Wide or standard gamut monitor?

racer

I have read many of the threads here, and am aware of all the different monitors available. I am looking for a 23-24 inch IPS monitor, and am stuck between deciding if I should get a "budget" standard gamut, or if it is worth the money to pay twice as much to get a better, wide gamut monitor?

I currently only post my photos online, and get them printed online. It is itching at me to get a better wide gamut monitor, but is that extra color going to benefit me in any way throwout the process?

For wide, I am looking at these,
Dell U2410
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-8277
HP LP2475w
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-3648442.html

For standard gamut, I would have to make a choice between the many different options

angevin1

racer wrote: »

I have read many of the threads here, and am aware of all the different monitors available.

I currently only post my photos online, and get them printed online. It is itching at me to get a better wide gamut monitor, but is that extra color going to benefit me in any way throwout the process?

The process you mention is at the heart of why or not to get a wider gamut Monitor. I like them because I want to work on a photo and know it'll print very very closely to what I am seeing on my workstation monitor.

When I post them to the Internet, then the photos are subject to crappy monitors, different coloring profiles of differing Browsers, etc. So in that part I cannot dictate.

Newsy

racer wrote: »

I have read many of the threads here, and am aware of all the different monitors available. I am looking for a 23-24 inch IPS monitor, and am stuck between deciding if I should get a "budget" standard gamut, or if it is worth the money to pay twice as much to get a better, wide gamut monitor?

I currently only post my photos online, and get them printed online. It is itching at me to get a better wide gamut monitor, but is that extra color going to benefit me in any way throwout the process?

For wide, I am looking at these,
Dell U2410
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-8277
HP LP2475w
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-3648442.html

For standard gamut, I would have to make a choice between the many different options

Do you have a hardware calibrator like an i1 Display2 or Spyder3 Elite??

.

arodney

Being able to see colors that fall outside basically sRGB is useful. So yes, go for a wide gamut display but one that is high bit in the panel and allows that panel to calibrate using an instrument. Something like an NEC P221W or any of the units in the SpectraView II line. The new PA series is the more expensive higher end (ISP) units you might want to look at. Make sure you get the bundle with their SpectraView software for calibration and a supported instrument.

The new PA series can simulate sRGB for non color managed (web) browsing etc.

racer

Newsy wrote: »

Do you have a hardware calibrator like an i1 Display2 or Spyder3 Elite??

.

No, I dont have a calibrator. If I spend the extra on a wide gamut, I would need to wait a month of so before I can get a calibrator (probably the Spyder elite). I am assuming that I would be able to use the monitor uncalibrated, and that it wouldn't be any worse then a typical TN monitor? (until I get the calibrator)

arodney

You can save a good deal of money getting the bundle from NEC with the software and instrument.

racer

arodney wrote: »

You can save a good deal of money getting the bundle from NEC with the software and instrument.

I think they are out of my price range It is the Specra View that comes with the calibrator correct?
I would prefer a monitor larger then a 19 inch , that seems to be all I could afford with the NEC package

The HP and Dell I linked to are around $500 for a 24 inch

arodney

racer wrote: »

The HP and Dell I linked to are around $500 for a 24 inch

Not even in the same league (even after you pay for a 3rd party calibration instrument and software). If that’s your budget, the P221W is the way to go. That is you are concerned with a calibrated reference display.

racer

arodney wrote: »

Not even in the same league (even after you pay for a 3rd party calibration instrument and software). If that’s your budget, the P221W is the way to go. That is you are concerned with a calibrated reference display.

I understand that the NEC with the packaged calibrator will have superior color accuracy then the HP or Dell with a Spyder3, but what is the difference here, is this minor, or is the difference substantial in real world usage?

Right now, I dont have a clue about color accuracy, and correct photos according to what looks good on a crappy 9 year old (19in) TN monitor.
I mostly shoot wildlife and judge color based on memory. Would I be able to tell a substantial difference between the color of the NEC or the other wide gamut monitors? Since this is just a hobby, it is not absolutly critical that I get 100% accurate color, I wont lose a job or any money over it

I still have yet to figure out if I want a wide gamut, if it is going to do more harm then good, or if a wide gamut is always better then a standard IPS?

arodney

It can be substantial, especially depending on the version of software used with the Spyder (does it allow full control over white point?). The NEC can produce a huge variable in target calibration aim points to allow print to screen match. It can control the contrast ratio. In fact you can build multiple targets and switch on the fly using the software. The Spyder software, even in its most advanced (and expensive version) can’t do that. When you go to calibrate the targets you want, you simply tell the software what you want and walk away. The panel and software communicate (in high bit) and adjust everything electronically. The Spyder software can’t touch that. A smart monitor (like the Barco, PressView, Artisan of past) is a big deal.

racer

Something else, with a wide gamut monitor and color managed browser, will photos on my site appear similar to how others are viewing them. Another words, will I be able to judge what they look like to the standard TN monitor world

arodney

racer wrote: »

Something else, with a wide gamut monitor and color managed browser, will photos on my site appear similar to how others are viewing them. Another words, will I be able to judge what they look like to the standard TN monitor world

Only if the other users posting their images embed a profile (sRGB) and are not using an older version of Flash (previous to v10, it wasn’t color managed) and of course, if your browser is color managed (Safari and FireFox). Otherwise, no. But that would be also true with a non wide gamut display.

Newsy

racer wrote: »

Something else, with a wide gamut monitor and color managed browser, will photos on my site appear similar to how others are viewing them. Another words, will I be able to judge what they look like to the standard TN monitor world

If you're working on a wide gamut monitor you'll have to export/convert the images to the sRGB space before uploading to Smugmug or most (if not all) of the other image hosting sites. Most offsite printers will only accept imags in the sRGB space though a few now apparently have wide gamut printers available and will accept an image embedded in the AdobeRGB space.

So for people viewing your images... it makes no difference. They will see yours as they see others, per standard if they have a calibrated system or skewed in some manner if uncalibrated.

For your own viewing, a wide gamut monitor may make a substantial difference and not necessarily for the best.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

.

Newsy

My point in asking about the calibrator is that you may get more bang for your buck by going to a budget IPS monitor and using the saved funds to acquire a good calibrator.

I'd buy one 21.5" Dell U2211H for $199 (when on sale or coupon'd) and use it side by side with your older Dell and also get a calibrator. Especially if you use Lightroom for basic processing and management of your images. Lightroom works very well on two monitors.

If using two monitors, definitely get the Spyder3 Elite, about $185 at B&H last time I looked. The software with this unit has a function to target & set brightness (critical for two monitors side by side) and is ready for wide gamut should you move upscale in a year or two. From what I've read lately, this unit is better than the i1 Display2 for wide gamut monitors.

This seems to me to be the most logical next step rather than getting a wide gamut monitor whose main benefit would be for print matching with a better quality multi-ink wide gamut inkjet. And if you're into print matching.... you're definitely going to need that monitor calibrator! But you say you don't print much at home.

.

racer

Okay, one last thing, if I was to hook up a second monitor, a average TN monitor, would this work? I guess I am asking , are both monitors profiled and calibrated separate? The wide gamut IPS would be profiled and calibrated, and the second being a TN would display as a typical TN monitor for online stuff?

colourbox

That's a good idea on a Mac, which has always been able to keep monitor profiles separate, but on Windows you have to first verify that you're using a video card that can maintain two separate profiles for two different monitors. Otherwise it's a good solution to have a cheap second monitor for previewing. And the rest of the time, a second monitor is great for displaying palettes, other apps, etc. to free up space on the main monitor.

Newsy

racer wrote: »

Okay, one last thing, if I was to hook up a second monitor, a average TN monitor, would this work? I guess I am asking , are both monitors profiled and calibrated separate? The wide gamut IPS would be profiled and calibrated, and the second being a TN would display as a typical TN monitor for online stuff?

What video card are you using?

OS?

.

racer

So for photography, the only benefit I would get from a wide gamut would be if I printed photos myself? Since I dont do that, the wide gamut would be more of a hindrance then a benefit? (seems to be what I keep reading)
Now my problem is that the only standard IPS I can find that is 24in is the HP ZR24w at $400 (while the wide gamut is only $80 more). The 23in monitors seem to be much less quality (also reflected by the price) besides being a inch smaller. The 22in monitors seem to have the same resolution as the 23in monitors, leading me to believe that the 23in just have larger pixels?

