Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Waker on October 21, 2019, 10:26:07 am
-
I see Eizo just announced a 4k 27" monitor - the ColorEdge CS2740, but as that will be very expensive -price not announced, but Eizo's insanely 3x the price of any other top level manufacturer- I wondered if there was something else out there equally good by NEC or whomever?
I have not been paying attention - was there some new product in the last year - top level wide gamut 4k color critical? Ideally 27 to 32" size.
And... will OLED make it to color critical monitors. It's taking over 4k TVs, so I was kind of thiking it would come to color pro's soon, no?
Thanks
-
Why the need for 4K?
OLED has some disadvantages for imaging work above the massive costs associated with them. Where they are great is for huge DR because they produce a true black. But for soft proofing, even today’s non OLED’s have massive DR’s that hugely exceed the DR of prints and require toggling back black (and white) for effective soft proofing. Burn it is said to be an issue; none on my LG 55” in the living room hooked up to a TV.
-
Why the need for 4K?
OLED has some disadvantages for imaging work above the massive costs associated with them. Where they are great is for huge DR because they produce a true black. But for soft proofing, even today’s non OLED’s have massive DR’s that hugely exceed the DR of prints and require toggling back black (and white) for effective soft proofing. Burn it is said to be an issue; none on my LG 55” in the living room hooked up to a TV.
These days, a 4k 27in display would be very helpful for 4k motion picture work. Problem is... motion picture work is moving towards HDR displays with 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios. And right now, these are very very expensive. Eizo has a nice one for $30,000 :)
But for still photography and occasional motion picture work, a 4k 27in LCD display could be quite useful.
-
Why the need for 4K?
OLED has some disadvantages for imaging work above the massive costs associated with them. Where they are great is for huge DR because they produce a true black. But for soft proofing, even today’s non OLED’s have massive DR’s that hugely exceed the DR of prints and require toggling back black (and white) for effective soft proofing. Burn it is said to be an issue; none on my LG 55” in the living room hooked up to a TV.
Well I use Phase One IQ4-150, so there's a lot of pixels and a lot of sharpness (hopefully!) to evaluate carefully.
But ... you may be right, I could be dreaming of a 4K monitor for no good reason.
Having said that - which monitor would you choose today in that 27-32" size range -4k or not- NEC? Eizo? Samsung? Dell? BenQ?
(currently on an NEC PA271W, which has been great, but is now ~8years old)
-
I'm currently using and love the PA271Q.
-
Well I use Phase One IQ4-150, so there's a lot of pixels and a lot of sharpness (hopefully!) to evaluate carefully.
But ... you may be right, I could be dreaming of a 4K monitor for no good reason.
Having said that - which monitor would you choose today in that 27-32" size range -4k or not- NEC? Eizo? Samsung? Dell? BenQ?
(currently on an NEC PA271W, which has been great, but is now ~8years old)
I think you'd be better evaluating images on a lower dpi monitor. 4K on a 27" is too high a dpi to critically judge detail and sharpness. 4K should require a 32" monitor IMHO. Go with a 1440p monitor if you go 27".
-
On my second week with a new BenQ SW271 4k and I love it.
A bargain to boot. 8)
D.
-
Thanks. Good to know.
Dell just announced (https://blog.dell.com/en-us/dell-brings-ultimate-screen-performance-to-adobemax/) a 4k monitor for color pro's with built in colorimeter, Thunderbird 3, full ARGB, etc.
On paper the specs are great, but time will tell on that!
-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15127/nec-multisync-pa311d-10bit-ips-4k-pro-monitor
-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15127/nec-multisync-pa311d-10bit-ips-4k-pro-monitor
Great. I wondered if NEC had gone to sleep!
(and glad to see I'm not the only one here to read Anandtech - such a great in depth site)
-
@digitaldog
Yes I really like the pa271q. Calibrates quickly and well. But it also has sRGB and adobeRGB modes. How do you use these? I generally work in the calibrated spectraview setting and softproof in LR with the paper profile I am going to print. Would an sRGB monitor with an IPS 10 bit panel like the ASUS PA34VC be significantly less useful as it has 'only' sRGB? It still is hardware calibrateable and the calibration is stored in the monitor hardware.
