New monitor: Eizo CG241 W or CE240W

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by AlanG

I am aware of this and know the real issue is that color is expressed in relative rather than exact values using our current color modes. And 10 bits will solve a lot of this whenever it is standard. The Microsoft scRGB model seems interesting and may be a good solution for the future but it hasn't caught ground with Adobe and others. I don't think 10 bit color or wide gamut will become ubiquiteous until there is one uinversal system that is used from cameras to software to displays that low end and high end users employ as they currently do with sRGB. Right now, giving files to clients opens up a can of worms, once you get away from sRGB. (Many don't have color aware applications and don't understand what is going on with color.)

I have to say that while I want a very good constent monitor for judging brightness and contrast, having the ability to do the finest tuning of skin tones is not paramount to me. I thought the wide gamut may be beneficial for me to start exploring if and when there really is any value in supplying images to my clients in Adobe RGB color space rather than in sRGB.

And although the 2690's sRGB emulation mode is not calibrated, it certainly looks good enough to see if skin tones are nice. If your goal is inhouse outputting on a printer, it will be pretty easy to tell if you are locked in as well as possible. (I did this years ago on much simpler uncalibrated sytems.)

I will say that we are all really splitting hairs here and I'm not sure how much any of this matters in real world use. (Although it might for some very critical users.) I have to keep in mind how primitive the equipment was that I used for supplying digital files more than 12 years ago, and somehow it all worked out ok. There are so many factors that affect how people see and appreciate colors that in actuality it is pretty foregiving sometimes. (Think of all of those overly warm "beauty" photos.)

I did have concerns about buying a wide gamut monitor but I've spent considerable time the past week studying various images on the 2690 in sRGB mode and also in calibrated wide gamut mode. (The images were a mix of sRGB and Adobe 98) and I can't say I see any real shortcomings to me in any way. For a couple of years I've been using a pretty good calibrated Samsung 213T (PVA display) sRGB monitor and if it does allow for finer sRGB color adjustments, I can't say that I've noticed it or miss it.

That being said, the NEC 2490 looks like a great monitor too.

Hi Alan,

Karl Lang argues that there are practical implications of this any time one is trying to work with colors that are very close to each other. I'd have to try both the 2690 and 2490 to know for myself but I do take Lang's opinion quite seriously simply because I believe that he really does know what he's talking about. As you say, when and if higher bit pipelines become standard, this will be a moot issue.

I've decided, unconventional though it may be, to largely live in the world of sRGB right now because of clients, the RR web site, etc. Though I may lose certain shades of coloring, there's a consistency in that workflow (and in the way it will appear in a broad range of display/output) that I like.

Cheers,

Sean

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

Hi Alan,

Karl Lang argues that there are practical implications of this any time one is trying to work with colors that are very close to each other. I'd have to try both the 2690 and 2490 to know for myself but I do take Lang's opinion quite seriously simply because I believe that he really does know what he's talking about. As you say, when and if higher bit pipelines become standard, this will be a moot issue.

I've decided, unconventional though it may be, to largely live in the world of sRGB right now because of clients, the RR web site, etc. Though I may lose certain shades of coloring, there's a consistency in that workflow (and in the way it will appear in a broad range of display/output) that I like.

Cheers,

Sean

I am sure Lang is correct but I looked at both models side by side before buying and couldn't see anything that jumped out at me. I have been doing everything in sRGB up to this point also because most of my clients wouldn't know what an embedded profile is and they'd end up viewing and posting on the web Adobe 98 files without using sRGB conversion profiles.

I know a wide gamut display is not "ideal" for sRGB fine adjustments, but I thought I'd take the plunge and see how it works for me. I just want to try to see what more is in my raw files (and if any of this is prefered by me.) So far so good with sRGB files viewed on it in calibrated wide gamut mode and color management. My prints match my NEC 2690 monitor as well as I could expect. However I rarely make prints for my clients other than as proofs. I supply my clients with sRGB files and not a single one has ever complained abuout color being off. (Tens of thousands of digital files delivered so far.)

