Which monitor to get?

[leo s.]

<p>My old iilyama Vision Master Pro CRT finally decided to stop working today, so I need a new monitor for photo editing. Can anyone recommend a replacement? 19 inches is the minimum screen size I'm after, and I'd prefer a monitor that's not too expensive although I don't have an upper limit as such.<br>

<br />TIA Leo</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You will probably get a ton of answers for this, but for me, I narrowed it down to an NEC P221W which is probably obsolete by now. Very nice and accurate Monitor.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Hard to beat the SpectraView line from NEC.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Thanks for the recommendations Harry and Andrew. I just had a look, and the NECs although they look very nice, are a little too pricey for me.<br>

<br />I've also had a look for recommendations in older threads on this forum, and so far found two possibilities - ASUS PA249Q and Dell UltraSharp U2410.</p>

<p>The ASUS seems better value than the NEC range, but it's still a little expensive, so I might go for the Dell if I can find one.</p>

<p>Please do keep the recommendations coming. </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~topic=ultrasharp_monitor<br>

U2412M is the current model. 9 months ago they had a U2312M which is what I got through Amazon.<br>

I switched from Sony flat screen monitor(s). I've done little photo editing since purchasing it, looks as good as the Sony in other respects.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Thanks for the info Charles. Is the reason you've done little photo editing since to do with the monitor quality?</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>Is the reason you've done little photo editing since to do with the monitor quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>NO. Economic, cannot afford an Epson 3880. The 2200 is good, but...</p>

<p>P.S.<br>

You will need good monitor calibration with any LED monitor that does not have it built in.<br>

Spyder Express 4 is marginal but you can get by with it.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I believe the U2413 a 10-bit panel (8 bits plus FRC) is the replacement for the U2410; the U2412M was a budget 8-bit panel (6 bits plus FRC) while the U2410 was a 10-bit (8 bits plus FRC) panel.<br /> You may be interested in this review:</p>

<p>http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm</p>

<p>The U2413 is about $470 from Dell</p>

<p>http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-9567&baynote_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch</p>

<p>I have been using the U2410 for 4-years; it is a great monitor. I would not hesitate to get the U2413 if I needed a replacement. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I bought a Dell2410 a couple of years or so back and I've been happy with it. Issue is though that like most people I have experience only with the monitors I buy, not those I reject so I couldn't say that it is as good as (for example) a NEC Spectraview or not.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I just had a look, and the NECs although they look very nice, are a little too pricey for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You get what you pay for <g><br /> Seriously, if the accuracy and control to gain that from a display (make my display closely match my print) is important, the SpectraView system and similar albeit more expensive solutions from Eizo can't be beat by any of the displays mentioned here. A true reference display system cost more than just a display. If you want to know why, I'd be happy to explain.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Another vote for Dell U2410. I have two of them that that flank the 27" version. Great monitors. And cheap on CL now as well.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>Thank you all for the responses.</p>

<p>Does anyone know if the Dell UltraSharp U2414H is an acceptable monitor? I've found one for a good price.<br /></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know if the Dell UltraSharp U2414H is an acceptable monitor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using what test processes and analysis? Anyone can come here and say "<em>this display is great</em>" but based on what testing, compared to what other displays, with what functionality? <br /> For me, none of the displays expect Eizo and SpectraView are acceptable. That's why I've got several SpectraViews and before that, Sony Artisan, Barco, PressView. In the day, a good Barco was $5000 for a 21" CRT! <br /> My MacBook Retina display is great. Is it a reference display and would I use it for color critical editing? <strong>Never</strong>. <br /> Unless they are broken, all displays do the same thing. How they do it and the result of what is emitting from the display varies hugely. Yes, vote for U2410 because it emits color. Otherwise, what are the goals you wish to achieve using the display? Wide gamut or not? How well can it be calibrated to match a print (do you even care to do that)?<br>

<br /> Q: I want to buy an automobile.<br /> A: My first car was a 1971 AMC Hornet. It worked, and cheap!</p>

<p>See what I mean. Pointless.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>How they do it and the result of what is emitting from the display varies hugely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you show us just how hugely that is? I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays. If you can't show us, can you describe in words what to watch out for in defining the level of huge difference that would prevent a photographer from being able to get a screen to print match or even judge color editing on such a hugely different display quite different from an NEC or Eizo? </p>

