CG247X vs PA271Q for softproofing B&W question

[perbjesse]

I am looking to get a monitor for accurate softproofs of my B&W and digital negative printing from QTR. I am working on getting a good viewing environment set up, and would like to get either the following Nec Spectraview monitor https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1416627-REG/nec_pa271q_bk_sv_27_color_critical_desktop.html or the Eizo CG247X. My question is the following: I have seen Les Walkling's video on advanced soft proofing with the Eizo monitors (http://www.leswalkling.com/words/the-theory-of-practice/). Are similar controls available in Spectraview II (including custom settings for saturation etc of color channels when making targets)?

What are the pros and cons of the two monitors? Given that I can get the 27 inch Nec Spectraview monitor for significantly less than the 24 inch Eizo, how much am I sacrificing (if anything)? I am basically hoping to get to a softproofing environment that reduces the number of tried prints as much as possible (especially for digital negatives) and since I am spending very real money I want something that will work for me for the long haul.


Any input much appreciated.

[Mick Sang]

We have NEC PA301s and PA302s and Eizo CG319s. You will be able to effectively soft proof with either display. Both are excellent. The Eizo is better in several ways. First, switching between different calibration settings is fast - roughly 3 seconds from one to the next. Whereas with the NECs and Spectraview ll, it takes a couple of minutes to switch between each calibration set. If you have a viewing booth near the monitor the Eizo, through ColorEdge, allows one to use a colorimeter like the i1Display Pro 3 to read the brightness and white point of the paper stock on which you print which it then records and adjusts the screen accordingly. With the NEC it involves more trail and error to get that match. The colour correction sliders are similar to those found in Lightroom or PhotoShop. They allow one to tweak the colour response to get even closer to the image in print. General calibration is done without having to stop working. The Eizo blacks are cleaner than NEC insofar as there is no IPS glow whatsoever.

At the end of the day, I would say that you won't go wrong with either a high-end NEC or the Eizo. The Eizo is faster. I have equal confidence in both in terms of display accuracy. The Eizo is a gem if one can afford it. In terms of image display and soft proofing, the ability to switch quickly between calibrations makes it easier and therefore more acceptable to switch back & forth to ensure the correct setting is used.

I hope this is somewhat helpful.

[Rainforestman]

Hi Peter,

I don’t have the specific NEC and Eizo models that you mention but I have a NEC PA241 with Spectraview and an Eizo CG277 with Color Navigator.

I’m familiar with Les Walkling’s notes having done plenty of workshops with him in Australia. 

The monitors from both companies are great.  I think the Eizo in my case is more uniform with illumination.  But from the perspective of soft proofing you can do things with the Eizo Color Navigator software in terms of tuning colours for soft proofing that you simply can’t do with Spectraview.  Les argues that this is a vastly superior way to soft proof than Photoshop’s approach of previewing the proofing gamut.

From my own experience the lighting and neutrality of your post-production environment are as important as the monitor.  Ambient about 32 lux, P1 about 400 lux and P2 (critical print examination) about 2000 lux.  I’ve achieved this with solux 4700k lights on track lighting and it has made an amazing improvement over just D50 task lighting.  The monitor is calibrated to 80cd/m2, 0.4 cd/m2 black point (contrast = 200:1), gamma 2.2, D65.

[saiguy]

Rainforestman.

Are your monitor calibration numbers for a soft proof set up for B&W? Or are they for regular editing?

[Rainforestman]

Rainforestman.

Are your monitor calibration numbers for a soft proof set up for B&W? Or are they for regular editing?

Regular editing.

[perbjesse]

We have NEC PA301s and PA302s and Eizo CG319s. You will be able to effectively soft proof with either display. Both are excellent. The Eizo is better in several ways. First, switching between different calibration settings is fast - roughly 3 seconds from one to the next. Whereas with the NECs and Spectraview ll, it takes a couple of minutes to switch between each calibration set. If you have a viewing booth near the monitor the Eizo, through ColorEdge, allows one to use a colorimeter like the i1Display Pro 3 to read the brightness and white point of the paper stock on which you print which it then records and adjusts the screen accordingly. With the NEC it involves more trail and error to get that match. The colour correction sliders are similar to those found in Lightroom or PhotoShop. They allow one to tweak the colour response to get even closer to the image in print. General calibration is done without having to stop working. The Eizo blacks are cleaner than NEC insofar as there is no IPS glow whatsoever.

At the end of the day, I would say that you won't go wrong with either a high-end NEC or the Eizo. The Eizo is faster. I have equal confidence in both in terms of display accuracy. The Eizo is a gem if one can afford it. In terms of image display and soft proofing, the ability to switch quickly between calibrations makes it easier and therefore more acceptable to switch back & forth to ensure the correct setting is used.

I hope this is somewhat helpful.

Thanks Mick, lots of good info here. Most likely if the spectraview gets me 95% there it is good enough for me---there are other places in my flow where I can gain more than chasing the last little bit of convenience/performance at a high dollar premium. Very helpful, many thanks.