I'm looking for some feedback about what display to get, and so I want to ask you all, the "pros", what you think.

I'm considering either the Eizo color edge CG241w or the NEC LCD3090WQXi. I'm sure they are both great displays but I'd like to pick the best one. I live out in the middle of nowhere so I can't go someplace to directly compare them (the NEC hasn't even stated shipping yet). I've used an Eizo color edge at my office and have been quite impressed, but I've never used an NEC so I don't know what to think.

I know the displays are slightly different beasts (24" vs 30", 1920x1200 vs. 2560x1600 etc.), but they are priced about the same. Also, both have internal hardware color calibration features, which ought to be better than calibrating the color on the graphics card, right? Per pixel the NEC is a better deal, so is the Eizo worth it? The 30" Eizo is priced out of my league, so that's not an option.

I'll primarily be using the display for image processing stuff, and the occasional movie. I do HDR panoramic photography (32-bit per channel 12000x6000 pixel images), and so both have merits. The two most important things to me are the accuracy of the color and the size.

Does the Eizo really have significantly better color? The Eizo has 12-bit look-up tables and 16-bit internal processing but the NEC also has 12-bit LUTs ( I don't know about the processing) and they both claim to have a color gamut that covers nearly 100% of adobe rgb). The NEC is much larger (both in size and pixels), which would be nice for viewing/editing those monster-sized panoramas.

What do you Eizo fans think? How about you NEC fans? Any feedback would be appreciated.

I've been using an Eizo ColorEdge CE240W for about a year. I love it! The hardware color calibration routine is awesome and easy to do. I use an EyeOne which is compatible with Eizo's color calibration software.

I'm looking forward to buying the 30" version once the prices drop a bit.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

Since the NEC isn't out, the question can't be answered. You can run out and get the Eizo, probably spend a LOT more money but, no one yet can tell you if the money is well spent or not. You'll just have to wait for the NEC to ship or compare the 2690 to your choices.

Hi, all -- just to throw another one into the equation, I'm considering both the Eizo CG 241 and the Samsung XL 24 (both a bit over 2000). Earlier, I was thinking the NEC 2690 WUXI SV might be a cheaper alternative, but it appears as if the luminance values may need to be at least 130 and probably 150 plus for good calibration, from what I've been reading, and even then there's the issue of calibrating w/out being restricted to the SV software.

In my case my primary purpose is to print to an HP 9180Pro (mostly landscapes but with a variety of subjects ranging from architecture to people as well) in a color managed environment under Solux 4700 K lighting for proofs. The folks over at Color Eyes Pro (that's what I use for calibration with an XRite DTP-94) monitor seem very excited about the new Samsung XL series, and I'm now favoring the XL 24 over the Eizo CG241 and the substantially lower priced NEC 2690WUXI SV. I do want the wider color gamut to see if I can effectively carry RGB gamut colors over onto the printer. For me, the printing is what it's all about. Any reactions (or maybe it's better to say predictions) concerning the XL 24 (ie, do people think it's a definite better bet than the NECs and Eizos in that price range ($2200), especially versus the CG 241? I've read Andrew's erudite comments about the problematic nature of an 8-bit pipeline with a wide-gamut display but think I've come to the conclusion that it will be best for me, especially as I'll be running it beside a conventional "sRGB" LCD display in dual display configuration. Any comments are appreciated, and I assume they may shed light on the original post as well.

This is a problem how?

I'm not sure that it will be a problem, quite honestly. I haven't figured out the exact luminance of my recently set up viewing situation yet (4 solux 50 watt 4700 K bulbs in a track about 6 feet above the viewing area). The luminance of the proofing area could be adjusted via the wattage plus adding or subtracting bulbs, as I work alone in my office w a window that can be blacked out. I'm going by the theory that greater flexibility in being able to adjust the display luminance down toward 100/110 is a good thing. It sounds as if you are impressed by the NEC 2690 WUXI SV (by inference and what I recall of your many postings)? If you believe it's as good or better a bet than the new LED Samsungs are likely to be, I'm certainly all ears and ready to be educated. Many thanks. -- Ian H.

PS: I guess I have the impression that the Color Eyes Display Pro software is more powerful and flexible than the SV but am hampered in comparing them by having the former and not the latter.

Doubt it (here comes Jack). When the display manufacturer builds software to drive their own software, they usually have far less issues compared to building software that controls their hardware.

