Started by geneo, March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm
Quote from: geneo on March 17, 2019, 07:45:25 pmWish they were human readable.Do you have yours self calibrated or using factory calibration?What version of the firmware?
Quote from: geneo on March 17, 2019, 08:13:35 pmSeems like the steps I made on the first monitor (updated to firmware 1.2 too). And am on SVII .39 as well. But wwill give it a go later.
Quote from: digitaldog on March 17, 2019, 02:51:19 pmCorrecting you again, indeed. At least my posts previous to yours here were based on actual usage and experience with the product under discussion. Or you finally got a PA271Q despite all the flickering issues you find with NECs (among other so called 'issues')?
Quote from: digitaldog on March 17, 2019, 04:13:33 pmI just calibrated my unit again, still results as expected (shown below). Let's try something different. Try downloading my custom settings (target file) found here:http://digitaldog.net/files/ARsPhotoEditing.zipUnzip,Load in SpectraView and calibrate. How is the report?
Quote from: Frans Waterlander on March 18, 2019, 01:47:40 amWrong again. I never found flicker issued with NECs. I asked for other people's possible experience with flicker, be it NEC or otherwise, before buying an LED/LCD monitor, remember? But of course you don't or pretend not to. Facts never stood in your way.
Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 09:18:28 amI was expecting the firmware update to correct the deviation caused by the "Include Dark Values" but instead the whole range of values (L* 10+) have gone awry!
QuoteI am not sure if I should be happy now (with more dE(94) in all spectrum vs larger dE(94) in the darks)!?!! I'm confused!
Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 10:54:42 amWhat is the firmware you're running?
Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 01:56:42 pmI am now running v1.202... available on NEC's site. Anyway I will raise a ticket to NEC to have the problem on their radar. To me this is not ok at all. Not to mention that am not impressed at all about the quite substantial differences between two consecutive calibration.Dear Andrew, I still have two questions for you. One might sound dumb but... here they are:1) Why would one go for a fixed contrast ratio (like you're using 300:1) instead of going to the monitor native highest? Not to mention that almost every time I would choose "Monitor native" I would get results varying from 800:1 to 1400:1... really weird.2) How could I test color accuracy of the SpectraView generated profile, other that by using the existing "Validate Calibration", which I found to be pretty much useless? i1Profiler keeps telling me "No active profile" when trying to invoke the QA.Thanks a lot.
Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 02:07:49 pm1. To better match the contrast ratio of a print when calibrating the display for a specific print to display match. See:http://blog.xritephoto.com/2011/07/x-rite-i1display-pro-advanced-features-contrast-ratio-with-coloratti-andrew-rodney/SpectraView does this of course and better, allows you to build as many targets for specific uses as you desire.
Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 02:07:49 pm2. The validation IMHO is only useful to determine when the process doesn't work correctly and you want numbers to back it up. It isn't useful in gauging overall accuracy for a number of reasons. Primarily the issue is you're using the same software and more importantly the same instrument, not a higher grade reference device, to gauge accuracy.Lets say I measure my foot with a home depot wooden ruler and find it's 10.7 inches. Clearly my foot isn't an adequate measuring device compared to that 1 foot wooden ruler. But how accurate is that ruler? It too should be of sufficient accuracy for the task. There are devices like a 50 cent wooden ruler that may be accurate to +/- 1/10 of an inch. For measuring a 100 foot fence, that may be all that's needed in terms of measurement accuracy. For measuring a component that will be used on a nuclear power plant 1/10000 of an inch may just be adequate enough for the specifications of the job. But my 10.7 foot clearly isn't accurate. So when we talk accuracy, we need to take into account the instrument or method of measuring the accuracy. And how accurate we need the results of the measurement to the reference. With dE, 1 or less is invisible. We are using the same instrument to evaluate the display accuracy and that's not worthless but not ideal either. What is useful is trending where we use the same instrument and number of color patches over time, multiple times. Now we can see consistently in the calibration. And we can get a good idea how often we need to calibrate the display due to the dE of drift over time.
Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 02:36:41 pmWow, that was quick... and very informative! Thanks for the tip.I might be stubborn in my belief that once the NEC calibration results can be so "diverse" there should also be another "impartial" way of checking the actual results.
Quote from: perbjesse on April 19, 2019, 03:22:43 pmI was on the cusp of getting a PA271q over an Eizo monitor, and it looks like I should either not do it or hold out to see if there is a solution. I'd love to save some money, but both monitors are in a price range where I want predictable results without fiddling. If this is not a glitch, I guess I will be paying some more for an Eizo. I'll keep monitoring this thread for a while to see if there is a systematic fix from NEC, but if not I guess that is it.
Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 04:02:50 pmI was told there would be no resolution in the immediate future, and that it was a rare situation (which makes no sense). Hope that is wrong.I am looking at Eizo too. My two issues there are that I have seen some reports of not so stellar support and their monitors of the same size with hardware LUT and sensor are in the $2500 range. I don't want to pay that much and not have good support. NEC support seems good.
Quote from: digitaldog on April 20, 2019, 04:16:12 pmNot sure how rare it is, happily mine is fine and I suspect if you got one that isn't correct, NEC would replace under warranty.Next, there is the possibility the Eizo using the same panel would suffer the same issues....
Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 05:21:30 pmAs I stated in this thread, they did replace the monitor under warranty and it was marginally better, so I got a full refund since there appears to be no fix on the horizon. As to my comment about rare, I got two in a row, and they should have two to investigate.
Quote from: digitaldog on April 20, 2019, 05:22:51 pm I'd push them to keep sending them until you get one that behaves like mine. Maybe mine is the rare one but all I can tell you is what I see in my report which is what is expected.
Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 05:46:52 pmHonestly, it is not worth that kind of hassle for me - I value my time.
Page created in 0.043 seconds with 15 queries.