-
@digitaldog
Yes I really like the pa271q. Calibrates quickly and well. But it also has sRGB and adobeRGB modes. How do you use these? I generally work in the calibrated spectraview setting and softproof in LR with the paper profile I am going to print.
That's exactly what I do as well.
-
So what use are ‘sRGB’ and ‘aRGB’ modes? Where do they fit in if we are always in the calibrated spectravision mode?
-
So what use are ‘sRGB’ and ‘aRGB’ modes? Where do they fit in if we are always in the calibrated spectravision mode?
Useful with non color managed apps IF you use them (I don't).
-
Hopefully the NEC PA311D works better or let's say has les sample varations / problems compared to the pa271q...
-
Hopefully the NEC PA311D works better or let's say has les sample varations / problems compared to the pa271q...
My PA311D works perfectly well:
(https://i.imgur.com/MWo200G.png)
-
Great news! I hope they all will.
-
I'm very interested in the NEC PA311D. It was announced in November 2019 and obviously has been available, but I have not found a single review, and it is out of stock and "special order, non-returnable" at both B&H and Adorama. Can anyone provide info on this? I am particularly interested because I am upgrading from an NEC 3090QXi that I've been using since 2008 and it has been outstanding and trouble free, and great for soft proofing for printing. But, I need a new monitor for my just arrived 2019 Mac Pro.
Thanks for any help.
Len
-
I just got mine, after being super unhappy with my crappy pa271q... I will set it up over the weekend and can report back.
For me it’s also NECs last chance, if it has similar problems like my pa271q, I will go back to Eizo, which worked perfectly for the last 12 years for me.
-
So compared to my pa271q its so much better. I get values now of DeltaE of average of 0,24 and max 0,55. I haven't had time to test everything in detail. Uniformity looks very even. I just measured the center and edges. Temp center 6500K, worst corner 6650K. Brightness 130 in the middle worst corner is 126.
If you have any specific questions feel free to ask!
-
So compared to my pa271q its so much better. I get values now of DeltaE of average of 0,24 and max 0,55. I haven't had time to test everything in detail. Uniformity looks very even. I just measured the center and edges. Temp center 6500K, worst corner 6650K. Brightness 130 in the middle worst corner is 126.
If you have any specific questions feel free to ask!
Seems like in case of PA311D everything went back to normal, and there's no trace of infamous PA271Q issue. My own is also flawless, I can highly recommend it - image quality is outstanding, it features very impressive OCF which prevents IPS black glow, so that plus high CR give excellent black depth. Uniformity, sharpness, linearity, factory calibration fidelity is just as perfect as LCD goes. 10 calibration presets with 3D LUT loading ability makes it a perfect softproofing tool.
-
So compared to my pa271q its so much better. I get values now of DeltaE of average of 0,24 and max 0,55.
That’s a shame ;) ; here’s a report from my PA271Q
-
Man, mine seems to suck...
-
Andrew it’s great your screen is perfect. Mine wasn’t as posted in the other topic. NEC wasn’t a me to resolve the issue and said it’s good enough. This was unacceptable for me as a delta of over 1 in average isn’t good at all.
There seems to be quite a few issues with the PA271Q.
However, in the end I sold the PA271Q, bought an Eizo, which calibrates perfectly for my second working space and now bough the new 4K screen which is also amazing.
-
Andrew it’s great your screen is perfect. Mine wasn’t as posted in the other topic
Get them to send you another. Got a great warranty.
There seems to be quite a few issues with the PA271Q.
What other issues?
What makes you think Eizo doesn’t have the same issue?
-
Eizo does not have the same issue - unless you have some evidence of reports, there is no reason to imply this.
-
I'm very interested in the NEC PA311D. It was announced in November 2019 and obviously has been available, but I have not found a single review, and it is out of stock and "special order, non-returnable" at both B&H and Adorama. Can anyone provide info on this? I am particularly interested because I am upgrading from an NEC 3090QXi that I've been using since 2008 and it has been outstanding and trouble free, and great for soft proofing for printing. But, I need a new monitor for my just arrived 2019 Mac Pro.
