Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: walter.sk on October 04, 2018, 12:37:22 pm
-
My old NEC LCD3090 has reached the point of no or little return, with deltaE's over 2.7 because of inability to match needed brightness levels, (115 cd/m2) and because of indiscretions while trying to clean stubborn spots on the screen too hard. (It's over 10 years old.)
I'm getting delivery on the PA302W, and vaguely remember that I can't simply set it at 115cd/m2 when new, but to start at a higher value. Right now, my Just-Normlicht print viewing station and the monitor are adjusted so that the brightness of my viewed prints matches the perceived brightness of my display, and I've been a happy camper for years.
I don't remember the recommendations on how to start with a new monitor while it "breaks in," and would appreciate some guidance, for which I thank you in advance.
-
Walter, I just bought a new PA272 - I'm pretty sure it's the same thing as the PA302, just 27 inch instead of 30 inch. I see no reason why you can't simply calibrate it and profile it with the calibration parameters you want, including the 115 cd/mm, using either Spectraview2 or BasICColor Display 5. I use BasICColor and achieved very satisfactory results.
-
Nothing to break in, just calibrate the new display as the old, but it IS possible a different calibration may be needed to produce the same match as old. But I'd start with the older settings.
-
Thanks, Mark and Andrew. I do recall going through a period with the LCD3090 of bringing down the level from about 140 cd/m2 to about 120cd/m2 over about a year's time. Could it be becuase of the nature of the backlighing?
-
I don't understand the question.
All monitors are backlit - your old one probably a CCFL and the new one an LCD lighting technology. By backlight did you mean ambient light around the monitor? Usually one brightens the monitor with brighter ambient light and darkens it with dimmer ambient light.
-
I was referring to the CCFL vs LCD lighting.
-
These monitors have a deserved reputation for remaining very stable over long periods of time, whether CCFL or LED. When they are approaching end of life (I had 30,000 hours on mine) they start to show different patches of unevenness, and that is one symptom that it's time for a change. As Andrew and I advised, use your current settings to start with, but if you are not satisfied with them any longer, just enter new ones in the calibration procedure before profiling. There is no need to re-examine or revisit a monitor profile these days for a very long period of time once you make a profile with satisfactory settings.
-
These monitors have a deserved reputation for remaining very stable over long periods of time, whether CCFL or LED. When they are approaching end of life (I had 30,000 hours on mine) they start to show different patches of unevenness, and that is one symptom that it's time for a change.
My Spectraview software says 29600 hours, so I guess it's in the ballpark
-
Maybe I should have started a new thread, but here goes: I'm using an nVidia Geforce GTX 160 with 6GB vram. The card has DVI-D and HDMI ports. Is there any reason to choose HDMI for the PA302W? I won't be using it for audio. The monitor comes with both HDMI and DVI-D cables.
Also, as long as I'm here, the Users Manual suggests setting the white point target at 5000K rather than Full, or 65000K, for "print matching." I've been using settings of 65000K and gamma of 2.2, with "best grayscale" for the contrast ratio when I use SpectraViewII. Should I maintain my settings?
-
Why would you (or I) want the NEC PA302W when the BenQ SW320 offers 4K for $500 less?
https://www.photocascadia.com/4k-photo-editing-monitor-review/ (https://www.photocascadia.com/4k-photo-editing-monitor-review/)
-
Aside from the fact that you didn't attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. I used my NEC 3090 for about 10 years, with greater consistency of quality and reliability than any other monitor I've used. I've been totally happy with color management on that monitor, and, coupled with my variable-brightness viewing station I have had no surprises after my prints emerge from the printer. I would have bought another 3090 if they were still made. My friends who use NEC's have all had similar, long-term high quality results from them. Having heard no comments about a decrease in NEC quality I decided to go with what has been tried and true for me, and I would make the same decision even after reading reviews about the BENQ. And my Delta E on the 302 is 0.17 with the Adobe RGB color space, even better than my 3090 was even when it was new.
-
Aside from the fact that you didn't attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. I used my NEC 3090 for about 10 years, with greater consistency of quality and reliability than any other monitor I've used. I've been totally happy with color management on that monitor, and, coupled with my variable-brightness viewing station I have had no surprises after my prints emerge from the printer. I would have bought another 3090 if they were still made. My friends who use NEC's have all had similar, long-term high quality results from them. Having heard no comments about a decrease in NEC quality I decided to go with what has been tried and true for me, and I would make the same decision even after reading reviews about the BENQ. And my Delta E on the 302 is 0.17 with the Adobe RGB color space, even better than my 3090 was even when it was new.
+1, great analysis.
-
Why would you (or I) want the NEC PA302W when the BenQ SW320 offers 4K for $500 less?
https://www.photocascadia.com/4k-photo-editing-monitor-review/ (https://www.photocascadia.com/4k-photo-editing-monitor-review/)
Well, here's JUST one:
BenQ LCD Monitor Standard Limited Warranty: Subject to the exclusions set forth below:Three (3) year from the purchase date by the original retail purchaser (the “Customer”) (except for refurbished units which have a separate warranty policy) parts and labor only (No advance replacement).- PA302W-BK-SV 30
LCD panel and backed by a 4 year warranty with Advanced Exchange.
-
+1, great analysis.
Thank you.
-
Well, here's JUST one:
BenQ LCD Monitor ... Three (3) year from the purchase date by the original retail purchaser
PA302W-BK-SV 30 ... LCD panel and backed by a 4 year warranty with Advanced Exchange
One of our local distributors in Australia no longer recommends the NEC because they changed their dead pixel policy (https://imagescience.com.au/blog/nec-monitors-2017-update) to regard monitors with up to 8 defective pixels as not faulty. Instead they recommend BenQ as a possible replacement :-)
-
One of our local distributors in Australia no longer recommends the NEC because they changed their dead pixel policy (https://imagescience.com.au/blog/nec-monitors-2017-update) to regard monitors with up to 8 defective pixels as not faulty. Instead they recommend BenQ as a possible replacement :-)
Happy to report that of the half dozen Spectaview’s I have owned over the years, never had that issue.
-
I tried a BenQ SW320. Had color uniformity issues (left side a different tint than right), returned it. Also, wasn't so enamored with 4k.
-
I tried a BenQ SW320. Had color uniformity issues (left side a different tint than right), returned it. Also, wasn't so enamored with 4k.
What's wrong with 4K?
-
What's wrong with 4K?
Lots of tiny :D
-
What's wrong with 4K?
I'm told that Apple's 4K displays don't give you a true 1-to-1 pixel density representation when viewing photos at 100x magnification. For reasons having to do with "enhanced user experience," Apple 4K displays upscale your 100x view by an unknown factor. This causes complications with output sharpening for print. Windows 4K displays don't have this problem. However, I'm worried that doing output sharpening on a 4K display that's any smaller than 30" will cause under-sharpened prints because the screen image always appear too sharp compared to the print due to the display's high pixel density. A pixel density of 120-150 seems like a good place to be. My 30" Dell monitor has 100ppi, and I wish I had more. But 196ppi like the new Microsoft 28" Surface Studio 2 is overkill.
(https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims?resize=810%2C455&crop=810%2C455%2C0%2C0&quality=80&image_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fimages%2Fdims%3Fcrop%3D1600%252C1067%252C0%252C0%26quality%3D85%26format%3Djpg%26resize%3D1600%252C1067%26image_uri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fo.aolcdn.com%252Fhss%252Fstorage%252Fmidas%252F3c7074988d8b5f06b1212ba4b80b4900%252F206709030%252FIMG_1400e.JPG%26client%3Da1acac3e1b3290917d92%26signature%3Df32f554ae2cc9ba9cb36a8bf785ba619418b3dd6&client=amp-blogside-v2&signature=3aeb36ca039a790332d9e933b8a2f24a12ecea12)
-
What's wrong with 4K?
Sorry, just seeing this.
Yeah, everything is too small requiring scaling/interpolation.
Even in Photoshop, where I do a lot of e-commerce product work, 100% mag is too small to comfortably do detailed retouching on. I found myself working at 200% mag for a similar view.
It's not that one can't work around this stuff, I just didn't find it a "feature". Would much prefer panel uniformity, correct gamma, neutral grayscale, etc, over "lots of tiny", as Andrew said.
It's kinda like being told there's this great new feature of your newspaper: they can now fit twice as much print on every page, all you gotta do is use these awesome magnifier glasses to read it. Not really as awesome as it's made out to be.
That said, that's just my experience for my needs. Totally get if people working globally on huge images, etc, feel otherwise. For them it may be a great feature; but again probably somewhere down the line of uniformity, gamma, grayscale, etc.
-
However, I'm worried that doing output sharpening on a 4K display that's any smaller than 30" will cause under-sharpened prints because the screen image always appear too sharp compared to the print due to the display's high pixel density.
It not only can, but will. Printer's have their own rolloff characteristic as do monitors. Lower DPI monitors roll off images more than high DPI monitors. This is because monitors do not have point source pixels but they are spread over an area. Lower DPI spreads them over more area producing more rolloff. But even then, low resolution monitors (say 1200x800, 20 in) still are somewhat sharper than prints of the same. Printers also spread the colors they print over an area in order to print millions of different colors with a limited ink set.
I explored the printer side a bit here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126683.0
If you click on the image here it will bring it up in the browser and you can see the effects of printer rolloff.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126683.msg1068991#msg1068991
-
But even then, low resolution monitors (say 1200x800, 20 in) still are somewhat sharper than prints of the same.
So what screen PPI do you think is optimal for output sharpening a 25 megapixel full-frame image? What about 50mp? Also, it is worth warning readers to always edit photos at the monitor's native resolution, regardless of its pixel density.
-
So what screen PPI do you think is optimal for output sharpening a 25 megapixel full-frame image? What about 50mp? Also, it is worth warning readers to always edit photos at the monitor's native resolution, regardless of its pixel density.
I prefer high density monitors. They reduce a lot of artifacts because, even though lower DPI may somewhat better match the built in rolloff of printers they also produce stepping with abrupt changes from pixel to pixel. Using high density monitors is fine but, getting prints to match what you see on monitors requires soft proofing sure, but it also requires the printed image is sharpened in such a way to compensate for rolloff intrinsic to the printing process. Soft proofing largely addresses color accuracy but does nothing to match the rolloff of the printing process. It would be nice if there was some way to incorporate that when viewing soft proofs. It's difficult because the correction required varies depending on print size. Printer rolloff is not much of an issue when printing large prints at 180 DPI. But printing small prints at maximum (720 DPI on my Epson) will induce significant print rolloff with a start difference between the way an image appears on a 4K monitor at 100 zoom and the print as the link I posted above demonstrates.