Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Nick F on December 23, 2005, 07:38:40 am
-
I am in the market for a good LCD monitor. I use a Macintosh G4 computer and would like your opinions on who makes an accurate LCD monitor. I've looked at the Apple 20" monitors, but wonder are there others in the same price range that are better. The Apple has a contrast range of 1: 400 and I see others that have higher contrast ranges. I would really appreciate your input. I would like to work in a price range of $800.00 US or less. I require color accuracy and readable type. I will be using this for my professional photography business.
Thank you
-
I am in the market for a good LCD monitor. I use a Macintosh G4 computer and would like your opinions on who makes an accurate LCD monitor. I've looked at the Apple 20" monitors, but wonder are there others in the same price range that are better. The Apple has a contrast range of 1: 400 and I see others that have higher contrast ranges. I would really appreciate your input. I would like to work in a price range of $800.00 US or less. I require color accuracy and readable type. I will be using this for my professional photography business.
There are some key changes to the LCD monitor technology happening at the moment that I am guessing will start flowing through to the mainstream market during 2006.
As a result, I ended up making a "modest" decision on my latest monitor purchase with the expectation that I will want to replace it within 12 months.
Colour accuracy requires the use of a calibration system and a monitor that has plenty of adjustments to bring it into a baseline configuration before the profiling is done.
My stop-gap purchase was a Samsung 204Ts and has easily satisfied my needs.
It is a native 1600x1200 LCD and connected by a DVI cable, I have no difficulty working with it at this resolution.
Andrew
-
I'm using the Formac Gallery 2010 (21") LCD for about 2 years now. It's specs beat the Apple Cinema Display at the time that I bought it.
I paid about $1,300 then, but now you can get them for about $900.
It's awesome and great video too with the DVI interface. I'm using it on my Dell Precision Workstation 470 with dual Xeon processors and Nvidia Quadro FX1400 graphics card running WinXP Pro SP2.
Merry Christmas.
Bud James
-
Here's an in-depth reply (from the Betterlight forum):
Greetings, fellow betterlight users. I lurk here and I try to keep my
mouth shut ;-) I can't spend too much time on this right now so
forgive me if I don't respond to questions quickly. For those of you
who don't know me I was the architect of the Sony Artisan, the Radius
PressView, ColorMatch, ProSense and many other products. I have worked
with display technology both CRT and LCD for the last 15 years.
Color accurate LCDs pose many problems. I will not argue the CRT vs LCD
debate. Suffice to say there are elements of a calibrated CRT that
still can't be matched by any LCD - available - and there are also
elements of LCD technology that exceed CRTs. We are improving things
at a rapid pace. I expect within 2-3 years to be able to finally feel
comfortable stating that we have an all around superior product in the
LCD space.
I am writing this email to attempt to dispel some myths and provide
some guidance for your LCD purchasing. You can't buy a good CRT any
more, the only ones left are of poor quality because the cost has been
reduced so much all the expensive quality components are not used
anymore. There was a reason that some CRTs cost 2-3K - the parts were
very expensive. Now the analog electronics use VLSI to reduce cost,
resulting in poor comparative quality.
1) A wide gamut LCD display is not a good thing for most (95%) of high
end users. The data that leaves your graphic card and travels over the
DVI cable is 8 bit per component. You can't change this. The OS, ICC
CMMs, the graphic card, the DVI spec, and Photoshop will all have to be
upgraded before this will change and that's going to take a while. What
does this mean to you? It means that when you send RGB data to a wide
gamut display the colorimetric distance between any two colors is much
larger. As an example, lets say you have two adjacent color patches one
is 230,240,200 and the patch next to it is 230,241,200. On a standard
LCD or CRT those two colors may be around .8 Delta E apart. On an Adobe
RGB display those colors might be 2 Delta E apart on an ECI RGB display
this could be as high as 4 delta E.
It's very nice to be able to display all kinds of saturated colors you
may never use in your photographs, however if the smallest visible
adjustment you can make to a skin tone is 4 delta E you will become
very frustrated very quickly.
2) More bits in the display does not fix this problem. 10 bit LUTs, 14
Bit 3D LUTs, 10 bit column drivers, time-domain bits, none of these
technologies will solve problem 1. Until the path from photoshop to the
pixel is at least 10 bits the whole way, I advise sticking to a display
with something close to ColorMatch or sRGB.
3) Unless the display has "TRUE 10 bit or greater 1D LUTs that are
8-10-10" user front panel controls for color temp, blacklevel and gamma
are useless for calibration and can in fact make things worse. An
8-10-8 3D LUT will not hurt things and can help achieve a fixed
contrast ratio which is a good thing.
Only Mitsubishi/NEC displays with "GammaComp" have 8-10-8 3D LUTs at
this time. Some Samsung displays may have this I don't test many of
their panels as the performance in other areas has been lacking.
Only the Eizo 210, 220 and NEC2180WG have 8-10-10 paths. If you really
want to know... the path in the Eizo is "8-14bit3D-8-10bit1D-10" go
figure that one out ;-) The 2180WG has an actual 10 bit DVI interface
with a 10-10-10 path but nothing supports it so you can't use it yet -
but for $6500 your ready when it does ;-)
4) The testing methodology for the seybold report article was very
poor. It demonstrates the authors complete lack of understanding with
regards to LCD calibration. At some point I may write a full rebuttal.
As an example the fact that Apple's display has no controls other than
backlight is actually a very good thing for an 8-8-8 LCD if your going
to use calibration. Apple optimizes the factory LUTs so as to provide
the most individual colors. smooth greyscale and the least loss. Then
the calibration is done in the graphic card LUT. As these are all 8 bit
it's best if the user does not mess with the display LUTs at all.
Overall Lab to Lab Delta E of 23 patches is a very poor metric to
evaluate a display. It completely leaves out many areas of color space
(the tool they used is designed to make the colorimeter look good so
tuff patches are not included) contrast ratio, stability, aging,
greyscale performance and other important considerations.
Many people ask for my recommendations. I am not happy with anything we
have right now. That said I can evaluate what there is.
Price performance wise the great bargain is the NEC 1980SXI BK the
price/vs colorimetric performance of this display can't be beat. The
2180ux Is a great display at a reasonable but high end price.
In the mid-high wide screen I like the Apple and the SONY. Reject the
display if uniformity is bad and make sure whomever you buy it from
will exchange it.
The Eizo 210 is great if you can justify the current cost. Give it two
years and most high-end displays should perform at this level. 220 is a
great display but suffers from all the downfalls of any wide gamut
display.
There is no reason to buy the La Cie 321 it's just an NEC with their
label on it and an extra $400.
The Monaco Optix XR is the best colorimeter for LCDs at this time.
These are my personal opinions.
Karl Lang
-
4) The testing methodology for the seybold report article was very
poor.
You forgot something neoprinter ;-) , the Seybold report that Karl Lang is referring to:
http://www.lb-ag.ch/news/digital/Quato/Int...yboldreport.pdf (http://www.lb-ag.ch/news/digital/Quato/Intelliproof/seyboldreport.pdf)
-
Neoprinter, thanks - very useful info. I have been looking for a new 19" LCD that dioesn;t break the bank and the NEC 1980SXI BK looks like just the ticket for me.
-
Thank you neoprinter - I am looking to buy an LCD monitor as an interim solution until the technology advances over the next 2 years. The NEC looks like a good solution.
http://www.donaldlee.net (http://www.donaldlee.net)
-
When Karl talks displays, best to listen. He’s the father of both the original PressView, ColorMatch RGB and the Artisan.
-
"The Monaco Optix XR is the best colorimeter for LCDs at this time."
When I bought the Optix several years ago, they recommended checking your graphics card for writable DAC support. They even had a downloadable program for testing this.
Now I'm buying a new PC. Do all current graphics cards have this support, or is this an issue I have to worry about when selecting a graphics card?
Thanks
-
Here's an in-depth reply (from the Betterlight forum):
The Monaco Optix XR is the best colorimeter for LCDs at this time.
These are my personal opinions.
Karl Lang
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anyone know the date of Karl's message(?), ...none posted w/article and a search didn't find anything (not a Betterlight-user Forum-member).
Thanks!
-
Karl, thanks for the info about the wide gamut issue.
So basically what you are saying is regardless of LCD or CRT, having a large gamut such as Adobe 1998, with only 256 intensity levels is not enough (regardless of the gamma or even if using a L type mapping) to produce contourless output. So in many colors you will easily see the difference between two adjacent shades?
There is a very VERY easy solution to this problem for Adobe (speaking from a programmers perspective). In the color conversion from 16bit image to 8bit display, Just dither the 8bit screen output. Problem solved. On a high resolution display this would easily be able to simulate the full 10bit or even 14bit color output. I'm sure one primary argument for not doing this is because it would take too much processor time. You can get around this by simply outputing non-dithered output first, while the user is doing quick adjustments, then if the display remains unchanged for a few hundred milliseconds, then update to the dithered output. Of course, Adobe would probably have to switch to using 16bit for the image cache first.
If I knew a programmer at Adobe that works on Photoshop, I'd send them this suggestion. Even in the sRGB colorspace, 256 intensity levels is not enough with moderate contrast ratios (expecially LCDs).
- TImothy Farrar : farrarfocus.com
-
The Apple has a contrast range of 1: 400 and I see others that have higher contrast ranges.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Comparing contrast ranges between competing companies will get you nowhere. No two companies measure contrast the same way as there is no set standard. There are also other factors that effect contrast measurement such as the brightness of the LCD. A displays contrast ratio may be very high, but could require the display to be at it's brightest setting, which you will not operate it at when doing color accurate work.
Contrast ratios are only useful when comparing monitors from the same company and, I'd say, even that is limited to models within the same year; you never know when they may decide to change their testing methods.
Colour accuracy requires the use of a calibration system and a monitor that has plenty of adjustments to bring it into a baseline configuration before the profiling is done.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Emphasis added. As mentioned in the quote from Karl Lang, any such adjustments are a bad idea. The color characteristics of LCD displays are set at the factory. There is no changing them. Period. The only analog adjustment and thusly, the only thing you can be calibrated (profiling is a separate process) is the brightness of the backlight.
Any LCD with adjustment controls that go beyond just brightness are going to adjust the LUTs and thusly degrade the display's ability to render all of the colors it is capable of displaying thus making accurate color adjustments and proofing more difficult.
If I had to guess as to why companies include all those contrast and color adjustment controls it would be to make the displays more familiar to users used to older CRT technology. Not to mention, it gives the marketing department something to add to the features list ("Color controls for accurate color!!").
The point on brightness adjustments brings me to the next issue. Since brightness is the only analog adjustment truly possible, it is important to buy a display that can achieve the ideal brightness level for color accurate work which is 120cd/m2. Any brighter than that and blacks begin to suffer.
Here lies the problem. Most LCDs are sold based off the "Oh! It's Shiny!" factor and are set to be extremely bright. Even at their lowest brightness setting, they will still be much too bright for our kind of needs. A good example of this are Dell displays. The 2005FPW uses the same LCD as the Apple 20" but the backlight is much brighter. At it's lowest setting, it is still 200cd/m2. It is noticeable brighter sitting next to my properly calibrated Apple display even when the sudo-color controls have been used on the Dell and my EyeOne tells me it's at the proper 120cd/m2 brightness.
Unfortunately no company advertises the lowest brightness setting (it's not as shiny) and most technical review sites don't know any better about what accurate color means.
-
Daniel or others,
I'm in the market for an LCD monitor and for cost reasons am gravitating towards the Dell 2005, Apple 20" CD, or the Dell 2405. Size-wise and VFM, the 2405 seems perfect, though I've read some reviews questioning the color accuracy of PVA panels for photo editing. As you already know, the Apple and the Dell 2005 use the same LG Philips S-IPS panel. Is S-IPS really a better technology for photo editing? Are there so many variables that S-IPS vs. PVA won't be the determining factor?
I currently have a Dell 1901 which has been okay, but reading your comment regarding brightness makes a lot of sense now knowing that the screen has always been MUCH brighter than the resulting prints. Since I calibrate with the Colorvision Spyder, I always figured it would account for the brightness factor, though clearly it hasn't (I'll typically have to aim for a brighter image on screen to get the desired effect in print). With the Dell 2005 at about half the cost of the ACD 20", I'd obviously prefer to save the money, but not if the brightness problem means the montior won't calibrate well. Any thoughts? FYI, this is for an Win XP system (though one day I could see making the switch to Mac).
Thanks in advance,
Steve
-
Daniel or others,
I'm in the market for an LCD monitor and for cost reasons am gravitating towards the Dell 2005, Apple 20" CD, or the Dell 2405. Size-wise and VFM, the 2405 seems perfect, though I've read some reviews questioning the color accuracy of PVA panels for photo editing. As you already know, the Apple and the Dell 2005 use the same LG Philips S-IPS panel. Is S-IPS really a better technology for photo editing? Are there so many variables that S-IPS vs. PVA won't be the determining factor?
I currently have a Dell 1901 which has been okay, but reading your comment regarding brightness makes a lot of sense now knowing that the screen has always been MUCH brighter than the resulting prints. Since I calibrate with the Colorvision Spyder, I always figured it would account for the brightness factor, though clearly it hasn't (I'll typically have to aim for a brighter image on screen to get the desired effect in print). With the Dell 2005 at about half the cost of the ACD 20", I'd obviously prefer to save the money, but not if the brightness problem means the montior won't calibrate well. Any thoughts? FYI, this is for an Win XP system (though one day I could see making the switch to Mac).
