Shopping for monitor - Eizo SX2262W,SX2462W +EasyPix vs NEC PA24W +Spectraview

[NancyP]

Newbie amateur here - post #1- I am looking for advice from users

I want a good quality photo-editing monitor, as I have gotten to the point where the laptop is not enough, and I want to learn to do serious photo-editing and printing. In other words, my shooting skills have gone from awful to "not bad"  ;)
Existing computer:
MacBookPro 15" high-res (1650x1080), 2010, GeForceGT 330M with 512 MB DDR3, external monitor support of up to 2560 x 1600 pixels simultaneously with native monitor at full 1650x1080 pixels
No monitor or printer currently. Ideally I would like to have the photos on the external monitor and the menus, slider boxes, histogram, etc on the perfectly adequate laptop monitor. Color management would be vital for the external monitor but less critical for the laptop monitor.
Existing editing program: Lightroom 3.6 (and nearly untouched Photoshop CS5) (I am an academic, these programs are discounted heavily, I have used PS in past mostly for scientific image analysis, but really like LR3).

From what I can tell by reading too many fora, articles, wide-gamut aRGB monitors are best for viewing and editing for print output and for same-screen display, and can emulate sRGB monitors if editing for web output. Also, hardware calibration/lookup tables and LUT number greater than color depth number make sense to me. I am interested both in color and in black-and-white imaging / printing (K6-7).

Are wide-gamut monitors significantly better in real life application? (see #4 below)

I would be willing to invest in a really good monitor and appropriate CMS sensor/software system now for the next 5 years use, rather than get a stopgap. Possibilities include:

1. Eizo SX2262W 22" PA monitor or Eizo SX2462W 24" IPS monitor with bundled EasyPix colorimeter and software
2. NEC PA241W 24" IPS monitor with bundled NEC colorimeter and Spectraview II software
3. #1 or #2, replacing bundled CMS with ColorMunki spectrophotometer/software or some other 3rd party CMS
4. Eizo is discounting some of their older non-wide gamut high end monitors, now that they have gotten the self-calibrating Cadillac Eizos on the market. The prices are comparable to the NEC or Eizo SX2462W. The NEC standard (sRGB) gamut PA241 with bundled NEC CMS is considerably cheaper than its wide gamut counterpart.
5. Other options I may have missed?
Comments?

[PierreVandevenne]

Hi Nancy,

Comparing NEC to Eizo is a bit like comparing Canon to Nikon. Opinions will vary, but in fact, there's no wrong choice.

Wide Gamut, and its actual use in practice, is a very long topic but I believe you won't be able to take advantage of it with your MacBook Pro. You'll need a video card with explicit support and, even if the hardware is capable of supporting it, you'll need the mabufacturer's cooperation (typically, "workstation class" video cards and drivers). In the current AMD/NVIDIA duopoly situation, this is often a marketing/brand segmentation decision rather than one based on the hardware capabilities themselves. However, one can reasonably assume the wide gamut choice is the the most future proof choice.

As far as the colorimeter issue is concerned, I wouldn't buy the monitor with its build-in colorimeter to replace it immediately with another. The differences are minor, and you can buy the monitors without their calibration bundle (at least in NEC's case - I just bought a "naked" PA271W).

Last but not least, if you are even half happy with the flashy/crappy screen of your current MacBook, the Eizo or Nec monitors will probably amaze you. I also own a 2010 MacBook Po, probably the same model as yours, and the closest match for its screen among my monitors is a Nec gaming monitor (20GWX2)... the monitor equivalent of a gold laden rapper in a Pink Cadillac ;-)

[Schewe]

Wide Gamut, and its actual use in practice, is a very long topic but I believe you won't be able to take advantage of it with your MacBook Pro. You'll need a video card with explicit support and, even if the hardware is capable of supporting it, you'll need the mabufacturer's cooperation (typically, "workstation class" video cards and drivers).

Actually, I know that for NEC and MBP's that's not the case. There's no problem running a wide gamut display on any recent Mac...now, in terms of 10 bit display support, correct, the Mac can not currently use 10 bit display tech on the Mac. That's a display pipeline issue, not the display. However, NEC and as far as I know Eizo both can use on-display 10 bit internal LUTs.

Personally, for all purposes other than preparing for web images, wide gamut display and particularly using soft proofing can produce better adjusted images. If you are doing images only for the web, then it can be argued that a display can do sRGB accurately is a benefit...

[Walt Roycraft]

Would the LaCie 324i be a good choice?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have a Eizo SX2461W calibrated with a Color Munki Photo and I'm quite happy. Quite possibly I would be even happier with a higher end screen, I don't know.

