can reproduce a mid tone cyan that's "out of this world". I don't have a spectro to measure this cyan off the Fuji print.

Download the Fuji DL430 profile I linked above and soft proof some vibrant images of flowers and sunsets. That profile has a robust set of rendering intents that actually change the look to allow you to edit in ProPhotoRGB and later convert to the actual profile afterward using the same Soft Proof settings. In some instances I just convert while having the dialog box open and check RGB readouts to see what the profile does to black point numbers and saturated colors that would clip converting to sRGB.

BTW that Fuji profile was built using ArgyllCMS software if that makes any difference. See info below.

Just to add the interesting thing about Fuji's Auto Correction setting is that it invokes its "Image Intelligence" algorithms which (strictly from my observation) basically remaps clipped sRGB data in subjects like flowers/sunsets to the Fuji's full gamut potential using Relative Intent that prevents detail "Intelligently" from blowing out.

The downside is that the rest of the image's saturation appearance doesn't increase proportionally making what would've clipped appear as if it's pasted on top of the image. The vibrant (glowing) subject just doesn't perceptually look like it fits in the scene even though all the detail is retained.

For example there's an 8x10 Fuji DL430 print sample hanging in Walgreen's Photo dept. of pink flamingos among some grayish/brown rocks where the intensity of their pink detailed plumage makes them seem like they're backlit and floating above the rocks. It just looks odd.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 01:40:11 pm by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2013, 02:23:12 pm »

My understanding is that Apple, Dell, HP, and others mostly use IPS monitors made by LG. You can find LG's webpage with specs for the sRGB and Adobe-98 coverage, and figure out which vendor is using which monitor for a specific model. (don't have the URL handy right now). That's my 2¢

All of the display manufacturers are buying LCD panels from LCD panel manufactures (LG, Samsung, Sharp, etc). Today's IPS displays tend to be larger than sRGB and smaller than AdobeRGB. The AdobeRGB displays tend to be referred to as 'large gamut displays' and sell at a higher price point. It's a discussion for another thread but the benefit of large gamut displays is questionable, and they can even be counter-productive in many workflows.

The point I'm making is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach or display. When you ask "Which display is better" you should probably elaborate more upon what your printing processes (IE: pleasing color prints with this type of image on this type of paper). The conventional norms like "more gamut is better", "more bits are better", "bigger is better", etc don't always pass real world tests, IMO. It's good to know the theory but it's even better to put them to the test with real world printing and comparison. I love it when the later presents a surprise.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2013, 03:24:29 pm »


...The point I'm making is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach or display. When you ask "Which display is better" you should probably elaborate more upon what your printing processes (IE: pleasing color prints with this type of image on this type of paper). The conventional norms like "more gamut is better", "more bits are better", "bigger is better", etc don't always pass real world tests, IMO. It's good to know the theory but it's even better to put them to the test with real world printing and comparison. I love it when the later presents a surprise.

I'm assuming that you are using a wide gamut calibrated display, right Scott? I don't have access to one so I'm curious to know if you've been able to produce a cyan even in Photoshop's Color Picker in ProPhotoRGB space having a level of vibrancy I tried to describe above.

The green channel needs to be between 100-130 in ProPhotoRGB which is the Lab luminance range where the cyan might reside as shown in the Fuji printer's 3D model that expands outside of AdobeRGB.

Thanks for any feedback in this regard.

Logged

D Fosse

  • Guest
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2013, 03:29:22 pm »

Deep cyan is tricky on any display (or any RGB device) since it drives the red channel towards zero. That's the gamut boundary.

IMO gamut isn't nearly as important as you'd think. I use a wide gamut Eizo at work and a standard gamut NEC at home, frequently bringing work home to finish up. I rarely even think about the gamut differences, and it's certainly not a practical limitation in any way.

I wouldn't buy the Eizo for the gamut, but for its other qualities. It's still worth the price.

IPS panels all come from LG Display and chances are corresponding models from different manufacturers have the same panel. But that's only a small part of the story. A "raw" panel can look pretty awful before the engineers get to work on it, and there's the question of tolerances. The best panel batches go to Eizo and NEC and a few others - at a price. The C, D and E batches go to "budget" brands.

A good example of this is what Eizo managed to get out of PVA panels (which they sold until recently). You'd be hard pressed to tell it from an IPS panel, unless you specifically looked for the small telltale signs. On a "lesser" brand monitor, PVA is close to useless.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 03:36:57 pm by D Fosse »
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2013, 03:57:10 pm »

Quote
IMO gamut isn't nearly as important as you'd think.

The maker of that dress in the pic I posted above might disagree with you. I mean if you can't see it on your display, you can't edit it. But with regard to hobbyist, yes, it doesn't matter.

In fact I'll add a 30 year photo lab owner in my local town who finally upgraded to a digital workflow with a bank of wide format Epsons prints to the Fuji DL430 at the Walgreen's I mentioned whose wife manages and knows how to set the Fuji driver software for color managed output, but of course I won't get the cyan because Auto Correct will be turned off in order to get accurate results that match my sRGB gamut workflow whose data is incapable of communicating this cyan to the Fuji printer.

I'm telling ya'. Once you see this cyan, you can't unsee it. It's like a religious experience.

Quote
A "raw" panel can look pretty awful before the engineers get to work on it, and there's the question of tolerances.

You get to see these panels in their "raw" state at the factory? How do you get to see this?
Logged

D Fosse

  • Guest
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2013, 04:32:38 pm »

Quote
You get to see these panels in their "raw" state at the factory?

No, I haven't seen that (didn't mean to give that impression). But I've seen bad IPS monitors, and that's plenty awful enough.
Logged

D Fosse

  • Guest
Re: imac vs eizo?
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2013, 06:24:28 pm »

Just checked with TFT central. Among those I could find data for, the Dell U2410 and the NEC PA 241 used the same panel, LG.Display LM240WU4-SLB1.

The NEC was of course twice as expensive as the Dell, and for good reason.

They don't have data for Eizo, but it's likely that this panel was also used in the 24 inch CG at the time. It was used in another high-end monitor, the german Quato IP242ex.

So clearly there's more to monitor quality than the data sheet...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up