Eizo Monitors...

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

My trusted friend, a five year old Cinema HD monitor, is painfully passing away in front of me...

I reviewed a few archive notes, but I would like to know whether anyone within the group actually owns or happens to use an Eizo graphics monitor, such as the "CG241W?" It looks as though I may need to replace what I have in a few days. The video card is working well, but not the monitor. I may replace the Cinema HD with the newer Mac monitor, but that model is not available just yet, and then again I am not certain if I really like the reflective glass on the newer Cinema HD, either.

Comments about your experience with the Eizo display would help, since I can pick up a new Eizo within a day... :)

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[Walter Calahan]

I run two 24" Dell monitors (Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP) off my 8-core MacPro. One I have configured in landscape and the other in portrait mode.

You can get them inexpensively from Dell's refurbished stock for $399 each. Once they are calibrated, they are as good as my old Apple 22" Cinema display.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/monitors_30_24_wfp?c=us&cs=22&l=en&s=dfh

They have 25 in stock right now. Shipping is free, if you are not in a rush. Mine came within 3 days of ordering. Did have to pay sales tax.

[Jim collum]

I use that exact model. running on the latest model of Mac Pro.

an outstanding monitor.. have had no problems with it at all.. calibration is easy and from what i can tell, accurate.

jim


Dear Group,

My trusted friend, a five year old Cinema HD monitor, is painfully passing away in front of me...

I reviewed a few archive notes, but I would like to know whether anyone within the group actually owns or happens to use an Eizo graphics monitor, such as the "CG241W?" It looks as though I may need to replace what I have in a few days. The video card is working well, but not the monitor. I may replace the Cinema HD with the newer Mac monitor, but that model is not available just yet, and then again I am not certain if I really like the reflective glass on the newer Cinema HD, either.

Comments about your experience with the Eizo display would help, since I can pick up a new Eizo within a day... :)

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[Michael Chmilar]

There are a few interesting monitors in the same price range as the Eizo from HP, NEC, and LaCie, so you might want to check them out. Chromix.com lists many of them in their "store" section.

I have the HP "Dreamcolor" monitor, and it is very good.

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your quick replies... :)

I shall review these monitors.

jim k

[JPlomley]

Only 5 years out of a Cinema Display. That is rather disappointing, as mine is coming up to 5 years. Knock on wood, no issues as of yet. Exactly what were the early symptoms?

[jim kitchen]

The monitor is starting to display a few artifacts, such as a large blocked stained area along the top and along the sides of the monitor, where these stained areas seem to grow larger each week. The darker blocked areas are starting to encroach upon my usable area within the monitor, therefore making my calibrated screen extremely difficult to accept. The second item is a noticeable increase with a latent image issue, where the screen must rest or go black for a few hours to eliminate the ghosting, or a static image burn in, such as the outlined image of Photoshop's user window and a browser's window frame.

When I turn the monitor on the ghosting is not an issue, but the issue becomes increasingly apparent as the day progresses. So, the monitor's age could be a factor. There is a screen saver method and a monitor brightness method that I can use during the day to eliminate and, or reduce the ghosting latent image problem, but these methods are taking longer to reduce the problem. If these methods are solutions to an existing problem, they are not an avenue I would prefer to follow, since I do not know whether the screen's calibration shifted.

So I think it might be time to reinvest in a newer Apple monitor and possibly a newer Mac box too, since their warranties are married through the AppleCare program at time of purchase. History tells me that I will more than likely replace the monitor, and keep the current Mac box, because the Mac box refuses to quit waking up. The Cinema HD monitor was a fabulous monitor and for the moment, the monitor may be regulated to other duties... :)

jim k

[Lenny Eiger]

Only 5 years out of a Cinema Display. That is rather disappointing, as mine is coming up to 5 years. Knock on wood, no issues as of yet. Exactly what were the early symptoms?

