Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: DaveCollins on December 07, 2009, 08:04:08 pm
-
Last week I took possession of a new Dell UltraSharp U2410 24 inch. It was horrible. Strong yellow tint on everything. I used a Spyder Pro to calibrate and it failed due to a lack of calibration data. I tried opening photos in Photoshop and got an error message saying calibration data missing. So I sent the monitor back to Dell.
So I decided to go ahead and get something which was know to be quality. I just got an Eizo ColorEdge CG241W (24 inch). I pulled up the some images on it and using an existing Dell 19 inch as a dual monitor setup, compared the photos side by side. The difference is stunning.
Flesh tones came alive on the Eizo. When I moved the picture to the Dell, all the subtle tones went flat ... almost ghostly by comparison. I zoomed on an S2 image of a model's eye which had many beautiful colors in it on the Eizo and they got washed out on the Dell. By the way, this Dell was successfully calibrated using a Syder Pro 2. The eye in this photo had brown colors near the pupil which almost completely disappeared on the Dell.
There just isn't any comparison. I feel like I've wasted years working with my photos and not knowing what they actually look like. The monitor costs the same as a good Canon L lens. Why I didn't spend a little on a decent monitor I don't know. I feel like all the work done processing my photos was somewhat wasted.
-
I have a Dell 27" that I replaced with an Eizo ColorEdge CE240W about 3 years ago. I agree that the difference is amazing.
I was able to calibrate the Dell successfully using an Eye-1 spectrometer, but first I had to reduce the RGB brightness manually before it would calibrate properly. The workaround went away of course with the Eizo.
Now I use the Dell 27" as a second monitor for my MacBookPro 15" aluminum which is my "work" computer. I run WinXP in VMWare Fusion 3.0 on the Dell external monitor for work stuff and use the laptop display for all Mac programs.
The Eizo is attached to my MacPro 8-core which is my main "home" computer for Photoshop, Lightroom and everything else Mac.
I've been eying up the 30" Eizo, but I can't bring myself to part with the 24" because it works so good that I cannot yet justify the $5k upgrade for 6 more inches of width.
Cheers.
Bud
-
I have the 27 inch dell. Is the EIZO that good. Have you considered the NEC 30 inch which is priced around $2100. Many people swear by it and it is on my short list.
Param
-
From what I've read, NEC's top monitors compete well with Eizo. My draw to Eizo is from their reputation, the reviews I've read, and importantly to me, the company's focus. They seem to be focused on producing monitors with high quality color rendering performance. Even to the extent of designing into the monitors a hardware calibration capability in order to achieve the best possible results. I like the fact that they are focused on quality. Eizo doesn't produce cheap consumer grade monitors. All their products are high quality.
Since I got my new monitor I've been going home from work every day looking at my photo collection and marveling at how much better most look on the new monitor. The most dramatic improvement has been in skin tones. I look at the Dell version of a portrait and then look at the Eizo and wonder how in the world I could try to improve the portrait on the Dell since I can't see important hues which entirely change the look of the pictures. It would almost be like trying to adjust a models picture while working with a false color picture. Sure you could do it, but what's the point.
I have quite a few pictures of flowers. On the Eizo these pictures absolutely come alive. It seems like colors are being clipped on the Dell. There reds, blues and other colors that just disappear when I move from Eizo to Dell.
Over the span of a couple of years I worked on taking pictures of the moon. I have 3 pictures that I like and one that turned out well. I shot it with a 1DsII and a 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x + 2x to give an overall 1120mm. I didn't expect the image quality to turn out as well as it did so it was a nice surprise. The point of bring this up is that this image had nice detail, but the color was a dead slate gray. Yes the moon is gray, but on the Eizo the moon was transformed and the colors included subtle brown tints in various region and the entire moon took on an "earthy" look. It was a significant improvement. There is some color in that moon dust!
