Monitors

I have looked a litle now. And after reading up and down now and i am more confused now than in the begiinig.
I was thinking about the Dell 2413 but after reading on the web it looks like bad quality control and line problems, coloring in the corner, and the list do not stop.

So i was told that in my price range the http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...36w/index.html or the Nec screens perhaps would be a better choice because they did qulity control.

Have anyone tried the Flexscan? Will it be better than my current Dell 19 widescreen (sold with a home computer) i calibrate it with the x rite 1 one display 2.

And will i be able to make a color profile on the flexscan with my current calibrator?

And another question, whats the main reason for buying a better screen than i currently have, I need to buy a new one because my second one has failed. But is it to be sure that what you see is what you get? And to see colors and tones better?.

What i am asking is what will the difference between my calibrated Dell 19 wide screen and a new flexscan from eizo be both color profiled to windows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teigas

I have looked a litle now. And after reading up and down now and i am more confused now than in the begiinig.
I was thinking about the Dell 2413 but after reading on the web it looks like bad quality control and line problems, coloring in the corner, and the list do not stop.

So i was told that in my price range the http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...36w/index.html or the Nec screens perhaps would be a better choice because they did qulity control.

Have anyone tried the Flexscan? Will it be better than my current Dell 19 widescreen (sold with a home computer) i calibrate it with the x rite 1 one display 2.

And will i be able to make a color profile on the flexscan with my current calibrator?

And another question, whats the main reason for buying a better screen than i currently have, I need to buy a new one because my second one has failed. But is it to be sure that what you see is what you get? And to see colors and tones better?.

What i am asking is what will the difference between my calibrated Dell 19 wide screen and a new flexscan from eizo be both color profiled to windows?

---

You might want to read the conclusions on the 2413 here. As I pointed out earlier it's a reliable site for monitor reviews. If you need to know about it they will mention it. Any other problems will be mentioned in the review.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm

There isn't a review for the smaller Eizo Flexscan for instance but they do test the 27in. You can regard that as a guide to what the smaller ones are like. With Eizo or NEC your likely to get more precise gama throughout the tone range and colour temperature than some others - not that these errors are really significant in practice. For instance the Eizo might calibrate perfectly at 6500K, my Dell seems to prefer 6508K. Does that matter - no.

Going on the review of the EV2736W I'm sure you would be happy with the EV2436. The main aspect of monitors is the panel they use and it seems this range use one form Samsung. Sometimes the descriptions the manufactures supply on this aspect are not accurate which is why this particular site takes a look to see. There are only a very limited number of panel makers and lots of monitor manufacturers / branders. I'm pretty sure that Dell also make monitors with the Samsung panel as well. The review will tell you how accurately the monitors can be calibrated including any catches - chance of over saturated colours on the Eizio 27in for instance. Need you worry about that - doubt it really but as it is mentioned I would wonder.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

I think that the recent improvements are down to having a decent back light that does cover the sRGB gamut rather than just true 8 bit panels. Prior to LED's they had a tendency to fall a little short. Very little where as the aRGB screens had a much wider gamut back light so could easily match sRGB. The old phosphor tube back lights also age which doesn't help. Initially I gained the impression that aRGB screens remained with phosphor lighting but it seems LED's can cover the same gamut now.

John
-

---

Interesting, because what I read seemed to indicate that the TN technology was the root issue in here (and is limited to 6-bit native resolution; 6+2 with dithering) . The LED / phosphor tube change made the difference between 95% AdobeRGB abd 99%+ AdobeRGB, but only when IPS technology was used.

Now if I can only finde where I read this...

I suspect the 6+2 were just cheap screens Manfred. After all people use 8+2 still.

I was initially using a 6+2 screen when I joined this forum. Calibrated by eye and later with a colourimeter. The most difference I noticed when I switch to true 8 bit was more definition in the dark end and I became aware that I had been over sharpening. Probably to get more contrast. The 6+2 was a Belinea. I started using TFT type screens very early on and bought a Belinea. Then went for an Ilyama (spelling?) which failed after about 2 years and then a Belinea again. Both of the Belinea's are still working. Belinea's are cheaper screens but more well known in Europe - by some.

:)I don't use the term LCD - I suspect others that ever actually used early laptop lcd colour screens wouldn't either. Awful in all respects even leaving ghost images for a while when things were moved. TFT were the 1st to fix that and even get rather moderate viewing angles.

Out of interest this is the full long winded report on my Dell U2713HM. It takes over 30 min to do the measurements. It shows things that the usual calibrator software wont show of course.

http://filebin.net/lumnddhzz9

John
-

Calibrating and profiling a cheap monitor is a waste of time, don't fall into this trap!

For photography, you'll need a monitor that can display a large colour gamut; that's Adobe RGB which is bigger than sRGB which was developed in the early days of the internet when monitors were vacuum tubes. In my humble opinion, you would go for Adobe RGB even if you're not printing. Your workflow would be to set Adobe RGB in camera, use Photoshop or whatever with working space set to Adobe RGB or larger and see on your monitor Adobe RGB colour gamut, where you do all your editing, then export in sRGB if all you do is upload to the internet.

A high quality monitor has better, more even, back-lighting, and more importantly colour consistency across the whole screen, hence it is pointless to profile only the centre. I use an Eizo ColorEdge CG243W which I've had some years now. At work, I've just bought a Dell Ultrasharp Pro and that is amazing, very high resolution, large colour gamut, but be careful and make sure you get the part number exactly right, one letter different and you get the cheaper 'ordinary' one.

The biggest mistake I ever made in photography, except perhaps the time I was in Yosemite staring at a wild cat crossing my path instead of taking its picture; was to think my old screen was great because I calibrated it with an i1. Also, when you see an Adobe RGB monitor for yourself, you'll be blown away at the colour and will never use a 'computer screen' again for your photography (unless of course all you do is black & white) ;)

This is the cheap one I use; it has to be calibrated to remove a purple tinge but my prints look the same so I guess it's ok. Maybe it's not the full aRGB but it's pretty close.

http://www.digitalversus.com/lcd-mon...0192/test.html