Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: mbridge87 on December 17, 2018, 02:48:53 pm
-
Hey everyone,
I'm in the market for a new monitor and on paper the NEC PA 271Q and Eizo CG279X seem very similar. The biggest difference being that the NEC is far cheaper (and that the Eizo isn't actually out yet).
I've spoken with both NEC and Eizo and predictably both say their monitors are great. I'd love to hear the thoughts of everyone here on these two monitors. I was almost ready to order the PA271Q until I spoke to someone at Color Confidence who said Eizo are much better. Now I'm confused!
I primarily need the monitor for photography, producing videos for clients and the occasional YouTube video is a secondary requirement. My most important feature is colour accuracy and uniformity.
Really look forward to hearing what you all think.
-
I absolutely love my PA271Q but that's hardly evidence not to go Eizo. The monition detecting on/off feature (Human Sensor) feature is great. I'm coming from a 272W (the wife's got that now). These are the big differences in the newer unit:
- better black levels / improved contrast
- more connectivity (DP, mDP, HDMI x2, USB-C) and DP out
- doubled the amount of picture modes (10 instead of 5)
- the SpectraView Engine & backlight sensor performance is now very visible. You can see on the OSD when it is measuring and what the results are in real time
-
Thanks for your thoughts Andrew. Your view echoes all that I can find online, albeit a very small number of opinions/reviews. It's quite surprising how little there is about professional monitors.
I shoot in a lot of studios and use just about every Eizo made in the last decade on a regular basis. They're great but I'm pretty sure NEC are just as good. The Eizo rep mentioned they have the in-built calibrator but, given it's inferior to a hardware calibrator like the i1, that feature doesn't matter to me.
Can anyone confirm that the colour accuracy and uniformity of the displays are of equal quality? Again, the Eizo rep said they were better than NEC but I don't think he was being impartial which is understandable.
-
The Eizo rep mentioned they have the in-built calibrator but, given it's inferior to a hardware calibrator like the i1, that feature doesn't matter to me.
What makes you think that it's inferior?
I use an Eizo CG275 - an earlier version of the display you are considering - and the built in calibrator is really handy and it is still producing excellent results after 7 years of use.
-
Again, the Eizo rep said they were better than NEC but I don't think he was being impartial which is understandable.
If he wants a sale, he should provide some colorimetric proof. Colorimetric data is always impartial :D
-
he should provide some colorimetric proof. Colorimetric data is always impartial :D
...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.
Anyway i'd rather save time and money, as there's little to no chance that CG279X will be better than PA271Q.
-
...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.
I don't understand the context.
-
What makes you think that it's inferior?
I use an Eizo CG275 - an earlier version of the display you are considering - and the built in calibrator is really handy and it is still producing excellent results after 7 years of use.
I'm afraid I don't know the technical reasons behind this, however, I have read on other forums that the built-in calibrator is not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator. I also said this to the Eizo rep when he mentioned it as an advantage over the NEC and he confirmed that the in-built calibrator is not as good. He essentially said that it's useful for those that don't have the technical knowledge and/or time to sit and calibrate their monitor once a week or month. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice feature but as accuracy is top of my priorities it's not a deal breaker.
-
...from NIST traceable spectroradiometer with FWHM resolution less or equal 5nm.
Anyway i'd rather save time and money, as there's little to no chance that CG279X will be better than PA271Q.
Thanks for that info. Sadly, I'm not exactly sure what it means. Could you elaborate? I'm assuming it states that the PA271Q is equal or better but I'd love it if you could explain a little more.
-
I'm afraid I don't know the technical reasons behind this, however, I have read on other forums that the built-in calibrator is not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator. I also said this to the Eizo rep when he mentioned it as an advantage over the NEC and he confirmed that the in-built calibrator is not as good. He essentially said that it's useful for those that don't have the technical knowledge and/or time to sit and calibrate their monitor once a week or month. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice feature but as accuracy is top of my priorities it's not a deal breaker.
This is the first time I've heard that Eizo's in-built calibration puck is inaccurate. Can you provide any links to those discussions on 'other forums' to back this up?
I calibrated my previous monitors with an i1 Display 2 puck, but I got rid of it when I bought the Eizo. Using such a device requires no technical knowledge. But you do need to plug it in, let it warm up, slide open the monitor's hood, and dangle it over the monitor's screen. Not the most taxing of tasks, but something I'm glad I no longer have to do. However if, as you suggest, I am sacrificing the accuracy of my monitor's calibration, then it's something I should reconsider.
-
I don't understand the context.
I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.
The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.
-
I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.
The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.
Thanks! This is all very helpful. I'm 99% persuaded by the PA271Q. I'll sleep on it for one more night and then decide.
-
This is the first time I've heard that Eizo's in-built calibration puck is inaccurate. Can you provide any links to those discussions on 'other forums' to back this up?
I calibrated my previous monitors with an i1 Display 2 puck, but I got rid of it when I bought the Eizo. Using such a device requires no technical knowledge. But you do need to plug it in, let it warm up, slide open the monitor's hood, and dangle it over the monitor's screen. Not the most taxing of tasks, but something I'm glad I no longer have to do. However if, as you suggest, I am sacrificing the accuracy of my monitor's calibration, then it's something I should reconsider.
I think inaccurate is going a little far, sorry if I gave you that impression. It's just not as accurate as using a dedicated calibrator.
I can't remember which forums I've seen this in, it wasn't recently. If I had to guess it was probably someone talking about it on LiftGammaGain but I can't be sure. If you want to confirm it, call Eizo. The drop-down calibrator is more for a quick daily check. Your monthly (or weekly) full calibration is better done with something like the i1 Display Pro. Most studios I work in have a second external calibrator for this purpose.
-
The drop-down calibrator is more for a quick daily check. Your monthly (or weekly) full calibration is better done with something like the i1 Display Pro. Most studios I work in have a second external calibrator for this purpose.
I've no idea how you would use it in the manner you're describing. It doesn't make sense. You either calibrate with the built-in device, or with a third party device. If you do your 'full calibration' with an i1 Display, and then the next day do a 'daily check' with the built-in device, then surely the profile/LUT created by the built-in device will supplant the one created by the i1 Display? I can't see how you can usefully juggle the two devices.
-
I meant that colorimetric proof should be made with reference grade sensor, and BTW it's simple in this case, as both displays are factory calibrated with Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and color analyzers, and have certificates with validation results in the box. So it's extremely easy to prove, that both CG279X and PA271Q are both perfectly calibrated and offer virtually identical accuracy. They also both feature Panasonic panel (best on the market AFAIK) with same specification which in both cases is driven by high bit LUTs and 17x17x17 3DLUTs, so they're simply twin similar in every respect. The only difference I had noticed is that NEC has better response time (4ms vs 13ms in EIZO), but it's also rather unnoticeable and unimportant.
The only difference that is really easily noticeable is the price tag.
Agreed and the OP should ask the Eizo rep to reply with colorimetric facts about accuracy after providing him the above comments. If he wants a sale....
-
Agreed and the OP should ask the Eizo rep to reply with colorimetric facts about accuracy after providing him the above comments. If he wants a sale....
Honestly, there were a couple things the Eizo rep said that made me think twice. It's nice to hear that everyone here thinks the monitors are equal.
-
I've no idea how you would use it in the manner you're describing. It doesn't make sense. You either calibrate with the built-in device, or with a third party device. If you do your 'full calibration' with an i1 Display, and then the next day do a 'daily check' with the built-in device, then surely the profile/LUT created by the built-in device will supplant the one created by the i1 Display? I can't see how you can usefully juggle the two devices.
Good point! Someone said to me that the in built colorimeter would check that the profile remained accurate, however, now you mention it, i agree it makes little sense. Whatever the case may be I'm pretty certain that the in built colorimeter is inferior.
-
Good point! Someone said to me that the in built colorimeter would check that the profile remained accurate, however, now you mention it, i agree it makes little sense. Whatever the case may be I'm pretty certain that the in built colorimeter is inferior.
When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device. The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations. And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.
I've also been told by an Eizo representative at a trade show, that with the newer displays, an iOne Display probe will, in general, be the better choice for calibration, but he didn't say why. It is possible though, that models that store a real 3D LUT in the display will be more accurate than displays that do not.