-
I got an Eizo CG243W to Replace my NEC , the difference is incredible
-
I recently purchased a new Dell UltraSharp U2410 24. I like it; out of the box calibration was off but it is decent after calibration. It might also be because I don't have a lot to compare this with. Is anyone using this with good results? Reviews have been mostly positive.
A good monitor -- even on a limited budget-- is important for me. I regularly sell 24" and 36" work (printing with Epsons on several flavors of paper). If I can make an image with 5% better tonal gradation that pops a bit more to my liking -- the physical prints usually have a better chance of selling.
Any experience from those using the new 24-inch dell? I'm liking the cost, extra usb ports, size, and automatic energy saver modes. I do a lot of writing with my work; so just having a second monitor is also wonderful.
Noah
-
I got an Eizo CG243W to Replace my NEC , the difference is incredible
You can't go wrong with this class of Eizo and you do get what you pay for.
I got the same one as an upgrade from an older CG and I believe you cannot find many to compete against this quality.
I went through the latest Lacie and Nec. Lacie was nowhere near, Nec was ok. I only found Quatos compete, but the price difference was a bit high
and the menu a bit wierd.
-
So what is the street price of the 24 inch and 30 inch EIZO.
Param.
-
FYI... I paid about $530 USD for the new dell.
I recently purchased a new Dell UltraSharp U2410 24. I like it; out of the box calibration was off but it is decent after calibration. It might also be because I don't have a lot to compare this with. Is anyone using this with good results? Reviews have been mostly positive.
A good monitor -- even on a limited budget-- is important for me. I regularly sell 24" and 36" work (printing with Epsons on several flavors of paper). If I can make an image with 5% better tonal gradation that pops a bit more to my liking -- the physical prints usually have a better chance of selling.
Any experience from those using the new 24-inch dell? I'm liking the cost, extra usb ports, size, and automatic energy saver modes. I do a lot of writing with my work; so just having a second monitor is also wonderful.
Noah
-
I got my Eizo in UK http://www.nativedigital.co.uk/shop/produc...escreen---black (http://www.nativedigital.co.uk/shop/product.php/785/eizo-coloredge-cg243w---24--widescreen---black)
-
Last week I took possession of a new Dell UltraSharp U2410 24 inch. It was horrible. Strong yellow tint on everything. I used a Spyder Pro to calibrate and it failed due to a lack of calibration data. I tried opening photos in Photoshop and got an error message saying calibration data missing. So I sent the monitor back to Dell.
So I decided to go ahead and get something which was know to be quality. I just got an Eizo ColorEdge CG241W (24 inch). I pulled up the some images on it and using an existing Dell 19 inch as a dual monitor setup, compared the photos side by side. The difference is stunning.
Flesh tones came alive on the Eizo. When I moved the picture to the Dell, all the subtle tones went flat ... almost ghostly by comparison. I zoomed on an S2 image of a model's eye which had many beautiful colors in it on the Eizo and they got washed out on the Dell. By the way, this Dell was successfully calibrated using a Syder Pro 2. The eye in this photo had brown colors near the pupil which almost completely disappeared on the Dell.
There just isn't any comparison. I feel like I've wasted years working with my photos and not knowing what they actually look like. The monitor costs the same as a good Canon L lens. Why I didn't spend a little on a decent monitor I don't know. I feel like all the work done processing my photos was somewhat wasted.
I have the same monitor and give up on trying to advise others on the need to think of the monitor AS the most important interface for photographers in the digital age. I like your comparison to the cost of an L but as I have said in a thread (can't be fussed to find it ) before, look how often photographers update thousands of £$ for new camera bodies????? The monitors are good value in those terms.
Regards
-
From what I've read, NEC's top monitors compete well with Eizo. My draw to Eizo is from their reputation, the reviews I've read, and importantly to me, the company's focus.
Well kind of.... The focus is really on medical imaging and the like (the displays for photo are a small part of all that).
I’m still trying to discover what the price premium of Eizo over a similar NEC SpectraView provide. Both are great displays no question, I just don’t understand the pretty significant price difference and suspect that in the case of NEC, they sell far more displays in less a niche market.
-
Well kind of.... The focus is really on medical imaging and the like (the displays for photo are a small part of all that).
I’m still trying to discover what the price premium of Eizo over a similar NEC SpectraView provide. Both are great displays no question, I just don’t understand the pretty significant price difference and suspect that in the case of NEC, they sell far more displays in less a niche market.
I'd like to say that I am an informed consumer and did my thorough research, but that wouldn't be honest. I've heard about these monitors for a while, read a little, and got one. I was impressed by company PR stuff, reviews by others, reputation, and the 5 year warranty.
I attached the hood it came with this weekend and I have to say that the hood does make a difference. Not just by cutting down on incident light on the monitor, but also the effect of looking into a dark recessed space that it creates. After attaching the hood, I also calibrated the monitor. The calibration process is the definition of simplicity.
I am pleased with this hardware and have no buyer remorse.
-
I replaced my LaCie "state of the art" CRT a few years ago with an Eizo and I too was amazed at the difference. I was also somewhat embarrassed by delivering photos from that LaCie despite having calibrated it often. I am sure I kept it at least a year too long. From what I have read, CRT's degrade and anything over two years in use is questionable. I think anyone still using a CRT of any type at this point is doing themselves a disservice.
-
Rodney
Are you still using a Sony Artisan or using a NEC lcd monitor (which one if it is the NEC).
Param.
-
Well kind of.... The focus is really on medical imaging and the like (the displays for photo are a small part of all that).
I’m still trying to discover what the price premium of Eizo over a similar NEC SpectraView provide. Both are great displays no question, I just don’t understand the pretty significant price difference and suspect that in the case of NEC, they sell far more displays in less a niche market.
Both companies traditionally compete in the medical market.
In my view Eizo has a cleaner and more integrated concept with their CG-Series. They combine very good panels with their own, very comfortable and reliable software (Color Navigator). I consider their package as simply the most fool-proof.
While NEC also uses very good panels, they traditionally mix contrast and brightness settings. This results in the fact, that on NEC monitors the minimum luminance of the backlight is about 140 cd/m^2 by using the "brightness" setting only. To lower it, you have to fumble with the "contrast" setting as well. This intertwined behaviour of "contrast" and "brightness" is a common nuisance with many LCDs. Eizo correctly correlates the backlight level with a single "brightness" setting.
The SpectraView software (= basICColor in Europe) is also more complicated and not as comfortable as Eizo's Color Navigator. The latter lets you change profiles conveniently through the context menu in the dock.
The SpectraView also has a somewhat shaky stand and reportedly NEC's inverter emits some buzzing noise.
The only thing I don't particularly like with my Eizo CG242W is the narrow viewing angle in the dark tones.
-
There's something here that doesn't quite make sense.
For printing purposes, the only requirement is that the print matches what you see on the monitor. If you have achieved that condition, by carefully and successfully calibrating your monitor and by using good profiles for your printer, then I have difficulty in understanding how there could be any significant advantage in getting a better monitor.
I use an old CRT that calibrates very well using an Eye-One Display 2. The color gamut of my old Sony CRT seems so much wider than the capabilities of my Epson 7600 printer in the sense that I often have to selectively reduce the gamut in many parts of an image when viewing the image in 'proof colors' mode before printing.
-
There's something here that doesn't quite make sense.
For printing purposes, the only requirement is that the print matches what you see on the monitor. ...
What I am taking from this thread is that the color accuracy of what you see on your monitor depends on having a quality device. For me personally, 98% of the function of my monitor is to enjoy looking at photographs. For that I want as high a quality device as I can get. I have an older Dell monitor which is calibrated and which renders inferior images when compared to my new Eizo. So switching monitors has significantly improved my photographic viewing pleasure. I take pictures primarily because I enjoy working with them, looking at them, and sharing with others.
If you have a monitor and your only concern is getting prints which match what you see on that monitor, and your current monitor/printer system successfully accompishes this, then sure there isn't a need to spend money. However, if your prints don't match what you see on your monitor and both printer and monitor are calibarted/profiled, you may want change your hardware and up the quality.
-
There's something here that doesn't quite make sense.
For printing purposes, the only requirement is that the print matches what you see on the monitor. If you have achieved that condition, by carefully and successfully calibrating your monitor and by using good profiles for your printer, then I have difficulty in understanding how there could be any significant advantage in getting a better monitor.
Even high-end CRT monitors cover little more than sRGB. Since nearly every sensor is sensitive to a much larger gamut than sRGB, especially in the greens, a monitor which covers at least AdobeRGB is necessary to show what the image contains. Calibrating monitors is a tedious task, which is made considerably easier by the concept of hardware-calibration, in which case the software is programming the monitor-LUT according to the target parameters and is therefore conserving the full 24bit color. No more fiddling with brightness- and RGB-settings to preset the monitor. For their SpectraView/ColorGraphic-Series NEC and Eizo use only hand-selected panels which are individually corrected for uniformity and linear grayscale.
-
I understand that ambient lighting conditions for both your computer display and for the display of your printed artwork are both highly dependent on the ambient light. But it seems like you could get good results in a way analogous to the use of "canned paper profiles." If hardware was consistent enough, or linearized well enough at the factory, you could use a hardware specific profile that isn't made specially for your individual display and environment. That would get most users 90% of the way there. Admittedly, the last 10% is where "the devil is in the details."
-
However, if your prints don't match what you see on your monitor and both printer and monitor are calibarted/profiled, you may want change your hardware and up the quality.
Of course! If a monitor simply won't calibrate properly for whatever reason, then you need to change something. I don't believe Dell monitors have a good reputation for lending themselves to accurate calibration. They tend to be cheap, budget monitors which are overly bright with a poor contrast ratio. It wouldn't surprise me if many of them had only a 6 bit dithered output per channel.
Having gone from one extreme to another, I'm not surprised the difference is so obvious.
-
Even high-end CRT monitors cover little more than sRGB. Since nearly every sensor is sensitive to a much larger gamut than sRGB, especially in the greens, a monitor which covers at least AdobeRGB is necessary to show what the image contains. Calibrating monitors is a tedious task, which is made considerably easier by the concept of hardware-calibration, in which case the software is programming the monitor-LUT according to the target parameters and is therefore conserving the full 24bit color. No more fiddling with brightness- and RGB-settings to preset the monitor. For their SpectraView/ColorGraphic-Series NEC and Eizo use only hand-selected panels which are individually corrected for uniformity and linear grayscale.
This is a common argument and I wouldn't deny that expensive, wider-gamut monitors will display subtle shades that are not discernible on a basic sRGB monitor. There are also shades within the ProPhoto color space that can be printed on the latest Epson printers, but which cannot be displayed even on the best Eizo monitor, apparently. But I've never had the opportunity to see them.
I get a very strong sense here that we're into great subtlety. We're into the pixel-peeping equivalent of color.
What I'd find interesting is, if you could honestly report on the differences you see on your Eizo monitor when comparing, side by side, the same image with different embedded profiles, say sRGB and Adobe RGB. As you probably know, the later versions of Photoshop allow you to open an image using whatever embedded profile it has, even though it may be different to that of your working space.
I suspect that you might have to search for specific images which highlight such differences to an extent they are obvious. For most images, the differences may be of a pixel-peeping magnitude.
-
This is a common argument and I wouldn't deny that expensive, wider-gamut monitors will display subtle shades that are not discernible on a basic sRGB monitor. There are also shades within the ProPhoto color space that can be printed on the latest Epson printers, but which cannot be displayed even on the best Eizo monitor, apparently. But I've never had the opportunity to see them.
I get a very strong sense here that we're into great subtlety. We're into the pixel-peeping equivalent of color.