Wow, you pull that out of an NEC marketing piece? If this were true Lacie would be at the top of the heap. They've been doing it longer than anybody. But alas I have not seen them mentioned here in ages. There are countless examples of third party companies making better software. Nikon scanners and Silverfast immediately comes to mind. Eizo Color Navigator and Coloreyes is another good example for many customers. Third party software support for many cameras makes me wonder why photographers aren't screaming about NEC. They certainly would if Nikon locked everyone out.
Monitor manufacturers provide us with sdks so we know how to talk to their displays. Some of them actually adhere to the ddc protocol so no sdk is required, few unfortunately. There are companies, like ICS who have banked their entire survival on monitor accuracy for soft proofing. It's possible that they may know far more about calibrating displays than a monitor manufacturer who's primary task is building monitors. Again the camera example is relevant. The use of ACR versus Canon DPP is I imagine 75%-25% if it's even that close.
I think we could probably find more examples of third party solutions being adopted in the Photo world than manufacturer based solutions.

I will restate my concerns with proprietary monitor calibration just so we're all clear and Andrew doesn't spin this into money.
First lets start with DNG. The argument here is partially against camera manufacturers having secret sauce that might leave you hanging if the manufacturer decided to stop doing what their doing. This could easily occur with monitors as well.
Second the proprietary choice leaves users with no way to really confirm which solution is actually better. How can the consumer possibly make an informed choice.
Third an existing user of a particular product may not find having to use multiple solutions a positive thing. I have said many times that this reason alone is a good one for manufacturers to look closely at. Large customers using flexible solutions are most likely not going to buy into NEC if they are forced to use two monitor calibration solutions instead of one. I have a fair amount of experience with this item, trust me it's true.
I don't think this is a good thing for the consumer the manufacturer or the industry. Just to shunt this one away, I don't think this has much impact on Coloreyes at all.

[quote=jackbingham,Mar 20 2008, 04:57 AM]
Wow, you pull that out of an NEC marketing piece? [/quote]

No need (if its even there). I own the product, and many others.

[quote] If this were true Lacie would be at the top of the heap. They've been doing it longer than anybody. [/quote]

Longer? Who said anything about longevity (oh, you're doing that). Has nothing to do with the points made.

[quote] But alas I have not seen them mentioned here in ages. There are countless examples of third party companies making better software. [/quote]

Indeed there are. And cases where it's not the case. Lets get specific, in this case SpectraView driving the NEC units. If you have some metric (not the marketing stuff you guys use in terms of "accuracy", lets not go down that rabbit hole again, its embarrassing for you), that you drive the NEC "better" than their product, bring it on.

[quote] Monitor manufacturers provide us with sdks so we know how to talk to their displays. [/quote]

And some don't. And that has to be a pisser for you.

[quote] Some of them actually adhere to the ddc protocol so no sdk is required, few unfortunately. There are companies, like ICS who have banked their entire survival on monitor accuracy for soft proofing. [/quote]

Survival? Sounds scary.

[quote] It's possible that they may know far more about calibrating displays than a monitor manufacturer who's primary task is building monitors. [/quote]

Yes its possible. And it's possible they know more and do a lot better job (lets see, you recall Pressview, Barco Reverence V and Sony Artisan)? Add NEC to the group.

[quote] I will restate my concerns with proprietary monitor calibration just so we're all clear and Andrew doesn't spin this into money. [/quote]

So in terms of money and spinning, that you don't have the ability to drive the NEC doesn't have bearing on your disappointment in proprietary monitor calibration?

[quote] First lets start with DNG. The argument here is partially against camera manufacturers having secret sauce that might leave you hanging if the manufacturer decided to stop doing what their doing. This could easily occur with monitors as well. [/quote]

So what's the lifespan of an archived Raw image and the lifespan of a display? Just a bit of a difference? No, if I still had a Radius Pressview, one I had 10 years ago, I could not drive the software under OS X. But then I'd be hard pressed to be using a 10+ year old CRT anyway. My 10 year old Raw file? Yes, I do want access to that data today and in 10 years. Bad analogy Jack!

[quote] Second the proprietary choice leaves users with no way to really confirm which solution is actually better. [/quote]

NOT if you use the silly accuracy yardstick you use. Its quite easy to do if you have the proper tools (a reference grade spectroradiometer and proper software).

[quote] How can the consumer possibly make an informed choice. [/quote]

One thing they can do is read outside reviews conducted by people who know how to test these things, instead of the marketing hype of the manufacturer (in this case, even someone with a 3rd party software solution).

[quote] I don't think this has much impact on Coloreyes at all.
[/quote]

I'd hope so.

