Calibrating NEC PA271W and the results

[Andrew Makiejewski]

I have been using a NEC PA271W monitor and really enjoying it. I was curious in reagrds to calibrating it another supported colorimeter to compare to my own colorimeter. I have created a a PDF with screen captures. The left side is with my colorimeter and the right with a borrowed unit. I blanked out the brands to protect the innocent.

The link to the PDF document is : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/55372080/NEC%20PA271W%20Calibration%20Test.pdf

Looking forward to hearing what this means.

Thanks, Andrew

[narikin]

your target intensity of 100cd/m seems rather low.
try it again at 130cd/m or so.

The erroneous reading on the right hand set seems just that - an error.
If its repeatably the same, then that device is toast, imho.

I have 3 pucks here. i1Pro, Spyder 3 and NEC's MDSV for wide gamut.  I use the Spyder 3 mostly. All are supported by Spectraview.

[Andrew Makiejewski]

The results on the right side of the PDF, was the unit that came with the Wide Gamut display that a friend bought a couple weeks back. I will try it again a few times and see what the results are. I should also get him to capture the screens when he calibrates his display.

I know someone that has the X-rite i1 Display 2. I should borrow that and try it out so see what will happen.

Thanks.

Andrew

your target intensity of 100cd/m seems rather low.
try it again at 130cd/m or so.

The erroneous reading on the right hand set seems just that - an error.
If its repeatably the same, then that device is toast, imho.

I have 3 pucks here. i1Pro, Spyder 3 and NEC's MDSV for wide gamut.  I use the Spyder 3 mostly. All are supported by Spectraview.

[mac_paolo]

your target intensity of 100cd/m seems rather low.
try it again at 130cd/m or so.

How can you possibly say that?
I mean: you don't know the ambient luminance nor the main output form of the color managed workflow.
Depending on that, for printing purposes in a dim ambient, 100cd/m2 may be too high (as for my case, and the ambient is not so dim at all) and 130cd/m2 would be just nonsense. 
Again, it depends! 

[digitaldog]

How can you possibly say that?
I mean: you don't know the ambient luminance nor the main output form of the color managed workflow.
Depending on that, for printing purposes in a dim ambient, 100cd/m2 may be too high (as for my case, and the ambient is not so dim at all) and 130cd/m2 would be just nonsense. 
Again, it depends! 

Because new, out of the box, it is rather difficult to get an LCD to hit such low luminance values natively. It would be better to raise the luminance of the print viewing conditions if possible.

[narikin]

How can you possibly say that?
I mean: you don't know the ambient luminance nor the main output form of the color managed workflow.
Depending on that, for printing purposes in a dim ambient, 100cd/m2 may be too high (as for my case, and the ambient is not so dim at all) and 130cd/m2 would be just nonsense. 
Again, it depends! 

Andrew just beat me to it.

It's hard for a pro level NEC monitor to be choked down to 100cd/m2. Especially in the first year. You are reducing the backlights outside of the optimum operating range at that very low luminance, and we are seeking optimum conditions here, not borderline ones.  But it's just a recommendation, most people follow it, but your situation and mileage may vary.

[WombatHorror]

Because new, out of the box, it is rather difficult to get an LCD to hit such low luminance values natively. It would be better to raise the luminance of the print viewing conditions if possible.

Not at all for this monitor. It goes down to 91 cd/m^2 just fine for sRGB gamma 2.2 mode and down to 80 cd/m^2 just fine for native mode and gamut 2.2 or sRGB and sRGB TRC.

[WombatHorror]

Andrew just beat me to it.

It's hard for a pro level NEC monitor to be choked down to 100cd/m2. Especially in the first year. You are reducing the backlights outside of the optimum operating range at that very low luminance, and we are seeking optimum conditions here, not borderline ones.  But it's just a recommendation, most people follow it, but your situation and mileage may vary.

These pro monitors actually seem to handle it better than ones like Apple or ASUS.

[WombatHorror]

I have been using a NEC PA271W monitor and really enjoying it. I was curious in reagrds to calibrating it another supported colorimeter to compare to my own colorimeter. I have created a a PDF with screen captures. The left side is with my colorimeter and the right with a borrowed unit. I blanked out the brands to protect the innocent.

The link to the PDF document is : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/55372080/NEC%20PA271W%20Calibration%20Test.pdf

Looking forward to hearing what this means.

Thanks, Andrew

I think that one weird blob is just an anomaly. I just noticed that happened during one of my tests for the first time ever. Never saw it before. Just installed the latest version. Maybe the new version is occasionally prone to a weird reading? Anyway I think it's just a rare, freak thing and I suspect it's not actually even a mistake in the internal LUT unless there is a bug in the new version that occasionally sets a blue value near that area wrong (my weird value, the time it happended, was also right near the same exact spot alone the curve).

[digitaldog]

Not at all for this monitor. It goes down to 91 cd/m^2 just fine for sRGB gamma 2.2 mode and down to 80 cd/m^2 just fine for native mode and gamut 2.2 or sRGB and sRGB TRC.

I used the term natively for a reason. It is possible a LUT somewhere is being used instead of natively lower the Fluorescent backlight. This is less than ideal but if you really feel you want to drive the display that low, instead of just rasing the print viewing conditions, fine. It isn’t recommended by NEC. 120 cd/m2 is just at the lower limit of what the (brand new) display can adjust itself to using the backlight alone. If you can go higher, to say 150 or so, it means the display can compensate for when the brightness drifts up instead of down (for example when you first turn it on).

[WombatHorror]

I used the term natively for a reason. It is possible a LUT somewhere is being used instead of natively lower the Fluorescent backlight. This is less than ideal but if you really feel you want to drive the display that low, instead of just rasing the print viewing conditions, fine. It isn’t recommended by NEC. 120 cd/m2 is just at the lower limit of what the (brand new) display can adjust itself to using the backlight alone. If you can go higher, to say 150 or so, it means the display can compensate for when the brightness drifts up instead of down (for example when you first turn it on).

But the figures I provided are what I found it produced without artificially lowering the contrast ratio any (and after it had warmed up for at least an hour and when it was brand new). It does depend a bit on what compensation uniformity setting you use though. I forgot to mention that for sRGB gamma 2.2 I had it at only 1 of 0-5 and for sRGB sRGB TRC I had it at 3 of 0-5 and for native I had it at 4. But even if you turned compensation off and used it brand new, you very definitely can still it to go below well 120 cd/m^2 without crippling contrast ratio (also aren't the print people the ones complaining about too much contrast ratio anyway? why would they want to make white blindingly bright for a dark room and wear out the monitor more quickly and then raise the black point to light gray to reduce contrast ratio?) and you do not lose any distinguishable steps of gray.

[digitaldog]

I don’t know why you are raising Contrast Ratio here.

There is a native minimum backlight intensity the display can produce using only it’s controls over the CCFL. According to NEC, 120cd/m2 is about that when new and they recommend 150cd/m2 so adjustments lower can be produced if necessary.

[Andrew Makiejewski]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. I have gone through and calibrated a few more times to see what what would happen. The spike on the color tracking page is no longer happening. Originally the spike showed up and was still there even after calibrating the monitor 3 times. So I was concerned.

Tested yesterday using a ColorMunki Photo, i1Display2 and the NEC Wide spectrum unit that came with my friends PA301W monitor. Was curious to see if I could notice a difference when the PA271W was calibrated wwith each device. In the next week or so, will find 5 images as a test and calibrate using each device to see what I can see.

Again, thanks very much, always something to learn from the great bunch here at Luminous Landscape forum.

Andrew

[WombatHorror]

I don’t know why you are raising Contrast Ratio here.

There is a native minimum backlight intensity the display can produce using only it’s controls over the CCFL. According to NEC, 120cd/m2 is about that when new and they recommend 150cd/m2 so adjustments lower can be produced if necessary.

I'm not quite sure my measurements really seem to match that, but even if so, the differences in the losses as so minor that it's nothing to worry about at all with this monitor.

Chances are you want compensation at least at the minimal level 1 and between 120cd/m^2 and 85 cd/m^2 my set only lost a fraction of contrast ratio. Do you really care if you go from 760:1 to 740:1?? That is so meaningless compared to not getting blinded in a darker working environment and to getting black point to drop by a much larger percentage.

And if the minimum the backlight can truly do is at 120 cd/m^2 then how come I never come close to having the screen hit minimum black level until I go well below 120 cd/m^2?