Thanks for any help.
Len
Than i would choose not a 4K but the 5K screen since it scales better on OSX- as i understand.
see also diglloyd.com... Catalina seems not completely ready for the new macpro..
-
Eizo does not have the same issue - unless you have some evidence of reports, there is no reason to imply this.
So it's software provides the same report?
-
So it's software provides the same report?
When I bought my Eizo it came with a QA inspection sheet where the luminance was measured in a grid pattern across the screen surface. Generally dE charts are measured at only one spot, usually in the center, where the puck is placed.
-
When I bought my Eizo it came with a QA inspection sheet where the luminance was measured in a grid pattern across the screen surface. Generally dE charts are measured at only one spot, usually in the center, where the puck is placed.
The NEC’s come with a similar report but that’s not what I’m asking about. Specifically I’m asking about the same kind of report provided already for Color Tracking after a calibration using the user’s instrument.
-
So it's software provides the same report?
Yes, ore detailed if you want in fact. You can validate to an ISO 12646 Profile. For Adobe RGB 120 cd/m^2 My delta-E 2000, ignoring 0,0,0 which is 1.49, has a maximum of 0.8 and an average 0f 0.2, and a white of 0.17. Black level 0.1 and contrast 1109:1.
-
Yes, ore detailed if you want in fact. You can validate to an ISO 12646 Profile. For Adobe RGB 120 cd/m^2 My delta-E 2000, ignoring 0,0,0 which is 1.49, has a maximum of 0.8 and an average 0f 0.2, and a white of 0.17. Black level 0.1 and contrast 1109:1.
The reports I refer to have nothing to AFAIK with ISO 12646. Can you provide a screen capture of what you are referring to?
-
The reports I refer to have nothing to AFAIK with ISO 12646. Can you provide a screen capture of what you are referring to?
That is the patch set that is used to verify the calibration.
-
That is the patch set that is used to verify the calibration.
That still doesn't answer my question about the report I'm asking you to explain.
-
That still doesn't answer my question about the report I'm asking you to explain.
I don't know what you are fishing for. I attached the color navigator validation report pdf.
-
I don't know what you are fishing for. I attached the color navigator validation report pdf.
Not fishing for anything but an answer to a question your PDF doesn’t answer.
Apparently you’re not able to report the same metric’s as the report I’m asking about. Fine.
-
Not fishing for anything but an answer to a question your PDF doesn’t answer.
Apparently you’re not able to report the same metric’s as the report I’m asking about. Fine.
Gray scale is at the bottom of the report.
-
Gray scale is at the bottom of the report.
Yes, but again, it’s not the same reporting of grayscale tracking; there’s only 9 values reported that I see (126-134). And I don’t see an average of just those 9. And it uses a different dE formula. And it ignores 0/0/0. And we’re using different calibration targets if you want to compare the two.
So again, apparently its software doesn’t provides the same report, which was my question.
-
Yes, but again, it’s not the same reporting of grayscale tracking; there’s only 9 values reported that I see (126-134). And I don’t see an average of just those 9. And it uses a different dE formula. And it ignores 0/0/0. And we’re using different calibration targets if you want to compare the two.
So again, apparently its software doesn’t provides the same report, which was my question.
The grayscale in the report covers the region where the 271q was problematic. Why do you need a freaking average? -They are around 0.2 or below whereas the 271q was in the 2-3 + range there. Yeah it uses a different dE formula, not the old CIE94 that spectraview uses (the validation generates CIE94, but tosses it when it generates the report). You know they are not that different. And yeah, the reports are different - the EIZO are generated by superior software. How can grayscale targets be different, duh? You are just looking for excuses. But I knew you were going to come back like this, that is what fanboys do, so I created a custom validation target (do that with spectraview) of a finer grayscale and attached the report.
EDIT: I should also note I have the priority set to standard rather than Gray balance.
-
You clearly don’t understand the question asked, nor the facts about the differences in the two reports I’ve pointed out. Again, fine.
Nor do you understand that reports were provided from the 271Q that were not at all problematic.