In any event, you're not forced to use the NEC software to profile the NEC. I did my 2090uxi very nicely with the Eye One software until I got Spectraview. I like Spectraview much better, not only for the fact that it addresses the monitor's 12-bit LUTs directly, but also for its ease of use.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Absolutely! I've also used EyeOne Match and even the new beta colorimunki software with that hardware product on the NEC. You're not forced to use the NEC software but considering the cost (a mere $99) and better, their bundle with a colorimeter if you don't have one, its a screaming deal. The NEC software is also far, far easier to use once you setup the target calibration(s) you wish. Yes, you can switch on the fly from multiple calibration and profiles which is, like the Artisan software, very useful.

This consumer spent $80 to listen to Dr. Karl Lang and Chris Murphy at their Color Management seminar at PhotoPlusExpo. There, Dr. Lang said his tests concluded that SpectraView software, when used on NEC monitors, out-peformed third party results. Call me a sucker for a cute geek in a ponytail jumping for joy but I'll follow Dr. Lang to the ends of Delta e.

They're not as cool looking as Apple Cinema Displays but I'll take performance over style any day (within limits). Ever since I've switched to NEC, I couldn't be happier with my monitor choice, its performance, its warranty, and the money I saved. I own SpectraView and the original Monaco Optix xr Pro. This consumer is armed and ready for anything.

He's single!

Of course NEC displays work best with Spectraview. There is no way anyone can make a fair comparison since you can not compare apples with apples. Since no one but NEC can address the internal monitor lut it's a pretty sure bet they'll win every time. So let us not overly guild the lilly. They have prevented a fair comparison for what ever reason good or bad. There is really no way to know if any third party solution might be better.

Sure you can. You can use any number of other software products to compare. Now you're saying, of course NEC does it best (which I also believe is true). So you're now saying, the proprietary solution is best (I don't know how you personally made this discovery), but we all know there are a multitude of products and instruments besides SpectraView one can use. So you're saying that unless NEC opens an SDK for you, this is totally unfair?

NEC is best but despite the fact other products can calibrate it, its not a fair comparison. That makes no sense. If you simply could not use any other product to calibrate the unit, you'd have some grounds here but we all know, that's not the case.

In a matter of sense, SV profiler is a third party solution. It was developed by basICColor, and then only badged "NEC Spectraview profiler". You can buy it separetly, and, for example, "adress the internal monitor LUT" and hardware calibrate Eizo CE/CG monitor, some say it gives better results than Eizo's Color Navigator.

I suspect, that Quato's profiler is also a basICColor profiler, it has very familiar functions. So probably there are 3 professional graphics monitors manufacturers on the market (Eizo, Nec, Quato), and it seems that 2 of them use basICColor product (I ignore LaCie, it's NEC with LaCie sticker on it). Something tells me, that clever Germans just made a good product...

In Europe yes, in the states, no. SpectraView is all NEC's baby. Two totally different software packages.

Cut the bull would ya. If you can not address the internal lut you can not make as good a profile particularly if the target values are a reach from the monitor's default state. This has nothing to do with Coloreyes. This is a FACT. How can you possibly compare 4 or 5 software solutions when only one has access to all the tools. It does not make any sense at all. You are not comparing apples with apples plain and simple. You can claim the the NEC software does the best job under these limited conditions but you can't say it is as good as it could be because you don't know and can't find out.
Or we could look at it this way. Of course it's better, everyone else has one hand tied behind their backs.

There's one very good reason to use third-party software, namely calibrating multi-head systems.

And a good reason not to use ColorEyes' excellent product, namely that they aren't talking to me, ever since I said their evaluation module was not necessarily significant.

Edmund

The pot calling the kettle black I say....



Apparently there's another product from our friends in Europe who do.

And I would say that depending on the native state, you can do a valid comparison when the LUTs are not used. Is having high bit LUT useful outside that state? Yes. And the software I said does a better job than yours, something you've agreed to above is the point here.



Unfair advantage, maybe. But we can and should be able to lump your software product with the rest and if the proprietary solutions are better, well end of story. I guess this might be a reason you have a distaste for the NEC product. And its a reason I stated, and you agreed that SpectraView software IS what users should be driving this display with.



No I can and I have. Even you agreed its better.