Regarding sRGB and Adobe RGB the SX2461 has both, but I don't think it is a lot of difference. I think the difference is for real but not very obvious.

Now, if your images fit within sRGB there is little reason to use Adobe RGB. I recall color guru Karl Lang discussing it in an article. In short, using 8-bit colors there are 256 steps for each color, with a small RGB the differences in color will be small between say 230 and 231. In a larger color space the steps will be larger. This is one of the good reasons to use 16 bits in large color spaces like Prophoto RGB. The image on the screen is a a quite loose adaption of the real image, so I don't think the 8 bit limitation is a problem.

So in short, use 16 bits when processing images, if you have wide gamut monitor you may use AdobeRGB as well, export your images in 8-bit JPEGs in sRGB unless you are certain that the receiver knows about color management and has implemented it correctly.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Nancy,

Comparing NEC to Eizo is a bit like comparing Canon to Nikon. Opinions will vary, but in fact, there's no wrong choice.

Wide Gamut, and its actual use in practice, is a very long topic but I believe you won't be able to take advantage of it with your MacBook Pro. You'll need a video card with explicit support and, even if the hardware is capable of supporting it, you'll need the mabufacturer's cooperation (typically, "workstation class" video cards and drivers). In the current AMD/NVIDIA duopoly situation, this is often a marketing/brand segmentation decision rather than one based on the hardware capabilities themselves. However, one can reasonably assume the wide gamut choice is the the most future proof choice.

As far as the colorimeter issue is concerned, I wouldn't buy the monitor with its build-in colorimeter to replace it immediately with another. The differences are minor, and you can buy the monitors without their calibration bundle (at least in NEC's case - I just bought a "naked" PA271W).

Last but not least, if you are even half happy with the flashy/crappy screen of your current MacBook, the Eizo or Nec monitors will probably amaze you. I also own a 2010 MacBook Po, probably the same model as yours, and the closest match for its screen among my monitors is a Nec gaming monitor (20GWX2)... the monitor equivalent of a gold laden rapper in a Pink Cadillac ;-)

[digitaldog]

I recall color guru Karl Lang discussing it in an article. In short, using 8-bit colors there are 256 steps for each color, with a small RGB the differences in color will be small between say 230 and 231. In a larger color space the steps will be larger. This is one of the good reasons to use 16 bits in large color spaces like Prophoto RGB.

Two different issues of which Karl was speaking:

1. Wide gamut spaces require a wider (than 8-bits per color) depth due to the distance between the colors when editing the data. Think of an sRGB balloon having 16.7 million dots on it, then blowing it up much larger (Adobe RGB (1998)). The distance between the dots increases. But this is the distance of the edited data in your working space.

2. In terms of a display, the same distance is seen however this isn’t the data being edited, it is the data being seen. The colorimetric distance (the dE) between two very close appearing colors is greater on the wide gamut display than the sRGB-like display. That would make in theory, more difficulty in seeing two very subtle colors. Karl’s point was, those working with non saturated colors (bride in white wedding dress) will find it more difficult to visually correct such subtle colors. The upside is for those who do work with colors that fall outside sRGB and want to see them on the display.

The solution to both issues is a wider bit depth. We have that ability with our image files. Photoshop and others have provided high bit editing for decades. But we don’t all have this fully in the display path. On the Mac, it isn’t fully possible at all (thanks to Apple).

[hirte_7]

Actually, I know that for NEC and MBP's that's not the case. There's no problem running a wide gamut display on any recent Mac...now, in terms of 10 bit display support, correct, the Mac can not currently use 10 bit display tech on the Mac. That's a display pipeline issue, not the display. However, NEC and as far as I know Eizo both can use on-display 10 bit internal LUTs.

I have an additional newbie question on this. I understand that a NEC or Eizo monitor can be attached to a MacBook Pro but would deliver better results if attached to a graphic card that supports the hardware of the monitor. Now instead using a NEC or Eizo is there any reason - besides the matt display - to not use a Thunderbold Cinema Display from Apple? I guess it can be calibrated accurately as well and if I "just" want to make sure what I see on the screen is printed in the same way, why not use the Apple display?
So my question goes into the directions NEC/Eizo versus Apple Display pros and cons.

Thanks.

[Schewe]

to not use a Thunderbold Cinema Display from Apple?

Cause, it sucks? Apple used to have state of the art displays back when the first metal Cinema Displays came out...highly speced with great components. That is no longer the case. It's convenient but not optimal in my opinion...yes, you can calibrate and profile them but...it'll drop the bit depth down and you may see banding in the shadows. Also note that they are not at all wide gamut displays. Fine for general computing but I don't regard them as top of the line imaging displays any more, sorry. NEC or Eizo are simply better displays...