Would you find this delta-E acceptable on a new PA271q?

Started by geneo, March 10, 2019, 01:04:31 pm

Czornyj

Quote from: geneo on March 17, 2019, 07:45:25 pm
Wish they were human readable.
Do you have yours self calibrated or using factory calibration?
What version of the firmware?


- copy it on USB stick
- put the stick to the USB port above all ports on the left side
- load settings to the display
- calibrate the display again
- if it won't help reset the display using Multiprofiler, recalibrate
- and make factory reset from menu, recalibrate
- and update to latest FW v1.2, recealibrate
- and update SVII to 1.1.39
- and calibrate it again

At the end of the day something fixes it, I'm not sure what and how.
Here's an affected display I took off a while ago:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3jtho7ij6m1rwci/Zrzut%20ekranu%202019-03-18%2000.56.45.png?dl=0
Same display after applying the above mentioned shamanic rituals (still have no idea what really helped):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvq0eu1c8lfb1wm/Zrzut%20ekranu%202019-03-18%2000.56.54.png?dl=0

geneo

Seems 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.
Walk softly and carry a big lens

Czornyj

Quote from: geneo on March 17, 2019, 08:13:35 pm
Seems 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.


Try to load our .nsvs files, and resetting it. It doesn't work all the time and it does't make sense, but eventually it may fix it.

Frans Waterlander

Quote from: digitaldog on March 17, 2019, 02:51:19 pm
Correcting you again, indeed.  :o
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')?


Wrong 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.

vikcious

Quote from: digitaldog on March 17, 2019, 04:13:33 pm
I 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.zip
Unzip,Load in SpectraView and calibrate. How is the report?


Dear Andrew,

Here comes trouble and I am puzzled! :O After updating my NEC PA271Q to the latest available 1.202 firmware I my calibration has gone bananas!
While in the past most of my calibration result where on the 0.4 to 0.6 dE(94) margins for "Average" and 1.6 to 2.4 dE(94) for "Maximum" with the biggest delta in  "Dark Values" (else the Avg was 0.23 and Max 0.45) now my dE(94) values have rocketed to 1.13 to 1.28 for Avg and 1.95 to 2.10 Max dE(94).
I 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!
I even downloaded your "ARsPhotoEditing.tgt" file for calibration and still my values are out of their normal ranges. Now the "dark values" are not an issue anymore but the "light values" have become an issue!
I 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!

I have attached comparisons among few past profiles and the newest one after the firmware update.


What's wrong? What to do?
|| One screw-up is a mistake, two screw-ups is a trend, three screw-ups is a style ||

digitaldog

March 18, 2019, 09:35:43 am #65 Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 10:45:07 am by digitaldog
Quote from: Frans Waterlander on March 18, 2019, 01:47:40 am
Wrong 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.
I remember nearly all your nonsense posts including (your text from a URL already provided):

Given the potential for problems and the relative easy fix for the P232W I still don't understand why NEC doesn't plan to upgrade that monitor with a much higher backlighting PWM.

This after people told you they DIDN'T flicker! Another example of providing facts you can't accept! ;)
Indeed, you still don't understand.
You own a PA (specifically a 271Q), how's the flickering affecting you? You don't? Maybe that's why there are no facts or a lick of text from your keyboard about solving the OP's issues in this thread.  :o
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

digitaldog

Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 09:18:28 am
I 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!
According to the OSD, I'm running R1.001A. Never updated the firmware nor had any indication to do so.

Quote

I 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!

At this point I wouldn't worry too much as NEC is aware of this and unless images look poor, I'd move on for the time being until we get more information.
I was calibrating and saw the screen saver kick in (stopped it after a second) and saw in that report with one really bad spike but everything looked fine otherwise. I did recalibrate after setting the screen saver off (don't need it with this unit) and that one high dE spike it disappeared. IF the overall report in the main reporting screen is sound, I think you're good to continue until NEC figures out this software issue.
What is the firmware you're running?
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

vikcious

Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 10:54:42 am
What is the firmware you're running?


I 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.
|| One screw-up is a mistake, two screw-ups is a trend, three screw-ups is a style ||

digitaldog

Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 01:56:42 pm
I 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.



1. 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.
2. 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.
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

vikcious

Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 02:07:49 pm

1. 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.

Wow, that was quick... and very informative! ;) Thanks for the tip.

Quote from: digitaldog on March 18, 2019, 02:07:49 pm
2. 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.

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. Of course, visually is difficult to assess their quality hence my worries.
Not quite comfortable as of now with the results and the shifts... :(
|| One screw-up is a mistake, two screw-ups is a trend, three screw-ups is a style ||

digitaldog

Quote from: vikcious on March 18, 2019, 02:36:41 pm
Wow, 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.
Well if the goal is calibration to match a print soft proofing, if you see a good match, you're set!  ;)
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

geneo

Apparently there is no fix at this time so I am to return to retailer  :(

Any suggestions for a monitor?
Walk softly and carry a big lens

Christopher

Similar Problem. Not really happy with my new NEC PA271q... First NEC after a few Eizos and never had such a bad calibration. All my displays before that were much closer to Rodney's NEC delta.

I tried a few things, but couldn't improve much.

First Image shows, calibration before Firmware and SpectraView update.

Second shows calibration to Rodney's target. Much better, but still not close to his NEC.

Last one is my target again, also better, but still not great.

Perhaps I'm expecting to much, but the PA271q got so great reviews, so I'm surprised about it's perfromance.

Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

perbjesse

I 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.

geneo

Quote from: perbjesse on April 19, 2019, 03:22:43 pm
I 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.


I 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.
Walk softly and carry a big lens

digitaldog

Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 04:02:50 pm
I 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.

Not 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....
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

geneo

Quote from: digitaldog on April 20, 2019, 04:16:12 pm
Not 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....


As 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.
Walk softly and carry a big lens

digitaldog

Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 05:21:30 pm
As 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.
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.
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

geneo

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.


Honestly, it is not worth that kind of hassle for me - I value my time.
Walk softly and carry a big lens

digitaldog

Quote from: geneo on April 20, 2019, 05:46:52 pm
Honestly, it is not worth that kind of hassle for me - I value my time.
So you end up with what?
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"