Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW  (Read 14912 times)
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2006, 04:27:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Posting style doesn't effect the facts of a discussion, it's mearly an excuse for someone to bring up to divert attention.
So the following you wrote was just to divert attention? Why?

Quote
So you guys continue to think you're all-knowing, even though you're making comments about and giving 'expert' advice about hardware you don't even have

This is really quite unnecessary.

Quote
Reading the description of it here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/may_2006.html

I don't think it will be of use to me. Since it says it's out of printer gamut, you would need to have the comparitive monitors next to each other to really use it.
No, all you need to do, is to compare your monitor with and without adjustments, to see what you're losing.

If you recall the thread I posted a link to, in my tests, the 2405 had significant posterization effects compared to the far cheaper and older Samsung. While viewed independently, the Dell looked fine. But it wasn't fine, and that gave me problems.

Quote
I have used some of the test samples above it, and my own work to verify setups, which is what really matters to me.  The monitor still outshines the prints as far as available gamut, the colors are accurate, my prints come out exactly as I see them.  What else can you ask for?
If it works for you, then it works for you, but you've just admitted that you also see some of the problems with this monitor. Why recommend it to someone who specifically asked for something suited for critical editing?
Logged

Jan
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2006, 05:25:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Read more carefully.  I said posting style, not attitude.  How I compose my posts is not equal how I think of myself.

Oh, so your comments are acceptible and mine are <fake Brittish accent>'really quite unnecessary',</fake Brittish accent> - gotcha!

Yes I realize I am losing a touch, that's been said many times.  As I have also said, the gamut of the monitor is STILL way beyond that of the prints - so for the end result for me - the print - no, I am not missing a thing.  

Again, 'critical editing' means different things to different people for different jobs.  Is this a good monitor for a top level pro that needs 100% perfection?  No, of course not - that's why those particular specifications means you are investing in a $4000+ or whatever peice of hardware!  No one thinking about or asking about a $400 monitor is obviously in that profession.  This thread is about a home user, making some and sending out for some prints, maybe selling some if possible - same as me.  Non-pro and obviously so.  Don't twist the words around to justify your clause.  We are NOT talking about top level equipment OR needs.  'Critical editing' in this thread does not mean 100% accurate.

As I said - this is an EXCELLENT monitor that calibrates VERY well - but it's not perfect.  I do not hesitate to recommend it to any home user, it's a fantastic deal.

I'm home now and just brought up the granger rainbow.  I see no posterization effects whatsoever, so perhaps it was an early issue on the sample you saw.  It is certainly not on mine.  The colors are a continuous gradient all around.
Logged

ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2006, 11:30:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I would recommend the Eizo CG19.  It is worth the $1600.00.
I have used the Dell in question.  I have used the pink cinema displays.
The Eizo is the only one I make critical decisions with.

And yes,
I work at home.
I am making critical color decisions.
I submit images to agencies.
I sometimes sell prints.

But seriously, buying monitors is truly a pain, and a leap of faith.  I bought the 24" CE240W Eizo.  It was not appropriate for a production environment.  It had a terrible viewing angle which would only allow one person, sitting perfectly centered, to see the image as it should be.  Moving side to side the shadow information would brighten and darken.  The numbers that are posted as specs are useless.  You can get a $200.00 and a $4000.00 dollar monitor with the same specs. I bought it from a pro camera store that gave me my money back no questions asked.

So maybe you should have your monitor calibration device and your computer all ready to go when the new monitor shows up so that you can run it through its paces.  And buy the monitor from a place that is good about returns.

-Eric
Logged
trigeek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2006, 10:52:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hardware Brightness all the way down.  With the current Nvidia drivers, software Brightness is on 41%, which correlates to 82% on the previous generation drivers - don't ask me why they switched scales.  RGB are of course at thier custom levels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a 2007WFP and I want to make sure that I understand your comments. I would like to understand the issue of viewable tone range when a monitor is calibrated. I have the 2007WFP and the Colorvision Spyder2 calibrator. I think the Spyder2 does a good job on the hues (colors), but I am unsure of the tones. When I look at a Colorsync target (the one that is out on the web), I cannot see the full range of the gray stepped scale on the chart.. the last 4 bars or so are indistinguishable... look black. Should the calibration assure that I can see the whole range of grays? I ask this because I have the hardest time getting the tones the same between my monitor and print... the hues look pretty accurate  (printer is an Epson R2400). Prints are usually darker than my screen. I have tried turning down the monitor, but then even more of the stepped gray scale on the target are indistinguishable. What is your experience with tone on your monitor?
Thanks!
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2006, 11:18:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Mine match exactly, both hues and tones.  Yes you should be able to see all the gradations.  I would suggest you go back through the calibration software, it sounds like you simply don't have the steps correct.
Logged

trigeek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2006, 11:25:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mine match exactly, both hues and tones.  Yes you should be able to see all the gradations.  I would suggest you go back through the calibration software, it sounds like you simply don't have the steps correct.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks... one more question... you see all of the gradiations even when the screen is at the lowest brightness setting?
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2006, 11:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

'Lowest' doesn't mean 'too dark'.  Mine happens to be at the lowest setting  and is still slightly too bright, hense my need for further reduction via the software.   If you go through the steps, you should be properly calibrated - your settings may be different - it's really not important hwo the settings compare, as long as you end up with a proper calibration - then the end results are the same.

