Good day all,

Shopping for a new monitor.

Is there any differences between the NEC 2490WXUi and the 2690WXUi?

Is the 2690 well, just bigger, or does it have different specs?

Thanks?

Well, for one thing, the 2490 is a SRGB monitor and the 2690 is (I believe) 93% of ARGB.

Search the forums here using NEC 2690 as search terms and you'll find a lot of discussions on the relative merits.

Paul

Thanks Paul,

I have read quite a few of them, but not all.

It is difficult to gleam the differences of the two from the various postings and was hoping to get a more direct answer at the two monitors (as opposed to any others).

I am an advanced amateur that doesn't mind spending a couple of extra bucks on a good monitor (my current one gives me a headache) and the price difference between the 24 and 26 is less than $200 so it warrants a look.

Now I'll admit to being a newbe when it comes to aRGB and sRGB and the pros and cons of each. Never thought of it much until I needed a new monitor and I realized how bad my old one is.

I don't do fine art prints, I do mostly portraits, landscape, and other general stuff (sports).

From NECs website I see the 24 hits 75% aRGB and the 26 hits 93.8.
for NTSC the 24 gets 71 and the 26 gets 91

Neither says anything about sRGB (unles NTSC is the same thing)

So to me the 26 is better in both.

I'm afraid I'm at the bottom of the learning curve of monitors, I don't get how a monitor (the 24) gets such high praise when it only displays 71-75 of the colour space.

Thanks again.

The color gamut differences aren't important because you won't be able to take advantage of it with an 8 bit video system so I'ld advise not basing your decision on that.

The one caveat for using any display larger than sRGB is that your sRGB converted images are going to look a bit saturated viewed only on that display in non-CMed browsers when proofing for web design.

Thanks gents,

I should add all my output goes to print.

The only time I do anything for the web is when I put proofs up for clients to view.

I have been shooting in aRGB in RAW, processing in aRGB using CS3 and then converting sRGB as the final step before sending to print.

Whether that workflow is good or bad I don't know. It's just what I have been doing.

I suppose now that I think about it, it may not be the best as I might lose some of the extended color from the conversion from aRGB to sRGB rendering subtle differences in the final product.

From what I understand also is that most printers cannot print the aRGB gamut so maybe I want to stick with sRGB from start to finish.

Gord

Any RGB Gamut (considering popular synthetic editing spaces) is larger than any printer gamut. But it's not that simple - gamuts have various shapes, so even a really huge RGB gamut doesn't always cover the whole gamut of the printer, that is "growing" in opposite directions.

Wide gamut panel is not necessarly better than a normal gamut panel - it may reproduce some saturated colors better, but at the cost of lower precision of the whole rest. It may be useful in a situation, when we need to softproof the results of wide gamut multichannel pigment printers, flexography, hexachrome and spot color offset printing. In case of simple printers, digital labs and normal CMYK offset printing a sRGB panel is good enough, and it may softproof the output with greater accuracy, and smoother look.

If - at the end - you're converting the images to sRGB, there's no reason to render the images to an aRGB color space. It only may cause some colorimetric errors and even spoil the tonality of the picture.

Thanks Czornyj,

Your last comment is what I was thinking. If I do all my editing in the larger aRGB space and then convert to sRGB just prior to sending to the lab I risk loosing something that I thought was there. As well as editing the image to look "good" in aRGB only to have the tonality ruined by the conversion.

I guess as a photographer I was also trying to figure out the how and why I would use aRGB in my workflow.

I either read somewhere or someone mentioned to me to shoot in aRGB to capture as much colour as I could.

As much as I may like the larger monitor, it appears that may not be the best thing for me.

Darn.

Thanks

Gord

One my ask, however, why it is that you're converting to sRGB as your last step. Most good inkjet printers will cover more than sRGB, so you're better off sticking with Adobe RGB if that is your output. The only reason I can think of to convert to sRGB before printing is if you're sending it out for print to a shop that requires that.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Well the wide gamut display IS providing a larger color gamut of the data. How is this not important for those that work with imagery outside the sRGB gamut and how are they not taking advantage of the increased gamut?

You haven't been "shooting in aRGB in Raw", you're been shooting Raw which has no such defined color space. It could be sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB or any RGB color space the converter supports. If you're shooting a JPEG, different story.



Its OK. You need to define what your final output will be (it may be many differing devices). You sort of need to have an idea what the gamut of the scene(s) you'll shoot will be as digital cameras don't have a fixed color gamut, you might shoot a scene that has a very small gamut, or one that's huge. The later may well exceed (and often does), Adobe RGB (1998).

See:http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf



IF the final product always is and always will be something closer to sRGB, then yes. But if you decide in a year to print to say, an Epson 3800, then no. Many modern printers exceed even Adobe RGB gamut.



Untrue. Using the K3 inkset, there significant colors that fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. And there may be colors in Adobe RGB that are not. We're fitting round pegs in square holes here.

[quote=digitaldog,Jul 6 2008, 06:00 AM]
You haven't been "shooting in aRGB in Raw", you're been shooting Raw which has no such defined color space. It could be sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB or any RGB color space the converter supports. If you're shooting a JPEG, different story.


Thank you Andrew,

The light just went on.....dimly, but it's on.

So in my current way of doing things, the 2490 with it's better display of the sRGB CS seams appropriate for me at this stage.

Having said that,

If I did get the 2690 (its only $110 more the the 24) and I continued to process as I have (with minor the alteration to RAW > sRGB >print) I don't imagine I would notice much difference from screen to final print. It would give the ability in time that should I need it I would have the aRGB display.

What I'm asking I guess if the 24 was displaying aRGB and the 26 was displaying sRGB, which would render better results?

Many thanks, think it's time to buy your book


Gord

[quote=GFH,Jul 6 2008, 07:44 PM]
[quote=digitaldog,Jul 6 2008, 06:00 AM]
You haven't been "shooting in aRGB in Raw", you're been shooting Raw which has no such defined color space. It could be sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB or any RGB color space the converter supports. If you're shooting a JPEG, different story.
Thank you Andrew,

The light just went on.....dimly, but it's on.

So in my current way of doing things, the 2490 with it's better display of the sRGB CS seams appropriate for me at this stage.

Having said that,

If I did get the 2690 (its only $110 more the the 24) and I continued to process as I have (with minor the alteration to RAW > sRGB >print) I don't imagine I would notice much difference from screen to final print. It would give the ability in time that should I need it I would have the aRGB display.

What I'm asking I guess if the 24 was displaying aRGB and the 26 was displaying sRGB, which would render better results?

Many thanks, think it's time to buy your book
Gord

[/quote]
I have a 2690 WUXi it is 23 1/4 x 15 1/2 AND it's only 25 1/4 measured dia.These are not real close measurements, just close by maybe 1/8 inch off.I think you would like the 2690 with spectraview 2 software.Digital Dog said in a post not long ago ,not to buy NEC's Colorometer as it was the same as a Eye One Display 2. I already had that with HP's APS. I would buy the Spectraview 2 software though.I shoot in aRGB and RAW.I'm a follower, not a leader.Even my Apple Cinema Display 23 in. worked good .My monitor /printer and lighting cond. Are all color managed.So far everything with some thinking, thrown in, are good to read.Read everything here at least 2x.Then buy it.

As long as you'll stick with sRGB and narrow gamut printers, 2490 will render better results. On the other hand - as soon as you'll start printing your works on a wide gamut printer (like Epson with K3, Canon with Lucia and HP with Vivera inks), sRGB color space will become a limiting factor, that will not allow you to utilize the whole potential of the device. In that case using ProPhoto and a wide gamut panel would be a better choice.


Great idea! It really helps when you understand how it works...

Its a bit like asking, what's better, a 35mm 1.4 or a 85mm 1.4.

In a color managed application, the wider gamut will still show the same preview as the sRGB device when sent sRGB but the differences between each color will be visually (and colorimetrically) farther apart. That would make seeing subtle colors harder. But on the other hand, colors that exceed sRGB (and within the gamut of this larger display) would be visible and not on the sRGB device. Just like you can bring a farther object closer with the 85mm but if you need a wider angle of view, you'll have to move back or switch to the 35mm. There's no "right" answer here other than, ideally you'd have both.

For me, I see little in the sRGB working space. My capture and output devices (other than web viewing) all exceed it. I prefer the wide gamut unit for that reason.

Thanks gentlemen,

It appears as though it is a philosophical decision that I have to wade through.

Next step is to see what my lab has for printers and go from there.

It a perfect world I suppose I'd have one of each sitting on my desk, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

After this I get to start this whole process over again when I go printer shopping :/

Andrew,

I see on the cover of your book it says CS2, Does it matter much, or any , that I use CS3? (when I look at your link)

Thanks

Gord

Nope, nothing has really changed between CS2 and CS3 other than the Print dialog (and not much there either).