Topic: Would you find this delta-E acceptable on a new PA271q? (Read 25944 times)

geneo · « **on:** March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm »

I have tried everything under the sun and the results are still the same. delta-E of white point is fine.

dehnhaide · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:07:34 pm »

Quote from: geneo on March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm

I have tried everything under the sun and the results are still the same. delta-E of white point is fine.

Maybe some details about the calibration conditions, spectrometer type, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:10:42 pm »

Why are you using dE(94) for this verification?

What profiling and profile verification package are you using?

If this were a dE(76) or dE(2000) number and the verification procedure were valid, to answer your question, no, the results are not very good.

dehnhaide · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:13:26 pm »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on March 10, 2019, 01:10:42 pm

Why are you using dE(94) for this verification?

What profiling and profile verification package are you using?

If this were a dE(76) or dE(2000) number and the verification procedure were valid, to answer your question, no, the results are not very good.

I get the same ranges under dE(94). I had the same question to ask but wanted to leave the OP detail his means of doing the calibration. Maybe he's into smth.
With dE(00) the results are just fine, at least with my PA271Q.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:18:59 pm »

I think the OP should advise what results he gets with dE(00) or dE(76). If those numbers look good, he has no problem.

digitaldog · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:22:24 pm »

No, something is very wrong; here's my report just produced.

vikcious · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:23:26 pm »

Quote from: geneo on March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm

I have tried everything under the sun and the results are still the same. delta-E of white point is fine.

There is smth fishy about those figures. I see you're using SpectraView for calibration (actually for HW LUT that's the only option, afaik).
The dE(94) is what SpectraView is using for displaying "Color Tracking" report so that's fine. What I don't fine OK is that for me average is 0.47 and the d(max) is 1.68 - darks included.
Could you please detail what spectrometer you're using? And also... could you share the other tabs results in SpectraView, e.g. Color Gamut, Curves.

digitaldog · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:28:47 pm »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on March 10, 2019, 01:18:59 pm

I think the OP should advise what results he gets with dE(00) or dE(76). If those numbers look good, he has no problem.

The formula is fixed in this product on the main report using Delta E CIE 94 but this one report might be using Delta H (ΔH). Will H from NEC might be able to comment if he see's this or I can ping him to take a look here.

vikcious · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:29:13 pm »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on March 10, 2019, 01:18:59 pm

I think the OP should advise what results he gets with dE(00) or dE(76). If those numbers look good, he has no problem.

Hi Mark,

I'm afraid there's no such dE(00)... Or I couldn't find it myself so far!

digitaldog · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:31:54 pm »

Quote from: vikcious on March 10, 2019, 01:29:13 pm

Hi Mark,

I'm afraid there's no such dE(00)... Or I couldn't find it myself so far!

Correct. At least according to the manual. Further, the numbers the OP is getting is off the charts no matter the formula used. Toggling between the two if possible would never account for the high values we are seeing.

vikcious · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:34:17 pm »

Quote from: geneo on March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm

I have tried everything under the sun and the results are still the same. delta-E of white point is fine.

No sure what is that "Photo Editing"... I hope though you're calibrating the PA271Q color gamut to "Native (full)". That's the only thing I could think it would trigger such large dE(94) values. Of course, aside from a defective monitor and/or spectrometer.

geneo · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:40:12 pm »

To answer some questions.

The is with the NEC i1 display pro 3. I also have an older i1 I have from an older spectraview monitor - same result. I have tried different graphics cards, cables, monitor settings, spectraview versions all with the same result. The green curve is also off from factory,

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:41:30 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog on March 10, 2019, 01:31:54 pm

Correct. At least according to the manual. Further, the numbers the OP is getting is off the charts no matter the formula used. Toggling between the two if possible would never account for the high values we are seeing.

OK, as I don't use Spectraview I wouldn't have known that. Any idea why they use dE(94)?

digitaldog · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:41:51 pm »

How long have you had this issue?
I suspect you'll need to give NEC a call.
You might give MultiProfiler a try.

vikcious · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:45:59 pm »

Quote from: geneo on March 10, 2019, 01:40:12 pm

To answer some questions.

The is with the NEC i1 display pro 3. I also have an older i1 I have from an older spectraview monitor - same result. I have tried different graphics cards, cables, monitor settings, spectraview versions all with the same result. The green curve is also off from factory,

Not trying to tease you... but I would have expected PERFECT with NEC's own variant of MDSV Sensor 3. Weird, anyway! Still, are you sure you're calibrating to Native (full) gamut? Just asking...

geneo · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:47:45 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog on March 10, 2019, 01:41:51 pm

How long have you had this issue?
I suspect you'll need to give NEC a call.
You might give MultiProfiler a try.

I have been in contact with NEC for this last week. They have kicked it up to engineering but they seem to be having some difficulty getting back to me.
I have had it less than 2 weeks.

geneo · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:49:32 pm »

Quote from: vikcious on March 10, 2019, 01:45:59 pm

Not trying to tease you... but I would have expected PERFECT with NEC's own variant of MDSV Sensor 3. Weird, anyway! Still, are you sure you're calibrating to Native (full) gamut? Just asking...

Yes, me too. I have been using an NEC LCD2490WUXI prior to this.

geneo · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:56:22 pm »

Quote from: vikcious on March 10, 2019, 01:34:17 pm

No sure what is that "Photo Editing"... I hope though you're calibrating the PA271Q color gamut to "Native (full)". That's the only thing I could think it would trigger such large dE(94) values. Of course, aside from a defective monitor and/or spectrometer.

Photo Editing is monitor full gamut. I have used a spectrometer (i1) that I know was good with the same result.

geneo · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:20:57 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog on March 10, 2019, 01:22:24 pm

No, something is very wrong; here's my report just produced.

Thanks. Is that from a PA271q as well? I am getting some weird communication from NEC support about this monitor.

howardm · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:24:43 pm »

One thing not mentioned is monitor 'tilt' and how flat the sensor may be to the surface and the room ambient lighting.

Tilt the monitor back and put a black t-shirt over it to keep out stray light. It'd be interesting to know if that made any difference.

Author Topic: Would you find this delta-E acceptable on a new PA271q? (Read 25944 times)