Apple Cinema Display or Eizo Coloredge 21 inch

[cevincat]

I am going to buy a mac book pro and I want to get a display to go alongside it

for my photo work. What is important to me is to get the best color possible

when looking at it on my monitor at home before sending it off to a print house.

Like anybody else, I want very little discrepancy between the monitor and the

print.

 

I understand that the Eizo may be a better monitor for this, but I really don't

know why. At B&H Photo, the guy told me that the apple monitor is not as

adjustable as the Eizo is when using a color calibration tool such as spyder or

eyeone because it has many fixed variables. Is this true? What are the

differences? While I love the Apple Cinema Display for its design, larger size,

and lower price - I would be willing to invest $1200 in the Eizo Coloredge 21

inch if it meant a better investment for the future. Any help from anybody in

this forum would be greatly appreciated.

[bobmichaels]

Having a through understanding of the color management process and a properly calibrated monitor is about 100 times as important as which monitor you choose.

[michaelkh]

I don't know if the thing about the variables is true, but if that salesman was not just blowing

smoke somewhere, you could always go back and ask him exactly which ones he meant and

then come back here to discuss it:)

[cevincat]

The salesman at BH Photo may have been blowing smoke because it was 15 minutes before they close. They actually have a 'demo center' where they have a whole bunch of monitors and printers where pro photographers can see how printers and monitors work together. He was the main guy there. He said with the apple you couldn't adjust the contrast and temperature.

 

If it helps, my original question to him was about a calibration tool such as spyder or eyeone and he asked me what monitor for and I told him Apple and he said, "Well, the apple and the calibration tools aren't such a great match because the Apple can't take full advantage of everything a calibration tool can adjust such as contrast and temperature." He then said that if I want, the eyeone is a great tool for the apple, although it won't take full advantage of it due to the apple's adjustability limitations. I then asked about getting another monitor such as Eizo and he said that they can take full advantage of the color calibration tools and he would suggest that. Just seeing if anybody here has any thoughts.

[kuryan_thomas]

The B&H salesman was not blowing smoke.

 

The difference between the two monitors is this: the Apple display (which I own) must be

color adjusted in the video card. The Eizo display (which I wish I owned) can be color

adjusted in the monitor itself.

 

By adjusted, what I mean is this: let's say that the color calibration software detects that

your monitor is displaying grays with a very slight red cast. The software needs to turn

down the red.

 

On the Apple monitor, it must do this by loading the video card with a Color Look Up Table

(C-LUT) that slightly tones down the reds. So, while green and blue run from 0 through

255, red might run only from 0 through 250 to compensate for the monitor's red tint.

 

So there's the problem - you've just lost 5 levels of red. The issue is that the video card C-

LUT is only 8 bits, so even slight adjustments of the tones cause a not-insignificant loss of

levels.

 

The Eizo, on the other hand, has a 10-bit C-LUT built right into the monitor itself. So the

8-bit C-LUT can preserve all your video card levels, while the tone compensation is done

by adjusting the 10-bit table in the monitor. 10 bits means 1,024 levels, so the relative

loss of levels is much less than with the 8-bit (255 levels) video card C-LUT.

 

It's not that the Apple display won't show you accurate colors. It can, with the right

software and hardware calibration system. The problem is the loss of tonal range as the

adjustments are made to show you accurate colors. The Eizo has a much smaller loss of

range.

 

If accuracy and wide tonality are essential and you can afford it, the Eizo offers more.

Whether you can see the difference is another thing entirely. I imagine you would on

images with lots of blue sky or skin tones.

 

The Eizo will require a software calibration application that is "DDC compatible" so that the

software can directly adjust the monitor's C-LUT rather than the video card's C-LUT. My

recommendation is ColorEyes Pro from Integrated Color. I use it with their bundled X-Rite

DTP94 colorimeter and it is spectacular on my 23" Apple.

 

Another recommendation: Andrew Rodney's book, "Color Management for Photographers."

 

As an aside: in general, I've found B&H sales staff to be very knowledgeable.

 

Hope this helps.

[kuryan_thomas]

Oh, and indeed, the Apple does not allow contrast adjustment, as the sales person told

you. It also doesn't allow temperature adjustment in the monitor (that's what I was writing

about in my previous post). The adjustment is done (more coarsely than with the Eizo) in

the video card.

[eugene_scherba]

Most of what Obi said seems correct, but just FYI, the contrast

adjustment is completely redundant, even on the Eizo monitor which

allows it. In a properly-performed hardware calibration, contrast

adjustment on an LCD *always* stays at its factory default setting.

[david_lau3]

I went through the same decision process and end up with the Eizo CE240W. What Obi said is right about Apple vs Eizo. Eizo has internal LUT and it comes with its own calibration software. You still need the hardware (I use Spyder II) but no need the software that comes with it. You will use the Eizo software instead.

[patricklavoie]

if that can help your decision; i am a professional photoretoucher, work 40-50 hours a week with CS2, i have a color managed workflow. I work on a MacPro and money was not a problem when i decide to buy a new monitor; eizo or apple? after seing both of them calibrated with a monaco i just couldtn say or understand why i should pay 2x the price of a Apple Cinema display to get visualy the same detail, brigtness and contrast on both screen. i decide to go with 2x23 inch Apple Cinema display for my money and i dont regret it at all...or maybe i should had gone with a 30inch instead : ) Funny things is all the people i know that suggest me to go with a Eizo have Dell, NEC or Samsung screen!? Its like they want me to buy there dream screen that they cant afford, and they all realy happy with the screen they have indeed. So go with what you can buy without losing everything, and buy a calibrator device at the same time, it is realy important.

[saltcod]

2 cents: I have no idea why, but the few people I know in graphics in my area use Lacie's 319 with the hood. Again, I have no idea why, but that's what I've seen out there

[kuryan_thomas]

I don't disagree with anything Patrick has said. I know many professional photographers

who use Apple Cinema Displays. Mine is not so bad that I'm rushing out today to buy an

Eizo. Indeed, calibrated with the ColorEyes software, it is excellent. On very tough images,

such as gray ramps intended to show banding on 8-bit systems, it shows banding. I guess

the same image with the Eizo would be perfectly smooth.

 

My take on this - and it's just my take - is that design professionals might need the highly

accurate color on an Eizo. My wife used to be a graphic designer at an ad agency. Clients

would have very specific requirements about color. Citibank's blue is part of its brand

identity, for example. I don't think photographers require such accuracy.

 

I was watching the latest Luminous Landscape Video Journal. It has an interview with Bill

Atkinson. He was using an Apple display - looked like a 30". Of course, Bill was one of the

developers of the Mac, so I guess he would favor the Apple product anyway!

[godfrey]

I also compared the Eizo 21" and Apple Cinema Display 23", running on Mac OS X. Came to

the conclusion that the ACD23" was in all practical terms identical for my needs doing still

photography.

 

Godfrey

[cevincat]

Thanks for all the responses. This has been really helpful. I think I may go with the Apple 23 inch, because I don't want to spend the extra money and lose 2 inches on the eizo. I also think the Apple will serve my needs fine. Are there any suggestions as far as color calibration software for the Apple Cinema Display? I am getting a mac book pro to go along with it (which has a 256 ati mobility radeon graphics card) as I am always using a laptop out in the field.

[stephen_bay]

"Apple display (which I own) must be color adjusted in the video card"

 

When I calibrated mine it looked like very few adjustments needed to be made to the look up

table (it was already extremely linear). I suspect this is because apple adjusts these at the

factory?

[michael_chini]

My 2 cents:

 

It's been my experience that the Apple displays are good for about a year. After that you may start to see slight shifts in color, a loss of contrast or some vignetting. If you can afford the Eizo, go for it. They are a bit pricey but built to last. They have a 5 year warranty also which says a lot.

[patricklavoie]

i have a 20 inch apple that is around 3 years old, i calibrate it every month because i am a freak for color management, but i never heard or experience any degradation after a year....are you a Eizo saleman? sound like it : )

[kuryan_thomas]

<i>Are there any suggestions as far as color calibration software for the Apple Cinema

Display?</i>

<p>

I recommend <a href="http://www.integrated-color.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?

Screen=PROD&Product_Code=CEDP-94&Category_Code=Display+Calibration">ColorEyes

Display Pro with the X-Rite DTP94</a>. It has worked wonderfully on my 23" Cinema

Display.

[kuryan_thomas]

<i>When I calibrated mine it looked like very few adjustments needed to be made to the

look up table (it was already extremely linear).</i>

<p>

Mine, calibrated with ColorEyes Display Pro, is not. They use "L* gamma" which makes for

smoother gradations and better shadow resolution, so that's part of it. But also green is

boosted and red dropped slightly to compensate for the infamous "pink cast" on my

late-2004/early-2005 model 23". 23" Cinema Displays from that era often show a marked

pink cast on neutrals.

[francois_vagnon]

I have a 23inches Apple cinema display since Nov 2004 (very expensive at that time !) and

I am using a spyder2pro to calibrate it. After calibration, I get a terrible green area all

around the edges of the monitor, when displaying a solid dark grey as background

(whatever computer linked : powerbook 17' or macpro). I suppose it's the best it can do to

fight against the magenta cast ! Calibration still works and show better results than

without, except for the edges of the screen and of course you have to admit that the

britghness is not even all accross the screen, that's the case of a lot of monitors. I get also

(nothing to do with the calibration) a long remanence of of all windows which stay open

for a while. I don't know if Apple has improved this type of monitor, but if I had one to buy

today, I certainly would not buy the same, except if I could get the proof of good results

after a calibration. What I have read concernig the screen of the 24' Imac make me have a

lot of doubts. In shops and showrooms they display spectacular flatterings images, never a

solid grey ! My advice : try to see any monitor after a calibration before you buy.

[robert goldstein]

I had one of the early 23 inch Cinema Displays that had the notorious magenta color cast.

After two repairs by Apple, it became irredeemably pink, and Apple refused to replace or

even service it anymore. This made me angry, but did not stop me from getting one of the

24 inch iMacs. The display is brilliant and very neutral. Unfortunately, it is too bright for

serious photo editing. Even with the brightness control set at its absolute minimum, it does

not get close to 140cd/m2. So I'm probably going to exchange it for a MacPro and another

23 inch CD. I hope this one will be better. How does that saying go? Fool me once....

 

Rob

[Tim_Lookingbill]

The illumination on the sides issue sounds similar to what was

warned about the NEC 1980fxi as apposed to the 1980sxi in a

dpreview forum thread. An NEC employee posted stating that

while both fxi and sxi are S-IPS panels NEC had to use a

separate side backlighting mechanism for the fxi because of its

thin bezel creating uneven illumination and making it unsuitable

for pro imaging.

 

I also read in another forum that the 24" imacs don't have S-IPS

panels but have either Samsung's S-PVA or TN which boasts

bright, high contrast screens with sharp text, deep blacks and

vivid colors. Only the 20" imacs use the S-IPS panels.

 

This is the sad state of affairs I'm afraid with the LCD market and

their manufacturers being up front to customers as to what panel

technology or build change they are offering. That's why on

Samung's website they have in fine print at the bottom stating all

specs are subject to change at a moments notice. I really never

knew what that meant until now.

 

One poster in another thread was told by a Samsung rep that

even though their website's pdf spec says their new 971p model

has S-PVA (a more improved version of PVA) what he bought

had only a PVA panel. It's just Samsung never bothered to

change it in the pdf and it remains unchanged still.

 

I talked to a Viewsonic rep about their G90fb CRT and why

Googling shows this model as G90fb-2, G90fb-3 and G90fb-4

but their website doesn't nor do they include info on the

differences between them. He said after consulting with the

engineers that those are build numbers where they made

changes-(improvements he said) to bandwidth clock, improved

convergence circuitry and dot pitch focus. Very important things

to know before a buy.

 

I asked him why not just include this info on their website. He got

a bit flustered as he said that it would cost too much to have their

engineers post to their website every little tweak and change to

their product lines.

 

They really sound like they're trying to win our business doesn't

it.

[scott_winklebleck]

I just returned my Apple 23" CD due to uneven color and brightness, after enough uptime and a few calibrations the green to pink variation gradient never disappeared. two greyscale images next to each other looked considerably different, even though the guys at the apple store couldn't see any difference.

 

I have an Eizo CE240W on it's way, will run it this weekend and profile on monday.

[jc_campagne]

<p>

I have bought an Apple Display 23" mid-march 2007 and now I'm at my

4th replacement!

</p>

 

<p>

The 1st monitor had 2 problems : the common pink uneven cast and a

solid blue color problem. When the display should show an even solid

blue color, it shows instead an alternance of lighter-blue /

darker-blue (one-pixel column lighter, one-pixel column darker...) !

this is really annoying: one sees a texture when one should see a flat

solid blue... makes your brain glitch!

</p>

 

<p>

Just to make the story short (one can read on the apple discussion

forum:

</p>

 

<p>

<a

href="http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4327870">

apple discussion</a>

</p>

 

<p>

or on

</p>

 

<p>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/jc.campagne/blue/index.html">copy and

pictures here</a>

</p>

 

<p>

<a

href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=291114">initially

reported here</a>

</p>

 

<p>

 

The second monitor had a blinking red sub-pixel in the middle of the

screen, just above the dock. and some hue problem.

</p>

 

<p>

The third screen had the same problem as the first one (uneven solid

blue issue) And the fourth is just about the same as the first and the

third one, even though it is a new screen.

</p>

 

<p>

The 2nd, 3rd replacement screen where refurbished ones! I did buy a

new screen and I hardly used it for 2 weeks, I sent it back to apple

for an exchange and they give me back a old refurbished display...! I

would have mind less if I had used it for 6 months or so but 2

weeks...

</p>

 

<p>

Other people have encountered this problem too... One person on the

forum reported that he had 5 screens like this...!

</p>

 

<p>

I just wrote to the Apple guy to see what can be done about it...

</p>

 

<p>

I wouldn't recommend the 23" apple display. May be the 20" or the 30",

but not the 23"....

</p>

 

<p>

I'll keep you up to date...

<p>

 

</p>

Cheers, JCC

</p>

[patricklavoie]

JC, by curiosity where to you live? maybe is the area that had a bad shipment if you are oversea (pretty rude from Apple to do this) i have 2 23inch display that are calibrated with a device and they look stunning, and alos they are accuratly showing me what my file will look when printed on my epson 4800 or a commercial press (i send stuff to fashion magazine for editorial everyweek)

[robert goldstein]

This is a follow-up to my earlier post. I replaced the 24 inch iMac with a MacPro/23 inch

CD combination. The monitor is spectacular, in my estimation. Illumination is not

completely even across the screen, but he uneveness is so trivial that no one would ever

notice it withought specifically looking for it. The color cast that plagued me with the

earlier CD is but a distant memory. I use ColorEyes for calibration, and am very

pleased with it. However, I

have not compared it to any other products.

 

It is my understanding that the aluminum encased Cinema Displays are on their third

generation and that many of the problems so common in the earlier generations have

been fixed. This certainly squares with my experience.

 

Rob