Such equipment is usually cheaper in the US because of the larger market, but I see that Dell are now offering this monitor at A$200 less than just a few days ago. It's now the equivalent of US$1000 and about the same price as the LaCie 22" CRT in Australia.

To cause even more indecision, Lacie produce a 21" LCD, the 321, which is getting rave reviews. Amongst other features it boasts a 10 bit gamma correction (as opposed to the usual 6 or 8 bit for most LCDs), and a CRT-grade color gamut of 72% NTSC. (Is 72% of NTSC good? I wouldn't know  :D ).

The current price in Australia is almost exactly double the 22" CRT. I doubt that LaCie are making an LCD monitor that's better than their top of the line CRT. Perhaps almost as good, so it seems if you want an LCD monitor as good as a CRT and the same size, you have to pay at least double the price. Would this be right?  :D

Hmm, good point, and stupid of me to forget that possibility.

While you're probably right in this case, it is not given that it's the driver's adjustment of brightness and contrast that's the most detrimental to color accuracy. It depends on the quality of the panel's controls -- how badly does the panel take to squeezing gain (contrast), and what happens when you squeeze the backlighting -- and exactly what the graphics driver is tweaking in the first place.

It is, for instance, entirely possible that ATI's display drivers utilize MCCS to send at least some of the brightness/contrast/gamma/geometry/whatever adjustment commands to the display panel. That's what MCCS is there for, but ATI of course doesn't document whether they're using that, nor does Dell.

I've contacted ATI support with a set of questions regarding exactly what the gamma, brightness and contrast controls do, since that is completely undocumented. Well, except for "RTFB", which is beyond my combined patience and capability.


Yes, that's absolutely a plausible explanation.

I'll keep on checking with alternate methods; I've just downloaded trial versions of MCCS aware applications, and I'll see if these give me greater control over the actual panel settings.

It may just be that the verdict "not suitable for color critical work" is warranted. If that is so, I'll definitely return the panel to Dell and say, "sorry, not good enough", and order a LaCie 321 if it's still in stock. I'd rather sacrifice the 320x1200 pixels of real estate than predictability and color accuracy.




Now for an excursion into the joys of the predictability of vendor software:

I've spent a few hours now researching how this brightness/contrast thing might work, so I may (yet again) be a bit too tired to do this properly, but I created a Granger test chart to see if it would be possible to see and problems with the display. I have, after all, calibrated the Samsung successfully (that is, without resorting to software controls).

Thanks to Windows's actually well-functioning Control+PrintScreen function, I was able to capture a screenshot of the Granger chart as I had placed it on the divider of the two monitors:

http://folk.uio.no/jani....405.PNG (587 KB)

What you should see here, is that the right side of the chart (Dell) shows clearly worse color gradations than the left (Samsung). That is, unless your monitor is really, really bad. I can even see the differences on the.

That I couldn't see this last night either might suggest that I was incredibly tired (how did I find my bed?), or that something changes with logout/login. And in case someone wants me to check the obvious: No, Adobe Gamma is not running at startup.

So what's happened?

Well, late at night yesterday, I did an attempt at finding some software controls for the disabled OSD settings, working from the assumption that adjusting things in the monitor would be better than doing it from ATI's control panel. I then noticed that there was one part of the monitor installation disk I'd ignored, and that was a document describing what Dell calls "driver installation". "Aha!" thought I, that's where I'll find the controls for better adjustment!

Guess what it does. :cool:

It does three things that I have noticed:

1) Updates the driver information database.
2) Installs Dell's factory profile to Windows' profile directory.
3) Removes the custom profiles from the available list, and sets the factory profile as the default.

Thanks, Dell, that was helpful. You could have at least asked sometime during the installation process whether I might want to keep my recent profile active or not.

For the record, the Granger chart now only looks slightly different on the two displays, and the difference is in a slightly softer and smoother expression on the Samsung (which has higher pixel density). If I'd left the brightness at minus whatever, the Samsung would clearly dispaly a wider range of colour intensities.


I'll try recalibrating for a higher luminance target when I'm awake again. And then I'll turn my critical eye back on.

Using that Granger chart may just have been one of the more clever things I've tried.

But can you calibrate it?

Well, I'd go one step further, and say that it could be good for PS nuts, too. Just not for people who are particular about equivalent color representation on the display and on print.

But it does require quite a lot of ambient lighting to do that. A regular desk lamp with an 11 watt tube and mirror placed just above the screen and helps ... wait, here's a couple of images explaining it better:




Okay, the lighting should obviously be a bit more even, but the point stands: ambient lighting helps, because there's less strain on the eyes.

The Blue-Eye is nothing more than the original Eye-One (not the Eye-One 2) and according to DryCreek the Eye-One 2 will turn out better calibration results.

well then i must be doing something wrong. i hae had the dell for a month now, have tried calibrating it i dont know how many times, it is always too bright. it is absolutely a beautiful screen, but i just cant get the image to match the printout (or vice versa). the screen is always much brighter, and when i say much i mean much. can anyone suggest what the best way to remedy the situation is..short of buying another screen.

no the monitor is too bright, that is the prints are not at all what i see on the monitor (after calibration of course, i use monaco xrite). it is not that the image that i see on the monitor is necessarily too bright, it is just that the print is not at all as bright as the image on the monitor. i dont think it's the calibration device, i have used it before to calibrate other screens with a higher level of success. i dont know what the problem is with this dell, i just can't calibrate it even close enough. very very annoying.

That's easy. Increase ambient light to match the screen. Any monitor-print match will only be valid for one lighting condition. Increasing ambient makes the print brighter and the monitor relatively darker; decreasing ambient has the opposite effect. If your monitor is "too bright" it's because your room is "too dark".

Jonathan,
Notice I mentioned this kludge fix as a last resort if the brighter lighting doesn't fix the problem. Increasing the lighting under which the print is viewed will certainly make a dark print look lighter but it does not have a reciprocal effect on the image on the screen, ie. make the screen image look darker; rather it makes the screen image look washed out and less contrasty.

I get the impression Abaazov's prints are still slightly too dark in bright daylight. If that's the case, he needs to create the conditions such that the screen image looks darker. I assume that the monitor's brightness adjustments are already at a minimum, therefore the only alternative I see is the kludge approach I suggested, unless Abaazov is able to get a different calibration result through perseverance and use of different settings, reducing the RGB values through the video adaptor and/or the monitor's controls, whatever.

well for whatever its worth guys, and obviously i am no expert, like i said before, i believe the color rendition to be quite accurate. in the monitor calibration process, i changed the room lighting parameter to dim and recalibrated a few times and i have gotten respectable results. i must point out again though that the final product varies greatly depending on the paper i use, namely with the premium luster the printout is very very good. i have done a few more tests with velvet fine art and the last couple of prints are pretty darn good. but i would have to do more tests with "tougher" images to be sure, although thats no fun given the cost of this beautiful paper. with the enhanced matte i am still having problems, i am using the epson profiles. either way, every single print, regardless of paper, looks much better and much truer when viewed in daylight, and i guess thats the way i want it. for my money this screen is worth it, as i am not a professional, and i doubt i'll be hanging up my prints in any gallery anytime soon.

amnon

hi, i just got the dell 2405. i was wondering if anyone out there has it, and if you could advise me as to the parameters to use when calibrating it. i am using monaco optix xr.
also, when i plug the monitor using the dvi outlet, i have no contrast option. does that make a difference when i calibrate? should i be using the dvi outlet?
thanks...
amnon

Here are some preliminary results after calibration, and impressions from the calibration process, which is a first-timer for me, although I've been convinced that calibration is healthy for a good while. Maybe someone will find this useful, perhaps the more recent members?


Introduction

I calibrated my recently acquired Dell 2405FPW (and my old Samsung SyncMaster 710T) with a borrowed Eye-One Proof set. The result was (unsurprisingly) an improvement over Adobe Gamma, but unfortunately not as good predictability for prints as I'd hoped. Printer calibration may rectify that. Viewing quality is pleasing, and I'm pretty sure I can live with the 2405FPW after this.


Setup and Equipment

As a minor note, I'd like to point out that it's very convenient to have a secondary monitor to place program windows in when the initial steps of the calibration process are done. It's especially important on DVI connected displays, where e.g. contrast is set in software rather than through the OSD (on-screen display).

My relevant equipment is:

Displays: Dell 2405FPW and Samsung SyncMaster 710T
Graphics adapter: Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro Atlantis
Printer: Epson R1800
Photo editing software: Adobe Photoshop CS2
Profiling/calibration: Eye-One Proof (borrowed from a friend's workplace, lucky me!)