This is all making me go bald

Newsy

racer wrote: »

So for photography, the only benefit I would get from a wide gamut would be if I printed photos myself? Since I dont do that, the wide gamut would be more of a hindrance then a benefit? (seems to be what I keep reading)
Now my problem is that the only standard IPS I can find that is 24in is the HP ZR24w at $400 (while the wide gamut is only $80 more). The 23in monitors seem to be much less quality (also reflected by the price) besides being a inch smaller. The 22in monitors seem to have the same resolution as the 23in monitors, leading me to believe that the 23in just have larger pixels?

I would say the 22" (21.5" actually) may have too small a pixel pitch for general use like reading web pages, documents, etc..

The 23" pricing may be less due economies of scale and competition. LG Display supplies the IPS panels - there are 3 companies shipping 4 monitors where with the 24", so far I've only seen HP selling the one monitor in North America and Fujitsu is selling one elsewhere.

The ZR24w has taken some knocks for black levels but in my mind they are still better than IPS monitors of 4 or 5 years ago.

The 23" monitors have good, if not great, black levels but their panels are susceptible to the green/red tinting common to the current generation of LG Display IPS panels. I'd bet the ZR24w gets some of this too - just haven't read much on this as yet.

Seen the comparison here?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/nec_pa231w.htm#comparison

.

racer

Well, I ordered the HP ZR24w (from B&H). I really wanted a 24" 16:10, so there wasn't very many options! After reading many reviews, I have read that the black level really isn't a issue, and can match that of other monitors in this price range once it is calibrated. Comparing the HP with the different 23" monitors, I came to the conclusion that the newer LG panel used in the HP is better then the older 23" LG panels, and doesn't suffer from all the issues that the 23" panel does.
Sifting threw all the user reviews I could find, I could only find a few users complaining about tinting or uniformity issues. The main complaint seemed to be the black point, but it also seemed to be in people ability to calibrate it correctly (if they even calibrated at all). In comparison, many users complained about tinting and uniformity issues with the LG 23" panels.
It all seems hit or miss when buying any "budget" IPS monitor, but I figured it was worth the extra $100 for the ZR24w

Thanks everyone for your help!

arodney

Most calibration tools and displays that do not have control over the internal panel electronics (like the SpectraView or Eizo) cannot control black. The contrast ratio is always fixed (and way, way too high).

racer

arodney wrote: »

Most calibration tools and displays that do not have control over the internal panel electronics (like the SpectraView or Eizo) cannot control black. The contrast ratio is always fixed (and way, way too high).

Not the case in the monitor that I bought, the HP ZR24w. The contrast ratio can be adjusted very easily to bring the black point down to something that matches the other monitors in that category. The problem with turning the contrast up to get the good black point, is that the monitor is overly bright then. The brightness can then be adjusted by adjusting the RGB values, and that is done by calibrating the monitor.
At least that is my understanding of it all. Now with factory settings, if the black level is even bad enough to be noticeable in real world usage of the monitor, that is something totally different.
My understanding is that HP picked this level of contrast for that reason, as it can be adjusted to suit the persons needs.
It is my understanding that everything you would want to adjust can be adjustable on this monitor, but again, I also have very limited knowledge on the whole subject.
Here is a review that explains this monitor in depth (way more then I understand).
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm

I do also understand that one cant expect total perfection in ANY monitor at this price range, but I dont have a extra thousand to spend on a Spectraview or Eizo. This monitor seems to be the best I could get at this price range in a standard gamut (I paid $400 for it)

arodney

racer wrote: »

The problem with turning the contrast up to get the good black point, is that the monitor is overly bright then. !

Exactly, you do NOT have independent control over black point and white luminance, you are simply moving everything up or down in a linear fashion, its also not controlling the contrast ratio. Not the case with the NEC.

The brightness can then be adjusted by adjusting the RGB values, and that is done by calibrating the monitor.

No, not really. There is only one actual control in play here, the intensity of the backlight. Altering the RGB values is just adjusting the LUT which in most cases, is only 8-bits pre color and the net result is more banding.

