Which monitor to get?

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The Apple Cinema display looks that bad?! Is it calibrated/profiled?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is that supposed to mean? I asked earlier so I don't think I'm going to get an answer. Calibrated to what, and how? The point of color management, profiling and calibration of this device. </p>

[joe_c5]

<blockquote>

<p>What is that supposed to mean? I asked earlier so I don't think I'm going to get an answer. Calibrated to what, and how? The point of color management, profiling and calibration of this device.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rather than asking him a question that you already know the answer to for your particular Apple Cinema display, have you considered either:</p>

<ol>

<li>Answering the yes-or-no question</li>

<li>Posting what it was calibrated to, and how?</li>

</ol>

<p>As to your question, I would be interested in whether the profile used a look up table, and how many color samples were used to generate it. I don't care about the calibration at all unless it is either pathological or restricts the gamut.<br>

<br />If a profiled monitor displays colors inside of its gamut that are off by more than the quantization noise, that is either the fault of the profile or possibly something else wrong with the color management system.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>You downloaded a JPEG in sRGB from shot on a camera in raw but with no edits or custom DNG profile, and from that image, you are making quality judgements about what emits from that display? With the RGB numbers from neutrals AND the fact (fly on out to Santa Fe and see it) that this display matches my prints under controlled print viewing condtions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should've been more specific. I downloaded your AdobeRGB TIFF test image from your Index page and loaded it in Photoshop. I shot in Program mode/AWB the LG display preview in Raw and did have to use my custom DNG profile for my camera and slight tweak to color temp 5400K >5300K. Frankly I was surprised how little work I had to do to get it to match your test tiff image. </p>

<p>I'm surprised you don't have the post processing chops seeing you have all that expensive equipment to bone up on your editing skills. So I guess you really ARE just a digital imaging workflow consultant, not a skilled digital editor. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Whoops I just figured out that you were referring to YOUR jpeg sRGB image you posted of the differences between the Cinema Display and the NEC.</p>

<p>Doesn't really matter seeing you're making excuses about not conducing best practices post processing for sRGB display. My Lab numbers of my shot of your test image on my LG matches pretty close to your actual test image.</p>

<p>That's how I define accurate.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Tim, my test and those figures have <strong>absolutely nothing to do with accuracy</strong> and everything to do with difference and dismisses your unproven, undefined statement:<br>

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

<br /> That you continue to ignore that is telling and further, that you confuse the results of that test that disproves the statement and now want to hang some accuracy into the mix makes me wish I hadn't written your such a smart fellow! It seems at this point a few things:<br>

You made a statement you never tested and refuse to explain how you came up with the statement.<br>

You are rather confused about calibration (why mostly, probably how).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's how I define accurate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are very confused about the term accuracy. Or how to test it. It's about as incorrect an understanding and definition to produce an opinion as whatever you dreamed up to suggest:<br>

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

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>As to your question, I would be interested in whether the profile used a look up table, and how many color samples were used to generate it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter, it's just a diversion to keep us from questioning Tim's made up statement about not seeing huge differences in displays. Now he wants to go down this silly <em>accuracy</em> rabbit hole to further move us from the goal posts and understanding how he came up with his statement in the first place. <br>

<br>

We can have two displays that could be calibrated quite differently for different goals (I've got half a dozen saved calibration targets for SpectraView and use them depending on the output). Does Tim think if I switch from a custom profiled wide gamut target for Glossy paper to sRGB emulation there isn't a difference?<br>

We can have two displays with vastly different backlight technologies and if we calibrate to the identical white point, we can see visual differences due to differing instruments*, software and control options and the role of the illuminate on our display to print match. <br>

We can have two displays that produce very close visual appearance in some colors that are calibrated on purpose to have different targets such the visual match is closer (dumb down wide gamut to better match lower gamut). <br>

That facts are, there are a lot of factors that can make two profiled displays look quite different from another as I've illustrated and suggest that when Tim states he hasn't see that much of a difference in displays, he hasn't done his homework. That's why we continue to see him ignore the request to backup the statement let alone explain it! It's just a silly diversion on his part! <br>

*Some people believe that all Colorimeters or Spectrophotometer's from differing companies or using differing technologies, when measuring the same patch will produce the same values. Sorry, that's not the always case and the reason that X-rite has introduced M series measurement protocols. Roll that up in your accuracy pipe and take a toke . </p>

[joe_c5]