Nothing NEC has done stops you from doing this. One could suggest multiple NEC reference displays would be a far better solution (and cost effective when you look at the price difference in the two software products being discussed) than mix and match. But I can see why that's necessary and in fact, I have one NEC, one Apple Cinema, an iMac and a Laptop and I too have to use two solutions. But the facts are clear to my eye, of all the above units, the ONE I go to for the best color appearance is the NEC. Oh, I also have that old Artisan which I can't seem to part with, it too uses a proprietary solution, it doesn't match the NEC (it can't) and it works quite well. That's my last CRT and I suspect it will go away some time soon. The NEC and Artisan are working on the same system FWIW.

Actually no I did not agree it is better. I did not say one way or the other what i thought about it. I own one too. You need to stop twisting the point as you always do. The statement was made that Spectraview worked better than the eye One software. My point...............DUH, how could it not. And that's all there is to it.

What prevents a third party solution from addressing the NEC's internal LUTs?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Oh I must have misunderstood this:

Its an interesting trend, expressed in this post. We're talking about some display technology, in this case the NEC SpectraView and the words "ColorEyes" appears and along comes Jack (he must be searching).

The original post referencing this is:



I pointed out I didn't believe that was the case, then Jack comes along with such well behaved digs as:



Of course he did agree its better (after being caught, no word which is probably a good thing).

In times where we hear about transparency, it might not at all be obvious to all readers, but Jack (who's user profile and signature is copiously missing info) is in fact associated (owns? Is the president?) of Integrated Color, the MAKERS of ColorEyes:

http://www.integrated-color.com/contact/index.html

Oh and Jack, I don't sell any hardware, I've never received a dime from NEC, my user profile is, as far as I'm aware, is pretty transparent although I'm sure you'll find a way to spin this into money....

Now, getting back to the topic.

Gentleman (Jack and Andrew),

Please take your private dispute off line.

Thanks,

Michael

I have recently bought a Eizo CE210W and I am very happy with it. I had a proffessional calibrating the monitor and the guy was surprised about the results of the monitor. He had never seen an LCD screen with such a good black level and such accurate colors (even before calibration). He was also suprised of the way he was able to fine-tune the colors, allowing very small adjustment increments and therefore making it possible to get the calibration almost spot on.

He told me it was a very good purchase, so I guess the CG241 will be about the same, if not better.

I've been using the Eizo ColorEdge CE240W for about a year now attached to my MacPro 8-core (now running Leopard since introduction day). I keep it calibrated using ColorEdge's software and an EyeOne Display2 colorimeter.

I am very happy with the results. The display is very evenly lit and matches the output from my Epson R2400 using epson-supplied paper profiles very well. I also use ImagePrint 7 with their excellent profiles. The end results are stunning.

Now I'm waiting for either Apple to revamp their 30" Cinema display or for Eizo's new 30" ColorEdge display to drop in price (the better choice I think).

Cheers.

Bud James

I'll just observe that what matters to most of us is what's on the market now (or coming very soon), not what might be achieved if a third party software company had access to an NEC developers' kit.
I've been using the NEC 2690 for two months now. I purchased it bare at first, with no calibration software, and started using it with my Spyder2Pro setup. I was very pleased with the results compared to my two year old Apple 23" display. Colors were more even in their saturation and lulminance, corner to corner. I was pretty pleased.
After reading threads like these for a while, however, I couldn't leave well enough alone, so I bought the Spectraview software and colorimeter (which at the time was on sale).
Well...
The difference is just startling. It's as if I clicked on a neutral gray card and a color cast came off the screen. The colors all just popped where they should pop and receded to neutral where they should be neutral. I've been calibrating digital displays for at least six or seven years now and haven't seen an improvement like this - it's a real breakthrough.
Most important, when I use the display in a color managed workflow that includes soft proofing, I am thrilled with the match between screen and paper. It can't be 100% of course, as transmitted light and reflected light are inherently different. But this is a leap ahead of the Apple/Spyder technology many of us have been using for a long time.
One feature I quite like is the ease of shifting among personally created calibration levels: I like to use a reduced brightness level for "general" computing - internet browsing, wordprocessing, etc. For Photoshop and related work, I shift up to a brighter level that I find a little more accurate for critical work at the extremems. Very nice.
Is the Eizo better? I don't know; it's probably as good from what I hear, but their products are much more expensive. On the other hand, if Andrew says the NEC is close enough, I'll take his word for it. I attended one of his "advanced" color management lectures back in the days of Photoshop 5 or 6 (can't remember which) and I know he's got no axe to grind. He's universally recognized as a neutral expert in color management, and he's recommending the less expensive device!
So if you get the NEC, buy the whole package (software and hardware) and relax for the next number of years, till the next breakthrough.
My two cents, as they say.