I have been generally happy with the color on this monitor. It's no an Eizo, by any stretch, but the 2 23 inchers on my desk have served me well. I had to return one of them back to Apple after a few months and get it "fixed" and now both of them - after about 3 years - have major problems. This is the first time that I think Apple has let me down with equipment.

It looks like it's bleeding in from the top, almost like it was water damage, which it isn't. There are a couple of splotches of darkness on the side as well. I'm pretty annoyed... my next monitor will have to be a better one.

Lenny

[jim kitchen]

Dear Lenny,

The "bleeding from the top" comment happens to be a very good description of my issue too...

This issue could be a time related monitor heat problem, and since my monitor is unfortunately outside the AppleCare three year warranty, I might just invest in another monitor that has a longer five year warranty such as Eizo, albeit a limited and controlled warranty.

jim k

[Ken Lee]

I recently discussed monitors with CHROMiX (http://www.chromix.com), and they advised me that when it comes to monitors, consumer products like Apple and others, differ from pro models like Eizo, largely in terms of their endurance.

According to CHROMiX, Consumer monitors start to degrade and shift quickly, while pro monitors retain a higher level of performance and fidelity. Hence the higher price, and a correspondingly better warranty.

[Aahx]

I currently have two Eizo CG241W monitors at my studio desk. Though compared to my old CRT's (both Viewsonic and NEC) I find them to be a bit contrasty for my tastes. Though I still do photo editing on mine, in the future I will probably look to getting one of the newer NEC models with the SpectraViewII Calibration system to try.

[JohnnyV]

I run two 24" Dell monitors (Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP) off my 8-core MacPro. One I have configured in landscape and the other in portrait mode.

You can get them inexpensively from Dell's refurbished stock for $399 each. Once they are calibrated, they are as good as my old Apple 22" Cinema display.
.....

Walter,

How is shadow detail with that Dell 24"? The reason I ask is I have a 3 year old 19" Dell UltraSharp and once calibrated the shadows block up from about 91% to 100%. I say "once calibrated" because before its calibrated it's dang bright, and too bright too use, but I can see separation in the shadows to 99%. I used both EyeOne and ColorVision monitor profilers with the factory software and with ColorEyes software...but no luck with any combo. Actually the ColorVision does a better job overall...much better neutral grayscale.

I've heard really good info on the HP LP2475W 24" monitor.

Best,

John

[jim kitchen]

While researching additional monitors that may have calibration hardware within the monitor, compared to pure software calibration monitors only, I came across this monitor information site, and this Lacie site:

http://www.prad.de/en/index.html/

http://www.lacie.com/products/

The Lacie site has a few interesting PDFs, and a short flash video about calibrating a monitor. I thought I should pass this forward for those of you that may be interested too... :)

jim k

[jim kitchen]

I currently have two Eizo CG241W monitors at my studio desk. Though compared to my old CRT's (both Viewsonic and NEC) I find them to be a bit contrasty for my tastes. Though I still do photo editing on mine, in the future I will probably look to getting one of the newer NEC models with the SpectraViewII Calibration system to try.

If memory serves me correctly, this is an indication that your monitor's gamma is set higher than it should be and, or the combined RGB intensity is on the strong side and not as neutral as it should be. Your monitor's calibration software should have recognized this issue and corralled this gamma difference to a more exacting level, but then again this issue is always associated with the quality of the calibration software in use. Some calibration software applications might adjust your monitor's gamma to 2.1, some applications might set the gamma at 2.3, when you asked the software to set it at 2.2, and some applications might be able to recognize that your monitor needs to be set at 2.25 to produce a truly neutral gamma, minimizing the contrast for your monitor's inherent digital differences. These subtle programming features tend to separate the good, the bad, and the indifferent software programmers...

jim k

[neil poulsen]

When it comes to pro monitors, their advantages go beyond longevity.

>> Pro models have internal many check points to retain an even distribution of light over the screen. Especially the Eizo.

>> The have a larger color gamut. The CG222W can display 92% of Adobe RGB, which sounds pretty good.

