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>

<p>If you ask me, yes, the i1 Display Pro is worth the price for the sensor alone (that's why I bought it). If you had any cheap monitor it wouldn't be a big deal, but the Eizo deserves the best.</p> <p>About Colornavigator - take your time to get to know it and explore the different options. It's a very powerful piece of software and it goes way beyond standard third-party calibrators. </p> <p>For instance, the ability to fine-tune the black point is very important for a good screen-to-output match. Apply this to any number of different calibration targets for different types of output, and then just switch between them with a single click on the list on the main page. Just remember to relaunch whatever editor you're using so that it can pick up the correct profile at startup.</p> <p>You can also have an sRGB emulation in case you need to work with applications that aren't color managed.</p> <p>Colornavigator communicates directly with the display in high bit depth, as opposed to third-party calibrators that do all adjustments in the video card in 8 bit depth. This gives you much more control and precision.</p>

<p>Did you get the CS240 with Colornavigator included? With an Eizo Coloredge you don't even <em>consider</em> other calibrators - anything else is a waste of a superb monitor. They work together as a fully integrated system.</p> <p>Get the Spyder for the sensor, but throw away the software. The Spyder 4 isn't the best colorimeter out there (that would be the i1 Display Pro), but otoh it's not as bad as its reputation and it will do fine. The instrument is fully supported in Colornavigator.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The Eizo CS240 is the entry level/budget model in the 24" Coloredge series. In terms of value for money it's an incredibly good deal, IMO impossible to beat in today's market.</p> <p>The NEC PA242 is probably a better monitor overall, but also more expensive. The comparable Eizo model is CX241, at roughly the same price.</p> <p>Dell is a whole other ballgame. Half the price and worth it.</p> <p>As Andrew said (it can't be said often enough) - whatever you end up with, make sure you get the edition that has calibration software included, or factor in the cost of buying it separately. That's NEC Spectraview II (in the US), or Eizo Colornavigator. </p>

<p>Thank you!</p> <p>(Haven't been around this forum very long).</p>

<p>Well, you'll have to click on them. They were both below 700 pixels and 100kB, so I don't know why they wouldn't display.</p>

<p>That didn't display too well, let's see if a crop from the colornavigator main window does better:</p>

<p>Shouldn't be any problems as such, lots of people do that. The one thing you need to keep an eye on is that the correct display profile is loaded for each display. The operating system normally keeps track of this and it should not be an issue.</p> <p>However, if you frequently disconnect the laptop that could trip it up. It's probably safer to set the Eizo as secondary display in the OS.</p> <p>You can check this (in Windows) under Control Panel > Color Management > Devices. If you suspect the wrong profile, ColorNavigator can again set it straight, because when you change calibration target from the list in the main window, it will also load the corresponding (and correct) profile on the fly:</p>

<blockquote> <p>i think the cs240 is the best option for me</p> </blockquote> <p>I think so too. I can't think of a better deal right now.</p> <p>And coming from a laptop...it'll be a whole new world. Take your time finding your way around ColorNavigator, it's an extremely powerful tool.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yes but I think it’s slowly changing. I just read they now offer SpectraView there as they do here in the US.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, I saw that too. But so far it applies only to some newly introduced models, and there is still no explicit mention of Spectraview II on the site. Will they, in time, reorganize the existing line-up and adjust prices? And will they get rid of the idiotic PA firmware lock? Let's hope.</p> <p>Just for everybody's information, here's the PA242 situation in Europe. Norwegian prices converted to USD:</p> <ul> <li>Regular PA242, firmware lock = $1260 current exchange rate. I repeat, that's $1260 for a monitor that <em>cannot be hardware calibrated</em>.</li> <li>Spectraview 242, BasICColor/Spectraview software but no sensor = $1576. That's over $300 for the software, which they cannot maintain if they start offering the US software (which, BTW, is light-years better).</li> <li>Spectraview Reference 242, BasICColor/Spectraview software but still no sensor = $2094. I've searched the website to find out exactly what the "reference" tag buys you, but all I can come up with is a hood.</li> </ul> <p>Actually the Spectraview 242 edition is the only one that makes sense. The price is almost exactly the same as an Eizo CX241, and they seem to be very similar all in all.</p> <p>The PA242 is just a dead end. And the Spectraview Reference 242 costs <em>exactly</em> the same as the Eizo CG247, but lacks all the features that would justify the extra cost. No wonder Eizo has a firm grip on the pro market in Europe.</p> <p>It's a shame, because it would be nice to have a choice.</p>

<p>The way it looks to me, the CS240 is the best "budget high-end" monitor available right now, and certainly the one with the best quality/price ratio. If it wasn't for the current 4K craze, this should be a huge hit for Eizo.</p> <p>I can't imagine any downsides. Anything with the ColorEdge name will be top quality monitors aimed specifically at photography and other color critical work.</p> <p>But make absolutely sure you get the edition that has ColorNavigator included. If you already have a calibrator, the sensor will be supported there. Best on the market is the i1 Display Pro, but the Spyder 3 and 4 are also good. Older sensors might not work so well on this wide gamut LED panel, though.</p> <p>Yes, the NEC policy in Europe is ridiculous, I've no idea what they're thinking. It's like pulling up the ladder and making sure the entrance fee is too high for anybody. There's no entry level, only the full package or nothing.</p> <p>I've gone through a steady succession of monitors over the years, never quite satisfied. Now I use a CG246 at work and a CX240 at home, and these two finally put my quest to an end. I should have done it a long time ago.</p>