It is my understanding that everything you would want to adjust can be adjustable on this monitor

Again, if this is just adjusting an 8-bit LUT, its a far cry from a high bit panel where the adjustments are happening in, well high bit and better, without you having to press on some buttons on the OSD which produce crude adjustments. On SpectraView, the software and hardware are communicating, these adjustments are controlled in a more precise way and an easier way, and in high bit.

racer

Do you work for NEC?
Its was a choice between getting the best BUDGET monitor I could find, or not getting a monitor at all and sticking with a 9 year old TN monitor.

I dont know enough about this all to have a argument over it, but I could only compare the HP to the other monitors in the BUDGET range, since I could only spend $500 or less. The key word here is BUDGET
NEC only makes one budget 23", and it is comparable to the other budget 23" monitors.

I have no problem discussing this all, as I am learning, and it might help others, but please, it is only useful to compare the monitors in this price range. Lets compare apples to apples

arodney

I don’t work for NEC but I have done beta testing on their products.

IMHO, the last place to skimp on a piece of digital imaging equipment is the display. A slower processor, a bit less ram will save you seconds at best. The display is the only way to see the huge pile of numbers that represent your image. Or what you print out (which is costly). A good display system should be usable for at the very least, 4-5 years.

You paid what, $400 for the ZR24w? That’s without a calibration system. The P221W Spectraview is a mere $59 more, again without a calibration product (but with the bundle, $549). If you can find a mated (or even unmatted) colorimeter with a software product that has half the functionality of SpectraView for $149, you’d still end up with a lesser quality reference display system.

racer

Thanks, as I said in my previous posts, I made the decision to get a standard gamut and really wanted a 24". The P221w is nether of those, but I have made a note of it that I wasted $400 on a piece of junk HP, ultimately, it is my money and I will spend it the way I want to.
Thanks for your help, but I dont need the sales pitch anymore, and I sure don't need criticizing of my choice

arodney

Two quotes come to mind:


"If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!"
“ Ignorance is bliss”

At least you now know what the product you purchased is and isn’t capable of (you are not altering contrast ratio or doing anything useful with the black point), altering RGB settings adjusts the 8-bit LUTs.

Newsy

The HP ZR24w is a decent monitor. It will serve you well.

As I understand it, it has a controls for Brightness, Contrast, and RGB plus others. You should be able to use the Brightness control to get the white luminance into a range that is balanced against the ambient lighting of the room you edit in, somewhere between 100 and 140 cd/m2 is typical. I can't recall what the factory defaults are but if, for example, they are Brightness 60, Contrast 60, you'll likely have to lower the Brightness down to 10 to 20 to get into the appropriate white luminance range.

There is quite a discussion ongoing in a couple of threads on DPReview about whether or not to use the RGB sliders in calibrating and profiling. Might be worth a read.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=37627615

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=37587683

.

racer

Newsy wrote: »

The HP ZR24w is a decent monitor. It will serve you well.

As I understand it, it has a controls for Brightness, Contrast, and RGB plus others. You should be able to use the Brightness control to get the white luminance into a range that is balanced against the ambient lighting of the room you edit in, somewhere between 100 and 140 cd/m2 is typical. I can't recall what the factory defaults are but if, for example, they are Brightness 60, Contrast 60, you'll likely have to lower the Brightness down to 10 to 20 to get into the appropriate white luminance range.

There is quite a discussion ongoing in a couple of threads on DPReview about whether or not to use the RGB sliders in calibrating and profiling. Might be worth a read.

Thanks!

arodney

FWIW, luminance values for calibration should be based upon the print viewing conditions, not necessarily the “ambient light” conditions of the entire area. The room’s overall ambient lighting cannot be too low but the print viewing conditions and the target for cd/m2 need to produce a visual match. Thus the targets can be anywhere depending on those print viewing conditions (for me, with my GTI booth, its 150cd/m2). See:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Same is true for white point. D65 is not at all necessarily the correct value because the print viewing conditions are undefined. IOW, the correct target calibration values are those that produce a visual match to the print under a controlled illuminant. YMMV.

colourbox

What should the luminance value for calibration be based on if the primary viewing experience is expected to be on screen? (i.e. not print, so no print viewing conditions apply)