>> Apple Cinema displays are strictly 8 bit lookup and 8 bit processing. The CG222W has 12 bit look up and 16 bit processing. This means that one can adjust contrast, brightness, and separately adjust individual colors and still retain full 8-bit discrimination. The Apple Cinema has only a brightness control.

>> Looks like the Eizo has a 5 year warranty.

If I were considering a monitor, I'd stick to a graphics quality NEC or Eizo model. LaCie would be a contender for me, except that I've had three LaCie products, and they've all had problems.

[dwhistance]

I was very happy with my two Lacie CRT's (Blue Eye IV 22" and 19") but now prefer my NEC Spectraview 26". If I was in the US I would have gone with the 26" WUXI and the bought the Spectraview software seperately, however here in the UK that isn't possible.

David Whistance

[Ken Lee]

When it comes to pro monitors, their advantages go beyond longevity.

You're quite right. I'm sorry to have overlooked the other differences.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Dakotah,

I do not have any knowledge about Viewsonic monitors, but here is a web page if you have not already discovered this, mentioned earlier that did review other Viewsonic monitors: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html ...

Clicking on a selection will bring you to a series of review notes. Unfortunately, your current monitor choice was not reviewed, but the available data for other Viewsonic monitors are available from their reviewer's perspective. You can select two monitors to compare with each other when you choose the "Compare Monitors" tab.

jim k

[Paul Kierstead]

When it comes to pro monitors, their advantages go beyond longevity.


I don't doubt those specs at all (well, the gamut one is hard to compare since it isn't often given for monitors), but I do wonder if the difference is significant enough to warrant the price or even to be very noticeable in normal photography work; i.e. not doing the kind of ultra precise colour matching that publishing may demand, etc.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Paul et al,

I am not a monitor expert regarding which LCD screen is better than another, but my review process is enriching my knowledge base, where I hope that the information I gather will lead me to a logical choice in the very immediate future. There are numerous websites that contain valuable calibration procedure information, and there are several web sites that offer useful informative tidbits belonging to personal rants, and personal raves regarding certain LCD monitors. Separating the useful information is becoming very tedious, but the numerous personal views seem to be a very good source of reading material...

For those of you that may be interested, I found the following information to be useful:

I discovered that LCD screens can be constructed differently, where a few differences are identified here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD , and although I might be able to see a difference within the shadows, the deep blacks, and the clean whites, I would agree with you that the incremental cost may never warrant the subtle visual differences presented to a user such as myself. Then again, several professional users may strongly disagree, because the subtle differences may be the difference between a costly business misadventure and, or not. It seems that each LCD construction method has a feature that suits a particular user requirement, where some construction types may produce better blacks and whites at the expensive of an LCD's speed response, other construction types are just designed for gaming speed, other LCD monitors types are designed and sold to the "I don't care as long as it works..." manufacturer, and other LCD panels are inclined to be associated with extreme critical colour work, the image's sharpness and, or the presented image's detail for military purposes.

One interesting item I noticed during my monitor review, happens to be the difference between a monitor that is DDC compliant, which can be reviewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel , and a monitor that is not. Monitors that have this capability are deemed to be better contenders for more accurate colour reproduction, since the monitor's hardware design allows the monitor the ability to access a wider colour correction database which is stored within the monitor's hardware, compared to accessing the video correction look up tables present within a video card. A monitor that has this hardware capability divorces itself from the video card, and the video card simply becomes a device that delivers power to push the monitor's pixels. It was also noted within the reviewed LCD sites that a few monitor manufacturers indicate that their monitors are DDC compliant, when actually they were not, and it was also noted that a few monitor manufacturers could not guarantee that their monitors would contain the same LCD construction panel if their monitor production switched from one manufacturing location to another, caused by inventory issues and the market's demand for their monitors. Economics and inventory would positively dictate that manufacturer's decision, causing the end user to become part of a quality lottery...