What I'd find interesting is, if you could honestly report on the differences you see on your Eizo monitor when comparing, side by side, the same image with different embedded profiles, say sRGB and Adobe RGB. As you probably know, the later versions of Photoshop allow you to open an image using whatever embedded profile it has, even though it may be different to that of your working space.
I suspect that you might have to search for specific images which highlight such differences to an extent they are obvious. For most images, the differences may be of a pixel-peeping magnitude.
Common examples where the advantage of a wide gamut could be easily seen are pictures of flowers or macro nature shots, which usually contain very saturated colors, exceeding sRGB by far. Other examples are beauty or fashion with colored make-up and fabrics etc, colored light sources etc. I admit that for most people and most images there is probably close to no benefit in using a monitor with a gamut much larger than sRGB. However, in the future this may change...
In my view and assuming a properly calibrated display, the subtleties are indeed not the reason for buying these expensive high-end monitors. At least for me the strong points in favor of the Eizo CG242W are the size, the extended gamut, the warranty, the uniformity of the backlight and last but not least the *comfort* of hardware calibration. Regarding precision of calibration and subtleties of shades, my old 17" Eizo 565 was equally satisfiying, if not better...
-
There are also shades within the ProPhoto color space that can be printed on the latest Epson printers, but which cannot be displayed even on the best Eizo monitor, apparently. But I've never had the opportunity to see them.
And considering one of the primaries fall outside human vision, you never will!
These color spaces are containers. ProPhoto is a huge one and in order to build such a theoretical color space from bits of math, those who design them can place the primaries where they wish, even if that means they define “invisible” colors, colors humans can’t see (meaning they are not colors but that’s another post).
And if you shoot a gray card Raw and encode into sRGB then ProPhoto RGB, you will not see much differences (well the numbers will be) but point is, one container is using far, far less of the possibly defined color than the other.
-
And if you shoot a gray card Raw and encode into sRGB then ProPhoto RGB, you will not see much differences (well the numbers will be) but point is, one container is using far, far less of the possibly defined color than the other.
Note sure what you are saying here. If I have an image in sRGB in which there is a gray card and its RGB value is (80,80,80), wouldn't that theoretically map into the same value (80,80,80) in ProPhoto RGB. If it mapped to a different value then switching between the spaces would change all colors in an image. I thought the value of ProPhoto RGB was that some wavelengths of light which are clipped in sRGB get mapped into ProPhoto RGB, but that colors which are common have the same value. I am asking, I don't know the answer.
-
Note sure what you are saying here. If I have an image in sRGB in which there is a gray card and its RGB value is (80,80,80), wouldn't that theoretically map into the same value (80,80,80) in ProPhoto RGB. If it mapped to a different value then switching between the spaces would change all colors in an image. I thought the value of ProPhoto RGB was that some wavelengths of light which are clipped in sRGB get mapped into ProPhoto RGB, but that colors which are common have the same value. I am asking, I don't know the answer.
80/80/80 isn’t the same color in ProPhoto versus sRGB. G255 uses the same numeric value in both but vastly different in terms of where it falls within human vision when plotted on a CIE chromaticity diagram.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsProPhoto2d.jpg)
You can see that blue in ProPhoto isn’t visible. The tip of the green plotted here is what G255 as solely a number in a defined scale would fall based on “human vision”.
-
80/80/80 isn't the same color in ProPhoto versus sRGB. G255 uses the same numeric value in both but vastly different in terms of where it falls within human vision when plotted on a CIE chromaticity diagram.
You can see that blue in ProPhoto isn't visible. The tip of the green plotted here is what G255 as solely a number in a defined scale would fall based on "human vision".
I appreciate the response, but I am still unclear on one aspect of this. Maybe you answered it and I didn't understand.
Consider this theoretical situation:
I have a camera which can capture the entire ProPhoto color space.
I have a monitor which can display the entire ProPhoto color space.