<p>The profile is relevant because it mostly determines both the accuracy of a display and the differences between displays.</p>

<p>For example, on a Dell U2412M, which is a budget 24″ IPS monitor (it may even have been specifically derided earlier in this thread), one profile using a shaper+matrix created from 1250 measurements has a maximum ΔE of 3.043870, while another profile using an XYZ look up table created from the <em>same</em> 1250 measurements has a maximum ΔE of 0.997169.</p>

<p>Again, this is the same monitor with the same calibration and the same measurement data, but a better profile results in better color accuracy.</p>

<p>It also seems like acceptable accuracy for most purposes. The sRGB gamut makes this particular monitor a poor choice for some print work but it is disingenuous to imply that no inexpensive monitor could possibly meet a professional’s needs.</p>

<p>So it is likely not so much that the Apple Cinema display is iffy, but instead that its <em>profile</em> is iffy. It is even possible that the reference monitor’s profile is iffy, either instead, or as well.</p>

<p>A common method for determining that sort of thing is to keep improving the input until no significant change can be detected in the output. In this case, making the profile better and better should eventually stop significantly improving the color accuracy, at which point the profile can be considered not to be the cause of the observed color mismatch.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Rather than asking him a question that you already know the answer to for your particular Apple Cinema display, have you considered either:</p>

<ol>

<li>Answering the yes-or-no question</li>

<li>Posting what it was calibrated to, and how?</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>It's his MO, you'll never get a straight answer out of him, Joe. He's arguing, again, about the huge differences between a few expensive monitors yet has returned with a comparison picture of a cheap sRGB like monitor next to high-end wide gamut monitor to demonstrate his "huge" difference. </p>

<p>Tim's right. There's isn't a huge difference. A slight difference? Yes. Leo couldn't have said it better:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As with most photographic products, it seems you pay a premium to get that last 5% quality, and for me paying 4x the price for that last 5% is a bit much at this point in time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>The images and the numbers provided above that I produced have absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. They have to do with difference and that’s why the test was done as it was although as I stated, a more accurate (accurate used on purpose) result would have been to measure each display with my i1Pro-2 in BableColor as I stated. More accurate in part because it's a direct measurement of the color emitting from the displays, no camera, raw or processing to add noise to the data. <br>

I don’t know what some are defining as accuracy as it’s never defined.</p>

<p>The only way I can imagine producing an accuracy metric is by having a reference of Lab or device independent color values and comparing some measured color from a device to that reference. How are the reference values defined?</p>

<p>If I build a printer profile, I have to produce a target to output and then measure just like a display. The target starts of course with some Lab values that define X number of solid colors. That’s my reference. It's also known as a Color Aim in ColorThink and Maxwell, two products that provid the ability to produce an accuracy report from these values. The number of colors and where they fall within some defined color space is important! I can compare the measured color from any rendering intent I wish against this reference and come up with a value of difference in dE. IF we first agree upon a value over which the differences are unacceptable (not accurate), we’re getting somewhere. That too hasn’t been mentioned by a sole person here who's talking about accuracy. <br>

Tim and Eric state that differences in displays are not large. I was somewhat sloppy adding “<em>huge</em>” to the differences thus producing this debate. I didn’t define <em>huge</em> my bad. In retrospect, anything over dE 6 would start to push my opinion of this being unacceptable and creap up to huge when dE approaches 10**. But again, this is all about difference in two displays, not their accuracy to some undefined reference of which the calibration and profile are indeed key.<br>

As I stated, we can calibrate our displays to all kinds of behaviors. I hear people write all the time: I got a calibration product for my display, "<em>I calibrated it and my prints look too dark</em>”. Calibrated to what? If you’re expecting it to match the print, you have to calibrate for that target aim assuming the goal is that screen to print match? No, the defaults or some setting someone on the web said was <em>'the standard</em>' (hogwash).<br>

Tim and presumably Eric have no expeience with <em>‘smart display</em>’ systems already mentioned. Such displays provide somewhat unique control over contrast ratio by controlling the black level inside the display hardware. If you look at the significant differences (ops, almost said <em>huge</em>) between the native contrast ratio’s of different display and display technolog then the difference in output contrast ratio that few displays can actually mimic in the actual calibration, you’re going to see differences.<br>