I also discovered that LCD manufacturers categorize their LCD panels into different quality levels such as, value grade, medium grade, and professional grade, where these differences are the result of a dead pixel count and the LCD panel's response time during their daily quality assurance procedure, and the LCD manufacturers sell the different grade panels to other monitor manufacturers at various costs. These graded LCD panels, encompassed by the manufacturer's specification limits, are also graded according to their pixel pitch quality, which refers to their apparent ability to produce sharp images on the screen, and where the smaller pixel pitch LCD sheets are more expensive to produce. The professional level LCD panels, complete with their stringent specifications, are sold at a premium price point because they probably do not produce very many professional quality panels during a production run, and where that premium cost would be obviously transferred to the end user. Quality assurance should improve as production technology improves, but I would tend to believe that would be a direct function of supply and demand.

Lastly, it seems that monitor manufacturers that create DDC compliant monitors do not readily transfer technical information to third party monitor calibration companies for obvious reasons, and if you do not own the original equipment manufacturer's calibration equipment, you may find the monitor's calibration process to be very difficult, but not impossible. You may also find yourself limited to the calibration features and the software updates offered by the original equipment manufacturer because they are not in the software business. One notable exception seems to be Sony's CRT monitor and their own calibration software, while being used with their own modified calibration device. This proprietary feature can drive the price of a DDC compliant monitor into professional cost levels very quickly. Eizo, for example, seems to allow third party calibration software engineers access to their monitor's hardware information highway, and Ezio might even insist that third party software writers incorporate specific calibration hardware tools, because Eizo knows that certain tools, such as certain calibration colorimeters, cannot resolve the entire gamut presented by the manufacturer's LCD monitor. I do find that point refreshing, compared to not. Other manufacturers do follow Eizo's software engineering path, but not all.

That said, everyone has a budget, and everyone has a "get-by-acceptance" level, which is driven by many personal factors. I do not always want to spend more money nor should I be so inclined, but sometimes I might believe that a higher cost is a better choice because a value added warranty may be included, and sometimes I might spend more money because I can see a quality difference that may justify my purchase decision. Since the digital world changes as frequently as the weather, I usually decide, as do most folks, to make a specific purchase after several arduous hours of consideration and review, knowing that the purchase could be historically and immediately out of date the following day, and when I make that purchase decision I immediately decide to wear my blinders, blocking any "new and improved distraction" for a period of two, or three years, and finally I try to work within my purchase's current boundaries going forward. Again, people that make their living from digital quality control issues may have a very different viewpoint regarding their tool's life expectancy, where they must change their calibration tools frequently, to remain technically competitive.

As a side note, have I made a LCD monitor decison? Not yet... :)

jim k

[Paul Kierstead]

Thanks for the very considered post, Jim.

Things like monitors tend to drive me a bit crazy. The high end guys make all sorts of claims, probably true, but without comparative value; for example the gamut one. Eizo claims "high gamut", but of course most manufacturers make no claim, so in fact I have no idea if their claim is actually good or not, or typical, or competitive. Anecdotal accounts tend to be all over the map. Cost tends to be all over the map, and sometimes without apparent rhyme or reason. Visual comparative study is largely impossible, since many are not available to be seen and, in any case, quality of the input signal varies extremely widely (a lot like buying a TV, that).

So I study, and study, and contemplate, and go ages wanting a new one, read, spend stupid amounts of effort over it. Then I get really fed up one day and just compulsively buy something, often spending too much. One of the worse cases was when I bought a professional IBM monitor (CRT) for a ludicrous sum of money (something like CAD$1700). It was very flat and very crisp. It also couldn't get bright enough to calibrate properly and buried blacks like nobodies business. Bah.

I hope the next time around (probably in the next few months) I'll make a better choice to go with my brand spanking new Big Mac instead of the aged 21" Samsung I am using. Would kinda like an LED backlit one...

[pherold]

A minor point to add to Jim K's excellent post:

Most of the DDC-compliant displays I have tested in-house have very capable self-branded software. You would expect that from Eizo of course, but I have also tested NEC, LaCie, and HP Dreamcolor displays, and their calibration software (ColorNavigator; SpectraView; Monitor Validator; Blue Eye Pro) are mostly fairly complete in their features and are easy to use.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Paul,

I currently own an aging Apple Cinema HD, where I mentioned earlier that it is presently annoying me with a few problems, but I always liked the images I could see upon the calibrated screen. The Apple Cinema HD monitors have a small pixel pitch which lends itself to a sharper image, and the current LED models for the Apple notebooks are listed as having a pixel pitch of 0.258mm, which is identical to the discontinued Apple Cinema HD. Apple should be announcing a Cinema HD replacement shortly, and I would expect that the newer monitor will be an LED design. Apple's 30" monitor has a smaller pixel pitch at 0.25mm, where I also believe that this monitor's end of life is around the corner too.

The newer Apple LED offerings may be very pleasant to look at, but I am surprised that Apple chose the reflective glass cover, where I do believe that Apple should quietly and quickly park that idea, although my young "I just became a teenager" son Alex would argue that comment with great vigor. Alex believes that the newer iMac computers with their shiny looks are way too cool for his dad... :)

To be that young again.

For your files: There are a few Samsung reviews located here: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html ...

jim k

[neil poulsen]

When it comes to pro monitors, their advantages go beyond longevity.


I don't doubt those specs at all (well, the gamut one is hard to compare since it isn't often given for monitors), but I do wonder if the difference is significant enough to warrant the price or even to be very noticeable in normal photography work; i.e. not doing the kind of ultra precise colour matching that publishing may demand, etc.

It's not like one can go down, buy three monitors to compare and return the two you don't want. Maybe one can; but then, what would one compare??? It's all very cerebral at this point.

What impresses me about the LaCie, NEC, and Eizo is the 12-bit lookup tables and gamma correction. Also, internal 16-bit processing on some of them. As I understand it, this allows one to get a true calibration before beginning profiling. One can set the gamma, brightness, contrast and the three RGB levels on a CRT and thereby place less demands on the profiling phase.

With the extra bit-depths, one can do the same with LCD monitors. But without the extra bit-depths, one sets these parameters at the expense of having less than 8-bits of processing during use. At 8-bits, one has 256 levels per channel. One bit less brings one down to 125 levels per channel. So, there's a greater chance of artifacts like banding and posterization.

I make the assumption that, if manufacturers don't publish these specs like bit-depth and percent of Adobe '98 RGB color gamut, it's because they'd rather you not know. I tend to like the idea of having fewer artifacts and greater color gamut. And without stating specs on color gamut, I suspect that anything goes.

Seems like cameras became a lot more expensive, when we entered the digital era. I think the same is true for good color monitors. As I was told by a LaCie technician, the Electron Blue LaCie CRT monitors at $375 were just a little bit better when new than the 321 LaCie LCD at a cost of about $900 when new. But then, I was also told by a different LaCie tech that, when they were first introduced, those $375 LaCie CRT's were going for about $1000.

[jim kitchen]

A minor point to add to Jim K's excellent post:

Most of the DDC-compliant displays I have tested in-house have very capable self-branded software. You would expect that from Eizo of course, but I have also tested NEC, LaCie, and HP Dreamcolor displays, and their calibration software (ColorNavigator; SpectraView; Monitor Validator; Blue Eye Pro) are mostly fairly complete in their features and are easy to use.

Dear Pat,

Thank you, kind sir... :)

Since you are probably very well versed in this arena, and you are obviously a great source of information because you have managed these assets in the past, would you happen to know whether NEC, LaCie, and HP completely divorce themselves from the computer's video cards and their drivers, during the calibration process? I ask, because I am led to believe through my software programming channels that Eizo is the only monitor manufacturer that totally isolates the computer's video card during the calibration process, while using their proprietary communication software and, or allowing third party calibration software to communicate directly with the monitor's hardware.