Thanks in advance,
Steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the S-IPS vs VPA debate. They are technologies that effect viewing angle and ultimately it means squat as any modern LCD monitor suitable for color accurate work will generally have a good viewing angle to boot. The true test is to sit in front of a monitor and move your head left to right or up and down. if the contrast/color/density change, then the display is a piece of crap.
If you are wanting a LCD for color accurate work and are trying to save a few bucks you are not going to be buying an LCD. the technology is still young and with that comes additional cost. The better Dell displays use very good LCDs but all have very bright backlights which just nixes their ability to be used as color accurate displays.
When I bought my 2005FPW the retail price was only $50 less than the Apple. Having both displays, I can say without reservation that the Apple is twice the display as the dell. As far as the PC world is concerned the Dell is well built, but sitting next to the Apple, the Apple makes it look and feel like a creaky POS. You can certainly tell where Dell cuts corners in order to sell the displays at the prices they sell them for.
The Apple takes up less space on the desk, can be tilted with a finger (the dell needs two hands or it'll tip), and the connection ports are much easier to use. Top that off with the fact that if you are considering switching to Macs someday, the USB ports on the Dell won't work on the Mac. Either the dell ports are hoaky, the Mac is over-finicky or a combo of the two. Maybe they'll work better with an Intel Mac.
What I'm trying to say is that the Apple is more expensive, but for a reason. Granted, the display in in need of a price reduction but I'd say only by $100-150 based off the price of what Dell is selling the 2005FPW for (currently $430; which is how much I got mine on sale for actually).
My only complaint with the Apple 20" is that the backlight operates at 7000K. The profile compensates for it at a cost of a very slight green cast in deep shadows, but that is far less of a detriment than the display being too bright. In a year or so, when my Dell dims enough, it'll become a better monitor than my Apple, but until then...
-
Daniel,
Thanks for the quick response. Nice to come across someone that has both monitors who can speak from experience. No question at all about the beauty, build, and ease of use for the Apple. No question that the Apple is in need of a price cut (not that I think one will be coming soon). The problem is whether at twice the price, the Apple is still worth it.
If you don't mind, your post left me with several questions.
1. Did you buy the Dell and then realize that it didn't cut it for color accuracy, thus the ACD purchase?
2. Do you use the ACD for images and the Dell for palettes?
3. Mac or PC? If PC, which I'm guessing not, are there any compatibility problems with the Apple display (I assume you lose any software controls and can only adjust the brightness - though I don't think that matters as long as you calibrate the monitor)?
4. If you only use one of these monitors, is the 1680x1050 size too limiting?
5. You say not to get too hung up on the S-IPS vs. PVA question. Have you heard anything about the Dell 2405? It seems like the perfect size/cost solution, though since I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for, I'm guessing the Dell 24" widescreen is too good to be true.
6. Aside from build, is the main problem the brightness level with the Dell 2005? Even turned way down?
Thanks again. Any additional help is much appreciated.
Steve
-
1. Yes, sorta. I originally bought the Dell first because I had two CRTs and one burnt out. I needed a new monitor, was reluctant to use LCDs, the Dell was on sale and it was widescreen (drool). So I gave in and got it.
2. Yes
3. Mac. There are no compatibility issues using the Apple. It uses a standard DVI connector. You just won't get those cool semi-transparent feedback indicators that you see on macs when adjusting the brightness on a PC as they are handled by OS X. In fact, I used the Apple on a Dell PC for a short bit until My G5 tower was delivered; I had decided to switch platforms at the time.
4. I find that the resolution is perfect for the size. Not too much and not too little. For me it is very comfortable using one display or both at once. On the Windows PC however, I'd say its a bit cramped only because Windows lacks any feature as useful as Expose (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/) on the mac.
5. Not much. I read a review at Toms Hardware a wile back and they reported it had very color good rendering just as the 20" did. They did not take into consideration the luminosity however. I had a discussion at Rob Gailbrath Forums a wile back with Michael Tapes on the subject. Mr. Tapes had just bought the 24" Dell and I convinced him to run some tests. He concluded that there was banding issues with the display due to the brightness but he decided it was well enough for the work he was doing with it (video I believe). I don't remember the full details in the thread but it is located here (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=350263&page=) if you care to read it. It's quite big as some know-it-alls came in and tried to solve solved problems as often happens in popular forums.
There was another LCD calibration discussion with Mark Tucker that was going on at the same time. Due to that my memory gets them mixed up and I forget what was said in each... Here is the other discussion (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=356261&page=) if you have some more time to kill.
6. Even turned all the way down it is 80cd/m2 brighter than optimal. 140cd/m2 would be the bare minimum -err maximum - for a good calibration.
-
Does anyone know whether makers are planning adapting plasma display technolgy for computer displays for color critical work I ask because looking alternative HDTV displays I read that plasma displays do a better job with shadow detail than LCD displays.
Thanks for any information or insight.
-
The biggest problems (burn-in is no longer an issue with the newest models.) with Plasmas are that they are expensive and low-resolution. No plasma displays under 50" is HD (High-Definition: starting at 1280x720 or 720p). I've never heard of an affordable HD plasma that was 1080i. Most are ED (Enhanced Definition: 848x480 or 480p). The reason is that is is very expensive to make a plasma high-resoluion. It'll be a long long time before plasma tech ever reaches the point where they can produce the resolutions we're used to using on our computer monitors which are many times greater than 1080 HD.
Plasma is a dying technology IMHO. LCDs have surpassed them already and that seems to be where the focus is. Newer technologies such as the OLED will replace both and the just released SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) will certainly give the current LCD and Plasma displays a run for the money until OLED is mainstream.
I wouldn't be surprised if SED reaches the computer market eventually though. Since each pixel is self-illuminated, black would be in fact black.
-
Daniel, thanks very much for your reply. It is very helpful.
-
Daniel,
Thanks again for your help. Well, those were a couple of interesting threads. All I can say is I no longer feel badly for feeling stupid that I don't have a better grasp of color management. My read of the participants in both of those threads is that I'm not alone. I'm not a professional, just an enthusiastic amateur that really dislikes not having prints match the screen. While no one could agree on a universal luminance setting, one thing was very clear to me and that was that the brightness setting on my Dell 1901 was too high (which I knew but wasn't really certain how to account for it when profiling with my Spyder). The thread made me realize that I needed to lower the setting (even though PhotoCal suggests using factory settings). That one little change will probably go a long way in the short-term to giving me better prints.
As for my quest for a monitor. I am as uncertain as ever and may just collect my thoughts. Part of me says to go with the ACD 20", but the other part wants to see first hand how bright the Dell 2405 is and test whether at a low setting, the luminance can come down to 120-140. Wishful thinking or stubborn, though the return policy should minimize any costs (aside from shipping). One other thought, I could have a boat load of screen real estate if I use the ACD 20" as my primary display and use my Dell 1901 for palettes etc. In practice, is it odd to have a 1680x1050 monitor matched up with a 1280x1024 second monitor?
I realized from one of your posts in the other threads that you are a recent convert to Macs. The emotional side of me has wanted to do this for four years, though the rational side has always said I can do everything photo related on a PC so why bother. What made you finally make the move and are you glad you did? I use Downloader Pro for image ingestion and Qimage for printing. Don't know if you used these before, but if you did, have you found equivalent, relatively cheap alternatives in the Mac world?
Okay, I think I've taken enough of your time.
Once again, thanks for your help.
Steve
P.S. Just printed some shots after the recalibration. Scratch that thought about holding off on getting a new monitor. While the brightness/contrast is a much better match than before, the colors look like crap. Skin tones and reds are the bain of my digital photography existence. Time for a change.
-
As for my quest for a monitor. I am as uncertain as ever and may just collect my thoughts. Part of me says to go with the ACD 20", but the other part wants to see first hand how bright the Dell 2405 is and test whether at a low setting, the luminance can come down to 120-140. Wishful thinking or stubborn, though the return policy should minimize any costs (aside from shipping).
See this thread in this same forum (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5688) from July/August last year. Unfortunately, many of the posts were lost in the crash.
From my post back when I tried to calibrate my Dell 2405 FPW (I returned it later).
Now to set the luminance. On my display, I had to set the OSD setting to 0 -- zero, and the Catalyst brightness slider to -87 (139.4-139.6 cd/m^2) or -86 (140.3-140.5 cd/m^2).
Note that I had to adjust the brightness in the drivers, the monitor's brightness adjustments just couldn't make it anywhere near as low as 140!
Run 4:
Color temperature is excellent, spot on. Ditto for gamma. Luminance is off; the target of 140 isn't reached, the measured luminance is 182.7. The minimum luminance measured is 0.9. That doesn't seem so bad.
My conclusion back then was that I couldn't rely on it for color critical work, so I returned it.
A month ago, I acquired a PowerMac with the 23" Cinema HD, a known-good monitor which also seems better out-of-the-box, but I haven't done the calibration dance yet.
-
I recently purchased an iMac G5 20" which had out of the box amazing colour. However, the eye is easily "fooled". I rented a calibrator and found a signifigant difference in the calibrated profile.
-
I'm not a professional, just an enthusiastic amateur...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=57085\")
So you're not [a href=\"http://www.stevenmillerphotography.com/]this guy[/url] eh?
In practice, is it odd to have a 1680x1050 monitor matched up with a 1280x1024 second monitor?
I had mis-matched resolutions with my CRTs. It's a bit odd at first, but you get used to it. The resolutions aren't too different so it shouldn't be a big deal.
I realized from one of your posts in the other threads that you are a recent convert to Macs. The emotional side of me has wanted to do this for four years, though the rational side has always said I can do everything photo related on a PC so why bother. What made you finally make the move and are you glad you did? I use Downloader Pro for image ingestion and Qimage for printing. Don't know if you used these before, but if you did, have you found equivalent, relatively cheap alternatives in the Mac world?
Ah yes, the switch. I'd say follow your emotional side! Being happy with the platform you use is very important to productivity and IMHO creativity too. In the end though, both systems are tools. In the same sense we choose between Nikon/Canon or 35mm/MF you should work with the platform that works for you best.
That being said, my history in computers has been with IBM PCs. I learned DOS and Win3.1 more than a decade ago on an old 486 66MHz DX2. For the longest time I was in the "Macs Suck" train of thought based off experience with them from family members and schools. Granted, my interest on computers was for gaming, I still believe Macs weren't a viable platform outside the niche markets until recently.
Once OS X came out I saw potential in the platform and I started to closely observed the development of them. Once the G5 came out and 10.3 gave us Expose (this is seriously a Godsend) I was sold. Considering the state OS X is in now, the track record of Apple since the first colored iMac and the future developments of the platform (Intel switch being one) I believe Macs have a very promising future. More-so than PC have at this time (I'm not saying PCs are dying, just that they aren't going to be advancing much mostly due to Windows).
I switched to Macs because I am disappointed in the direction Windows PCs are heading. With Vista being delayed by several years and the fact that the fundamental flawed design in Windows that causes so much security grief (everything runs as Administrator) won't be fixed until maybe the version of Windows after Vista is irritating. The problems that PC makers are suffering due to the price wars they played means that if I want a PC with decent hardware I'd be building it myself and that means no warranty and no free over-night repairs.
Then there is the issue of using the operating system itself. I just got tired of dealing with the constant security issues and windows flaking out on me for one dumb reason or another. Unlike Windows, OS X works with me and not against me. Printer dialogs (and other apps) don't force themselves in your face, the network connects and stays connected, I can run the system for months strait without the system slowly becoming sluggish, I can run numerous utility apps (such as calendar tools, stats, app launchers, drive monitors, etc) without them having a noticeable hamper on PS performance like they would on Windows, and so on and so fourth. When web editing I typically have a good 15 different apps running including PS and Windows itself within VPC and my mac handles it with grace.
There wasn't much that I had on the PC that the Mac didn't have. With the exception of my web editor (TopStyle) I have found equivalents for the Mac. I never used Downloader Pro or Qimage and I don't know of any equivalents for those. The mac does have an app called Image Capture that will import images but it is not as sophisticated as DP.
-
Daniel,
So you're not this guy (http://www.stevenmillerphotography.com/) eh?
No, and I'm not this guy either (http://www.stevemillerband.com/). Though I'm a bit blown away by the fact that he is still touring.
I switched to Macs because I am disappointed in the direction Windows PCs are heading. With Vista being delayed by several years and the fact that the fundamental flawed design in Windows that causes so much security grief (everything runs as Administrator) won't be fixed until maybe the version of Windows after Vista is irritating.
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing that the much anticipated Vista won't have anything that Macs don't already have, except of course the security holes.
Then there is the issue of using the operating system itself. I just got tired of dealing with the constant security issues and windows flaking out on me for one dumb reason or another. Unlike Windows, OS X works with me and not against me. Printer dialogs (and other apps) don't force themselves in your face, the network connects and stays connected, I can run the system for months strait without the system slowly becoming sluggish, I can run numerous utility apps (such as calendar tools, stats, app launchers, drive monitors, etc) without them having a noticeable hamper on PS performance like they would on Windows, and so on and so fourth.