The Profiling and Calibration Process

Since there were no instructions in the box (they have been misplaced, I suppose), I just inserted the CD and installed Eye-One Match 3 from there.

I started the software, and the user interface seemed quite okay. I selected monitor profiling, and advanced mode.

The first menu meeting me to select LCD, CRT or Laptop, so I changed to LCD from the default CRT.

The next menu asks me to select target white point, gamma and luminance.

This is where 2405 owners must beware; setting the target luminance to the LCD recommendation of 140 is only possible through the use of adjustments in the graphics driver combined with those of the OSD. Keep in mind that a warmer white point makes it easier to reach the LCD recommendation of 140.

I've tried setting the target white point to both 5000 and 6500. 5000 is what they recommend for proofing, and that's what I've ended up using.

I left gamma at 2.2.

At this point, I'm allowed to make an ambient light measurement. I already suspected that the ambient lighting in my apartment's workroom/guestroom wasn't up to par, and measuring as advised shows that while the luminance level is surprisingly good, the color temperature is approximately 2900 K instead of the recommended 5200 K. Oops. But there's nothing I can do about that right now; I probably have to repaint the walls and get white bookcases. ::

The next step is to calibrate the Eye-One. That was really easy, just placing the device on the holder with the ceramic calibration tile. A minor annoyance is that if you go back and forth between the steps, then you're still required to re-calibrate the device, which is an annoying waste of time. I'd like to be able to say "no, thanks, I just calibrated the thing, remember it for me".

Now to what turned out to be a tricky step; placing the Eye-One on the monitor, and as close to the center as possible. This is a problem both with my Samsung 710T and the Dell 2405FPW, and I suspect with any LCD, until the operator's brain engages and notices that the rubber band connecting the counterweight and the LCD holder is adjustable.

A more serious problem is that unless I tilt my monitor a bit or drag the USB cable underneath and behind the monitor, the LCD holder has a tendency to not lay flat, but rather leave a small gap at the bottom. This creates an uneven pressure, which of course can result in coloring artifacts near the top. And that's where the sensor is closest to.

Now comes the "bummer" for those of us using a DVI display: adjusting the contrast. I can do this by right-clicking on the empty desktop and selecting "ATI CATALYST™ Control Center", selecting View->Advanced View, and "Color" from the Graphics Settings. Then I'll see a nice contrast slider. At this point, it's wise to check that you're adjusting the right graphics adapter, as in the one controlling the monitor you plan to calibrate ...

While the Eye-One Match 3 instructions tell you to "Set the contrast to 100%", this means that the ATI contrast slider should be set to 200 (the maximum). I hope. :cool: I leave the other settings ("Gamma" and "Brightness" in their neutral positions, 1.0 and 100 respectively.

Clicking on "start" then initiates the procedure for locating where I've placed the Eye-One. When that's done, it's just an easy matter of resetting the contrast to a sane value, which is indicated by a black bar being as close to the middle of a green field (and a zero above it) as possible. For my graphics card and the 2405FPW, a contrast setting of 105 has consistently proven to be the nearest I can get.

The next step, RGB adjustments for setting the white point, is another tricky one with the 2405. There are two choices; RGB controls or RGB presets. The recommendation is to use the controls if the monitor supports it, and that is true for both my monitors.

The first attempt failed spectacularly when the Eye-One failed completely to detect adjustments in the blue channel above "50" (the midpoint), while I could clearly see the colors change onscreen. Ouch. I went back and wiped the ceramic tile for self-calibration with a lens microfiber cloth, and with the next two attempts, the Eye-One cooperated. I then did another calibration just for the sake of writing this up, and now suddenly the red channel adjustments above midpoint were undetected. Restarting the adjustment procedure for RGB doesn't help, setting the correct red channel value becomes guesswork. Am I supposed to be at 51, 52 or 53? My only clues are the changes in green and blue. Redoing the calibration yields the same problems with red. That's three failures out of five attempts.

Now to set the luminance. On my display, I had to set the OSD setting to 0 -- zero, and the Catalyst brightness slider to -87 (139.4-139.6 cd/m^2) or -86 (140.3-140.5 cd/m^2).

The final step is the easiest, the one where the Eye-One measures all the colors and hopefully shows some good results.

Edit:
During the last run, I also had a temporary problem with a green cast to the black background when the device was doing the last step of profiling. I aborted the step, touched the bottom part of the device, and restarted that last step. No cast.

But after this step, there is no stepping back to the previous point, and that's very bad user interface design. What if I want to rerun the last step because I realized I'd accidentally touched a color, brightness, contrast or gamma control and the result sucked? Well, obviously, I have to close the program completely. Come on!


So, What About the Results?

Here's a summary of the last runs tonight:

Run 4:

Color temperature is excellent, spot on. Ditto for gamma. Luminance is off; the target of 140 isn't reached, the measured luminance is 182.7. The minimum luminance measured is 0.9. That doesn't seem so bad.

Run 5 (attempting to detect changes in red again):

Color temperature is 4900 (off by 100 K), gamma is 2.1 (off by 0.1), luminance is 179.8 (off by 39.8). The minimum luminance measured is 4.5, and the screen's contrast is lousy.

I'm sticking to the profile from run 4.


The Important Part: How Good Does It Look?

Looking at a selection of a handful of images that I took on July 2nd, the colors look slightly more natural than they did before. And yes, the difference is only slight, compared to the manual adjustments I performed with Adobe Gamma. But shadow detail and gradation is also slightly better, and I see a marked improvement in the highlights; that's where my real gain has been.

Why did my highlights improve? Well, the color temperature has come down from around 6000 K to 5000 K, the contrast is up by 5%, and the brightness is down by a lot. These were the things that Adobe Gamma couldn't do for my eyes, and I've had as clear an advantage from profiling as I've expected and hoped for.

The Prints

The printer uses the canned profiles from Epson. I had a vague hope that I could use the Eye-One Proof to calibrate this one for my selection of papers (it's supposed to support "RGB easy"), but I could find no way to work around the error message for selecting an RGB printer.

For testing, I selected a picture of a rose, taken on a sunny day:



Soft-proofing revealed that a lot of the background, particularly the darker areas, were well out of gamut for one of my chosen papers of the day, Epson Premium Glossy Photo. The other paper, Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl, did not show as much out-of-gamut (huh?). For the Epson paper, I created a hue/saturation adjustment layer based on a fuzzy selection of the out-of-gamut colors, and tuned down the saturation until I was close to in-gamut. I also did one version where I just converted to the Epson paper's profile before printing.

The results were somewhat surprising. The printed images are very similar in color tones, but the color balance is different from what I see on my monitor. The rose looks more pink on screen (regardless of soft proofing or not), and I'm tempted to say that the image on paper is both more red and yellow, and slightly less natural-looking. I think the representation on-screen (pre-softproofing) is closer to what the rose really looked like. But the yellow on this printer is really good.

Ilford's supplied profile for smooth pearl seems definitely better than the canned profile for Epson's own papers, or it's the paper itself. The Ilford paper's color gradations are smooth and nice, whereas Epson's paper seems to give me something similar to a posterization effect in the yellow, green and dark green transitions, especially visible in the lower right corner. This is visible in the soft proof, too. The Epson paper seems to deliver a wee bit more detail, but I didn't use USM, Focus Magic or anything similar to bring out the details in the first place, so it's really hard to tell. I think I'll be using smooth pearl quite a bit in the future, though.


Ruminations On Quality and Results

While some of the things I write may indicate that I'm unhappy with the performance of the calibration device -- which would be a correct observation -- I think that there may be reasons other than quality control on the manufacturer's side here.

For one thing, it was a borrowed device, it's been used many times by the owner. The way the device is constructed, it's entirely possible for dust to accumulate near and around the sensor. It's also possible for dust and grime to do their worst on the ceramic calibration tile. This probably happens when the owner/user isn't careful enough with handling. I'll be sure to notify the owner about this when I return it, their own calibration results may be off by quite a bit if they don't pay attention.

I'm mostly satisfied with the results for my part, though I wonder what I can do to fix that imprecision with red/yellow, except re-profiling, re-calibrating and hoping for the best. And if I squeeze things in that end, will my blues, cyans and magentas suffer next?


Conclusion

The Dell 2405FPW can definitely be profiled and calibrated, and it resulted in a clear improvement on both measurable and perceived image quality. This is in spite of technical problems with the profiling process.

Soft proofing still leaves a bit to desired for accuracy, but I'll work a bit on that by re-profiling and re-calibrating a few times more.

Jani,
Thanks for taking the trouble to describe your calibration attempts. The impression I'm getting is that you basically haven't succeeded in a proper calibration yet. As you say, it could be because the calibrator has been knocked around a bit, or maybe the canned Epson profiles you are using are simply not accurate enough.

I'm using an Epson 7600 with Bill Atkinson profiles. What I see on my 5 year old 19" Viewsonic CRT does not quite match the printed output interms of red saturation and over all 'pop'. But what I see with softproof on and 'simulate white paper' ticked does match the print output almost exactly.

I usually make a copy of the broadly adjusted image and fine tune that in relation to a specific paper profile with softproof on. This usually involves making a general increase in saturation (or specifically just the reds) and perhaps a local contrast adjustment.

The whole point of calibration is to provide the confidence that, when you hit the print button, the results are going to match what you expect and what you see on your monitor in all respects; degree of shadow detail, accuracy of colour and tone etc.

You don't seem to have arrived at this state yet, with your 2405.

I'm relying on you, Jani, to get a perfect match before I make the decision to buy this LCD monitor .

Or more to the point, can you calibrate it sufficiently well to make viewing your photos on it, as a slide show, a pleasurable experience, which might even save lots of ink and paper.  :D

It's not a contraption, it's just a regular desklamp, for illustrating the point about needing more ambient light.

Ambient light is the light around you, generated by the Sun, reflections, light bulbs, light tubes, ...

Having brighter ambient light in the workroom works just the same way as the difference of looking at a window to the sunny outside and being in the sunny outside.

But it's still just a poor solution for the problem.

Perhaps I should not be so dismissive. It's probably good for all purposes other than critical work involving a high degree of color accuracy. After all, you've spent good money on this monitor and I believe it is good value. Just not ideal for photoshop nuts  :D .

I've got no experience calibrating LCD screens. Best ask those people at Rob Galbraith's site what the secret is  :D .

Sorry, I'm not followng. You saying the prints might be too bright if the abmient lighting was higher?


There is no question that the brightness controll on the monitor is adjusting the backlight; it is.

The problem is that with the backlight at its dimmest, the monitor is still too bright.

is there a simple way to measure ambient light?

And when you view the print in proper lighting it will be all jacked up. Ray, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Better yet, put a $15, 15W, "5000K" screw-in flourescent bulb in a gooseneck desklamp and position it over your printer's output tray. Mine's a Rolite, and my color meter measured it as 5700K.

As for comments on brightness earlier in this thread, the solution to an overly bright monitor is not to view the prints in brighter light. You should view the prints under illumination typical of display conditions, and your monitor should be adjusted to match that brightness. At 180cd/m2, the monitor is too bright, and prints will look dark and dingy under typical indoor illumination. You'd have to shine a floodlamp on the prints to make them look as bright as the monitor. Hence the need to get the monitor down to 120-140cd/m2.

Abaazov,
Have you succeeded in calibrating this monitor yet, using the DVI input? The Dell 2405FPW seems to be remarkably good value with very impressive specifications; contrast ratio of 1000:1; brightness 500 cd/m2; native resolution 1920x1200; PVA technology for rich blacks that rival those of CRT; a host of interface choices, including DVI, YUV, S-Video and RCA; 8 bit processing per channel and a price tag of around US$1000.

I guess a major disappointment is the DVI interface does not support HDCP which would be needed for encrypted HDTV signals.

I'm thinking of getting one but I'd like some feedback from someone who has used this monitor with Photoshop and successfully calibrated it.

Keep in mind that any adjustments to the display other than the analog brightness adjustment on the monitor will alter the video card's LUT tables reducing the number of luminosity values per 8-bit channel you have to display on the monitor.

In plain english that means that your monitor will suffer in color accuracy and is probably why you are having issues with softproofing (not counting many other variables such as light...)

For best results and color critical work this monitor is too bright and the only solutions to reducing the luminosity of it are either;
1. Don't use this monitor for photo editing
...or...
2. Install a dimmer switch in the back of the monitor to further reduce backlight brightness. Now that would be an interesting project...

The Samsung 213T seems a bit overpriced in Australia. Don't know about Norway. In US dollars, it's $1500 over here as opposed to $1950 for the LaCie 321. Since the 213T has been around for a couple of years now, perhaps it's due for a price drop as people ceased to be impressed with its slow response time of 25ms and low brightness of 250cd/m2, which of course is of no concern to Photoshop users, I know.

The other issue is 10 bit grayscale. It seems very few monitors are capable of this range. I don't believe the 213T is, because it's not advertised. I could be wrong. The LaCie 321 is definitely 10 bit. In fact, the only negative I've read about the LaCie 321 is the awkwardness of the tilt and swivel mechanism.

What disturbs me about the 213T is the occasional 'less than flattering' review, so I wonder if the Samsung, whilst exceptional when it first came out, is now behind the times.

The following comment is from a recent review (April 2005).



Of course, the explanation could be simple. The reviewers simply don't know what they're doing. They are not as expert as Jonathan.

In Norway, it's about half the price of the LaCie 321 (ca. USD 1100  vs. USD 2200, incl. taxes), though it was almost the same as in Australia just a few months ago.

Reviews are generally positive, but somewhat mixed for the 213T. It seems there is some production variation. But then again, most reviewers don't calibrate.

Among reviewers that calibrate, the NEC 2080UX and 2180UX receive generally better reviews, and the LaCie 321 is reported as a notch above the NECs, particularly because of the better grays. The LaCie reportedly uses the same panel as the 2180UX, but the NEC doesn't have 10-bit gamma correction.

It appears, though, that Samsung has a new display generation on the way. A panel named LTM213U6 is listed as being in production from 2Q 2005, with S-PVA, 1600x1200, contrast ratio of 1000:1, 300 cd/m^2 and 10 ms response time. It also has a wide aspect ratio sibling, the LTM210M2, 1680x1050, 1000:1, 400 cd/m^2 and 8 ms. (samsung.com)

Perhaps I should just bide my time for a few weeks and see what crops up (the LTM213U6 shouldn't be too bright). But it disturbs me that in the meanwhile, I have to battle with my monitor and printer and not get easily predictable results.

jani, what is that contraption you have unearthed?? is there another, simpler way to get more ambient light? i'mnot sure i understand, is ambient light supposed to make everything else around me brighter, to compensate for the brightness of the screen? if i decrease the brightness on a monitor that has been calibrated, does that render the calibration completely useless?

Michael Tapes was in that Rob Galbraith thread.  I would suspect he would provide a nice answer.

I think the trouble is, calibration can be a bit tricky in the best of circumstances. Starting off with a monitor that might be more suitable as a TV makes it even more tricky.
The fact that the signal processing is only 8 bit (per channel)seems to me to create some limitations. The more extensive the adjustments required, the higher the bit depth required if the final result in 8 bit is not to be degraded.

What quality would you expect from a digital camera that had an 8 bit A/D converter, or film scanned at 8 bit instead of 16 bit?

DAC is a Digital-to-Analog converter that converts digital signal to an analog signal for CRT monitors. I'm guessing since you do not have that on the video card you must not have a D-SUB connector and just have two DVI connectors (a mac?).

I'm also guessing the test you downloaded (which I can't download as their site seems to be down) is testing for writable DAC support which basically refers to the ability to alter the LUTs via the DAC.

There is also DDC (Display Data Channel) which lets the Manaco software adjust the analog monitor controls automaticaly but this is an item that requires special monitor support.

Niether DAC or DDC are required to calibrate a monitor of any sort. The analog brightness adjustments on the LCD are controlled entirely by the LCD and are accesed though the buttons on the front of the LCD.

I probably can't help you much. I have no experience calibrating LCDs. It could even be there's some setting that's wrong in the printing procedures you're using. Are you using Photoshop Elements? Are you using a specific profile for the printer and paper type? Are you using proof setup? Do your images have an embedded profile? Have you disabled the printer's handling of color management?

An ambient light reading of 2750k seems very warm. Is this in the evening with tungsten lighting? Daylight is 6500k. I really don't know how you should be using that ambient light reading. I calibrate my CRT to D65 and in the evening I use energy saving lights that claim to emit a cool daylight spectrum. Sometimes the packaging even mentions a temperature of 6500k.

Well, perhaps you're right. Abaazov hasn't made it clear if the prints are too dark in their intended viewing environment or just too dark in a poorly lit working environment in the evening with normal tungsten lighting. I've assumed, rightly or wrongly, they are too dark for hanging on the wall in a room with a reasonable amount of daylight streaming through the windows, as opposed to taking them outside in bright sunlight. If they are not too dark in a normal room in the daytime, then there was never a problem in the first place. When I'm printing in the evening, my prints are also too dark compared with the monitor unless I shine a light on them. I have a table lamp next to my monitor with a D65 globe

yes ray i have calibrated it using the dvi input, and yes it is really a very good monitor. it might be just a little too bright, but it is otherwise a great performer. i used monaco optix xr. for photoshop i think it is excellent, and as for the price, i believe you can even get it cheaper than 1000$ us now....i have even seen it for around 800$!!
but i have a technical question that maybe you can answer. when i calibrate the monitor using the dvi input, i dont have any contrast control for calibration. can you explain to me why that is?

amnon

If both contrast and color reproduction improve just a bit after calibration, I'll keep* this monitor[/QUOTE]

i think you will be pleasantly surprised....with ca;ibration the improvement was more than just a bit jani

as for the blacks, they are certainly better than what i had before, (samsung 913t) but i also think they could be better.

amnon

NTSC = Never Twice the Same Color.

But the basic gamut of NTSC is something that many want to compare their gamuts to, yes.

The 321 is on my purchase list if I decide to return the Dell. The price is 40% higher than the Dell over here, and I'll lose 320 pixels wide screen real estate. But the 321 is "known good".



Hehe, that's funny.

But why wouldn't LaCie do that? Business wise, it would be a pretty sound decision, if they can do it.

By the way, the price difference is only 50% here in Norway, so get over here and get buying. ::

As for price and quality, the EIZO CG220 (also LCD) is, for instance, in the same price range as the Sony Artisan was. EIZO claims that this monitor has

(EIZO's Adobe RGB boast-sheet)

That's what I'd buy if I had the money.

That's a fair and probably accurate impression. ::


I talked to my friend yesterday, and he said that both it and the calibration tile had been lying on desks for months. Accumulated dust is entirely possible, and that doesn't exactly bode well for the predictability of calibration, either.


This is quite possible, too. But with the current circumstances, that's really hard to tell. For the record, the now-calibrated Samsung disagrees with both the Dell and the printer.


While here it's almost vice versa; the print output appears to show more saturation in at least some colors. And that's compared to either display.


I'll do my best. But I may just end up returning it and go for that tempting LaCie 321.

I'm glad to hear that, Jonathan, as I've just gotten a 213T myself. It looks gorgeous out of the box, but I haven't calibrated it yet (need to be awake to do that).

Eric

It has to do with the "Shiny Factor." The average person is oohed and ahhed by bright shiny things. When they look at a sharp and very bright LCD and then at a dimmer CRT they think the LCD is nicer. I don't think it's anything beyond that. The word "brighter" is easily marketed since it sounds good. If they advertised "accurate color" then all the poeple with loads of cash to blow who don't even know what color accuracy is will ponder, "why do I care about that?" and then they'll move off to the next new and neet thing.

It may be a turd, but at least it's a well polished turd!

TV's aren't as bright as many LCDs if you compare them side by side.

</rant></ramble>



Just for clarification if needed: The monitor is not displaying a 10-bit/channel image. It's just using the 10-bits of data to allow for some digital adjustments without sacrificing image quality. The final image is converted to a 8-bit/channel image before it's displayed.

Interesting! First we has IPS then Super IPS. Then we had PVA and now we have Super PVA  :D .

I don't see anything on that list that matches the specs of the 213T panel, so I presume it's out of production. It's also interesting that Samsung are producing 2 types of 24" widescreen panels, both with a contrast ratio of 1000:1, but one with a brightness of 500 cd/m2 and the other 300 cd/m2.

I see that a color gamut of 72% of the NTSC standard is fairly common amongst 'good' quality LCD panels (including the LaCie electron22blue CRT), but Samsung's pride and joy would appear to be its new 82" true high definition LCD TV (1920x1080), 1200:1 contrast ratio; color gamut of 92% NTSC and of course, super PVA. Phwoar!

Yes. Good for slide shows, video and gamers. Not good for critical Photoshop work.

In that thread Micheal Taps stated:


This is a given considering the geneology of the screen. Apple would not use it if it did not have top-notch color reproduction. My monitor does the same as Mr Taps' if the luminosity value in Eye-One match is set to match the minimum luminosity output of the monitor. The calibrator expects the monitor to be bright and so it does not need to compensate.

This dosn't change the fact that the bugger is blasted bright. I''m constantly finding myself making adjustments on this monitor thinking the image is of proper brightness only to find out that I'm a good ways darker than it should be.

A non-luminecent item that is pure white should read at about 238-242 numerically. On a good monitor of proper brightness I generally could consistantly eye-ball that with a good level of accuracy. On this 2005FPW I find myself constantly adjusting images to find I set the whites at 180-220. They look to be white but aren't. When adjusted to the proper range they then look almost nuclear-white on this screen.

The last post by JayGanaden says it all:


I'm sure Mr. Taps is doing the same. So how could the profile curve be so strait if that's improper? Well first off, the curve is a two-dimensional representation of a 3d color space. Secondly, it's tiny. Thirdly, as the software states, it's not an accurate representation of what's happening. It's only there for giving you a rough idea of things.

When profiling, only a certain number of color/greyscale values are measured. So sure, those that are measured will be correct but if the LUTs are altered, then the failures in the profile will occure in values that weren't tested by the calibrator. So things may seem up-n-upat the end of the calibration process but the profile will show it's true colors (pun certainly intended) in real-world use.

This is where the ColorEyes software Michael reviewed would be handy. It shows you a greyscale and lets you select specific values that are displaying wrong to correct them. The new values are then added to the profile.

You'd be suprised at how many pros don't know some fundamental things about digital photography. But then agian, that's not too suprising as many are relativly new to digital or not technically inclined to begin with. There is alot to learn after all. However I am suprised to see Mr Taps miss the ball on this one.

On a side note, I noticed there are alot of comments by people impressed by the monitors brightness. This just proved my theory of how people are drawn to shiny things.

Do I sense here that you really want to keep this monitor, Jani ? If you are at all serious about making prints you know you will have to calibrate the monitor and probably get custom profiles for your printer. I wonder which LCD models use the other 24" Samsung panel with 300 cd/m2 brightness, the LTM240W1?

best compromise...is there such a thing?

If you have your workflow calibrated then you should have the best compromise.
So, input devices, viewing devices and output devices and you are set.

Henrik

I see what you saying.

The problem is the brightness of the dell. Your eyes get used to looking at it and then when you go to look at a print it appears much darker than expected. Prints are typically darker than what's on screen anyway but using softproof in PS helps compensate for that when comparing a print to what's on screen. If the monitor is too bright however, the softproofed image will not match the print (it'll be too bright). A veiwing booth with an adjustable dimmer might help compensate for the brightness of the Dell by shining more light on the print (if it can get bright enough - I don't have one so I could be mistaken). However, for the cost of one of those you could just buy a new monitor for color-work or return the Dell and get a very nice Eizo.

The only way you'll get around the brightness issue with that monitor is to darken it via the LUTs but that has it's downsides as mentioned.

The better measuring devices have the ability to measure ambient light's luminance and color temp, although not necessarily at the same time as monitor calibration. As Ray said, the best viewing condition is sunlight unless you happen to have a dimmable print viewing booth that you can adjust to exactly match your monitor luminance. Otherwise you just have to be prepared to accept the fact that you can't do sided-by-side monitor/print comparisons.

Just browsing Rob Galbraith's site and I notice in this thread that everyone seems very pleased with his Dell 2405 and is able to calibrate it perfectly. Seems to be the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.

Are these people at Galbraith's site just easily pleased, or what?  ???

As Jani said, as long as the adjustment effects the brightness of the light and not the LUTs. However, switching between bright and not-so-bright™ modes would require re-calibration each time you switched since you could not possably go back to the  exact same brightness you were at when you first calibrated.

I've been reading this thread with some interest, as like Ray I am need of an update to my hardware setup, and I thought I would start with looking at LCD screens.

The big question with the Dell 24" is whether the brightness control on the monitor is just playing with the numbers coming in, or whether it's actually putting less juice into the backlighting.

If the latter is the case, and providing it doesn't sacrifice 'evenness' in the backlighting, and calibration still works OK, then why shouln't this monitor be quite satisfactory?

-Milt

although you dont need dac or dcc to calibrate a monitor, i am guessing they make monitor calibration easier and/or better. i downloaded the newest drivers for the ati card, which offer dac support, and calibrated again. after about five calibrations, while the printed image is not what i see on the monitor, it is closer than what i had before and the monitor is not as bright. unfortunately the calibration is still far from perfect. i am about ready to give up. oh pixelman where are you now?

abaazov,

You may have mentioned this before but I don't remenber. Do you have any other monitors than the Dell?

2750K means that your ambient light has a strong red/orange cast compared to your monitor, and you should definitely not use that light to do monitor-print comparisons. in order for such comparisons to be meaningful, luminance and color temp need to be as close as possible. Buy a halogen lamp or something.