A lot of us (myself, Karl Lang, Chris Murphy to name a few) would tell you about Eizo if they would send them upon request. They appear to ignore the need to seed people test units. I suspect the photo space is pretty small and not really on their radar. They have bigger fish (the medical industry) to fry. IF the units warrant the additional price, I don't know that Eizo has done much to prove why.

Well said. This pretty much sums up my experience and satisfaction with the 2690WUXi SV.




So what's up with Apple? The wide gamut LCDs have been out for well over a year now and their prices have dropped down out of the unobtanium range (certainly at least for pros). Aside from the LED laptop screen, Apple's flat panel product line now seems to be lagging noticeably.

Apple are going lower and lower in display quality.

As for Eizo,it's now pretty much pick and hope in their product line, some of the models are not that good, some are very good.

Regarding the calibrators for those wide-gamut displays, if using a colorimeter, I think I would prefer to use a bundled instrument -which might be 'tuned', rather than the stock Xrite model.

Edmund

I've been using an Eizo CG211 for a couple of months now. It's expensive. I expect it to last five years. The color and luminance are spot-on accurate. Soft proofing for "pleasing color" is always right on. For soft proofing "accurate color" such as fine art repro, it's about as good as it gets. Instead of making three or four test prints, I now get by with one or two. I haven't seen a high-end NEC monitor up close, and I guess the 2690WUXi SV is about half of the price of the Eizo. But, if you are using a monitor every day, and it's the nerve center of all post-production decision-making, a thousand dollars isn't really much of a premium.

Yes, the CG211 is about as good as you can get in the sRGB-gamut range. This is the top of Eizo's most mature product line.

Edmund.

> Regarding the calibrators for those wide-gamut displays, if using a colorimeter, I think I would prefer to use a bundled instrument -which might be 'tuned', rather than the stock Xrite model.

That's one approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these 'tuned' colorimeters are generally OEMed versions that include custom calibration/correction matrices.
EIZO (for their CG line AFAIK) and Quato include such custom calibration matrices for each supported (general purpose) measuring device in their software.

EIZO (for their CG line AFAIK) and Quato include such custom calibration matrices for each supported (general purpose) measuring device in their software.


That's interesting, but it appears not all brands can be relied on in this regard. For example, NEC's SpectraView software, which can be purchased separately from its hardware, and which will work fine with many colorimeters out there, specifically warns the user not to rely on the Spyder 2, one of the most popular pieces in the marketplace, when running SV on wide gamut displays.
So if you do use someone else's hardware, at least check with the display manufacturer first, and see if their support folks have any comments about it.
Or just buy the matching hardware and worry about something else.

> but it appears not all brands can be relied on in this regard.

Afaik *only* EIZO and Quato do this.

I agree, getting the bundle instrument is strongly recommended if you don't own a spectro (not a colorimeter) already.

The argument militating for colorimeters and against spectros against spectros used to be the shadow noise, now the spikes of some monitor filters are also rumored to be a potential problem.

This is a bit exasperating just now as spectros are coming down in price -ColorMunki- and third party spectro-on-a-chip technology is apearing.

Anyway, I'd advise anybody here who is serious about color to get an i1Pro or ColorMunki spectro. Much more useful than a colorimeter, and still safer against obsolescence.


Edmund

Well, I got the LCD2690WUXi-BK and it easily goes down to 100cdm. The profile looks pretty good compared to my CG19 when profiled with with the i1 pro and Eye-One Match. Both monitors have a little color banding in gray gradients with the i1 software. Of course the Eizo looks much nicer with the Color Navigator software. The gradients become much smoother and more neutral. I don't have the NEC software, but I expect the same will be true with the 2690 when that software arrives. I don't work at 100cdm but just wanted to see how low it would go. The lowest luminance number I got was 50cdm. The 100cdm profile does not appear to have any problems. I am a bit surprised at all the reports of this monitor's minimum luminance being 130cdm.

Can anyone tell me how to adjust the Colorcomp level? It goes from a setting of 1 up to 5 and I can't see what's changing.

I am new to this forum, but I have pretty extensive digital and color photography and printing experience.

I just got a NEC 2690 with Spectraview II a few days ago. I'll echo the other reports. It looks fantastic. I tried profiling it at 50 cd/m2 and it seemed to be fine. Although awful dim for my use. So I also don't know why the original poster thought it had to be above 130. That is around the brightness I use. Although I bet many of my clients have their monitors set much brighter.