When I get time, I'm planning to hook up the 2690 in wide gamut mode right next to another computer running my sRGB Samsung. I'll try to calibrate the Samsung to match the NEC and will study and adjust the same sRGB image on both. I'll also compare some images on the calibrated Samsung vs. the factory set NEC sRGB emulation mode.

I think I know what I'm doing (I hope anyway) as I have a pretty strong technical education and work background in color theory, human color perception, and color printing. So we'll see what I turn up.

[dfarkas]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

I've decided, unconventional though it may be, to largely live in the world of sRGB right now because of clients, the RR web site, etc. Though I may lose certain shades of coloring, there's a consistency in that workflow (and in the way it will appear in a broad range of display/output) that I like.

Sean,

I personally, and as a professional photo lab, also live, work and print in an sRGB world. I teach this in my classes as well. I'm not sold on the idea that you are losing shades of color for "normal" photographic subjects. Street photography, landscapes, protraiture all see practically no benefit from a larger gamut space. Although, photos of a canary yellow Ferrari or gaurds red Porsche might. The basic rule of thumb is that if it is seen in nature, sRGB usually does the trick. If it is a man-made synthetic color then AdobeRGB is usually a better bet, though you are output limited in that case.

And I agree that this is not a popular viewpoint. I've worked professionally in digital imaging since 1991. I went through an AdobeRGB phase for a while, but I've come to the point where I've seen zero benefit for my (or my clients) workflow over sRGB. The final proof is in the print, as we say in the lab business. And I haven't seen any proof.

David

[AlanG]

I just spent the past two hours comparing images between my NEC 2690 and my older Samsung 213T.

The major thing I noticed is when viewing deep foliage and other shadow detail on the Samsung. My Samsung has a PVA panel and the shadows varied depending on whether I looked at the image straight on or from a slight angle. So if I staired perpendicular to a tree, it seemed darker than if I just shifted my head over two inches and then looked at the same tree from that angle. (I'm about 15-20 inches from the screen.) The Samsung is about a two year old model so I don't know if this is the same on more recent Samsung S-PVA panels. (These newer S-PVA panels should have a better viewing angle.)

The NEC with an IPS panel does not change at all and seems to have more accurate shadow detail. My laptop has a TN panel and the shadow detail doesn't vary that much from slight angles side to side but varies greatlly when the angle of view changes from top to bottom.

As for color, I calibrated my Samsung with an older Monaco Optix device and software. It looked very close to the NEC but was darker. I turned brightness up a bit and the two monitors seemed very close if not exact. I couldn't see any color cast differences and all colors seemed to be almost identical between the two. (Depending on how I held my head when looking at the Samsung.) I looked at a number of greyscale images and they seemed to match also.

Once I got what I thought was a match between the two in calibrated mode, I tried the NEC in factory default sRGB emulation mode and looked at the same sRGB images on both monitors. I couldn't see any color differences so it seems to me that the NEC sRGB emulation is pretty good but a bit brighter than my NEC or Samsung calibrated settings. (I guess this figures because all uncalibrated monitors seem to be set too bright before calibration.)

So my opinion is that the IPS panel in the NEC affords a much more even and therefore a more accurate view of images than does my Samsung. Whether this applies to the Eizos that use Samsung PVA panels, I can't say. And while there may be advantages in using an sRGB monitor for sRGB images, I couldn't spot any differences in fine delicate skin tones between the two. Plus I think if I had to, I could use the NEC 2690 in sRGB emulation mode and get good results once I set some kind of standard and did a few tests.

So I'm happy, but if all you plan to do is adjust sRGB images, then following Sean's (and Dr. Lang's) advice is probably a good way to go. Before buying those Eizos or any S-PVA panel monitor, I'd look at it from various angles closely to make sure the image is very even. (Those of you who own one could say.)

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by dfarkas

Sean,

I personally, and as a professional photo lab, also live, work and print in an sRGB world. I teach this in my classes as well. I'm not sold on the idea that you are losing shades of color for "normal" photographic subjects. Street photography, landscapes, protraiture all see practically no benefit from a larger gamut space. Although, photos of a canary yellow Ferrari or gaurds red Porsche might. The basic rule of thumb is that if it is seen in nature, sRGB usually does the trick. If it is a man-made synthetic color then AdobeRGB is usually a better bet, though you are output limited in that case.

And I agree that this is not a popular viewpoint. I've worked professionally in digital imaging since 1991. I went through an AdobeRGB phase for a while, but I've come to the point where I've seen zero benefit for my (or my clients) workflow over sRGB. The final proof is in the print, as we say in the lab business. And I haven't seen any proof.

David

Hi David,

Well, that's two of us. <G> Its also so much simpler. Art directors are fine with aRGB files but, for various reasons, I'd much rather send sRGB files to most end clients who are not already pre-press/graphics people. Also, so much of what I do is now intertwined with RR and RR, of course, is viewed in sRGB.

Cheers,

Sean

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by AlanG

I just spent the past two hours comparing images between my NEC 2690 and my older Samsung 213T.

The major thing I noticed is when viewing deep foliage and other shadow detail on the Samsung. My Samsung has a PVA panel and the shadows varied depending on whether I looked at the image straight on or from a slight angle. So if I staired perpendicular to a tree, it seemed darker than if I just shifted my head over two inches and then looked at the same tree from that angle. (I'm about 15-20 inches from the screen.) The Samsung is about a two year old model so I don't know if this is the same on more recent Samsung S-PVA panels. (These newer S-PVA panels should have a better viewing angle.)

The NEC with an IPS panel does not change at all and seems to have more accurate shadow detail. My laptop has a TN panel and the shadow detail doesn't vary that much from slight angles side to side but varies greatlly when the angle of view changes from top to bottom.

As for color, I calibrated my Samsung with an older Monaco Optix device and software. It looked very close to the NEC but was darker. I turned brightness up a bit and the two monitors seemed very close if not exact. I couldn't see any color cast differences and all colors seemed to be almost identical between the two. (Depending on how I held my head when looking at the Samsung.) I looked at a number of greyscale images and they seemed to match also.

Once I got what I thought was a match between the two in calibrated mode, I tried the NEC in factory default sRGB emulation mode and looked at the same sRGB images on both monitors. I couldn't see any color differences so it seems to me that the NEC sRGB emulation is pretty good but a bit brighter than my NEC or Samsung calibrated settings. (I guess this figures because all uncalibrated monitors seem to be set too bright before calibration.)

So my opinion is that the IPS panel in the NEC affords a much more even and therefore a more accurate view of images than does my Samsung. Whether this applies to the Eizos that use Samsung PVA panels, I can't say. And while there may be advantages in using an sRGB monitor for sRGB images, I couldn't spot any differences in fine delicate skin tones between the two. Plus I think if I had to, I could use the NEC 2690 in sRGB emulation mode and get good results once I set some kind of standard and did a few tests.

So I'm happy, but if all you plan to do is adjust sRGB images, then following Sean's (and Dr. Lang's) advice is probably a good way to go. Before buying those Eizos or any S-PVA panel monitor, I'd look at it from various angles closely to make sure the image is very even. (Those of you who own one could say.)

I found the same thing with PVA vs. sIPS panels. I've decided I'm an sIPS guy myself and my 2490 behaves just like your 2690 when viewed off-angle. That is to say, it's still viewable just as a good CRT screen would be.

Cheers,

Sean

[thrid]

Originally Posted by dfarkas

I'd be curious to hear what the results of the test were when the monitors were calibrated to 100 cd2 brightness, not 160 or higher. Our Eizos are calibrated to 100 cd2 so that screen white matches paper white, for photographic printing applications. Offset printing pre-press shops usually calibrate to 80 cd2. Video work is a different beast, where higher brightness and contrast levels are more preferrable. We found that Apple Cinema Displays and Dell Ultrasharp monitors were unable to attain this brightness level. The lowest they would go was about 185 cd2. For printing, this just doesn't give an accurate result.

I haven't personally tried the NEC monitors yet, so I can't speak to their quality. I can say that I prefer the Eizo LCD monitors we are using now to the calibrated Barco CRT monitors from a few years ago. LCD monitors are just so much easier on the eyes and the geometry "adjusting" from CRTs is best forgotten.

David

Unfortunately I can no longer look up such details, because I now work for a different company.

But I do plan on calibrating my NEC Spectraview 2090 to a lower brightness level in the next week or two. I'm getting ready to use the digital bromide pipeline at Metro (Metro Imaging - Homepage) and I assume that they are operating around that brightness level (100cd2). I'll post my findings once I've done this.

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by thrid

Unfortunately I can no longer look up such details, because I now work for a different company.

But I do plan on calibrating my NEC Spectraview 2090 to a lower brightness level in the next week or two. I'm getting ready to use the digital bromide pipeline at Metro (Metro Imaging - Homepage) and I assume that they are operating around that brightness level (100cd2). I'll post my findings once I've done this.

So did your test set include the 2490?

Cheers,

Sean

[thrid]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

So did your test set include the 2490?

Cheers,

Sean

Unfortunately, no. But I would be curious to see how the 2490 fares, if for any reason, because it is bigger than the 2090/2190.

I am very curious about the NEC Spectraview 2690. This looks like an interesting display,

Basically our goal was and is to find a display that offers performance equal to the Sony Artisan CRT. We were hoping that SED panels would solve that problem, but unfortunately it looks like development has stalled, unless Canon decides to move ahead on their own. The next two years should be interesting though, because the push for large OLED panels is on. Apparently this technology offers much greater contrast ratios and does not suffer from viewing angle problems.

[sreidvt]

I would imagine that monitors will keep improving but I have found that sIPS monitors solve the viewing angle problem pretty well. I don't miss my CRTs with this 2490 monitor and, for me, that's saying something.

Cheers,

Sean

[thrid]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

I would imagine that monitors will keep improving but I have found that sIPS monitors solve the viewing angle problem pretty well. I don't miss my CRTs with this 2490 monitor and, for me, that's saying something.

Cheers,

Sean

I guess it depends on what your needs are. For me the Artisan still is the display to beat.

I agree that S-IPS is a big step in the right direction and if the display is primarily intended for an operator, then viewing angle it's not really a deal breaker anymore. But I still move my head to place it directly over the area I am checking, if it is critical. Just to be sure.

My main beef with LCD screens is that they still don't match the contrast ratio of a CRT and you have to drop a truck load of money to get one that covers a wide color gamut.

We've made big strides in this area, but I still encounter situations where I am performing a very subtle color correction and while the numbers are changing on the slider, the change is not showing up visually, because the screen is not capable of reproducing such a subtle adjustment. Shadow detail is also inferior. Among the displays that we tested there was an EIZO that was capable of displaying noticeably more detail in the blacks than all the other screens, but the viewing angle was so narrow that it nullified any advantage it may have had. Obviously this was not a S-IPS panel.

In my experience all of this is less of an issue with print work, though. For such work I think the high-end displays are working well.





+

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by AlanG

Just for information, I first calibrated my 2690 to 100 cd/m2 and it looked excellent. Since then I've standardized on 120. (I work in a pretty bright room.)

I'm at 120 as well on a 2490.

Cheers,

Sean

[sreidvt]

Originally Posted by thrid

I guess it depends on what your needs are. For me the Artisan still is the display to beat.

I agree that S-IPS is a big step in the right direction and if the display is primarily intended for an operator, then viewing angle it's not really a deal breaker anymore. But I still move my head to place it directly over the area I am checking, if it is critical. Just to be sure.

My main beef with LCD screens is that they still don't match the contrast ratio of a CRT and you have to drop a truck load of money to get one that covers a wide color gamut.

We've made big strides in this area, but I still encounter situations where I am performing a very subtle color correction and while the numbers are changing on the slider, the change is not showing up visually, because the screen is not capable of reproducing such a subtle adjustment. Shadow detail is also inferior. Among the displays that we tested there was an EIZO that was capable of displaying noticeably more detail in the blacks than all the other screens, but the viewing angle was so narrow that it nullified any advantage it may have had. Obviously this was not a S-IPS panel.

In my experience all of this is less of an issue with print work, though. For such work I think the high-end displays are working well.

Thrid,

I interviewed Karl Lang for parts of that 2490 review. Karl, as you probably know, was the designer of the Artisan (as well as other high end CRTs). If you get a chance to read it you'll see that Karl is not in favor of wide gamut displays for primary editing monitors. Also, the LCD monitors are capable of displaying a much higher contrast ratio than Karl recommends for proper calibration. Having now experimented with some of his suggestions, I now concur.

I've always loved CRTs too but this 2490 has really changed my opinion of LCDs. No monitor is perfect, of course, but I find it very useable.

What LCD monitor are you using where you can't visibly see those color changes? They're not all equal, as you know.

Cheers,

Sean

[thrid]

Originally Posted by sreidvt

Thrid,
I interviewed Karl Lang for parts of that 2490 review. Karl, as you probably know, was the designer of the Artisan (as well as other high end CRTs). If you get a chance to read it you'll see that Karl is not in favor of wide gamut displays for primary editing monitors. Also, the LCD monitors are capable of displaying a much higher contrast ratio than Karl recommends for proper calibration. Having now experimented with some of his suggestions, I now concur.

Unfortunately I've let my subscription to your site lapse, so I won't be able to read your review.

I've always loved CRTs too but this 2490 has really changed my opinion of LCDs. No monitor is perfect, of course, but I find it very useable.

I recently purchased the NEC Spectraview 2090 and it too has changed my opinion of LCD's for the better. It certainly works perfectly well for print work, like going to a Lightjet etc. I'm running mine around 120cdm2 and the NEC still hits a contrast ratio around 350:1.

What LCD monitor are you using where you can't visibly see those color changes? They're not all equal, as you know.

Some of the older EIZO models with very narrow viewing angle, some LaCie of similar vintage. Also screens from Dell (which contrary to popular opinon are not pro grade) and the current version of the Apple Cinema display (better than the Dell).

The problem mostly occurs in the darkest of shadows, just before you reach absolute black. With many displays there's simply nothing there. We had one EIZO that showed great shadow detail, almost on par with the Artisan, but the viewing angle was so poor that the monent you moved your head everything shifted. All of the cheaper displays, such as those from Dell and even the Apple Cinema had difficulties showing very subtle adjustments across the brightness range.

At my current job we use the EIZO CG241W and it's quite good. The problem is that in addition to the Eizo I have a Artisan CRT, as my second display and you do see quite a difference. The Aritsan has much smoother and richer tonality and the highlight and shadow range shows more detail. Black are also denser, but retain detail. You also have to look a the Eizo straight on to get the most out of it. Both of these monitors are kept in calibration by a trained video engineer, so they are properly adjusted.

[sreidvt]

One of the suggestions Karl makes is that one should use a monitor contrast ratio that comes closer to a print's potential contrast ratio. So, I'm down under 300 now and may make work my way down over time as I get used to lower contrast ratios.

I start that article with a discussion of CRTs, why I like them and why life is getting much harder for photographers who want to use them. So, I fully understand your enthusiasm about the Artisan.

Cheers,

Sean