<p>I mean anyone can come here and say this display is hugely off compared to the best of displays. That information doesn't help anyone make an informed purchase.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I mean anyone can come here and say this display is hugely off compared to the best of displays. That information doesn't help anyone make an informed purchase.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed and that's sums up the entire set of posts here. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you show us just how hugely that is?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I could but you're a smart fellow so imagine the difference calibrating a display for 150:1 contrast ratio because you're soft proofing news print compared to the same display set for 300:1 for glossy Epson prints. Think you'd see a visual difference in the two targets? Can you even adjust black separately with the other displays here internally in the panel? You can with Eizo and SpectraView. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Viewed how? From memory or having a half dozen all getting the same RGB signal sitting in front of you, much as we see shopping for TV's? You think there's a difference? All the various displays are close but all those TV's are different due to what? No, I suspect they are all quite different and that's why we calibrate them in the first place. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can't show us, can you describe in words what to watch out for in defining the level of huge difference that would prevent a photographer from being able to get a screen to print match or even judge color editing on such a hugely different display quite different from an NEC or Eizo?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, I can describe what a smart reference display system can do that other's can't, for example those by Apple (who folks seem to think produce such wonderful displays):</p>

<ol>

<li>Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's are not (sRGB like gamut).</li>

<li> SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, Apple and many other's do not. These high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.</li>

<li> Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run far longer than CCFL.</li>

<li>SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty, Apple has 1 year. </li>

<li>SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter). </li>

<li>SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compensation for operating time and temperature. Apple does not. </li>

<li>SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this. </li>

<li>SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: </li>

<li><em>SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all of the necessary settings are made by the software. </em>Apple has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you have to pay for extra do this.</li>

<li>SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration, Apple doesn't. The price you pay for software and colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly <strong>less</strong> than buying the hardware and software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.</li>

<li>SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration. Apple has nothing like this. </li>

<li>SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly so it can simulate a non wide gamut display (sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)</li>

<li>SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, Apple and few others provide this. Real useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers). </li>

<li>SpectraView has Network support (Windows only). Apple doesn't.</li>

<li>SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake. Apple doesn't. </li>

<li>SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90 degrees for Portrait. Apple doesn't provide this. </li>

<li>Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture). Apple has nothing like this. </li>

</ol>

 

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're correct, Tim. If all three were running side by side, I doubt anyone could point out which is the NEC, Eizo, or Dell.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You're correct, Tim. If all three were running side by side, <strong>I doubt</strong> anyone could point out which is the NEC, Eizo, or Dell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're both correct because you did indeed put those three (or any three differing displays) side by side and viewed the results and further asked people to pick which is which <strong>or</strong> you're making assumptions? And if the three are not all wide gamut displays, calibrated to produce a match (if that's possible), you are still sure both statements can be backed up or again, more assumptions? <br>

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Eric, where's your evidence? </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So there's no "huge difference" in calibrated displays. I assumed that's what that statement was referring. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well I could but you're a smart fellow so imagine the difference calibrating a display for 150:1 contrast ratio because you're soft proofing news print compared to the same display set for 300:1 for glossy Epson prints. Think you'd see a visual difference in the two targets? Can you even adjust black separately with the other displays here internally in the panel? You can with Eizo and SpectraView.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're having to custom tweak a display's mismatch in dynamics to low grade output such as newsprint, isn't that pretty much bending the ruler to fit the measure because the high end display is now being forced to show a "huge difference" between it and low end printing. I mean how many photographers including the OP here at PN are concerned with that level of precision or commercial press ISO standard fussyness? </p>

<p>The rest of what you've indicated is pretty much a features list that still doesn't help a photographer see whether it's useful for their purposes clearly enough to spend the extra money on the higher end display.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>If you're having to custom tweak a display's mismatch in dynamics to low grade output such as newsprint, isn't that pretty much bending the ruler to fit the measure because the high end display is now being forced to show a "huge difference" between it and low end printing. I mean how many photographers including the OP here at PN are concerned with that level of precision or commercial press ISO standard fussyness?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're missing the point and the functionality. Is an accurate soft proof, <strong>one that matches closely to the print important to you or not?</strong> It is to me. VERY important. And printing to an Epson on matt paper versus glossy requires a different contrast ratio for a good match unless you're OK with all that work being done via the profile and the <em>Simulate Paper White</em> (better known as the 'make my image look like crap' button). It doesn't look like crap when you actually calibrate the display for the output! Control over contrast ratio is as important for a screen to print match is white point and backlight intensity. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The rest of what you've indicated is pretty much a features list that still doesn't help a photographer see whether it's useful for their purposes clearly enough to spend the extra money on the higher end display.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably if you have no idea what the technology provides. So let's look at ColorComp. You know what purity over the display is, again, you're a smart fellow. Have you ever looked at a SpectraView with and without that feature on? Do you feel poor color purity across a big 27" or 30" display is good for image editing? I don't. And I can explain all the bullet points if you or other's don't understand what they do. <br>

<br>

There are high end, high quality reference display systems that cost more than an off the shelf display, most being discussed here. They both emit the image to the user but how the data is emitted, how the system is calibrated, how pure the image is across the screen, how many bits are used and where, is very important to many people who take the time to understand the technology and the costs. <strong>If you don't care, just buy any display.</strong> High quality reference display systems in the digital darkroom are not new, I was using a 17" Radius PressView in the early 90s. They've always been expensive but, for many, the most critical piece of equipment in the digital darkroom is the display, not the CPU, OS or amount of RAM. After all, the only reality yoyu have for the RGB numbers you edit is that display. <br>

<br>

Would you buy the best camera system you could and put a cheap lens on it? I wouldn't. But I understand a little bit about camera systems, lens system and in the context of this post, display technology. But heck, if you want people to say "<em>I own this display and it's good"</em> but provide <strong>zero</strong> basis on how they came to that conclusion then suggest specifying what a high end display can do isn't understandable or pertinent to photographers is a good and lazy way to ignore the subject. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To the OP: got the Dell U2412M, calibrated with a Spyder 4, and very happy with it. I couldn't be bothered to read the overly long posts above this one, so maybe I disturb something massively interesting (though I sincerely doubt that).<br>

Sure, the higher end displays do something better, and I know this U2412M isn't the top of the heap. I can only compare it to cheaper LCDs Ive had before, and it is heaps better and not that much more expensive. So, in my view, at its price, it's a solid choice. Main thing is making sure you get an IPS panel, and calibrate it.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> I couldn't be bothered to read the overly long posts above this one, so maybe I disturb something massively interesting (though I sincerely doubt that).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ignorance IS bliss? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can only compare it to cheaper LCDs Ive had before, and it is heaps better...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared how and better how? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Main thing is making sure you get an IPS panel, and calibrate it.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed however, how one <strong>can</strong> calibrate a display varies considerably. Not all instruments are on the same playing field, and the software that can (or in your case cannot control the display) is significant. But if all the OP wants is a very simple answer, as some here suggest, just buy any ISP panel, there are (?) all the same. </p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If you don't care, just buy any display.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You haven't shown to me or anyone else what to care for except what looks like a lot more work than what it's worth. All these custom features in order to have the bleeding edge in accurate Soft Proofing for a print that may or may not see the light of day if not in some ratty looking low lit bar or maybe by a handful of folks who are already too busy looking at their own photos or the trillions of other images online. <strong><br /></strong></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You haven't shown to me or anyone else what to care for except what looks like a lot more work than what it's worth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I've only failed to show <strong>you</strong>, unless you're quite comfortable speaking for <strong>everyone</strong> else. <br>

Meantime, questions I've addressed to you go unanswered. Want to be fair Tim*? <br>

What do you not yet understand about the importance of purity over the entire display Tim? I can address other advantages of the system I'm recommending once you can understand one simple advantage of the electronics I've specified. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>All these custom features in order to have the bleeding edge in accurate Soft Proofing for a print that may or may not see the light of day if not in some ratty looking low lit bar or maybe by a handful of folks who are already too busy looking at their own photos or the trillions of other images online.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, they are cutting edge for soft proofing which for some of us is important! Hence asking the OP what he hopes to gain from the new technology. Further, I can't fathom how anyone would buy old technology these days; a non wide gamut display. As such, having sRGB emulation is kind of important if you're viewing those images on the web you speak of. But since the web is the lowest form in terms of color management or lack thereof, you could get by with <strong>any</strong> display, calibrated or not if your <strong>only goal is to view images on the web</strong>. Are you quite certain that's the <strong>only</strong> goal of the OP? Or other's reading these posts who might also want to know what to look for when buying a display? You're doing a good job speaking for others so maybe like you, no one cares a lick about a really good display to print match expect me. <br>

*So how about it Tim and Eric, you've got some interesting ideas about how all displays out of the box look the same, despite what most have seen when viewing multiple TV's tuned to the same RGB signal. So displays are different? You <strong>did or didn't</strong> put multiple differing displays, all getting the same single (meaning the same computer and graphic system) in front of yourselfs and viewed them together such you are sure they all produce the same basic apparence? </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Leo,</p>

<p>Here is a good review of the U2414H</p>

<p>http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2414h.htm</p>

<p>NB: The U2414H has <strong>no DVI</strong> input port, only HDMI and Display Port. Does your video card have Display Port output? If you read the review, the reviewed model seemed to have problems with the Display Port input. The screen is 6-bits plus FRC which makes it more of a 2412 replacement than a U2314 replacement. Its gamut is limited to sRGB.</p>

<p>Me, I would take a pass on this one.</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>An interesting article from our friends down under:<br>

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/120/Monitors+For+High+Quality+Imaging+Work<br>

Eizo Foris FS2333 is about $409. Wish I could afford one.<br>

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ASHTZYM/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=108KME5SMX2OA&coliid=I2T1C5PE240WAX</p>