I have to say that my XP Pro system runs pretty well, though what I probably don't appreciate is all of the time I spend on making sure I don't have any problems.
I never used Downloader Pro or Qimage and I don't know of any equivalents for those. The mac does have an app called Image Capture that will import images but it is not as sophisticated as DP.
Anybody else know equivalent programs for Macs?
Thanks again,
Steve
P.S. There are a couple of Windows Expose equivalents. I had one installed but it didn't seem to want to play nice with my graphics card. So then again, maybe there isn't a Windows equivalent.
-
After reading countless posts on the Dell 2405 and 2005 in the various threads highlighted above, I now realize that even I'm not that stubborn to try to get the Dell properly calibrated. I just want a relatively painless solution. Looks like the Apple CD has my name on it.
Steve
-
I recently purchased an iMac G5 20" which had out of the box amazing colour. However, the eye is easily "fooled". I rented a calibrator and found a signifigant difference in the calibrated profile.
If this was meant as a comment to me, I think that reading the links I quoted should reveal that I've learned this thoroughly already, leaving it as a lesson for others who don't want to repeat my mistakes.
When I say that the 23" Cinema Display HD looks better out of the box, I'm thinking of the main problem with the Dell 2405 FPW:
Brightness.
There is no problem whatsoever to adjust the brightness of the Apple display to a comfortable viewing level.
-
There wasn't much that I had on the PC that the Mac didn't have. With the exception of my web editor (TopStyle) I have found equivalents for the Mac. I never used Downloader Pro or Qimage and I don't know of any equivalents for those. The mac does have an app called Image Capture that will import images but it is not as sophisticated as DP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57111\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You forgot to mention RawShooter Premium, the best RAW converter in the business . Qimage has been a godsend for me. Maybe on the Mac, Photoshop's printing interface would not have given me the same trouble with my 7600. Maybe CS2 would no longer give me the same trouble. I haven't tried it yet because to do so would risk wasting a pile of ink and paper. Photoshop CS with my 7600 had an annoying problem of stopping printing about 3/4trs the way through a 24x36" print. Image Print is just far too expensive for the 7600. Qimage was an inexpensive solution with additional benefits and features enabling me to quickly organise and print a number of different size prints on a large sheet of paper without rescaling the size and ppi of each individual image.
-
You forgot to mention RawShooter Premium, the best RAW converter in the business .
Ray, I think RSP is very good and has some great features, and was using it a lot. Then I read Peter Krogh's excellent The Dam Book and saw a lot of advantages to using Bridge/ACR/PS. Because of this I forced myself to spend time re-learning ACR in CS2, using a lot of the principals discussed in Bruce Frasier's Real World Camera Raw with Adobe PS CS2. I found that after a bit of time re-learning the program, I was able to generate results that equalled or surpassed RSP, taking the same amount of time. FWIW, I highly recommend both books.
Qimage has been a godsend for me...Qimage was an inexpensive solution with additional benefits and features enabling me to quickly organise and print a number of different size prints on a large sheet of paper without rescaling the size and ppi of each individual image.
I agree completely. If I make the switch, I'm still going to keep my XP machine (for Microsoft Money), so I can continue to use Qimage if I don't find an equivalent low cost alternative in the Mac world.
Steve
-
I have to say that my XP Pro system runs pretty well, though what I probably don't appreciate is all of the time I spend on making sure I don't have any problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bingo. XP systems can certainly run well given the proper maintenance but require constant work to maintain that. Regardless, the Mac is definitely more stable than WinPCs.
P.S. There are a couple of Windows Expose equivalents. I had one installed but it didn't seem to want to play nice with my graphics card. So then again, maybe there isn't a Windows equivalent.
I played with one too; probably the same. It was too unstable to be useable. It's really not possible for XP do do the graphical effects found in OS X due to the different means in which graphics are rendered. Granted there are programs that can add effects quite well but they always come at a performance hit.
-
Daniel,
Okay, I'm about to make my first move towards Apple and get the ACD. How long do you figure these monitors last? I'm asking because if in some moment of temporary insanity, I throw cost issues to the wind, I might convince myself to go for the extra real estate of the 23". I see some nice little rationalizations dancing in my head if I can get four or five years out of it. Also, I assume the 20" and 23" are the same with regard to quality, performance, and capacity to be properly calibrated?
Thanks,
Steve
-
It's hard to say what kind of longevity you'd get. I'd guestimate about 3 years although on a tech show I watch (dl.tv) the host pulled out a Silicon Graphics display from 1999 that worked just fine. On the other hand I've heard of displays conking out in a year.
The DVI connector is more likely to go obsolete before the display goes bad (a new connector type is under works actually).
Also, I assume the 20" and 23" are the same with regard to quality, performance, and capacity to be properly calibrated?
I've heard of some color issues on the 23 at the corners; noting definite. I'm not sure if it was just an issue with the first iteration or if it still continues...
-
I've heard of some color issues on the 23 at the corners; noting definite. I'm not sure if it was just an issue with the first iteration or if it still continues...
From what I recall, this is a quality control problem, and the solution for a customer is to return it to Apple and get a new one under warranty.
There have been reports of uneven backlighting in some panels as well. To the extent that it's possible to see these things, I can see no sign of it on my panel.
The standard light grey background of the Mac user interface seems suitable for checking this.
-
After reading countless posts on the Dell 2405 and 2005 in the various threads highlighted above, I now realize that even I'm not that stubborn to try to get the Dell properly calibrated. I just want a relatively painless solution. Looks like the Apple CD has my name on it.
Steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi all,
I'm a newbie to this forum so please forgive any re-hash of old topics. I'm a PC user looking to buy a new lcd and that's how I found this post. But I can't help but bring up the name Formac in any discussion of MAC vs. PC monitors. Formac's supposedly give as good as, if not a little better, image quality for a little less than MAC monitors cost. And again, supposedly they have no problems working with PC's.
From the quality of posts I've read here, I'm especially interested in hearing from anyone with first hand experience with the Formac. Thanks!
-
Okay, I'm about to make my first move towards Apple and get the ACD. How long do you figure these monitors last?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've got a 15" Apple panel on a 533 G4. It's 6 I think! Macs last longer too! (this thing is getting slow though!)
-
how come no one is mentioning the samsung syncmasters? IMO they are well worth the price, considering the competition (apple, sony).
amnon
-
Viewsonic also has some nice options.
My Dell 1905 has the unfortunate problem mentioned above. It is about as bright as the noon day sun. On the plus side it is the only monitor I've been able to use when the sun is streaming in through the window by it. On the minus side prints are an adventure.
-
how come no one is mentioning the samsung syncmasters? IMO they are well worth the price, considering the competition (apple, sony).
amnon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also think the Syncmasters are a good call. And for that price range, I've been looking at the 214T over the last 2 days.
-
I also think the Syncmasters are a good call. And for that price range, I've been looking at the 214T over the last 2 days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got a SyncMaster 213T at a good price just before they were discontinued. I love it!
Eric
-
I got a SyncMaster 213T at a good price just before they were discontinued. I love it!
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm looking for the best deal I can find on the 214T. My oldest son just entered Berkeley as a spring-admit. My wallet is hemmoraging money! YIKES! The worst part is, I don't like to settle for just "good enough" if "the current best" is available when it comes time to buy. It almost always comes down to you get what you pay for.
I don't give a damn about the speed of the monitor, ( in so much as gaming is concerned.) I have the hardest time searching for the 'best post image processing lcd' available. Almost every hit comes back with super, ultra, delux, speed demon. I WANT COLOR FIDELITY! and I don't have the money for a Color Edge. What's a guy to do?
-
In terms of a low price LCD, I have had good results with the Samsung SyncMaster 910T, however it might be discontinued. I also use this display in a fully color calibrated workflow in MacOSX.
Calibration was done with ColorEyes Display for 2 profiles. One at 5000K and L* (perceptual) instead of a gamma curve, this is what I use for editing, and one at 6500K and gamma of 2.2 to switch to when viewing stuff for the web (sRGB).
At 5000K I used the native white intensity of 180 cd/m^2. Normally this would be concidered too bright, however I did the setup under the assumption that lower brightness would degrade the color quality (now if the brightness settomgs actually adjusted the backlight brightness, this might not be true, anyone know anything about this?). I have a 5000K viewing light setup with brightness that matches the screen, so in practice it is not a problem (but I wouldn't want it any brighter).
My estimation of the actual contrast ratio for my 5000K setting was 370:1 (I worked backwards looking at the black level measurement from the display color profile).
This display is also a non-dithered 8bit per channel display (a lot of LCD's are 6bit per channel dithered).
The only problem I have had is with uniformity (a very common problem on most LCD displays). One corner is visably brighter than the others. In actual use it is not a problem, because when softproofing, I alternate between a black and white boarder to see the print "framed".
For anyone who is interested, I have a full writeup of colorcalibration experiences with this display at,
http://farrarfocus.com/article000.htm (http://farrarfocus.com/article000.htm)
- Timothy Farrar : farrarfocus.com
-
Does anyone know if the Dell 2001FP suffers from the same brightness issues as the other DELLs. I have this monitor at work (Software Development) and have been thinking of getting one for home for use with Photoshop CS2 (calibrated with the Spyder2).
-
I am fairly challenged when it comes to calibration issues, but I do have an issue that seems to relate to this thread. I have an HP2335 lcd monitor. My problem is, after calibrating it carefully 2x, I can't begin to replicate the bright, brilliant color I see on the screen when I print on my Epson 2200. What would be the best way to correct the situation? I have experimented with the monitor, turning down the brightness by about 50% and reducing the contrast somewhat as well. Should I put my HP monitor on Ebay and hook my old and excellent CRT--Mitsubishi 2060u--back up?
-
As mentioned in the quote from Karl Lang, any such adjustments are a bad idea. The color characteristics of LCD displays are set at the factory. There is no changing them. Period. The only analog adjustment and thusly, the only thing you can be calibrated (profiling is a separate process) is the brightness of the backlight.
Any LCD with adjustment controls that go beyond just brightness are going to adjust the LUTs and thusly degrade the display's ability to render all of the colors it is capable of displaying thus making accurate color adjustments and proofing more difficult.
If I had to guess as to why companies include all those contrast and color adjustment controls it would be to make the displays more familiar to users used to older CRT technology. Not to mention, it gives the marketing department something to add to the features list ("Color controls for accurate color!!").
I have read similar statements from others in "color circles" while researching LCDs. I must say that I'm not convinced that is the case (and of course may be wrong). Why would it not be possible to adjust contrast on an LCD? After all, just like a CRT, voltage is what determines the luminance of a pixel. In a CRT, increasing the voltage causes the phosphor to glow brighter. In an LCD, increasing the voltage (assuming that the native state of the pixel is OFF) causes the liquid crystals to twist therefore allowing more light to shine through. Why would it not be possible to adjust the voltage that constitutes a fully-on (white) pixel, as well as all of the voltages between white and black?
After all, the phone sitting on my desk has an LCD display and no backlight. I can adjust the contrast of the display to make the numbers lighter or darker. Of course there is a huge difference between a 20" color LCD and a two line LCD on a phone, but the machanics behind the two are the same-voltage affecting the twisting motion of liquid crystals.
Chris McFarling
Pacific Premedia
-
I have read similar statements from others in "color circles" while researching LCDs. I must say that I'm not convinced that is the case (and of course may be wrong). Why would it not be possible to adjust contrast on an LCD? After all, just like a CRT, voltage is what determines the luminance of a pixel. In a CRT, increasing the voltage causes the phosphor to glow brighter. In an LCD, increasing the voltage (assuming that the native state of the pixel is OFF) causes the liquid crystals to twist therefore allowing more light to shine through. Why would it not be possible to adjust the voltage that constitutes a fully-on (white) pixel, as well as all of the voltages between white and black?
After all, the phone sitting on my desk has an LCD display and no backlight. I can adjust the contrast of the display to make the numbers lighter or darker. Of course there is a huge difference between a 20" color LCD and a two line LCD on a phone, but the machanics behind the two are the same-voltage affecting the twisting motion of liquid crystals.
Chris McFarling
Pacific Premedia
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LCDs are 8-bit/channel devices. This means that there are only 256 possible voltage levels available to each crystal. To adjust contrast you'd reduce the number of voltage levels sent to each crystal in order to maintain your custom contrast setting. A LCD monitor needs every bit available to it in order to render an image accurately. There is no room to throw information away.
Your phone is different. Since it has no backlight it must be monochrome which means it does not have to be able to render millions of different color values. It is simply black and "white" possibly with a shade or two in between. If you can adjust contrast, I'd guess it is a 4-bit display offering 16 different levels for the crystals to twist.
-
LCDs are 8-bit/channel devices. This means that there are only 256 possible voltage levels available to each crystal. To adjust contrast you'd reduce the number of voltage levels sent to each crystal in order to maintain your custom contrast setting.
But are those 256 levels fixed? Not being familiar with the intricicies on LCD microelectronics, I'll just use arbitrary voltage numbers to illustrate my point.