Thus far, nothing is about accuracy. First off, does the display match the print as best as the tools allow? Then, what’s the reference (the actual colors used to calibrate? That can often lie to you), do you use the same instrument to measure or a higher reference grade device? If not the later, what about measuring device error and repeatability? How far do you want to drill down dE numbers that can be noise to define accuracy? Lots of questions but without answers, <strong>we can’t do this correctly.</strong><br>

My test was admittedly quick and dirty, just shooting two raw captures, everything else including processing being fix, then sucking the colors up in PS, converting to Lab, comparing the differences. Duh, they don’t match. They were never set up to. They were setup for different uses. They have vastly different backlight technology and spectrum. Their backlight intensity don’t match for one because the NEC is calibrated for 150 cd/m2 value to match a print in my GTI booth. The other isn't. Duh, they are different, look different and even with this quick test, measure different (there was measurement involved albeit in Photoshop).<br>

Confusing accuracy and difference is a bit like confusing a painting with a photograph.</p>

<p>** When the late, great Bruce Fraser did a review of the Barco a very long time ago, and of course did the testing for accuracy correctly, the dE value was hovering over the entire display at about 1. That's impressive accuracy from a display of the vintage. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>He's arguing, again, about the huge differences between a few expensive monitors yet has returned with a comparison picture of a cheap sRGB like monitor next to high-end wide gamut monitor to demonstrate his "huge" difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again you've missed the point, failed to backup your flat earth theories and ignore past bad behavior in just this post. The entire point is to illustrate difference which you and Tim say doesn't exist. They do, it's been illustrated and yet your unable to do the same. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>The entire point is to illustrate difference which you and Tim say doesn't exist. They do, it's been illustrated and yet your unable to do the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The entire point was for you to disprove Tim and illustrate <strong>the huge differences</strong> between a few high-end wide-gamut monitors that are up for discussion here. For a refresher, re-read your post and start over at your 10:08 post. Here, I'll quote it so you don't get distracted again:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, none of the displays expect Eizo and SpectraView are acceptable.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>How they do it and the result of what is emitting from the display <strong>varies hugely</strong>. Yes, vote for U2410 because it emits color.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are big words amongst this group that has been around the block and upgraded their displays. Tim asked you to qualify this "varies hugely" <strong>opinion</strong>. You instead did your little screen-shot test with a low-end small gamut sRGB Apple display against a high-end monitor. Hilarious and typical to once again be on PN arguing blue in the face while dodging and skirting our questions.</p>

<p>Tim is correct. There's isn't a huge difference between the wide-gamut Dell, NEC, and Eizo monitors.</p>

[dag_fosse]

<p>These are real photographs of a Dell U2713H, and an Eizo CG246. Explain away this.</p>

<p>The Eizo is mine. This particular Dell image was taken from the Dell forum - but I had a U2410 that looked exactly like this, and the problem is very widespread. Dell just calls this "within spec".</p><div></div>

[dag_fosse]

<p>And here's the Eizo:</p><div></div>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The entire point was for you to disprove Tim and illustrate <strong>the huge differences</strong> between a few high-end wide-gamut monitors that are up for discussion here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you don't understand at all! Neither you nor Tim have any experience with high end displays. Tim's admitted that. You and Tim clearly stated there's no huge visual difference in displays. That's wrong. End of story. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here, I'll quote it so you don't get distracted again:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, none of the displays expect Eizo and SpectraView are acceptable.</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct, none are acceptable to me. That's got <strong>nothing</strong> to do with disproving your points about displays not having a huge difference, I've illusrated they do. <strong>WHY</strong> I find all those other displays unacceptable is another topic all together! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim asked you to qualify this "varies hugely" <strong>opinion</strong>.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which I did. </p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Tim is correct. There's isn't a huge difference between the wide-gamut Dell, NEC, and Eizo monitors.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

 

<p>Prove it!<br>

And don't forget to look over these recent screen shots of Dags, his examples further show huge differences ON THE SAME DISPALY without using it's unique functionality both he and I know play a critical role in what's emitted from the display. </p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>look over these recent screen shots of Dags, his examples further show huge differences ON THE SAME DISPALY without using it's unique functionality both he and I know play a critical role in what's emitted from the display.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>What I meant to say is look at the differences in technology where purity is controlled versus one that isnt' and the effect, huge! <br>

Eric. You and Tim should conspire together to write a book on color management. It would be a fun read.</p>

 

 

 

[joe_c5]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric. You and Tim should conspire together to write a book on color management. It would be a fun read.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<h3>Forum Posting Guidelines</h3>

