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.
Søren
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -Douglas Adams-
Walter,Originally Posted by Walter Calahan
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
John V.
ScanHi-End Moderator
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
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
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.
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
When it comes to pro monitors, their advantages go beyond longevity.
You're quite right. I'm sorry to have overlooked the other differences.
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
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.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks