New monitor: Eizo CG241 W or CE240W

[GMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I need a new monitor for my Mac Pro and I am hesitating between the Eizo CG241W or the Eizo CE240W. The CG241 is about 500 Euros more than the CE and I heard conflicting views as to whether it is worth the extra money. Any leads appreciated. Thanks.

 

Georg

[marknorton]

It's said there are 30" versions of the display coming; I use their "cooking" 30" (SX3031W) and it's great.

[GMB]

Correct. They have a 30" CG301W on offer but it's almost 4,000 Euros. The SX3031W is still some 2,500 Euros and thus 700 more that the CG241W.

 

My understanding that the color graphics (i.e., the CG and CE) are better as far as calibration is concerned than the "normal" monitors but don't know how important that is in practice. I am strictly amateur.

[AlanG]

You might want to read this thread and possibly ask some people over there.

 

Luminous Landscape Forum -> Eizo or NEC

[Jamie Roberts]

Correct. They have a 30" CG301W on offer but it's almost 4,000 Euros. The SX3031W is still some 2,500 Euros and thus 700 more that the CG241W.

 

My understanding that the color graphics (i.e., the CG and CE) are better as far as calibration is concerned than the "normal" monitors but don't know how important that is in practice. I am strictly amateur.

 

The CG series have a different LookUp Table (LUT) which, IIRC, ensures you get exceptional shadow response without banding on the Eizos.

 

All I can say is if you're an amateur looking for a monitor the Eizo CG might be overkill--the way a Sony Artisan would be If you look at it all day, though, the CG series are fabulous (I use a CG 19 all the time, and it's the only one I've seen whose off-axis response and smoothness are close to the old Sony analog standard. Of course, there's a tradeoff between size and price in my case, and the newer Eizo CGs are cheaper than they used to be, if you can believe that ).

[sean_reid]

To add another option into the mix... I'm now using an NEC 2490 Spectra View with my Mac Pro and it is excellent.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gesper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the CE210W which should be similar to the 240 and I love it. I too am totally amateur and decided not to pay the extra for the CG.

[fjmcsu]

To add another option into the mix... I'm now using an NEC 2490 Spectra View with my Mac Pro and it is excellent.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Use it too,with Mac & couldn't be happier & the price is right.

[dfarkas]

The CE uses a 10-bit LUT with 14-bit precision, while the CG uses a 12-bit LUT with 16-bit precision. Both are hardware calibrated, which is MUCH better than software cal. The CG comes with a monitor hood, which is $200 extra for the CE. This might seem minor, but the hood helps tremendously. The CG also rotates to portrait mode which can be a great benefit to studio portraiture (mostly verticals). Both are great monitors. If you can spring for the extra $400-500 (counting hood in my calculation), go for the CG241W.

 

You can check out tech specs on my site:

 

Graphics Monitors - Dale Photo & Digital

 

BTW, we have the new 30" CG301W listed as well.

 

David

[GMB]

Thanks. That's very useful information, in particular as I wanted to get the hood.

 

The NEC may be good but I can't find a dealer who has them. Their Belgian distributor does not answer emails. And I have an Eizo dealer just around the corner. They even deliver and do the first calibration. So I think I'll go for the Eizo CG241W.

 

As one of my friends said, life is too short not the have enough RAM. Guess the same applies to screens (and many other things.....).

[gesper]

Thanks. That's very useful information, in particular as I wanted to get the hood.

 

.

 

I made my own hood out of black foam board lined with non-reflective paper I got from Edmund Scientific's web site. I downloaded the instructions for Eizo's hood from their website and it had the exact dimensions. Very easy to make and it actually doesn't look too bad.

[R10dreamer]

I have the CG241. Bought it about two months ago. It is an excellent monitor color wise but my old Cinema was sharper. The sharpness isn't a really big deal but I defnitely noticed the difference immediately when I plugged it in. Then used the two monitors side by side and the difference was obvious. HOWEVER, the color difference was obvious to (in favor of the CG241) so this for that. All in all, I am happy I bought it but honestly I am not sure that it is worth the extra bucks.

[Jamie Roberts]

I have the CG241. Bought it about two months ago. It is an excellent monitor color wise but my old Cinema was sharper. The sharpness isn't a really big deal but I defnitely noticed the difference immediately when I plugged it in. Then used the two monitors side by side and the difference was obvious. HOWEVER, the color difference was obvious to (in favor of the CG241) so this for that. All in all, I am happy I bought it but honestly I am not sure that it is worth the extra bucks.

 

The Apple was truly sharper? Interesting. I'd be getting the Eizo fixed then or I'd check your video card for native resolution--there's no way an Apple display is any sharper than an Eizo!

 

Or did your Cinema display have a high-gloss coating (and so would have more contrast, but also more glare)?

[thrid]

At work we recently went through our 3rd round of a massive benchmarking of LCD monitors. The screens were evaluated both by technical means (calibrators etc) and visual comparison in a highly controlled and repeatable process, so the results were quite accurate. Our benchmark was the Sony Artisan, which was the best CRT this side of a $20,000 broadcast monitor.

 

We tested everything from cheap consumer grade units to some examples that retailed for nearly $10,000 dollars.

 

In the end all units failed to match the performance of the Sony Artisan, but the NEC Spectraview 2090 and 2190 came out on top. Some of the more exotic and vastly more expensive LCD units performed better than both of these models (showing slightly better shadow detail and somewhat greater color gamut), but this performance advantage came at a huge jump in cost. Both of these NEC units offered the best price / performance ratio and excellent visual performance.

 

The NEC units won, because they had the best (widest) viewing angle, very even illumination and color across the screen and good contrast ratios. The 2090 delivers a true 700:1, which drops to about 415:1 @ 160 cd/m2 once the unit has been calibrated. Another big advantage of the NEC units is that all aspects of their hardware can be controlled via the Spectraview Profiler (calibration) software, which allows you to extract the maximum performance from the display.

 

Certain Samsung units and the metal bodied Apple Cinema Display also did quite well.

 

The EIZO screens performed very well, with many units showing exceptionally good shadow detail, but the viewing angle on many of their models was quite narrow, which made it very difficult to know exactly what you were looking at. You had to spend a lot more money to get an EIZO that would match or beat the two NEC models and even then the performance difference wasn't that great.

 

So, would recommend the NEC Spectraview 2090 and 2190. Personally I went with the 2090 (higher contrast ratio than 2190), Spectraview Profiler and x-rite calibrator.

 

Some people may complain that these units are not widescreen and top out around 1600x1200, but if you are doing color critical work, accuracy should be your paramount concern. You can always get a cheap second display, if you need more screen real estate.

[sreidvt]

At work we recently went through our 3rd round of a massive benchmarking of LCD monitors. The screens were evaluated both by technical means (calibrators etc) and visual comparison in a highly controlled and repeatable process, so the results were quite accurate. Our benchmark was the Sony Artisan, which was the best CRT this side of a $20,000 broadcast monitor.

 

We tested everything from cheap consumer grade units to some examples that retailed for nearly $10,000 dollars.

 

In the end all units failed to match the performance of the Sony Artisan, but the NEC Spectraview 2090 and 2190 came out on top. Some of the more exotic and vastly more expensive LCD units performed better than both of these models (showing slightly better shadow detail and somewhat greater color gamut), but this performance advantage came at a huge jump in cost. Both of these NEC units offered the best price / performance ratio and excellent visual performance.

 

The NEC units won, because they had the best (widest) viewing angle, very even illumination and color across the screen and good contrast ratios. The 2090 delivers a true 700:1, which drops to about 415:1 @ 160 cd/m2 once the unit has been calibrated. Another big advantage of the NEC units is that all aspects of their hardware can be controlled via the Spectraview Profiler (calibration) software, which allows you to extract the maximum performance from the display.

 

Certain Samsung units and the metal bodied Apple Cinema Display also did quite well.

 

The EIZO screens performed very well, with many units showing exceptionally good shadow detail, but the viewing angle on many of their models was quite narrow, which made it very difficult to know exactly what you were looking at. You had to spend a lot more money to get an EIZO that would match or beat the two NEC models and even then the performance difference wasn't that great.

 

So, would recommend the NEC Spectraview 2090 and 2190. Personally I went with the 2090 (higher contrast ratio than 2190), Spectraview Profiler and x-rite calibrator.

 

Some people may complain that these units are not widescreen and top out around 1600x1200, but if you are doing color critical work, accuracy should be your paramount concern. You can always get a cheap second display, if you need more screen real estate.

 

Hi Thrid,

 

That's very interesting. Were the NEC 2490 and 2690 in the test set? What I've found particularly impressive about the 2490, for my work, is that it displays B&W pictures better than any other LCD I've seen. I've also found the Spectraview system to be a pleasure to work with.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[AlanG]

I have the 2690 and am very impresssed and pleased with it.

 

Keep in mind that the NEC2090 and NEC 2190 are sRGB displays - 69% of Adobe gamut whereas the NEC 2690 covers 93% of the Adobe gamut. The 2690 also has an uncalibrated sRGB mode which I found convenient when using software that is not color managed.

 

If you get one of the wide gamut NEC models, keep in mind when calibrating that there is a setting in the Spectraview II software to use "Factory Preset" colors instead of having the sensor measure the screen colors. Apparently the sensor can not accurately measure the wider gamut. I had to read the manual pretty carefully to see this as there was no label on the sensor or monitor. My first inclination was just to run the software in default modes.

 

I think the eveness and wide screen viewing may be somewhat due to the use of S-IPS panels in some of the NECs. Whereas most other monitors use PVA panels. The NEC LCD2190UXi is an S-IPS whereas the NEC LCD2190UXp, Eizo DG241W and the Eizo CE240W use Samsung PVA panels which is fairly common in many other monitors.

 

Here are a few sites that I found in my monitor research:

 

TFT Central - LCD Monitor Information, Reviews, Guides and News

 

Face to Face : cameras, printers, ... - DigitalVersus

 

PRAD | Review NEC LCD2690WUXi

[sreidvt]

Hi Alan,

 

The 2490 is also sRGB which is, actually, why I chose it instead of the 2690 for my own work. Depending on one's workflow, uses, etc. an sRGB monitor is sometimes preferable (which seem counter-intuitive, I know). Karl Lang, designer of the Sony Artisan and many other high end monitors had this to say in a much quoted post (which apparently first appeared on a Better Light forum):

 

Karl Lang on LCD displays - Digital Outback Photo

 

I've contacted Mr. Lang for an interview as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[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

[AlanG]

Hi Alan,

 

The 2490 is also sRGB which is, actually, why I chose it instead of the 2690 for my own work. Depending on one's workflow, uses, etc. an sRGB monitor is sometimes preferable (which seem counter-intuitive, I know). Karl Lang, designer of the Sony Artisan and many other high end monitors had this to say in a much quoted post (which apparently first appeared on a Better Light forum):

 

Karl Lang on LCD displays - Digital Outback Photo

 

I've contacted Mr. Lang for an interview as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

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...

 

 

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.)