When I purchased my Eizo, I chose it over NEC because I needed it's frame rates for video work. For still photography this is irrelevant. I think now, the only advantage for the Eizo, are the models that let you calibrate with non-Eizo software and load the resulting 3D LUT into the display memory. This is far more useful for video workflows than still photo workflows. IOW, for still photography, the displays will probably be almost identical, so choose the less expensive. brand.
-
When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device. The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations. And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.
Thanks for posting. This clarifies the workflow described by mbridge87. What model Eizo was this?
-
When I bought my Eizo a few years back, there was a model that had a full on calibration device, and my model that has what is essentially just a white point adjustment device. The idea being that one would use an iOne Display Pro to perform the actual calibration, and one could set the internal device to keep the white point consistent between calibrations. And I found that the white point adjustment wasn't all that consistent anyways, so I don't use it and just recalibrate with the iOne Display Pro device.
I've also been told by an Eizo representative at a trade show, that with the newer displays, an iOne Display probe will, in general, be the better choice for calibration, but he didn't say why. It is possible though, that models that store a real 3D LUT in the display will be more accurate than displays that do not.
When I purchased my Eizo, I chose it over NEC because I needed it's frame rates for video work. For still photography this is irrelevant. I think now, the only advantage for the Eizo, are the models that let you calibrate with non-Eizo software and load the resulting 3D LUT into the display memory. This is far more useful for video workflows than still photo workflows. IOW, for still photography, the displays will probably be almost identical, so choose the less expensive. brand.
Thanks for clearing that up. Very useful.
Given that i do edit video on occasion and it's concievable I'll have more video work in the future, are there negatives between the pa271q and the cg279x? Are there still frame rate advantages or are these monitors pretty much identical in that regard as well?
-
Thanks for posting. This clarifies the workflow described by mbridge87. What model Eizo was this?
CX271
-
Thanks for clearing that up. Very useful.
Given that i do edit video on occasion and it's concievable I'll have more video work in the future, are there negatives between the pa271q and the cg279x? Are there still frame rate advantages or are these monitors pretty much identical in that regard as well?
It looks like the NEC covers all the frame rates now... except for 23.98 and 29.97 which are legacies of NTSC TV and are still often used in the US. That said, I think you could always set your video output to 60fps and play the 23.98 video over that frequency and it will still look ok. I think :)
If you're not connecting your display to a dedicated video/movie I/O device, like from BlackMagic (for use with Resolve software) or AJA, I'm not sure the frame rate issue is that important to you. For me, I play back through a BlackMagic Decklink display device at the exact frame rate that my footage is. At the same time, my GUI (computer display) is probably set to 60Hz and playback there also looks ok, even when playing back 23.98fps or 24fps video. Part of the reason this is kind of ok is that LCD screens do not flicker like a CRT used to.
So, it seems like the NEC may be the best choice for you.
-
It looks like the NEC covers all the frame rates now... except for 23.98 and 29.97 which are legacies of NTSC TV and are still often used in the US. That said, I think you could always set your video output to 60fps and play the 23.98 video over that frequency and it will still look ok. I think :)
If you're not connecting your display to a dedicated video/movie I/O device, like from BlackMagic (for use with Resolve software) or AJA, I'm not sure the frame rate issue is that important to you. For me, I play back through a BlackMagic Decklink display device at the exact frame rate that my footage is. At the same time, my GUI (computer display) is probably set to 60Hz and playback there also looks ok, even when playing back 23.98fps or 24fps video. Part of the reason this is kind of ok is that LCD screens do not flicker like a CRT used to.
So, it seems like the NEC may be the best choice for you.
Thanks. This is what I suspected but it's good to hear someone else saying it. Looks like I'll be getting the NEC
-
Hello everyone, I need advise. Does it make sense to calibrate on both monitors? or is it a waste of time?
-
Hello everyone, I need advise. Does it make sense to calibrate on both monitors? or is it a waste of time?
You can and probably should calibrate both but don't expect the same target settings for calibration to produce a match (if a match is even possible).
-
Thanks for posting. This clarifies the workflow described by mbridge87. What model Eizo was this?
CX271