dag_fosse

<p>There is usually no need to install icc profiles. Some are installed with the operating system, and some more are installed with your image editing software. This has nothing to do with your graphics card.</p> <p>In fact, sRGB is hard-wired into Windows. If you delete it, it will bounce right back on next restart. All these profiles are held in an operating system directory, available for any application that can make use of them (not all can).</p> <p>An image file can have one of these profiles embedded, and that defines the colors in the file. If there is no profile embedded, on can be assigned in, say, Photoshop. This would most often be sRGB, because sRGB was made specifically to describe the behavior of a non-color managed system (technically, the native response of a "standard" or "average" monitor).</p> <p>In short - if you want the file to display (roughly) correctly in <em><strong>any</strong></em> scenario, always use sRGB. If the file has any other profile embedded than sRGB, <strong>convert</strong> to sRGB. The software should have an option for this (don't know what you're using).</p> <p> </p>

<p>Well, a PA272 is an equally good monitor, so you can obviously do that (although, having used both, I do think ColorNavigator is a better and more thought-out piece of software than Spectraview II).</p> <p>Eizo's return policies and warranties for the Coloredge models are generally regarded as the best you'll find anywhere. Not that I ever had to take advantage of it. A unit with this many defects has to be a rarity, I've never before heard of it.</p> <p>If this was me, I'd just pay shipment and think nothing more of it. Very few other manufacturers would immediately agree to replace the unit in the first place.</p>

<p>The DTP94 is known to not work well on wide gamut displays, unless a special correction matrix is applied in the software. At the time of the CG19, the DTP was the best sensor available and this correction matrix Eizo's only option.</p> <p>I wouldn't worry about the EX2.</p> <p>As for the edge shadow, this is more serious than it sounds, because of the built-in maintenance sensor in the CX. This is positioned right up on the panel edge, and the whole construction relies on perfect panel uniformity. So this is a clear defect and something Eizo must take seriously.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Return it ASAP. If this is as bad as it sounds, Eizo will replace it no questions asked.</p> <p>The panel should be perfectly uniform all the way from corner to corner and IIRC there is a full dead pixel warranty on Color Edges. One is one too many.</p>

<p>I don't think you'll notice any big difference in pixel pitch. These are all within the same order of magnitude, you'll probably just lean a little bit closer. A true 4K / UHD screen, however, would be a different story, but none of these are.</p> <p>I haven't thought much about screen size. I'm comfortable with 24 and don't feel the need for anything bigger. At the moment I'm holding out on 4K. I'm sure it's the future, but I'm in no hurry. Actually I like to be able to get really close at 100% view, which you don't on 4K.</p>

<p>The Eizo sensors are rebranded Spyders, and given the bad reputation the Spyders have for poor accuracy and consistency (probably justified), some people are concerned that the EX sensors aren't quite up to the standards of the monitor. I don't think they need to worry.</p> <p>I've used a number of sensors over the years, including a couple of Spyders, a couple of Eizo EXs, and the i1 Display Pro that I now use for the CX240. For the CG I use the internal sensor, correlated to match the i1D3 (yes, you can do that).</p> <p>My experience is that the Spyders are...not all over the place, exactly, but not entirely consistent either. But the Eizo sensors have always been spot on with perfect inter-unit match. Clearly they have been made to tighter specs and with much better quality control.</p> <p>One of my co-workers, a graphic designer with whom I work very closely, just got a CS240 with EX2 sensor - somewhat by mistake; the plan was for her to borrow my i1D3 until she got her own. But now that she has the EX, there's clearly no need. It performs splendidly and matches the i1 perfectly.</p> <p>Still, the i1 does have some inherent advantages and that's why I use it. For one thing it has dichroic glass filters, not plastic, so there's no risk of fading. It's also constructed with a lens and a long light path, which at least in theory should make it much less vulnerable to stray light or the infamous "IPS off-angle white glow". The latter, BTW, is eliminated completely in the Eizos with a polarizing film. Black is dead black even from a steep angle.</p>

<p>Actually the EX sensor works with both Easypix and Colornavigator. But you specifically said Easypix in your initial post, so I assumed you were referring to the software and not the sensor.</p> <p>Sorry for the confusion. So to confirm - yes, go ahead and get ColorNavigator and the EX-2 sensor!</p>

<p>The price difference between Eizo and NEC is a long-lived myth. </p> <p>You cannot directly compare NEC PA242 with Eizo CG247. The corresponding Eizo model is the CX241 - and they cost roughly the same everywhere. In the US, NEC has chosen to not market corresponding models to CG - but in Europe there is the "Spectraview Reference" line, at exactly the price of Eizo CG.</p> <p>The CG series has a lot of extras that a photographer may not need: Support for broadcast standards and other video related features, a hood, and an integrated calibration sensor. It also has a 3D LUT (which the NEC also has) - but aside from that CX and CG are identical. Panel technologies are the same. I have a CG246 and a CX240, and I can attest that in practical use for photography, the two behave absolutely identically.</p> <p>Kat, don't even consider the edition with EasyPix calibrator. Get ColorNavigator. EasyPix is fine for what it does (a simple fool-proof calibrator for people who don't really want to be bothered with calibration), but it has only a fraction of ColorNavigator's power and versatility.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Just to clear up a couple of points in the above:<br> <br /> IE is halfway color managed, but not where it matters: the monitor profile. It does not convert to the actual monitor profile for display, but instead substitutes sRGB. This means that it will never, under any circumstances, display correctly on a wide gamut monitor. Nor a standard gamut monitor for that matter, but there the difference is less dramatic.<br> <br /> Firefox is fully color managed and does use the monitor profile, but only on the primary display. If Firefox is moved to the secondary display, it still uses the profile for the primary, and so displays incorrectly.<br> <br /> All this assuming embedded sRGB profile. Untagged images get slightly more complicated (only Firefox and Safari can handle that correctly by assigning sRGB, so that the conversion into monitor profile can operate normally).</p>

<p>+1</p> <p>"Some slight color shifting" turns it into a doorstop. End of story.</p>

<p>Dump it. The Spyder2 was never any good and is completely useless with modern LED (and wide gamut) displays. I happen to still have one but wouldn't give it away for free - it would just give display calibration a bad name.<br> <br />Spyder3 is a different story, it was vastly better.</p>

<p>Eizo CS240 at £569, ColorNavigator included. Best deal on the market.</p> <p>http://www.nativedigital.com/eizo-coloredge-cs240-24-inch-ips-display-with-colornavigator/</p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't see why you would want 63 patches nailed through multiple passes - with all the irregularities in the panel's native response I'd be very surprised if you don't end up with serious banding. If you're going down that road, you'd need exactly 256 patches, and they'd all have to be dead on.</p> <p>This can't be necessary. ColorNavigator measures the primaries a couple of times, and about 12 grayscale patches in the lower end of the scale. That's it - done in 5 minutes. Of course it's reasonably well adjusted from the factory, but still.</p> <p>I imagine you want as few patches as possible to get smooth curves without sharp transitions.</p>

<p>While masks have the same bit depth as the document, selections are always 8 bit. So if you are basing your adjustments on selections, you'll very likely see banding. Especially in the shadows, where ProPhoto is very compressed compared to ARGB or sRGB.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you "just" need the Spyder for the device itself, you could consider the Sypder Express</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd be a bit careful about the Spyder Express edition. I don't have any solid data to back this up with, but my theory is that they use the express edition to dump units that don't meet strict tolerances.</p> <p>I have privately tested a Spyder 3 express, a Spyder 3 pro, and an Eizo EX-1 sensor (which is a rebranded Spyder 3), all against the i1 Display Pro. Of these, the EX-1 was indistinguishable from the i1, the pro almost - but the express was distinctly off with a definite red/magenta cast and some other peculiarities.</p> <p>One important difference is that the Spyder uses ordinary plastic filters, while the i1 uses dichroic glass filters that don't fade. It's also constructed in a way that should make it less vulnerable to stray light, off-angle effects and so on. This should (at least in theory) make it more accurate particularly in the blacks.</p>