<p> …<br>

13. Though it shouldn't be necessary to ask this, it nevertheless is. Please treat other users with courtesy and respect, even if you disagree with them. Photo.net will not tolerate users who are insulting or abusive to others (see the photo.net <a href="/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</a>, especially section #4 "Conduct of Users")</p>

</blockquote>

[digitaldog]

<p>Joe, does this much earlier post fit the same bill?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We? Lol, you don't even make photos for the fun of it.</p>

</blockquote>

[joe_c5]

<blockquote>

<p>Joe, does this much earlier post fit the same bill?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably, yes.</p>

<p>My point doesn’t change, though, even if I missed other things I should have quoted too.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>These are real photographs of a Dell U2713H</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a POS. And apparently Dell's support is awful too according to this customer on LuLa who's having all kinds of issues with black on his U2713H (yup, calibration of black is kind of, sort of, important):<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90374.0</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lessons learned: <br />---<strong>stay away from Dell</strong><br />---do not allow service people to send me to another part of the same company for information. ("To find out when your product is to be shipped, call this number or email this address....") You work for Dell. You find the answer and tell it to me.<br /><br />Long story short, new monitor looks just the same as the old one. In Adobe RGB, there is still no separation in the blacks and near-blacks. I returned both monitors.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Joe, does this much earlier post fit the same bill?<br>

Probably, yes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably this too? I mean, if you're going to call out the forum rules on my joke about a color management book partnership and you are concerned with posts <em>with courtesy and respect, even if you disagree with them</em><em>:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, you haven't been anywhere within 5 miles of the scientific method the 10 or so years I've participated in discussions (er...beating dead horses) with you about display price vs performance.<br>

But I predict you'll dismiss that request with your typical condescending (speak for all) manner as being a pointless task that won't prove anything.<br>

I'm surprised you don't have the post processing chops seeing you have all that expensive equipment to bone up on your editing skills. So I guess you really ARE just a digital imaging workflow consultant, not a skilled digital editor.<br>

It's his MO, you'll never get a straight answer out of him, Joe.</p>

</blockquote>

[EricM]

<p>You'll find no sympathies from anyone here, Luminous Landscape, or AUF's. You're a nasty bully that for some reason gets carte blanche from the PN mods. Just yesterday, your MO, you're antagonizing and insulting members from thread to thread trying to start something. http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cgdq</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A common fault of yours.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You'll find no sympathies from <strong>anyone</strong> here, Luminous Landscape, or AUF's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking for everyone again...<br /> I'm not looking for sympathies from anyone here, you're off the mark. I'm looking for fairness however. Joe pointed out a post I made and shouldn't have, making a joke about you and Tim writing a book on color management after attempting to explain the severe differences between accuracy and differing output behavior without your side making an attempt to explain your '<em>theories</em>'. It's interesting to be called out when multiple posts prior, the text from you and Tim, show equal if not more hostile comments towards me. Doesn't bother me, it's the routine tactic seen on the net when a ridiculous flat earth religious idea is dismissed using a scientific approach. The flat eather's never answer any questions about or attempt to prove how their theories are formed and worse, continue to ask the other side questions then insults as a way to hide their ignorance and inability to prove their theory. It's probably why a post you were part of, as was I, got locked down (http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cWLd).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're a nasty bully that for some reason gets carte blanche from the PN mods.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've said it once, it's worth saying again, especially in light of your posts in this thread in it's chronological order: pot calling the kettle black. <br /> Now, we've come to the point where this will get closed down. Was anything gained? I believe so, despite the signal to noise ratio. I only wish we'd seen Dag's superb examples earlier, the current flat earth theory proposed by you and Tim may not have been posted.<br>

And if you or Tim or Joe want to explain your meaning of accuracy, I'm all ears.</p>

[leo s.]

<p>I received the new monitor earlier today, and am very pleased with it. Right out of the box the colour/contrast looks great to my eye. I'm seriously considering getting a second one!</p>

<p>Many thanks once again to all who responded.<br>

Leo</p>

[digitaldog]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>And if you or Tim or Joe want to explain your meaning of accuracy, I'm all ears.</p>

</blockquote>

I didn't think so, probably for the best.

<blockquote>

Explain away this.

</blockquote>

They simply can't.

 

 

[digitaldog]

<p>Another feature of the newer NEC's that is pretty neat (satin diffuser sufrace) as shown in these photo's:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=86893.new;topicseen#new</p>