One thing I really like about it is I can use it as an extended gamut monitor for my photo work, and then quickly switch it to sRGB mode for software that isn't color managed. Right now I'm trying to use the monitor to see how much color I lose (if any) going from Adobe RGB to sRGB on various types of photos. A lot of my clients (even ad agencies) do not understand color management, so I prefer to keep it simple for them and provide sRGB files.

I do wonder how all of this extended gamut stuff will shake out. It seems we are very early in the process. I can't say that wider than sRGB gamut (93% of Adobe RGB they say) was a major feature for me at this time. But I am exploring its usefulness.

Alan:
How easy is it to switch into the sRGB mode? Do you do this through the Spectraview software? Through the monitor's control button buttons? When in sRGB mode, is that like using a non wide gamut monitor?

Sounds like 2 for the price of 1.

You can switch between wide gamut and sRGB using the monitor's control buttons.
There are several selections - for sRGB, native, custom, and presets.
There is also NEC NaViSet software that I downloaded that might let you do this via the keyboard but I haven't looked at it yet. Anway, it takes just a few seconds to do it via the control buttons and is clear and easy.

Yes it is like 2 for one. I don't think I'd be happy with a monitor that only works in wide gamut because most programs are not color aware and normal icons and sRGB photos viewed in wide gamut look very punchy.

The sRGB switch isn't really providing you an sRGB display (it may match closer to an older such unit). There's no way to alter the actual chromaticity of the unit. And I don't believe when you do this you're getting a calibrated/profiled sRGB device (you can't calibrate it in this state).

I believe that sRGB mode is factory set and can't be altered via calibration. Although I will say that sRGB images viewed casually in this way look about the same to me as in the calibrated full gamut mode when using color managed software.

But that is not the point. I use the calibrated high gamut mode for my critical photo work and only go to sRGB mode for surfing the web, using other programs, etc.

And I think having even an uncalibrated sRGB mode may be fine to simulate how a lot of my clients and web viewers will actually see the images.

I found this link with an explanation from NEC:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=27593688

True and for some its useful. Even more will be a display technology that actually allows the ability to alter the true chromaticity. By then of course, sRGB may go the way of the dodo bird (if we're lucky).

The other issue is the granularity of editing on a high gamut display that's been discussed here in the past. If you're working on very subtle imagery that falls within the sRGB gamut, setting this wide gamut display into "sRGB" doesn't solve that issue whereby the differences in deltaE between two Neighbor levels is still farther than on a true sRGB device.

I haven't seen this as a problem and likely never will. I shoot mostly architectural interiors and exteriors. When editing images, I am just trying to get an overall nice look. There is no way I actually know exactly what the colors of the scene are once I leave. I am just relying on my monitor calibration, white balance and overall methodolgy to establish a standard and maintain consistency.

Eventually all of this high gamut and color management will work out. I've got to say that everything seems fine for me at this point. I do have a 10 bit per color graphics card but can't make use of it yet. (And the NEC 2690 is just 8 bits as is the software.)

I used to share a studio with a photographer who did exacting digital product photography. He had a prepress expert who would convert images to CMYK and then fine tune the colors by looking at the CMYK numbers and comparing them to the actual products. They had a high end CRT monitor but he didn't rely on it at all. I really don't know how he did it. And Robert Bagby, my instructor for color printing at RIT somehow could look at a color negative and tell you how to print it.


Any opinion on scRGB?

My understanding is that the 2690 (like all the 90uxi series) has 12-bit internal LUTs which are addressed directly by the Spectraview software.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Its not necessarily the colors of the scene (that's scene referred and by the time you end up editing, its output referred). More so the gamut of the output referred data. If it falls within sRGB and you need to do very subtle editing, its simply more difficult to see these areas on a wider gamut display.

It may not at all be an issue for some. But it can be for others. IOW, a wide gamut display has significant advantages to those working with wider gamut images (wider than sRGB) but could equally be an issue for those working with lower gamut images doing very subtle color work. There's no free lunch with the current technology.

UNLESS the document is going out to that CMYK device, this is a pretty stupid idea!

I don't know too many color geeks I respect who think we need yet another RGB working space. So scRGB is not anything to worry about, especially since its not installed by Adobe applications for one.

I just bought a NEC LCD 2690WUXi monitor and the Spectraview2 software with the NEC Eye one colorometer.I already had an Eye One display 2 that came with HP APS.
I was told by NEC sales that the colorometer was tuned for the Monitor.Maybe Digital Dog can tell us if the Eye One colorometer is tuned for Just the NEC or did I buy another Eye One Display2 Colorometer for nothing?