I take an image using this camera of a scene which only contains colors from the sRGB color space.
I process the image as an sRGB image and view it in Photoshop as Image_A.
I process the image as a ProPhoto image and view it in Photoshop as Image_B.
Will my human nervous system see Image_A and Image_B as identical images on my special monitor with respect to the colors perceived?
-
Will my human nervous system see Image_A and Image_B as identical images on my special monitor with respect to the colors perceived?
Ideally yes, if the monitor profile is optimal and everything is configured properly. What will be very different is the RGB values in the sRGB and ProPhoto versions of the files needed to get those identical-appearing colors.
-
Ideally yes, if the monitor profile is optimal and everything is configured properly. What will be very different is the RGB values in the sRGB and ProPhoto versions of the files needed to get those identical-appearing colors.
If I open a wide-gamut (e.g. Prophoto RGB) image on a WG monitor (e.g. NEC LCD2690WUXi2-BK-SV) in Photoshop and select View|Proof Setup|Windows RGB (or Macintosh RGB), will it show what the image will look like on an sRGB monitor?
-
If I open a wide-gamut (e.g. Prophoto RGB) image on a WG monitor (e.g. NEC LCD2690WUXi2-BK-SV) in Photoshop and select View|Proof Setup|Windows RGB (or Macintosh RGB), will it show what the image will look like on an sRGB monitor?
Windows RGB and Macintosh RGB are not the same as sRGB necessarily, so I doubt it. If you proof to sRGB instead, theoretically yes, if the second monitor is perfectly calibrated to sRGB. But unless the monitor in hardware calibrated with an internal LUT (like an Eizo or NEC with Spectraview), it isn't going to match sRGB--it will have its own color space. If you wanted to engage in some mierenneuken, you could use the monitor profile from the quasi-sRGB monitor to soft-proof an image displayed on the WG monitor and see a close approximation of what the image might look like if displayed on the quasi-sRGB monitor. But I'm not sure what practical benefit there might be in doing so...
-
I appreciate the response, but I am still unclear on one aspect of this. Maybe you answered it and I didn't understand.
Consider this theoretical situation:
I have a camera which can capture the entire ProPhoto color space.
I have a monitor which can display the entire ProPhoto color space.
I take an image using this camera of a scene which only contains colors from the sRGB color space.
I process the image as an sRGB image and view it in Photoshop as Image_A.
I process the image as a ProPhoto image and view it in Photoshop as Image_B.
Will my human nervous system see Image_A and Image_B as identical images on my special monitor with respect to the colors perceived?
As I understand, if you process an image in ProPhoto RGB, you have the potential to create degrees of color saturation which would be 'out of gamut' in sRGB.
The answer depends on what you mean by 'processing'. I would say, if you process an image in the sRGB space so that nothing is 'out of gamut' in proof-colors mode, then convert the image to Prophoto without further processing, then the image should look the same on the monitor and print the same, provided you get the printer settings right.
However, the numbers that represent a specific shade in sRGB will tend to be larger than the numbers that represent the same shade within the ProPhoto color space, because the ProPhoto space is larger.
As regards the true visual improvement of a high quality monitor such as the Eizo models, I would like to see a comparison of two images side by side, such that one image is a RAW file converted and processed into the ProPhoto RGB space, and the other is a straight conversion of that processed image to sRGB.
Colors within the original ProPhoto space which are outside the gamut of the sRGB space, will be clipped or reduced to fit inside the smaller sRGB space. Fully saturated yellows, for example, should appear marginally 'less' yellow, with a hint of cyan.
There may be certain shades of green that can be differentiated in the ProPhoto image, but may be merged into one shade in the sRGB conversion.
However, even the best current monitors are not able to display the full gamut of ProPhoto RGB, but very close to the full gamut of Adobe RGB, so it might be better to conduct the experiment using Adobe RGB and the same image converted to sRGB.
My own limited experience would suggest that the difference in appearance between two such images, on an Eizo monitor for example, will be subtle. Just how subtle I would like to find out.
-
I'd like to add that there are only a couple of major makers of LCD panels in the marketplace. Everything else, including EIZO, is just labeling, packaging, and a few different electronics and features. It gets confusing, though, as often most makes aren't clearly labeled or they chance panels for different models.
***
17" Eizo L557 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM170E6-L03) panel
17" Eizo L560t-c 25ms PVA (Samsung) panel
17" Eizo L560t-c-k 25ms PVA (Samsung) panel
17" Eizo L568 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM170E8-L02) panel
17" Eizo L578 12ms PVA (Samsung LTM170E8) panel
19" Eizo L760t-c 20ms PVA (Samsung) panel
19" Eizo L760t-c-k 20ms PVA (Samsung) panel
19" Eizo L767 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E1-L03) panel
19" Eizo L768 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E4-L02) panel
19" Eizo L768-AS 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E1-L03) panel
19" Eizo L778 (M190) 12ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E4) panel
19" Eizo L788 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E4-L02) panel
19" Eizo L795 25ms PVA (Samsung LTM190E1-L03) panel
***
A sampling. A few models have LG panels in them (Sony being the third major maker), though. There are also a dozen or more smaller firms in China and elsewhere of essentially no importance other than they are to be avoided if possible.
This can be helpful, though, as often the same panel can be found in something for less money if you shop carefully. I do know that the no name version of the CG241W is much less expensive. Eizo likes to use Samsung panels, and NEC likes to use LG, as a rule. But not always. Check first:
I mention this because the Eizo CG241W is a re-branded Samsung panel(!)
http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php (http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php)
Here is a site - type in the model and it will tell you (most of the time) what the panel maker is.
**results for the CG241W**
Eizo CG241W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240CS) panel
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate....p;ci_sku=501078 (http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=413174&pid=_Froogle&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=501078)
The only difference is the lack of calibration software that comes with the EIZO, essentially, plus a few differences in the buttons and case and such.
-
I mention this because the Eizo CG241W is a re-branded Samsung panel(!)
http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php (http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php)
Here is a site - type in the model and it will tell you (most of the time) what the panel maker is.
**results for the CG241W**
Eizo CG241W (widescreen) has a 24 inch 6 ms (g2g) S-PVA (Samsung LTM240CS) panel
http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate....p;ci_sku=501078 (http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=413174&pid=_Froogle&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=501078)
The only difference is the lack of calibration software that comes with the EIZO, essentially, plus a few differences in the buttons and case and such.
Nothing new, we all know that Eizo and NEC are using third-party panels (LaCie apparently only relabels complete NEC and Samsung monitors and chose a different calibration software).
But by calling this a simple repackaging you miss the point alltogether. Eizo and NEC build very specialized and expensive electronics for hardware calibration around the panels. Being able to program the LUT of a monitor with extreme precision is no simple thing. Eizo also equips its CG-monitors with some circuitry to stabilize the brightness from start and to ensure the uniformity of the screen. These "additions" together with selecting prefect panels that are individually adjusted, a mechanically sound casing and a warranty of 5 years (Eizo) are worth much more than the panel alone.
I for one would buy an Eizo CG-monitor or any other expensive monitor with hardware calibration, even knowing that the price for the "original" monitors is approaching zero...
-
There are some canned profiles of the new dell that are very good. I used that as a baseline and then tweaked it with colorsync software. My dell screen (U2410) is an extremely close match to my epson 3800 and 7900 prints. The key is turning down the brightness; my studio setting -- during the day is generally not brighter than 30 units. I will upgrade at some point, but it's nice to have a decent mid to high range monitor that I can actually pay in cash for. This is a good stepping stone for me; something that I can sell locally or give to an assistant down the road when I trade up. I'm looking forward to owning my own color calibration device shortly! Thanks to the forum for helping me take the plunge and purchase a nice monitor.
Noah