-
You clearly don’t understand the question asked, nor the facts about the differences in the two reports I’ve pointed out. Again, fine.
Nor do you understand that reports were provided from the 271Q that were not at all problematic.
Clearly you have not asked a sensible question and the differences you listed are not pertinent as I pointed out. No, I cannot present the exact graph as with ColorNavigator as Spectraview but that is irrelevant - I provided you the data (unless you cant do the calculation of 120*(value/255)). I don't care if there are some 271q that had no issues, many did, including the two I had. And you have nothing to support your supposition that this 271q problem extends Eizo and other manufacturers, which shows your bias.
You seem to have copious amount of free time to spend wasting other peoples time. The weak arguments you present display a need to always be right and have the last word, no matter the facts. I unblocked recently you as I think you have experience and expertise to share but I now see that was a mistake and have blocked you again. It is not worth it.
EDIT: One last thing I want to say. Why don't you spend some time and show us a single shred of evidence that EIZO monitors are plagued by the same issue as the 271q or shut-up.
-
They are both too expensive, especially Eizo. I’m switching from NEC to Ben-Q.
Clearly you have not asked a sensible question and the differences you listed are not pertinent as I pointed out. No, I cannot present the exact graph as with ColorNavigator as Spectraview but that is irrelevant - I provided you the data (unless you cant do the calculation of 120*(value/255)). I don't care if there are some 271q that had no issues, many did, including the two I had. And you have nothing to support your supposition that this 271q problem extends Eizo and other manufacturers, which shows your bias.
You seem to have copious amount of free time to spend wasting other peoples time. The weak arguments you present display a need to always be right and have the last word, no matter the facts. I unblocked recently you as I think you have experience and expertise to share but I now see that was a mistake and have blocked you again. It is not worth it.
EDIT: One last thing I want to say. Why don't you spend some time and show us a single shred of evidence that EIZO monitors are plagued by the same issue as the 271q or shut-up.
-
Clearly you have not asked a sensible question and the differences you listed are not pertinent as I pointed out.
"He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever". -Chinese Proverb
He who ignores the colorimetric differences is being colorimetric foolish 😝
-
They are both too expensive, especially Eizo. I’m switching from NEC to Ben-Q.
Hi John,
I would appreciate it if you were to let us know how the BenQ display is working for you once you have it up and running. Also, which app and hardware you use for calibration. My PA271 is dying after about 5 years of rather heavy usage, as did the PA2690 before that. At this point in my printing career, business is slowing down, so the idea of shelling out another $1800.00 CDN for the 271Q doesn't really make much sense. I have seen some rather positive reviews about the Ben-Q series, but your experience would be very useful in my opinion.
-
Hi John,
I would appreciate it if you were to let us know how the BenQ display is working for you once you have it up and running. Also, which app and hardware you use for calibration. My PA271 is dying after about 5 years of rather heavy usage, as did the PA2690 before that. At this point in my printing career, business is slowing down, so the idea of shelling out another $1800.00 CDN for the 271Q doesn't really make much sense. I have seen some rather positive reviews about the Ben-Q series, but your experience would be very useful in my opinion.
I have 4 displays in total (counting my MBP laptop) as I need 3 screens for motion picture color correction (2 GUI + calibrated image viewing display). My "hero" display is an Eizo (CX271), and one of my GUI displays is an old Dell IPS/wide gamut display that I bought used for $200.
While the Eizo is clearly the best display here for photo editing, I could get by with the Dell if I needed to. Uniformity is not quite as good, and the blacks are ever so slightly brighter, but I can edit with it if necessary. And I suspect a BenQ would be usable as well.
I can even edit photos on my MBP screen (after profiling with an iOne Display) and get by with that if I needed to. And it's not even wide gamut.
So, yes, you don't absolutely need the most expensive displays as long as you can profile/calibrate them.
That said, for me, I have seen the newer Eizo displays that can reach 1500:1 contrast, and I would much prefer those with their deeper blacks. I assume the new NEC displays use a similar panel. While a printed photograph can not come close to 1500:1 contrast, psychologically, the deeper blacks do "suggest" what a print on glossy paper might look like, so it's still useful. And softproofing will raise the black level a bit to match the print contrast.
For me 4k at 27inches might leave all text too small, so I would also need a 2nd display for the Photoshop GUI, just to read the type :) But a $100 cheapo display could work for the GUI...
Lastly, I do find the 27inch size just about right for my needs.
-
That said, for me, I have seen the newer Eizo displays that can reach 1500:1 contrast, and I would much prefer those with their deeper blacks. I assume the new NEC displays use a similar panel. While a printed photograph can not come close to 1500:1 contrast, psychologically, the deeper blacks do "suggest" what a print on glossy paper might look like, so it's still useful.
Keep in mind that the contrast ratio per se doesn’t tell us about how black, black is but the entire ratio from the black to the brightest white.
This old piece for Sony Artisan (which had at the time, incredible control over black) does illustrate the importance of black and the calibration of black:
http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf
Here is where OLED displays may be more useful to those interested in the blackest black and where a newer Colorimeter like the i1Display PLUS comes in handy.
-
Keep in mind that the contrast ratio per se doesn’t tell us about how black, black is but the entire ratio from the black to the brightest white.
This old piece for Sony Artisan (which had at the time, incredible control over black) does illustrate the importance of black and the calibration of black:
http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf
Here is where OLED displays may be more useful to those interested in the blackest black and where a newer Colorimeter like the i1Display PLUS comes in handy.
Yes. LCD displays in general don't have very accurate blacks and near blacks unless they are lifted enough for R=G=B. Strangely, I don't find the inaccurate blacks too much of an issue as it's more difficult to perceive the color of near black. When in doubt, I use the eye dropper to measure the color of the near blacks to bring them close to neutral.
I'm not so sure that OLED displays are so good for Photoshop and still photography in general as they have issues with retention of images (not so much an issue when watching movies) and ABL which can make simple profiling of them problematic. (I once tried to make a .icc profile of my plasma TV and it was a complete failure do to the white and near white patches changing brightness) I think this is why no one is making an OLED computer display...
-
They are both too expensive, especially Eizo. I’m switching from NEC to Ben-Q.
Hello again John. Just wondering how your BenQ is working for you. I've been doing some research on the BenQ SW2700PT 27" Display and all of the reviews I've read so far are positive. Lots of add-ons that one would probably not expect, as well as the really important stuff that we always look for in a display to be used for photographic editing and printing. Of course the most important reviews are the ones we read from the folks here on LuLa. Don't know which BenQ you were looking at, but it would be much appreciated if you would give us some of your pros and cons if possible.
Thanks John :)
-
Hello again John. Just wondering how your BenQ is working for you. I've been doing some research on the BenQ SW2700PT 27" Display ...
I would pay attention to panel luminance uniformity issues where BenQ has a long standing record of "oh NOs"!
-
I’m curious. For those of you using 4K for editing and soft proofing, are you finding advantages over the lower resolution monitors that have been more or less the standard? I’m not sure I’m expressing myself well. I’m currently using an NEC PA 302W SV II monitor that is pretty wonderful and consistent. What would I gain by going to something like the P111D? What is the advantage for editing and soft proofing in 4K? Or is the difference in merely viewing one’s work?
Thanks in advance for insight.
Rand
-
I used to work with the NEC 271w, but for a couple of years now i work with the eizo 248K4, a 24" 4k monitor. The main reason is that i do not see de display raster. So i can see smoothness of transitions or edges without the disturbing display raster.
I also testes the 31.5 inch 4k monitor, bit the i see this raster again.
-
The CS series is Eizo's entry level to their Color Edge series. The new 4k 27" Eizo CS2740 mentioned in opening this thread is much less expensive than the premium CG series 4K monitors.
With regards to BenQ, I too have had issues with display uniformity. I had the SW320 and it displayed a very noticeable magenta cast. I switched to the Eizo CG2730 monitor and have been quite happy.
I also did not care for the 4K resolution of the SW320, so I specifically sought out the 2560x1440 resolution of most 27in monitors.
I have read mostly good things about the NEC monitors as well, but do not have any personal experiences with them.