Just curious...

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[pherold]

Well, it depends on the model of course, but any of these newer, more high end displays with internal graphics processing abilities (10, 12, 16 - bit) follow the same basic calibration procedures. They either flatten out the curves in the computer's graphics card, or load a "flattened" curve profile into the graphics card. Then, they have the real color correction taking place inside their own internal "card" using their own software or a compatible third party software.

It was probably true just a couple of short years ago that Eizo was almost the only manufacturer doing this, but things certainly do change quickly in this industry.

As long as we're on this thread, we just this morning released a new Chromix ColorNews newsletter, . . . https://www.chromix.com/colorgear/

[jim kitchen]

I made a decision, regarding my new monitor, and I chose the Eizo CG421...

During the past month or so, I had the opportunity to track down and review the Lacie 724, the Samsung XL24, the Eizo CG421, and the Eizo CG221, owned by a few friendly associates, where the Lacie and the Samsung employ LED back lighting, and the Eizo's do not. The LED back lighting monitors are absolutely fabulous, and I believe where many colour experts will migrate to these monitors, resulting from their unbelievable wide colour gamut. The LED monitor's wide colour range make current day monitors to look as if they are very archaic when they are compared side by side, where the LED monitor's colours are richer, deeper, and truly vibrant, but I cannot tell you whether LED backlit monitors produce colours, or grey scales that are more accurate, since that task belongs to the monitor's calibration software.

I found that the Eizo CG221 was the stellar performer within the group, outdistancing every monitor completely, but the price of the monitor was understandably outside my budget.

I chose the Eizo CG421 because this monitor has an outstanding five year warranty, because this monitor reminded me of the Apple Cinema HD display with its fine pitch detail, it’s controlled even screen back lighting, where the DDC software communication package happens to be rock solid with my calibration software, and where the calibration software developer is immediately conversant with the end user when, and if, an issue ever surfaces for the user. These insurance factors are important to me as a user, and the Eizo CG241 monitor satisfied my requirements without totally breaking my bank account. I should note that the cost of the Samsung XL24 LED monitor dropped more that fifty percent in the past year, but Samsung changed the calibration device included in the monitor package, making the monitor's pricing very attractive.

As a side note, the third party calibration software package I use, recently announced that their software can communicate with Samsung's and Lacie's DDC compliant LED monitors for the Mac and the PC platforms, allowing the user to bypass the manufacturer's limited calibration scope and calibrate the DDC compliant monitor more vigorously. They are fine tuning the PC platform software presently, since there are a few minor issues with that operating system. Samsung and Lacie were notorious for keeping the software access door closed to third party developers, but these manufacturers have their doors open currently, and the manufacturers are allowing the DDC communication channels to be accessed through their software development kits. The software development kits will allow the end user a greater software calibration choice, greater control at the front end of their digital process, and greater control over their finished images. There are a few outstanding issues within the software protocols for each platform presently, but the DDC communications are working well, and the minor issues should be transparent very quickly.

That said, I am very impressed with the DDC compliant LED monitors, and although I did not select an Led monitor, many users will find these monitors to be extraordinary, and a welcome addition to their image making process, especially when they are properly calibrated, including the newer Apple LED displays.

Lastly, the difference between a monitor that uses the calibration software to modify the video card's output to correct the monitor's colour environment, and a DDC compliant monitor that uses the calibration software to adjust the monitor's hardware happens to be truly remarkable, but that DDC compliant difference has a cost associated with it, which may be prohibitive for many users that simply enjoy creating a few digital images from their negatives and, or their digital cameras throughout the year. I also should note that I was not disappointed with my Apple Cinema HD during its useful life, where I knew the monitor required calibration to allow the monitor to perform within my colour management scheme, but I decided to see whether the DDC compliant monitor could add value to my work, and I believe I made the correct decision.

Going forward, I must now put on my blinders to ignore every new technology that presents itself, as long as this new monitor remains active... :)

jim k