Also, if you are getting the extremes washed out, perhaps your ambient room light is too bright.  I work in the dark.
Logged

61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2006, 05:40:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes the backlighting is the same - however the 'problem' is simply hype.  Yes the *hardware* lower limit is too high, however using the software driver to slightly reduce it into calibration, it is perfect.  Just because you have to use software *and* hardware to get it done is not an issue in actual use.  People report this 'problem' on forums ad nausium, and having one in front of my face, I can tell it's a non-issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is baloney, particularly when the intent is for critical (or even just accurate) color work.

Reducing the brightness via software (on the display or in the video drivers) reduces the overall tonal range the display can use and that has a negative side effect on color rendition as well. I've covered this extensively in other threads and so anyone looking for details can search around.

One thing I will add is that if you do adjust the LUTs to dim the display and the color meter reads the display as, lets say 120cd/m2 when in fact it's 200 (sans LUT fiddling) it is not going to actually be that dim. Despite how much you try to fiddle with software, to reduce the brightness of the display, a display that is too bright will always be too bright.

Case in point, my displays. My primary monitor is a ACD 20" and the secondary is a Dell 2005FPW. The ACD dims down via hardware without issue, the Dell is 200cd/m2 at it's dimmest hardware setting. Fiddling with the OSD on the Dell, I can get EyeOne Match to measure the dell at 120cd/m2 just like the ACD. Unfortunately, this is just not the case as windows are noticeably brighter on the Dell. ColorEyes also gives me the same false reading.

For me, this is no issue, since my focus is on the ACD and the Dell is only used for holding tool pallets. However, someone trying to use a display like the Dell as their color-editing display will run into accuracy issues and there is no way to get around them using software.

I've done extensive testing on my Dell, trying various combinations of profiling and fiddling, I've measured the tones, tried to smooth grayscale gradients using ColorEyes and it is not possible to get the display to calibrate well enough for critical color work. You cannot alter Ones and Zeros in any way that will alter the behavior of a devise operating in the physical world.

If critical color work is the goal, skimping on hardware to save a couple hundred will always net you less than what you want.

Oh... and more important than the display is your ability to perceive color with your own two eyes. Just because you can't readily see (or in some cases even aware of) any issues, it does not mean they do not exist. For critical work, the idea is to minimize variables you can control so you can more easily work with what you can't. Using overly-bright displays is counter-productive to that goal.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2006, 05:59:48 PM »
ReplyReply

What's baloney is how people blow it out of proportion.  As I've said many times - yes it happens, but it is BARELY noticeable.  I don't contest that this is an inappropriate choice for absolute pro critical work (but then again show me an LCD that isn't, compared to a perfect CRT).  However that is NOT what this thread is about, so that is a moot point.  Every monitor doesn't NEED to be lab spec perfect, it simply isn't used to that degree.  That's my whole point.

#1, this issue is VERY small in reality, but the harping on the internet makes it sound like a HUGE issue.

#2, most of the harping is done by people that don't even have one of the monitors.


It would be exactly like me, going around in Leica forums telling everyone the M8 is fatally flawed because of some purple fringing.

In reality I read a snippet about that.  It may be an issue, it may not be.  I have no fricken idea, I have not even seen an M8 let alone touched one, et alone own one, have used one, have seen the problem or worked through it to know.

Unless the info was coming from someone that has gone through all fo that, it's called making a mountain out of a mole hill, the same way people talk about many things on forums, including the 2405.

So you can call baloney, salami or whatever you want - the 2405 is still a superb monitor for non-top-professional work - again, what this thread is about.
Logged

kbmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2006, 06:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I did.

That is one of the reasons why I pointed out the links ...
If it can't be dimmed enough, it shouldn't be used for critical work. If it can be dimmed, it probably can be used, since the colour profile from calibration can be used to compensate for almost any other weaknesses in colour representation.

Kaelaria's post indicates that you have to dim it quite a lot in software, which really isn't a good thing for colour and brightness accuracy. He also appears to have a different idea of what "critical work" means than what's usually understood by the term.

This does not necessarily mean that you will experience problems with it, but it increases the likelyhood significantly.

I realise that this may not be the advice you want, but I really can't tell what you might find acceptable or not. But when colour management experts (and I'm not one of them) state quite clearly that LUT adjustments of brightness should be avoided, it's a good idea to pay attention.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad