NEC P221W screen

[homer_arment1]

<p>Could one of you proud owners of this monitor tell me if it has a glossy or mat screen. I am seriously considering purchasing one but can't find one locally to look. If it has a glossy screen I am not very interested in it. </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Its not glossy. </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Its not glossy. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Its Matte.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>Thanks all. You have been a big help to me.</p>

<p>HLA</p>

[jack_landry]

<p>The P221W is on my wish list. There is a very interesting article by David Brooks in the feb 2010 Stutterbug Magazine about this monitor and it's proprietary calibration tool, the NEC SpectraViewII Color System. Here is the conclusion:<br>

Conclusions & Recommendations<br /> My work over the last few years has <br /> involved a lot about displays, and a good <br /> portion of the e-mails I receive from <br /> photographers includes questions about <br /> what displays to get or how to fix one to <br /> make it work. That is consistent with my <br /> belief that you can only control and work <br /> with what you can see, and if you can’t <br /> see everything in a photographic image <br /> file, then your results might be a little <br /> off, or out of the park. My experience <br /> with NEC’s new SpectraView II and their <br /> very affordable MultiSync P221W 22” <br /> LCD display was very positive and I can <br /> recommend it as a very good solution. <br /> True, you can spend more and get a little <br /> more, but you can’t get an all-around, <br /> easy, good, high-quality performance in <br /> digital photographic image reproduction <br /> for less. This NEC package of display, <br /> software, and colorimeter is definitely <br /> professional-level quality in every <br /> dimension, while at the same time being <br /> easy to install, set up, and use effectively <br /> and efficiently.<br /> I do, however, disagree with NEC <br /> about their recommended white <br /> luminance aim point; 140.0 CD/m2 is <br /> bright and will result in too-dark <br /> color-managed print output. The only <br /> other concern one might have is that <br /> although SpectraView II will work with at <br /> least 27 different NEC display models, it <br /> is a proprietary system and will not work <br /> with other makes of LCD displays. If you <br /> choose NEC and X-Rite with SpectraView <br /> II, you have joined a family that is <br /> somewhat exclusive, but definitely good <br /> company to keep.<br /> For more information, contact NEC <br /> Display Solutions of America at:</p>

 

<p><a onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" href="http://www.necdisplay.com/" >www.necdisplay.com</a></p>

 

<p>.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>Thanks for the extra info Jack. I remember that David Brooks was pleased with the P221 but I didn't remember the actual article. I opted to go with the monitor without Spectraview. I already have I1's hockey puck and I will download the Spectraview II software when the monitor gets here. I just wonder if my wife is going to want one for computer after she sees mine.</p>

<p>HLA</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I do, however, disagree with NEC <br />about their recommended white <br />luminance aim point; 140.0 CD/m2 is <br />bright and will result in too-dark <br />color-managed print output. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hum... I set my SpectraView’s for 150 cd/m2 and they match just fine (http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg) </p>

<p>ANY recommendation for luminance without first specifying the viewing conditions is putting the cart before the horse. </p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>I've had one for 7 months now and it works great. Profiling with SpectraView is a piece of cake and takes only about five minutes. Andrew is correct about the need to carefully assess your viewing conditions. Mine are a little different and I need to set my white point to 115 because of my viewing conditions. It takes a bit of work to get things right but the prints match the screen which is what counts.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>What's going on in the calculation for luminance that would yield such a wide difference in the numbers of 95 cd/m2 on the CRT and 150 cd/m2 for the LCD but still give identical looking results as shown in your linked jpg?</p>

<p>What are they basing luminance on with these extreme number differences?</p>

<p>Also is the Solux lamp on in that sample shot?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What are they basing luminance on with these extreme number differences?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beats me. </p>

<p>I use the Solux too (I prefer it) but you have to control the distance to control the luminance which isn’t ideal but doable. In this shot, the lamp is not on. </p>