The signal sent to the display allows for 256 possible values for each pixel, in the case of an 8 bit data path. The LCD contoller chip, in turn, can output 256 separate voltages. Let's say a level 0 signal equals 0mV of realized voltage to the crystals of a pixel while level 255 equals 100mV. What's to keep the electronics from deciding that signal level 255 equals 90mV instead? The display is still allowed to produce 256 distinct output voltages, they'd just be compressed into a smaller range.
-
It's a fixed limitation of technology as it currently stands. Until they can make LCD crystals more sensitive to varying voltage, 8-bit is the limit.
-
I'm not sure I buy that. From what you're saying, the limitation is in the liquid crystals themselves, that they can't be coaxed into twisting into increments other than those in a fixed 256 step range.
From what I understand, the twisting motion (of the crystals themselves) is an analog function meaning that there is really an infinite amount of steps between on & off. The limitation then comes from the digital chip in the display that is designed to only send 256 distinct voltages.
I would think that an analogy could be drawn to a CRT electron beam. The bean itself, being analog, has an infinite range of intensity (between off and full power). The computer chips upstream are what limit it to a definite range of 256 values.
In addition, NEC & Eizo already have displays that are capable of 10 bits/pixel. The key there is a different controller chip, I don't believe they're using liquid crystals that are any different than previous technology.
-
I'm not sure I buy that. From what you're saying, the limitation is in the liquid crystals themselves, that they can't be coaxed into twisting into increments other than those in a fixed 256 step range.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=58063\")
You gotta stop comparing LCDs to CRTs. They accomplish the same goal but are extremely different technologies.
Considering how recently 24-bit displays have become common in the mass market vs the previous 18-bit displays is it really that hard to buy that 24-bit is the current limit of the technology due to physical limitations or cost?
If it was possible to go beyond 24-bit wouldn't we see some displays of that nature, even if only in the high-end of the market? The fact is there are no displays that exceed 24-bits.
On that note:
In addition, NEC & Eizo already have displays that are capable of 10 bits/pixel. The key there is a different controller chip, I don't believe they're using liquid crystals that are any different than previous technology.
Exactly. The LCD technology is no different in terms of bit-depth. If you look at the specs for those displays they list their color depth for the LCD at 16.7million, which is 24-bit.
The 14-bit/channel (current models) part comes from an [a href=\"http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg210/features.asp#14bit]image processor[/url] that intercepts the signal from the computer, allows you to make adjustments on the display and then takes that data and scales it down to a 24-bit output.
-
is it really that hard to buy that 24-bit is the current limit of the technology due to physical limitations or cost?
Not at all. In fact, my question is not challenging what the current bit depth is on LCD panels. To be clear, I realize that most LCD panels are capable of 8 bit color depth. Just to note...I was under the impression that the NEC 2180WG-LED had an LCD panel capable of 10 bit color depth, but after reading the specs again, I see that it is in fact an 8 bit panel that uses a Frame Rate Conversion technique to simulate 10 bit color, much like how 6 bit panels simulate 8 bit color. In fact, the 2180WG-LED is capable of displaying greater than 1 billion colors.
But what makes an 8 bit panel an 8 bit panel? It is the controller chip that drives the pixels. The controller is responsible for deciding what voltage gets sent to the crystals of a pixel. So my original question is still hanging out there, which was "Why would it not be possible to adjust the voltage that constitutes a fully-on (white) pixel, as well as all of the voltages between white and black?" or in other words, the contrast.
2 answers have been given so far:
1)LCDs are 8-bit/channel devices. This means that there are only 256 possible voltage levels available to each crystal. To adjust contrast you'd reduce the number of voltage levels sent to each crystal in order to maintain your custom contrast setting.
2)It's a fixed limitation of technology as it currently stands. Until they can make LCD crystals more sensitive to varying voltage, 8-bit is the limit.
If crystal sensitivity was indeed the issue, then everything would make sense. However I don't believe that to be true. Imagine if you could put your finger on a liquid crystal and twist it around. It would twist in a fluid motion, it wouldn't click into place every X degrees like a ratchet. As for number 1, I already explained above why the voltage output range of the controller could still be varied even though the controller only has 256 output levels.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just looking for a technical explanation that is logical. Remember, the whole point of my question has to do with contrast adjustment. It was stated on here, and I've seen the same thing posted elsewhere, that contrast can not be adjusted on LCDs. However, I've also read the exact opposite on several occasions. In addition several LCDs have contrast controls. Since each manufacturer is free to implement the controls however they want, I realize that some have chosen to simply alter the video signal coming from the computer in order to affect contrast, which is not a good thing. Varing the voltages driving the liquid crystals seems, to me, to be an alternative way of affecting contrast. Since I'm speculating, I'm looking for an answer from someone that knows for sure, without speculation, that that indeed is, or is not, a method that can be used.
-
cmcfarling, I think you are definatly on to something here. There would be an easy way to test your theory. Create an image the size of the screen that is a 8x8 grid of flat colors (say green shades 0 to 63 in sequence). If the display is capable of displaying all the shades, with large enough blocks of color your eye will see the difference between adjacent shades. Now if by adjusting the brightness and contrast on the display, the difference between the shades completely disappears, then the display is running out of unique displayable shades. Of course you will want to do this outside photoshop, so as there is a non-color managed output.
I just did a similar test in Image Ready (which does not have a color managed output) on a 17" G4 powerbook which also has a Samsung 910T (a 8bit, not dithered 6bit display) attached to it. Both displays are calibrated to a 5000K white point.
Even without adjusting the brightness and contrast from their current calibrated settings, I cannot see the difference between all the first 0-31 shades (even in the brighter shades). Also moving the window between the two monitors adjusts which color shades blend into the same output shade. So on the first display 17 and 18 are the same output shade on the monitor, then on the other monitor you can tell the difference between those shades.
Both of the displays are unable to show all 32 individual shades. Based on this test, my guess is that 61Dynamic is right for the 2 displays I did the test on. BTW, I am using a VGA input to my second display.
I would also guess that the difference between the a high end LCD with a 10 or 14bit LUT that uses the same 8bit LCD panel as a inexpensive LCD that doesn't have a LUT, is that the high end LCD uses some time based dithering to simulate the 1024 or 4096 shades possible via the LUT.
-
2 answers have been given so far:
1)LCDs are 8-bit/channel devices. This means that there are only 256 possible voltage levels available to each crystal. To adjust contrast you'd reduce the number of voltage levels sent to each crystal in order to maintain your custom contrast setting.
2)It's a fixed limitation of technology as it currently stands. Until they can make LCD crystals more sensitive to varying voltage, 8-bit is the limit.
If crystal sensitivity was indeed the issue, then everything would make sense. However I don't believe that to be true. Imagine if you could put your finger on a liquid crystal and twist it around. It would twist in a fluid motion, it wouldn't click into place every X degrees like a ratchet. As for number 1, I already explained above why the voltage output range of the controller could still be varied even though the controller only has 256 output levels.
You're missing the really obvious bit:
Precision.
While it may be possible for the crystals to twist in more than 256 different angles, it's important that it's the same angles every time for every crystal.
Apparently, the display manufacturers still think this is so difficult that they're instead opting for the solution of providing per-pixel 256-level backlighting instead.
-
cmcfarling, I think you are definatly on to something here. There would be an easy way to test your theory. Create an image the size of the screen that is a 8x8 grid of flat colors (say green shades 0 to 63 in sequence).
Good idea. I went ahead and did that. An 8 x 8 grid with patches in incements of 4 levels (0,4,8,12......) Since I'm not near any good displays at the moment, I'm using an iBook 14" and a 2 year old Hyundai 17" LCD. The iBook doesn't have a contrast setting so I can't really do much there. I will note that I can distinguish between levels 0 and 4 though. 255 and 252 are indistiguishable while there is a difference between 252 and 248. So overall the iBook LCD is not clipping too many levels.
On the Hyundai (contrast set to 100), the first 3 pathes, levels 0-12 all appear the same. I can distinquish between 12 and 16 though. The other end is just tlike the iBook, 255 and 252 are indistiguishable while there is a difference between 252 and 248. When I lower the contrast to 0, levels 0-16 now blend together. The highlight end of the scale doesn't change much.
So, just as expected, adjusting the contrast does decrease the the number of usable levels being sent to the display. I'm not disputing that at all. In this case I'm using a fairly low end display so I would not expect any special color controls. But does it *have* to be that way? I don't see why a better display couldn't employ some more sophisticated electronics that allow for better contrast adjustment, and I wonder if any such dislays exist already.
While it may be possible for the crystals to twist in more than 256 different angles, it's important that it's the same angles every time for every crystal.
Can you explain why you think that to be true?
-
While it may be possible for the crystals to twist in more than 256 different angles, it's important that it's the same angles every time for every crystal.
Can you explain why you think that to be true?
Isn't that self-evident?
Okay, let's try a thought experiment.
Assume that we have two displays, equally precise. One can be adjusted to 256 different intensities/angles, another supports 1024.
Let's assume that the error in angles is 1/512.
For the display supporting 256 different intensities, that error is insignificant. A value of e.g. 200 will always be represented as reasonably close to 200.
For the display supporting 1024 different intensities, it means that you cannot be certain whether an input value of e.g. 900 will turn out as 898, 899, 900, 901 or 902.
Now you can apply similar margins of error to other adjustments regarding the levels of individual crystals, and see that if you want the higher precision in levels, you also need the higher precision for the individual crystals.
-
Isn't that self-evident?
I would say that it is definitely not self evident. I think you're saying that it's the liquid crystals themselves that are the limiting factor. Are you speculating on that or do you have any hard evidence that backs that up?
-
I would say that it is definitely not self evident. I think you're saying that it's the liquid crystals themselves that are the limiting factor. Are you speculating on that or do you have any hard evidence that backs that up?
Please re-read my original response.
I think the problem lies in controlling the crystals with the desired amount of precision.
The "hard evidence" lies in the fact that nobody appears to have made displays with better precision, and are instead concentrating on improving the backlighting.
-
The "hard evidence" lies in the fact that nobody appears to have made displays with better precision, and are instead concentrating on improving the backlighting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bingo.
Since no company sells a LCD above 24-bits, there is no push for it in R&D, all new tech is in improving what we currently have and no future technologies-LCD or otherwise-are above 24-bit deductive logic applied to that hard evidence for the conclusion that 24+ bit displays are not possible. Maybe in 5 years time we'll see a push for it but not today.
(this all overlooks the simple fact that the signal going to the LCD is only 8-bit/channel and a display that can render more than that would be pointless.)
It's elementary my dear Watson.
-
(...)Maybe in 5 years time we'll see a push for it but not today.
Yeah. I agree with you. The same way LCD monitors today has a 24 bits, and yesterday tecnology was 18 bits.
this all overlooks the simple fact that the signal going to the LCD is only 8-bit/channel and a display that can render more than that would be pointless.
I understand. I want know where and why exactly are the bottleneck. DVI connector? Video card output?
Thanks!
-
Yeah. I agree with you. The same way LCD monitors today has a 24 bits, and yesterday tecnology was 18 bits.
I understand. I want know where and why exactly are the bottleneck. DVI connector? Video card output?
Yes and yes; the two are of course related.
The video card must follow the DVI spec when sending signals via DVI.
I suppose it's technically possible to abuse the DVI spec's dual link option for sending more than 8 bpc.
-
I understand. I want know where and why exactly are the bottleneck. DVI connector? Video card output?
Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's the video card itself. Even if a card was built that was high-bit, PS would have to support it as well.
-
Yes and yes; the two are of course related.
The video card must follow the DVI spec when sending signals via DVI.
I suppose it's technically possible to abuse the DVI spec's dual link option for sending more than 8 bpc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm... So you think that the future has something to do with dual link? Or you think that they'll find another way to improve the color palette?
-
It's the video card itself. Even if a card was built that was high-bit, PS would have to support it as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, what's "PS"?
And what you think that can be done to improve the color palette in LCD monitors?
-
Hmmm... So you think that the future has something to do with dual link? Or you think that they'll find another way to improve the color palette?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=58230\")
Dual-Link allows higher resolutin displays than standard DVI. No more.
DVI is going to be replaced in the next year or two with a new conndector type alowing very high-resolution displays called [a href=\"http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051222-5824.html]UDI[/url]. It's a collabrative effort between numerous companies that was announced a couple months back.
Sorry, what's "PS"?
And what you think that can be done to improve the color palette in LCD monitors?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
PS = PhotoShop
To improve color pallet of monitors:
1. New generation of high-bit output video cards
2. DirextX and OpenGL support for new cards (to push this mainstream rather than just very niche amungst one or two programs)
3. editing Software support for new cards
4. entirly new display technology that can support high-bit depths
So far there is nothing even on the map in developing technologies that even comes close to that last one.
-
4. entirly new display technology that can support high-bit depths
So far there is nothing even on the map in developing technologies that even comes close to that last one.
That's not entirely accurate; I've previously posted a link to technology allowing for "high dynamic range" displays (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/09/23/brightside_intros_200/index.html) through 8-bit LED backlighting, which does seem to improve on the situation a bit.
The company is the Canadian Brightside (http://www.brightsidetech.com).
It is a bit unclear how they intend for you to actually control 16-bit levels, though.
I suspect this is done through special drivers; one set controlling the regular DVI output, and another set controlling the LED backlighting.
-
Please re-read my original response.
I think the problem lies in controlling the crystals with the desired amount of precision.
The "hard evidence" lies in the fact that nobody appears to have made displays with better precision, and are instead concentrating on improving the backlighting.
When you say "controlling the crystals" that is somewhat ambiguous. That can mean two things 1) the crystals themselves are by nature difficult to line up at precise angles, or 2) the crytals are not hard to control but rather the electronics needed to line them up at precise angles are difficult to manufacture and implement.
Based on what you've posted so far, I think you mean #1. If so, I would disagree. If you mean #2 then I would agree. I found this article HDTV Display Technology Shoot-Out (http://www.displaymate.com/shootout.html) that covers this issue pretty well. It's a very good read for display technology in general as well. What the author basically says about LCD technology is that to do what I was originally inquiring about, better digital processing circuitry is needed due to the complex nature of digital signal processing. (which also explains, btw, why several displays disable certain menu functions when using a digital connection as oppsed to analog connection).
Keep in mind that my original post had to do with being able to reduce the white level using some form of contrast control that did not adversely affect the number of output levels available. I'm under the opinion that this could be done assuming the display utilized at least 10 bit internal LUT processing, which a few currently do. I still don't know if any manufacturers have implemented such a mechanism though. If anyone did, I assume it would be Eizo or NEC as they are the only ones with 10 bit (or greater) internal LUTs (LaCie has 10 bit LUTs but those are basically NEC displays). If there are others please let me know.
Somewhere this morphed into a discussion of 10 bit LCD panels. On that topic, I'll add the following...
The "hard evidence" lies in the fact that nobody appears to have made displays with better precision, and are instead concentrating on improving the backlighting.
Since no company sells a LCD above 24-bits, there is no push for it in R&D, all new tech is in improving what we currently have and no future technologies-LCD or otherwise-are above 24-bit deductive logic applied to that hard evidence for the conclusion that 24+ bit displays are not possible. Maybe in 5 years time we'll see a push for it but not today.
(this all overlooks the simple fact that the signal going to the LCD is only 8-bit/channel and a display that can render more than that would be pointless.)
It's elementary my dear Watson.
I won't argue that there hasn't been a push for 10 bit LCD panels, at least by the masses. I would say that aside from backlighting improvements, manufacturers are concentrating mostly on response times and viewing angles. With such a small segment being concerned with higher bit depths, that is low on the priority list, though not completely off of it.
NEC 10 bit display (http://www.nec-lcd.com/english/whatsnew/press041018_e.html)
It appears that at least NEC has had a 10 bit LCD since at least Oct 2004. So to say that LCD displays greater than 24 bits (8 bits/channel) are not possible is simply not true. Now there definitely are some factors that don't make them feasible currently - 8 bit DVI bottleneck, video card adherance to 8 bit processing in general, Photoshop, ICC profile processing, etc.
I suppose it's technically possible to abuse the DVI spec's dual link option for sending more than 8 bpc.
That's exactly how NEC plans to do it with the LCD2180WG-LED as soon as someone makes a video card that will support that scheme. (the LCD2180WG-LED has a 10 bit DVI input)
DVI is going to be replaced in the next year or two with a new conndector type alowing very high-resolution displays called UDI
Maybe someday but not in the next year or two.
-
My dearest Dr. Lang,
Please stop lingering and come out to play more often. You saved my life (albeit temporarily) when your genius convinced me at PhotoExpo to purchase the Sony Artisan. I believe I was the first NYC photographer to trust you and take that financial plunge.
Many of us non-geek types desperately need your guidance, knowledge and wisdom, and cling to your exiguous appearances. Why must Schewe always get such privileged access? Some of us are simple, creative-loving artists and all we want to do is play. Of course, quality helps: but this techno-digital world is bogging me down and keeping me enshrouded in dark clouds of endless gamut-babble. I prefer living in the pretty pictures I take.
With NYC real estate prices soaring to the stratosphere, I was thrilled to dump those fabulous Artisans on eBay (They sold for $1600. See the power you possess?). I won't miss their impossible-to-clean screens and I'm loving my new CRT-free workspace. Who could possibly appreciate Sony's abandonment to professionals or all those silly, clunky, heavy televisions cluttering our precious desktop space? My perfect-proof/printing obsessions are now replaced by newfound oxygen. Let me tell you, the fresh air is invigorating.
Getting back to producing art and having fun, dear...all this talk about DVI specs, LUT's, and colorimetric distance is doing nothing to enhance my sex life. And discussing .8 Delta E reminds me of a concourse at CDG: it's time to book that long-needed trip to Paris for a Lagerfeld shopping splurge. Is Delta still flying?
Isn't there someone out there who can just tell me what LCD I should purchase without all these ridiculous choices and research headaches? I'm tired of living such a complicated life. After all, I'm blonde. Aren't working photographers in enough pain? Why must we suffer more than necessary?
My Apple Display died yesterday. I'm just loving those failed backlights. I guess I should be happy the sweet thing lasted for a whopping three-and-a-half years. Apple Care expired three months ago and now I'm stuck: in need of a new monitor knowing I can reach a gamut orgasm if I wait just 2-3 more years. I need to feel reasonably sated by next week and the $800 NEC seems to be in unavailable limbo. Must I plunk down another $1800 (including coitus protection), suspecting that the manufacturer is just jerking my obsession/Prada-purse straps?
I think I'm beginning to miss film.
-
Wonderful rant.
Buy an Apple Cinema Display, NEC 20xx UX, Eizo high-priced (but not insanely-priced) thingy, LaCie 321 or similar joybringer, calibrate it, and eat your cake.
-
Okay. I read everything on the net I could about LCDs, including every word of this thread (especially Mr. Lang's), before plunking down the coin for the Apple Cinema 23. But when I plugged it in, the first words out of my mouth were "What the ...?"
Call me crazy, but I like a Black desktop. So there in the top right and bottom left corners of the display was this errie "glow" that was far from black. And there were blotches of "color" in between. I profiled with my Optix XR Pro in the center of the display and then evaluated the profile in each corner. The variation in Delta E varried from less than 1 to more than 6.
So I called the supplier and got a replacement. Same story.
To make a short story long, is this test a fair one and does it really say anything about the quality of the monitor? After all, it looks pretty consistent from edge to edge with a gray background. Anyone see a similar effect with other monitors (like the NEC, which was my next choice).
Eric
-
Call me crazy, but I like a Black desktop. So there in the top right and bottom left corners of the display was this errie "glow" that was far from black. And there were blotches of "color" in between. I profiled with my Optix XR Pro in the center of the display and then evaluated the profile in each corner. The variation in Delta E varried from less than 1 to more than 6.
So I called the supplier and got a replacement. Same story.
To make a short story long, is this test a fair one and does it really say anything about the quality of the monitor? After all, it looks pretty consistent from edge to edge with a gray background. Anyone see a similar effect with other monitors (like the NEC, which was my next choice).
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're crazy.
I've heard similar things about the 23" when the current generation was new but have not heard of any such issues in the newest copies of the 23."
Who is this supplier? It could be that they are selling you old displays and you might have better luck with Apple themselves.
-
Okay. I read everything on the net I could about LCDs, including every word of this thread (especially Mr. Lang's), before plunking down the coin for the Apple Cinema 23. But when I plugged it in, the first words out of my mouth were "What the ...?"
Macworld said the same thing about the latest 23-inch model, which is why I went with the 20-inch instead. I run dual monitors and currently use an aging Sony 19" CRT for imaging work. I plan to replace the latter with an NEC 20/21-inch (new models are out soon). I think there's limitations on how even they can get the luminance on larger wide-screens.
-
I didn't want too much time to pass before I followed up on my LCD replacement saga. I haven't calibrated my new monitor, yet, so I'll probably write more later.
Given Dr. Karl Lang's limited but helpful input, I decided it wasn't worth investing over $1000 in a new LCD right now. The technology is changing so fast in this interim CRT-to-LCD transition period, it doesn't make sense to get all excited about a $2000+ LCD that will be dramatically cheaper and possibly broken or obsolete in two-to-three short years. My current minimal printing needs don't justify the gotta-have-perfection-now ulcers. I'm really tired of transition technology.
Getting ahold of the "great bargain" NEC 1980SXi BK was more daunting than I ever expected. No retailer in NYC carried stock on this machine. Further research revealed that BK stands for "black" and the SXi (with no BK) is their brushed-silver edition. Black doesn't go with my Mac workstation so I decided I preferred the brushed-silver, which looks light gray in dim studio light. I called NEC-Tech and was assured the stats on both machines were identical.
Now, get this: B&H was Out-of-Stock on the BK version and could not say when new stock would arrive. The SXi (silver) version was "Special Order" only: available in 3-5 days but Special Orders can't be returned or exchanged.
I called NEC again and asked where in NYC could I go to see this machine. Nowhere.
It's very difficult to believe, as fastidious as I am, that I would ever consider purchasing a new LCD sight unseen. That's the power of my 20 minutes spent with Dr. Karl Lang at PhotoExpo. I'll follow him anywhere. My little chat with the NEC techie helped, too: it provided the courage I needed to take the final plunge.
CDW ended up being the online store choice for sales. Apparently, NEC has a relationship with CDW that dates back further than any man in my life. (That was far enough for me.) I know places like pricegrabber give poor consumer reviews to CDW but I've never had any problems with this company. I've had the same service rep for four years and she's one smart cookie who really delivers service. The only downside for penny-pinchers, CDW charges sales tax, no matter where you live. They service the government and big business and were one of the first online retailers to fight sales tax fraud.
I opted for overnight delivery service to minimize on/off truck issues from Illinois, which brought the price point to $870. The box arrived the following day and appeared to be in great shape. The LCD is up and running and boy is this baby nice. I needed no adaptors to connect it to my G4 and set-up is straightforward, although NEC needs to work on better directions.
Without calibration or any adjustments, this LCD looks good to me. Even though it seems the screen is leaning towards magenta, which was pretty common on LaCie crt's, I'm confident calibration will fix this. I love the base swivel feature, the up/down adjustment, and the screen's tilt feature. And nothing beats the fabulous portrait mode! This LCD has the look and feel of truly sophisticated design. I'm impressed.
I have my broken Cinema Display connected as second monitor. Granted it's broken, but the quality differential is amusing to ponder. Apple clearly needs to make more money.
My NEC 1980SXi comes with a three-year warranty. One and two year extensions are available (up to 90 days before the 3 years expires) at prices that don't come anywhere near Apple Care's insanity. Any tech company that's willing to warranty their product for five years gets my vote and my dollars.
Thank you, Dr. Lang, for posting on this thread. In this culture of greed, your willingness to shine light, free-of-charge, does not go unappreciated. This photographer sincerely appreciates your knowledge and your generosity.
Blowing kisses your way,
Misty
ps For what it's worth, none of my million-dollar+ photography friends think any Apple Display under 30" is worth its flaws. The 30" model requires a G5 and I have no pressing need to upgrade. Plus, I'm not sure I like so much screen.
Too bad MacWorld isn't more reliable for professional photography advice. Their audience is too broad for my liking.
-
Thanks Misty, I'm rolling on the floor! You've humorously captured the real frustrations of many a photographer trying to navigate the multitude of issues surrounding display technology (past and present).
And my thanks to Karl Lang, too, a truly knowledgeable voice in the wilderness!
-
greetings:
I have found this post very timely as I am currently switching from a 6 year old Windows system to Mac and need to buy a monitor for a G5. Have narrowed it down to either the NEC 1980Sxi or the ACD 20" based on these posts.
My question is this:
1. Is the NEC a better monitor than the ACD as it is about the same price($720 vs 775 at B&H) for 1" less screen real estate?
2. Has anyone compared the two head to head?
3. The NEC has an extra "calibration kit" for an extra $250. Is this any better than the ColorVision Spyder I already have?
Thanks for the info,
jpal
-
greetings:
I have found this post very timely as I am currently switching from a 6 year old Windows system to Mac and need to buy a monitor for a G5. Have narrowed it down to either the NEC 1980Sxi or the ACD 20" based on these posts.
My question is this:
1. Is the NEC a better monitor than the ACD as it is about the same price($720 vs 775 at B&H) for 1" less screen real estate?
2. Has anyone compared the two head to head?
3. The NEC has an extra "calibration kit" for an extra $250. Is this any better than the ColorVision Spyder I already have?
Thanks for the info,
jpal
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=60775\")
I'm unfamiliar with the performance of the NEC but I can speak on the calibrator. It is a [a href=\"http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=415&ClassificationFamily=1&Classification=1]re-branded EyeOne[/url] from GretagMacBeth. Typically, when a company re-brands an eye-one like this it is an older model (v1 vs the current v2) bundled with mediocre calibration software. Since you already have a claibrator, you won't benefit much from buying the bundled calibrator. If you want to update your calibrator, you'd be better off just buying a new EyeOne instead.
The NEC is actually slightly larger than the ACD. The size measurement is the diaganol length of the display and since the ACD is widescreen, it is actually not as tall. The NEC is 15" x 11.8" (WxH) while the ACD is 15" x about 10.8." Despite the NECs larger physical size, it is lower resolution. 1280 x 1024 compared to the ACDs 1680x1050. i'd recomend going to a store that displays the 20" ACD and see if the resolution suits your tastes. If text appears too small at the distance you'd be using it, then the NEC might be the better choice for you.
-
3. The NEC has an extra "calibration kit" for an extra $250. Is this any better than the ColorVision Spyder I already have?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have also been looking into the NEC 1980SX. Two points you should be aware of:
1) One of the key features it supports, which only monitors built for colour work seem to do, is calibration directly in the monitor hardware (rather than in software through your video card). I do not know iof the ACD can do this, but I doubt it.
2). The NEC SpectraView software that allows the hardware calibration is compatible with most calibration devices, but not the ColorVision Spyder!
One other thing I have picked up: the NEC SpectraView 19 is actually a 1980SX with hood, spectraview software and optional calibrator (a re-badged G-B EyeOne) thrown in.
Julian
-
I appreciate the above posts regarding the calibration software and hardware that comes with the NEC. I didn't realize there was a resolution difference between the NEC and the ACD and I will take your advice and look at the ACD in-store to evaluate this. Thanks again Daniel and Julian.
Jeff Pal
-
I just came across the following site which has a useful guide to LCD monitors for colour critical work: http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php?xSec=155 (http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php?xSec=155)
It contains enough information for a non-expert like myself to make a reasonably informed choice regarding colour accuracy versus price.
Julian
-
Does anyone here have any experience with the Samsung 214T? It 'appears' to be an 8bit panel for one thing, but I can't confirm that. Both I and my uncle are contemplating trying it, so I'd like to know if its on par with the NEC's that Karl Lang mentioned earlier in the thread.
-
Also take a look at the NEC 1980FX which is the Lacie 319. NEC markets it as a business monitor so is a couple of hundred less than the 1980SX
Seth M.
-
Seth, thanks! If it was me I'd probably get a NEC, but for some reason my uncle is dead set on the 214T, hence my wanting to get an answer about whether or not it has a 10bit LUT.
I was fortuneate enough to find a NIB HP P1130 here recently, which looks superb when calibrated with the Optix XR. In a darkened room I can see a difference between a black level of 0 and 2.
-
This was a great read - but I like my SyncMaster 204Ts
I also use athe SyncMaster 943B for tools and email - along with an old LG for testing my web pages out at 1024 x 768 - on a common low end monitor so I can see it as Joe Bloggs does.
The Samsungs are great and do the job reliably.
Can anyone out there tell me who makes the Eizo panels ?
Just curious.
-
FWIW, my syncmaster 243t has been incredible. i won't say it's perfect, but i do know for price/perfromance it can't be beat. calibration-friendly, easy-to-use, and it looks good too. most importantly, it helps me tremendously in getting the prints i want.
amnon
-
FWIW, my syncmaster 243t has been incredible. i won't say it's perfect, but i do know for price/perfromance it can't be beat. calibration-friendly, easy-to-use, and it looks good too. most importantly, it helps me tremendously in getting the prints i want.
amnon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What are you calibrating with?
-
What are you calibrating with?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
monaco optix xr
amnon
-
In a darkened room I can see a difference between a black level of 0 and 2.
[/quote]
What value are you setting your white point too?
-
95cd
-
Does anyone have any user experience of the Samsung 913N monitor. Any issues for colour calibration etc. Any information gratefully received !
Barrie
-
i have used the 913v (i dont know what the difference is between the 913n and the 913v). i would say it is not a monitor to use for any serious image manipulation. i have had a hard time calibrating it (monaco xr). the image on the screen is almost always too bright, forget about black and white work, very difficult to get black gradation.
it is a good secondary monitor (it has been that for me for almost 3years with never any technical problem) but i do not use it anymore for photo work. i now use the samsung syncmaster 243t, the difference is night and day.
amnon
-
I took delivery last week on a new NEC 2090uxi. So far I'm very happy with it. It calibrates very easily to 100 cd/m² using my Eye One Display 2. And in an online chat I just did with NEC support, I was told that a new version of Spectraview II that will provide direct hardware calibration on all three of the new xx90 models is expected next month.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Nill,
Do you by chance know the size and resolution of the new NEC models? I am hoping for a 24" panel with 1900x1200 resolution.
Thanks.
-Dave
-
I don't see one like that in their listings. The color managed ones are the 1990, 2090 and 2190, all 3:4.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
I recently bought the NEC 1990sxi and I must say I am very happy with it. It is a pleasant tool to do picture editing work on. I do not have a calibration tool as yet, buy already the colors and greys look pretty accurate. The backlight of this copy is very even (however, the first copy I received was returned because of backlight bleeding...)
-
I am in the market for a good LCD monitor. I use a Macintosh G4 computer and would like your opinions on who makes an accurate LCD monitor. I've looked at the Apple 20" monitors, but wonder are there others in the same price range that are better. The Apple has a contrast range of 1: 400 and I see others that have higher contrast ranges. I would really appreciate your input. I would like to work in a price range of $800.00 US or less. I require color accuracy and readable type. I will be using this for my professional photography business.
Thank you
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=54197\")
View Sonic LCD Monitor has really fine specs. I use it for almost everything. For me 19 inches and 2 ms of VX922 was a perfect offer, suitable enough to play my favorite games. I enjoy it. Although working with graphics I prefer to use my old good CRT monitor because of more vivid and live colors. So it's a good choice on my mind.
...And a price is good for what you get. At least it seems to me so, maybe because I've got my monitor [a href=\"http://search.stores.ebay.com/Costupdate_viewsonic-lcd-monitor-projector-processor-box-crt-tv_W0QQfcdZ2QQfciZ4QQfclZ4QQfromZR10QQfsnZCostupdateQQfsooZ2QQfsopZ2QQftsZ2QQrefidZstoreQQsaselZ3743435QQsatitleZviewsonicQ20lcdQ20monitorQ20Q2dQ28projectorQ2cQ20processorQ20boxQ2cQ20crtQ2cQ20tvQ29QQsofpZ0]on costupdate store on eBay.[/url]
-
Hey everyone... I'm new to this forum, and recently got back into photography once I could afford the equipment again!
This has been a very useful thread to read, though it's also interesting to read it as one continuing conversation when in fact its been going on since 2004. Obviously the changes that people were talking about in the early posts, how LCD technology was going to make a major breakthrough in the next year or two, and it might not be worth spending the money on a very high end monitor haven't been as dramatic as were expected. Monitor prices have come down dramatically, of course, but it seems its the same companies (NEC, Apple, Lacie) being discussed all the way through.
Anyway, I'm looking at monitors to add to my mac laptop and eventually buy a desktop system. I do a lot of work with very large images, and was looking at picking up the Mac 23" CD, but after reading the last few posts on here, it seems like there may be some issues with getting accurate color on it. I'm going to look into the NEC displays, since everyone seems very excited about those, but I'm wondering why the Eizo displays don't seem to get much mention here. The searches I've done for high end color monitors all seem to point to Eizo, and while they are expensive, their low and mid range screens don't seem out of line with the mac CD's.
With that in mind, I'm taking a look at the Eizo S2110 - 21" Widescreen display... its a bit smaller than I'd like, but I'm wondering if the color accuracy is superior enough to make it worth it (eessentially the same price as the Apple 23"). I'm interested in getting feedback on this... to make it clear, here are my priorities:
Price - $1000 or less.
Color accuracy
Screen size (widescreen 1680 x 1050 minimum)
Maybe I am just overreading some of the posts here, and in the larger context of monitors the apple 23"'s are still a cut above, but some of those posts make it sound like any real photographer wouldn't touch one. I don't profess to be at a professional level, but I expect I will get more serious about it over the next couple years, and I'd prefer to buy something that I'm not going to be unhappy with when I am trying to do very accurate color reproduction.
Also... one last question... what are the recommendations on buying a calibrator? Is there a brand that works particular well with mac's, or are they pretty much all the same in that respect?
Thanks!
-
Well if you can live with standard aspect ratio 1600x1200 instead of widescreen, the NEC 2090uxi fits your bill perfectly. It's what I have, and I could hardly be happier with it.
And to update the old info upthread, NEC does have 24" and 26" widescreen versions slated to come out next month, but I think they'll be about 50% above your price point.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I've been using a Formac 2010 Gallery display (1600 x 1200) for the past few years. It's awesome, however, I just ordered the Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP. I just could not justify spending $1,600+ on an Eizo CE240W for photography hobby.
The Quadra FX1400 video card in my Dell Precision 470 dual Xeon processor workstation has dual DVI outputs and will drive both monitors to their native resolutions.
It should be fun having the extra screen "real estate" to use.
If the Ultrasharp works out, I'll probably buy a 2nd one for my Dell workstation and use the Formac attached to my Dell Latitude laptop docking station.
Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Thanks...
Nill, I looked at the NEC's and everyone seems to love them, but a widescreen format is closer to the files created by my camera (Nikon D80 with a sweet 18 - 200 lens) and would let me take the best advantage of the screen real estate that I do have. In fact, that's one of the reasons I was looking at the 23" apple... its native format is almost exactly half of the cameras files, which would let me fill the screen with an image and see it almost pixel for pixel (well 1 pixel - .5 pixels). So... no widescreen isn't a dealbreaker, but I'd prefer to have a pretty good widescreen 23" to an excellent 21" standard format. Color accuracy is a big deal, but fundamentally, you're always going to be tweaking the prints.
As far as the Dell monitors go... never again. Last year I had a heavy duty G5 desktop set up that I was using to edit a film, and thinking that the Dell widescreens seemed like such a good deal (with the coupons available, etc), I bought one. I hooked it up and was appalled... there was backlight bleed around the entire outer edge. Not a small amount either... it was out of control. Thinking that I must have gotten a bad one, I packed it up and shipped it back for a replacement, and three days (luckily, I am Austin, or it would have taken even longer) later went through exactly the same thing again. I sent it back and got a refund and walked into the local Best Buy later that day and picked up a Samsung monitor at nearly half the price that was far superior. I really don't know how anyone can recommend Dell with a straight face, given my experience.
Anyway, now I need a higher level of color accuracy, or I'd just go pick up another Samsung.
Stephen
-
Samsung 214T. Better screen to print matching than my old Sony G520. Price is right too!
-
...but a widescreen format is closer to the files created by my camera (Nikon D80 with a sweet 18 - 200 lens) and would let me take the best advantage of the screen real estate that I do have. In fact, that's one of the reasons I was looking at the 23" apple... its native format is almost exactly half of the cameras files, which would let me fill the screen with an image and see it almost pixel for pixel (well 1 pixel - .5 pixels). So... no widescreen isn't a dealbreaker, but I'd prefer to have a pretty good widescreen 23" to an excellent 21" standard format. ...
Well OK, but be careful about letting the tail wag the dog.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I use the hardware calibration and despite all my efforts the min black is around 50-55cd/m2 and max white around 150-160cd/m2. Is that OK or should I go back to software calibration?
Either your hardware is broken, or you are doing something seriously wrong. What calibration hardware/software are you using, and have you gotten rid of Adobe Gamma?
-
George what are you using? I have the Eye One Display 2, and the monitor calibrates beautifully and easily with it using either the Eye One Match 3.6 software or NEC's Spectraview II software.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Ah well, there's hardware calibration and then there's hardware calibration, isn't there. Personally I consider using a puck, any puck to calibrate the monitor to be a "hardware calibration." I take it you're using that term to mean bypassing the video card entirely and calibrating the monitor directly. You can do that with the Spectraview II software and the Eye One Display 2 puck (or the Monaco OptixXR, among others), but not, strictly speaking, with the Eye One Match software. The latter will, however, calibrate in DDC/CI mode (at least with some video cards).
I'm not familiar with Spectraview 4.02. If that's the old version, then I'm surprised it will work with the xx90 series at all. I'm using Spectraview II v1.0.30.
I shouldn't think you'd want to calibrate to max luminance. A typical starting point would be more like 120cd/m². I work in a fairly dim room and calibrate mine to 100cd/m². My other settings are white point D65, gamma 2.2.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Any users of Eizo CE240 displays on a Window platform out there that want to share their experiences and comparison with the monitors that their Eize replaced?
Thanks in advance for sharing.
Bud
North Wales, PA
-
George are you in the U.S.? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here — NEC's EU Spectraview software is different from the U.S. versions.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Ah, OK, we have a different version, Spectraview II, in the U.S.
As for black level, on most recent run it reported a black level of 0.41 cd/m².
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Hrm, interesting:
04, Nov, 2006 / SEC)
SAMSUNG Introduces 20" LED BLU Monitor That Features Up To 114 Percent Of NTSC Color Gamut
New 20-inch monitor designed for users with demanding color needs
IRVINE, Calif. - November 2, 2006 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a world-leading manufacturer of professional LCD and PDP display products, today introduced the SyncMaster XL20, a 20-inch Light Emitting Diode (LED) Back Light Unit (BLU) monitor that features up to 114 percent of the National Television System Committee (NTSC) color gamut.
Designed for color critical applications, desktop publishers, video and photography editors and graphic designers, the XL20 supports users that demand extremely accurate color temperature, linearly color tracking, brightness uniformity and color reproduction. Traditional LCD screens typically cover only 82 percent of the NTSC standard color gamut (CRT covers 76 percent), while the new XL20 utilizes a unique light emitting diode back light unit (LED BLU), increasing the color gamut up to 114 percent of the NTSC color gamut.
The LED BLU increases the ability to create significantly enhanced images producing a more natural range of color, and covering the full Adobe RGB natural color space / gamut. The LED backlight also lacks mercury or halogen.
"Samsung is unwavering in its commitment to innovation, and with the XL20 Samsung once again sets the standard for superior image quality, great performance and attractive design," said Andrew Weis, product marketing manager, display products, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. "This product is a good choice for individuals seeking a high level of color reproduction and quality."
The XL20 is further enhanced by a Color Management System (CMS) that helps provide vivid and precise color. The CMS includes color calibration, which enables more accurate quality control, and Image Viewer, an intuitive tool that corrects color differences between monitors and printers. The XL20 is also equipped with Natural Color Expert software, which allows users to calibrate the monitor's color profile to fit their specific color requirements.
In addition to its ultra-wide color gamut and innovative color performance, the XL20 offers other notable specifications, including an impressive 1000:1 contrast ratio, a wide 178 degree viewing angle, a fast 8ms (GTG) response time and high resolution of 1600 x 1200.
In addition to its quality specifications, the XL20 is designed to support a comfortable, yet stylish work environment. It is equipped with a height adjustable stand and pivot capabilities for increased comfort, and comes complete with an attractive detachable hood. The hood allows users to appreciate the professional image quality and accurate color representation, by blocking unwanted surrounding ambient light, and producing a pure color temperature.
Competitively priced at $1,999 MSRP, the XL20 is currently available through Samsung resellers and distribution channels, which can be located by calling 1-800-SAMSUNG or by visiting www.samsung.com. Samsung Power Partners receive special promotions, lead referrals, training and technical support, as well as collateral and marketing materials. To find out more about becoming a Samsung Power Partner visit www.samsungpartner.com.
All Samsung displays are backed by a three-year parts and labor warranty, including the backlight, as well as toll-free technical support for the life of the display.
-
Ah well, there's hardware calibration and then there's hardware calibration, isn't there. Personally I consider using a puck, any puck to calibrate the monitor to be a "hardware calibration." I take it you're using that term to mean bypassing the video card entirely and calibrating the monitor directly. You can do that with the Spectraview II software and the Eye One Display 2 puck (or the Monaco OptixXR, among others), but not, strictly speaking, with the Eye One Match software. The latter will, however, calibrate in DDC/CI mode (at least with some video cards).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems to be some confusion over terms. Calibration is the act of placing the monitor into a known state (gamma, luminance, white point). For most 8-bit monitors, the luminance is probably the only value that should be changed because an 8-bit LUT in the video card can introduce aliasing artifacts. Monitors with larger internal LUTs do not suffer as much from the conversion.
Profiling is used to descibe the behavior of a calibrated device to generate a profile that will be used within a color management system.
I use NEC SpectraView II (V1.0.30) with the Eye-One Pro to calibrate the monitor and then ProfileMaker or Eye-One Match 3.6 is used to generate a profile after calibration. This is on a LCD2190UXi.
With this monitor I am able to generate a set of patches with typical values for the Macbeth colorchecker card and it matches beautifully to the actual card after calibration and profiling.
-
Seems to be some confusion over terms.
Always... this is an area where various terms are used differently by different people in different contexts.
Profiling is used to descibe the behavior of a calibrated device to generate a profile that will be used within a color management system.
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there is "software only" profiling a la Adobe Gamma, and "hardware" profiling such as with the Eye One Display 2 and Eye One Match software?
I use NEC SpectraView II (V1.0.30) with the Eye-One Pro to calibrate the monitor and then ProfileMaker or Eye-One Match 3.6 is used to generate a profile after calibration. This is on a LCD2190UXi.
Spectraview II both calibrates my 2090uxi and generates and registers a new default Windows profile, all at the press of a button. Why do you take the extra step of using Match to generate the profile?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Always... this is an area where various terms are used differently by different people in different contexts.
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there is "software only" profiling a la Adobe Gamma, and "hardware" profiling such as with the Eye One Display 2 and Eye One Match software?
Spectraview II both calibrates my 2090uxi and generates and registers a new default Windows profile, all at the press of a button. Why do you take the extra step of using Match to generate the profile?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill,
True, different terms are used differently by different people, but I see many people saying that they have calibrated their monitor when what they have really done is create a profile of their monitor
Given the way that you state it, I would tend to agree that there is "software" and "hardware" profiling or perhaps "hardware-assisted profiling".
I realize that Spectraview II can produce a profile, but the profiles generated by Spectraview and ProfileMaker are slightly different in emphasis and I have a preference for the ProfileMaker profile because it fits the type of images I produce. It's a minor difference between the two and probably not noticeable by 99% of the population.
-
Thanks David, that's interesting. I had thought I had a slight preference for the profile/calibration produced by Spectraview II over what I was getting with Eye One Match 3.6, but I had put that down to (a) mere perception & cognitive dissonance or (b) the improved calibration provided by Spectraview. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be due, in whole or in part, to a difference in the profiles produced by the two programs.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Thanks David, that's interesting. I had thought I had a slight preference for the profile/calibration produced by Spectraview II over what I was getting with Eye One Match 3.6, but I had put that down to (a) mere perception & cognitive dissonance or ( the improved calibration provided by Spectraview. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be due, in whole or in part, to a difference in the profiles produced by the two programs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill,
It's a very subtle difference, but easily seen if you have CHROMIX ColorThink or similiar software and overlay the two profiles. One had a slightly greater width in blue and the other in red. No cognitive dissonance going on, at least perceptually.
-
Any users of Eizo CE240 displays on a Window platform out there that want to share their experiences and comparison with the monitors that their Eize replaced?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=87255\")
I recently purchased the S2410 have a look [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13168&view=findpost&p=88149]here[/url]
-
i am new to lcds i have always thought crt have the best and most acurite colours etc.
what should i get for photoshop ?
i was looking at this
LG 1952T ?
-
Hello,
I don't know if "Neoprinter" will read this post, but he seemed to be the qualified expert on color accurate displays. However, I will be pleased if anyone can help me with my question.
I am not a serious photographer. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTI and am a point and shoot user, but want to get the best quality results I can with that approach. As probably is common, my pictures sit on a hard drive and never get printed. I find that everyone is glued to my slide show screen saver, so I decided about a year ago I wanted to buy a display and frame it on the wall and run a slideshow constantly. I first looked into TVs and DVD players and now am looking at a 30" LCD monitor and probably a Mac to drive it. We keep our photos on my wife's new Macbook. I first looked at the Apple monitor, but then read reviews that gave the Dell 3007WFP and most recently the yet to be shipped Samsung 305T much higher ratings. When I visited the Apple store today, they told me the same thing I have heard a few times - although the other monitors may have better specs, the Apple has much higher "color accuracy."
So, I assume that color accuracy means just that - the colors are more true to life. So, given my intended application is to simply display my photos in a slideshow on the wall and since I won't be probably doing any serious edit work beyond the beginning tools in Apple's iPhoto- will I notice the difference between these displays?
Is the Apple worth the money over the Dell?
Has anyone read enough about the Samsung 305T (suggested retail $2K) to comment on that one?
Having said that, when I bought my last TV years ago, I did notice a big difference between an $8K Pioneer Elite and the other Pioneer or less expensive TVs. I did pay to have the TV's color temperatures set and calibrated. I don't really want to have to a bunch of adjustments to this LCD monitor and from what I have read so far on this forum, it sounds like you can't really adjust the color accuracy well.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave
-
So, I assume that color accuracy means just that - the colors are more true to life.
That's what an awful lot of photographers think or want to believe. Accurate Color is one of those marketing BS terms or a term loosely used that means very little. It can't look like the scene. It can be pleasing OR it can be colorimetrically accurate. That means you use a reference grade instrument and measure the accuracy. Anything else is just measuring with a rubber ruler.
Again and again I post this article by the ICC whereby those using the term above need to understand what they want when they say accurate color:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
Read, spread the word, don't accept the term accurate until someone provides a real matrix in a measurable term. Otherwise, it's all a lot of hot air and pontificating (usually by someone trying to sell you something).
Scene referred colorimetry is accurate. Its often not what anyone wishes for expressing their images to others...
-
I've owned the Acer AL226W and the Samsung 226BW, and the colours are great. Pretty accurate. The problem I'm seeing with the 22" LCDs is that on vertical pitch, the top portion of the display gets darker than the lower part. You would literally have to be looking down to view images normally. The lower you go (pitch looking up), the more you notice the top of the screen getting darker in comparison to the bottom. This plays such a huge factor when it comes to viewing colours.
Initially from what I was told, this may have to do with a faulty display. But I've tested about 5 different LCD monitors (all 22"), and they all did that. The only ones that I didn't notice this issue with was the Apple Cinema displays ($1000), the LG 23" HD monitor ($1000), and a smaller 20" NEC LCD 2070nx display.
I'm just wondering if this is just an issue with your run of the mill 22" displays. I have a budget, and really can't afford the Cinema's right now. Can anyone explain this strange "phenomenom", and perhaps recommend an affordable 22" LCD that doesn't have this issue.
Thanks.
-
Bump!
What are people buying for around $1500-2000 w/calibrator USD for 21"?
Ken
-
That's what an awful lot of photographers think or want to believe. Accurate Color is one of those marketing BS terms or a term loosely used that means very little. It can't look like the scene. It can be pleasing OR it can be colorimetrically accurate. That means you use a reference grade instrument and measure the accuracy. Anything else is just measuring with a rubber ruler.
Again and again I post this article by the ICC whereby those using the term above need to understand what they want when they say accurate color:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
Read, spread the word, don't accept the term accurate until someone provides a real matrix in a measurable term. Otherwise, it's all a lot of hot air and pontificating (usually by someone trying to sell you something).
Scene referred colorimetry is accurate. Its often not what anyone wishes for expressing their images to others...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately, this link doesn't work. You get a "not found" message.
-
On the ICC site, I went to the "ICC White Papers" button on the left margin to get the PDF of the paper, "Digital photography color management basics." Here's the link again, in TinyURL form:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2esfgb (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2esfgb)
As for LCD displays, I just replaced two aging Lacie CRTs with two NEC LCD displays on my Mac Pro system. For my primary display, I selected an NEC MultiSync LCD2190UXi, which is frankly spectacular. 21" diagonal, 12-bit gamma, and it pivots like the old Radius display — very useful when working on a group of images in a portrait orientation.
http://necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?pr...a4-516428de1779 (http://necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=7512a276-bbd8-4930-98a4-516428de1779)
It is fully DDC supported (Direct Digital Control, so that the profiling software can talk to the hardware) by the most recent version of ColorEyes Display Pro (1.30), and when profiled with an X-Rite DTP-94 gives me a DeltaE <.5.
http://integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html (http://integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html)
This is the same panel that is being rebadged by LaCie as the 321 LCD Monitor. For a secondary display (CS3 palettes and Bridge), I am now using an NEC LCD2070NX. Just 1" smaller on the diagonal and with only slightly less refined specifications, it too calibrates using DDC and profiles beautifully, and at less than half the cost of its big brother.
-
I am looking for a replacement for my 21" Mitsubishi Spectraview CRT. I own an iOne display version 1 that I use to calibrate clients monitors for them. I am needing something this week and I was looking at the Lacie 321 w/calibrator as it would be quick and easy at a +-300.00 premium over the NEC display. I was interested in the Samsung XL20 but I haven't heard anyone buying it or any recent reviews on it.
Ken
-
Unfortunately, this link doesn't work. You get a "not found" message.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=134277\")
[a href=\"http://www.color.org/documents/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf]http://www.color.org/documents/ICC_white_p...ment_basics.pdf[/url]
-
Hi Ken,
Before I purchased my NEC LCD2190UXi, I called NEC to ask about the Spectraview option where they supply their own profiling software and a colorimeter. Unfortunately, they confirmed my suspicion that the package would only work on NEC displays, and I also need to calibrate my wife's iMac, my iBook, etc. That's what pushed me to upgrade my ColorEyes Display software to ColorEyes Pro, and purchase it as a bundle with the X-Rite DTP-94, because now I have a package that can calibrate and profile just about anything I can throw at it.
People like Andrew Rodney have given the nod to the X-Rite colorimeter as the best around, and the fact that it's been discontinued as a result of the X-Rite/Gretag merger means that it's still available at a discount. The hardware/software bundle at Integrated Color is only $325, roughly equal to the premium that both NEC and LaCie charge for their profiling solutions on the 2190UXi panel, but the bundle provides a much more flexible solution to my way of thinking.
-
Neoprinter (aka Dr. Karl Lang) will be leading a seminar at this year's PhotoPlusExpo in NYC, entitled, "Color Calibration & Displays." How exciting. My delta E juices are percolating already.
Assisting him will be Chris Murphy. No, that's not Chris Murphy the politician or, Chris Murphy the musician or, Chris Murphy the cartoonist. (It must be difficult to have a famous name shared by many.) Those of us who cling to every nougat and morsel of insider poop know that this Chris Murphy is the founder of Color Remedies™ and one of three co-authors of Bruce Fraser's Real World Color Management, 2nd Edition. What a 8-10-8 3D LUT coup!
Rumor has it this seminar will sell-out quickly so be sure to book your reservation asap. Unless Schewe drops 80, making room for one more on that boat to Antarctica (provided you can get invited and tolerate Resnick), opportunities to breathe the same air as Dr. Lang (and dream of ponytail fantasies) are far and few between. If you don't know when and what to buy after two hours with Lang and Murphy, then you deserve to hang on to that dead-in-the-water Artisan and cross your fingers with each calibration breakdown.
Special Note:
Beware of the PhotoPlus online registration process. I've never seen a more incompetent group of designers/organizers hellbent on confusing everyone. VIP Code (are you kidding me with this crap) is the same as Your Promo Code on the back of your mailed brochure. And "Conference" is the same as "Seminar." One can only assume if you sign up and pay for a "Conference/Seminar," you automatically are registered for the free entrance to the Expo. Where do they find these folks?
-
hmmmmm
-
Neoprinter (aka Dr. Karl Lang) will be leading a seminar at this year's PhotoPlusExpo in NYC, entitled, "Color Calibration & Displays." How exciting. My delta E juices are percolating already.
Assisting him will be Chris Murphy. No, that's not Chris Murphy the politician or, Chris Murphy the musician or, Chris Murphy the cartoonist. (It must be difficult to have a famous name shared by many.) Those of us who cling to every nougat and morsel of insider poop know that this Chris Murphy is the founder of Color Remedies™ and one of three co-authors of Bruce Fraser's Real World Color Management, 2nd Edition. What a 8-10-8 3D LUT coup!
It was a great session! I learned a lot. Hopefully Karl will release the results of this on his site in about a month or so. The three NECs (2490, 2690 and LED) get spectacular reviews from Karl. If you need an sRGB display, the 2490 got very high quality results from the testing Karl did with very expensive spectroradiometer, something like 9000 patch samples and custom software of his design. The wider gamut display I have (2690) would do better with a colorimeter that has filters mated to the unit. It was off about 500K which is still pretty darn good. The LED was top of the heap (and it IS mated with a special filter set in an EyeOne for it's chromaticity). But you have to be using the SpectraView II software to drive the units (at a cost of a few hundred bucks with the puck, a no brainier). I really love the 2690 since its a one button affair once I setup my calibration target values. For those who like super color geek features and lots of buttons, extra costs and complexity, this isn't for you (there's that other product <g>). If you want a system that works wonderfully and easily and produces some stellar results, backed up by a guy who builds color reference systems, this is bomb.
Karl explained his testing procedures and showed all the plots which were extremely interesting and easy to digest. He said these newer displays finally bring us closer to what we had with the best of the reference CRT displays of the past. A great session.
-
Hi!
It was a great session! I learned a lot. Hopefully Karl will release the results of this on his site in about a month or so. The three NECs (2490, 2690 and LED) get spectacular reviews from Karl. If you need an sRGB display, the 2490 got very high quality results from the testing Karl did with very expensive spectroradiometer, something like 9000 patch samples and custom software of his design. The wider gamut display I have (2690) would do better with a colorimeter that has filters mated to the unit. It was off about 500K which is still pretty darn good. The LED was top of the heap (and it IS mated with a special filter set in an EyeOne for it's chromaticity). But you have to be using the SpectraView II software to drive the units (at a cost of a few hundred bucks with the puck, a no brainier). I really love the 2690 since its a one button affair once I setup my calibration target values. For those who like super color geek features and lots of buttons, extra costs and complexity, this isn't for you (there's that other product <g>). If you want a system that works wonderfully and easily and produces some stellar results, backed up by a guy who builds color reference systems, this is bomb.
Karl explained his testing procedures and showed all the plots which were extremely interesting and easy to digest. He said these newer displays finally bring us closer to what we had with the best of the reference CRT displays of the past. A great session.
Thanks for posting these interesting views. Btw, have you compared these monitors with Eizos top models? It would be interesting to hear about real-world differences.
Cheers,
J
-
Hi!
Thanks for posting these interesting views. Btw, have you compared these monitors with Eizos top models? It would be interesting to hear about real-world differences.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Karl requested Eizo send him displays to test for this and they kind of refused (well they made it expensive on Karl's part to do so). But he did discuss the various high bit, internal capable displays and mentioned Eizo. His take was, while he hadn't tested their units, he said he'd be hard pressed to find better results than the NEC even at twice the cost Eizo is asking.
-
Karl requested Eizo send him displays to test for this and they kind of refused (well they made it expensive on Karl's part to do so). But he did discuss the various high bit, internal capable displays and mentioned Eizo. His take was, while he hadn't tested their units, he said he'd be hard pressed to find better results than the NEC even at twice the cost Eizo is asking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks!
Cheers,
J
-
Karl also said he would be testing Eizo's soon. It sounded to me like Eizo's monitors came in but too late for Karl to test in time for PhotoExpo. Karl said to check his website soon (http://www.lumita.com/) since he plans to post all current and future test results, including those of the Eizo's.
Karl had nothing negative to say about Eizo monitors but you could clearly see his discomfort with their cost. I get the impression that Karl feels photographer's overhead pain and he seems to be a scientist who appreciates great performance married to great value.
Also impressive was Chris Murphy, who recently moved his Color Remedies operation to NYC (www.ColorRemedies.com). I'm sure many NYC photographers will be quite pleased to have this color expert available for consult. With some calibration questions, Karl Lang deferred to Chris Murphy and Chris Murphy delivered brilliantly. These guys make a very impressive team.
-
Thanks Andrew for bring back this thread!
While I was at the Photo Expo Show last week in NYC I spoke to a 'french' company about their displays. I asked if they would have anything new for us in January, 21" size, something that shows 100% of the Adobe 1998 gamma. The rep said why YES, maybe 97% of it, something should be out in January and it will come in blue (hint, hint). I hope that this helps some folks. I looked for the XL20 or XL30 from Samsung in New York and they didn't have displays at their booth. I did say hi to the Eizo folks, nice monitors, but pricey. I will wait till January and see what shakes out.
Ken
-
You realize this company doesn't make anything (certainly not the displays)! They OEM them. And Karl discussed this. For example, many users will say "I am going to buy this Dell LCD because its the same as the NEC model XYZ). True, its the same model, it may not preform the same. Karl described how huge sheets of LCD material (think 6 feet wide) with up to 20 odd layers of stuff are made, then cut into individual units. Each is then tested in manufacturer and have to fall within a spec. Those that do, fine. Those that don't (within reason) go to the OEM. So beware of this kind of thinking that OEM's are going to give you the same quality for less money. Ain't necessarily so.
-
...I really love the 2690 since its a one button affair once I setup my calibration target values. For those who like super color geek features and lots of buttons, extra costs and complexity, this isn't for you (there's that other product <g>). If you want a system that works wonderfully and easily and produces some stellar results, backed up by a guy who builds color reference systems, this is bomb...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for sharing with us. I use the Spectraview II software to set the display LUTs and create the profile. Its an exceptional display and as you say, once set up, "its a one button affair."
Fred
-
You realize this company doesn't make anything (certainly not the displays)! They OEM them. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know that they OEM them, but good to state that again. That is very interesting to here that they might be 'seconds' I did think that they were 1 gen behind NEC. I think that I read that somewhere... I really like the 1 button setup/calibration it takes the human element out of it. I am very interested in a 21" monitor, that I can put in a Tenba or Lightware case for travel that shows most of the Adobe 1998 spectrum. I am hoping to get close to 3 years out of the display. Most of the road cases are for either Eizo or apple. I am not sure that I want to get an Eizo and I don't want an apple.
Thanks,
Ken
-
I recently purchased the EIZO 211, and made that decision after reading some vey helpful responses on this forum. There are strong advocates for an NEC monitor, and if I were financially able I suspect that I would like to have the EIZO 221.
I am a giclée maker and matching the artist customer's original is a primary part of my business. I have been pleased with the EIZO 211, especially the monitor's low contrast ratio, which helps the artist customer, during the soft proofing phase of the process, not to develop expectations that exceed the gamut of canvas as the final medium.
Certainly there are others whose experiences may help guide you to a suitable resolution with a minimum of tech talk (I must confess to being a guy who really likes to know all the details, and am responding to question with a minimum of tech talk as requested).
Hope that helps,
Jerry Reed
My dearest Dr. Lang,
Please stop lingering and come out to play more often. You saved my life (albeit temporarily) when your genius convinced me at PhotoExpo to purchase the Sony Artisan. I believe I was the first NYC photographer to trust you and take that financial plunge.
Many of us non-geek types desperately need your guidance, knowledge and wisdom, and cling to your exiguous appearances. Why must Schewe always get such privileged access? Some of us are simple, creative-loving artists and all we want to do is play. Of course, quality helps: but this techno-digital world is bogging me down and keeping me enshrouded in dark clouds of endless gamut-babble. I prefer living in the pretty pictures I take.
With NYC real estate prices soaring to the stratosphere, I was thrilled to dump those fabulous Artisans on eBay (They sold for $1600. See the power you possess?). I won't miss their impossible-to-clean screens and I'm loving my new CRT-free workspace. Who could possibly appreciate Sony's abandonment to professionals or all those silly, clunky, heavy televisions cluttering our precious desktop space? My perfect-proof/printing obsessions are now replaced by newfound oxygen. Let me tell you, the fresh air is invigorating.
Getting back to producing art and having fun, dear...all this talk about DVI specs, LUT's, and colorimetric distance is doing nothing to enhance my sex life. And discussing .8 Delta E reminds me of a concourse at CDG: it's time to book that long-needed trip to Paris for a Lagerfeld shopping splurge. Is Delta still flying?
Isn't there someone out there who can just tell me what LCD I should purchase without all these ridiculous choices and research headaches? I'm tired of living such a complicated life. After all, I'm blonde. Aren't working photographers in enough pain? Why must we suffer more than necessary?
My Apple Display died yesterday. I'm just loving those failed backlights. I guess I should be happy the sweet thing lasted for a whopping three-and-a-half years. Apple Care expired three months ago and now I'm stuck: in need of a new monitor knowing I can reach a gamut orgasm if I wait just 2-3 more years. I need to feel reasonably sated by next week and the $800 NEC seems to be in unavailable limbo. Must I plunk down another $1800 (including coitus protection), suspecting that the manufacturer is just jerking my obsession/Prada-purse straps?
I think I'm beginning to miss film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Neoprinter (aka Dr. Karl Lang) will be leading a seminar at this year's PhotoPlusExpo in NYC, entitled, "Color Calibration & Displays." How exciting. My delta E juices are percolating already.
Note that Neoprinter isn't Karl! I don't know who Neoprinter is, but Karl hasn't posted here, if he did, he'd be using Illuminant as his alias.
-
Interesting to hear Karl speaking favorably of the lastest wide-gamut displays. Wasn't it a statement by him a few years ago that convinced many people that wide gamut was _not_ the way to go. I guess things have changed with the improved hardware calibration some of these models offer now.
-
Interesting to hear Karl speaking favorably of the lastest wide-gamut displays. Wasn't it a statement by him a few years ago that convinced many people that wide gamut was _not_ the way to go. I guess things have changed with the improved hardware calibration some of these models offer now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He doesn't feel any differently with respect to when one should use a wide gamut display versus an sRGB display. Nothing to do with the calibration aspects. In fact, in his session he said ideally you'd have a system with both and use the more appropriate display based on the imaging work.
IF you're working with images that mostly fall into sRGB (and many do) you're better off using something like the 2490. If you have images that are very saturated, you're better with the 2690. My goal is to have both!
-
Regarding recommendations for monitors: West Coast Imaging is a digital printing service bureau located close to Yosemite. Owned and operated by Rich Seiling. They print for many top landscape photographers.
On his blog, he has reported on his testing of an NEC 2690WUXI. Before he received it, he was very enthusiastic about its specs and thought it might be the be-all, end-all of monitors. His conclusion was that while it measures a wider gamut, in the real world, it makes little or no difference. He also had problems getting, in his words, "a perfect one". Had to get 5 replacements before he had one that didn't have dropped pixels, backlight bleeding, etc.
He says this prompted him to go try a new (or recent) Apple Cinema 23" at about half the cost of the 26" NEC. He reported that the Apple was as accurate as the NEC and the NEC offered no visual advantage.
Here's the link:
http://westcoastimaging.blogspot.com/2007/...ma-display.html (http://westcoastimaging.blogspot.com/2007/10/lcd-update-and-apple-cinema-display.html)
-
On his blog, he has reported on his testing of an NEC 2690WUXI. Before he received it, he was very enthusiastic about its specs and thought it might be the be-all, end-all of monitors. His conclusion was that while it measures a wider gamut, in the real world, it makes little or no difference.
Well I can tell you I have all kinds of images that fall outside of sRGB.
I can tell you his testing methods are not the same as Karl's! If he's using 900 samples and a $20K Spectroradiometer to make these conclusions, we should get him and Karl to talk.
The NEC 2490 (sRGB) unit scored even higher in Karl's tests. Maybe he needs that unit. But for those that do need a wider gamut display, this one is hard to beat.
-
Note that Neoprinter isn't Karl! I don't know who Neoprinter is, but Karl hasn't posted here, if he did, he'd be using Illuminant as his alias.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see you are correct, thank you. Neoprinter took a quote from the Betterlight forum and given the way it was presented, it seemed that Neoprinter was the "I" in the Betterlight quote. I stand corrected.
-
If Karl has his own website, someone happen to know his url?
-
If Karl has his own website, someone happen to know his url?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
lumita.com/