Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NEC LCD2690WUXI2  (Read 33334 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2009, 09:42:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I waited for this monitor because of the 1000 contrast ratio. and am not sorry i did.

Quote
Me too and for decreased brightness.
What is the minimal level of brightness ? (with colorcomp off) Can it be set up to 80, 90 cd/m2 ?

What makes you both think a "1000 contrast ratio" is useful? Do you know what the typical contrast ratio is of a print?

I'd be real hard pressed to see you get anything close to 80/90cd/m2, at least physically out of the unit. Even 140cd/m2 is getting pretty close to the lower end without resorting to non physical adjustments which are of questionable usefulness. Why drive a display so low?

My 2690 is set at what I think is a safe, minimal luminance or 150cd/m2. That said, I have to turn my GTI box down digitally to 50% to get a match. At 90cd/m2, that box has to go way, way down.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2009, 11:15:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What makes you both think a "1000 contrast ratio" is useful? Do you know what the typical contrast ratio is of a print?

Contrast is normally rated at best case which is full brightness..  seeing how the 2690wuxi2 is lower in brightness over the wuxi1 yet has a higher contrast nomally indicates it produces better blacks. I don't have wuxi1 to compare so I can't confirm this but a better contrast ratio is certainly benefit.


Quote
I'd be real hard pressed to see you get anything close to 80/90cd/m2, at least physically out of the unit.

Well, then your in for a surprise.. I know I sure was!  This wuxi2 has internal backlight sensors and allows you to directly  set the brightness by  luminosity in cd/m^2   on the monitors front panel controls.
You can set the 2690wuxi2 all the way down to 50 cd/m2.  I need to confirm with a calpuck but by eye I can see zero hue shift all the way down to 50 cd/m2..   non graphics monitors  I have used this is absolutely unheard of.. so im stunned to say the least.. in fact my last high end pva benq could only go down to 150cd/m2 before hue shifting.

To further test I used one of my graphic posters (printed on a HPdesignjet 24"-satin photo and foamcore mount) and put it side by side the 2690uxi2.  The 2690uxi2 can be set all the way down to 50cd/m2 with no Hueshift. I then slowly bumped up the luminosity setting untill the luminosity of whites,darks matched perceptually between monitor and print.. Essentially seeing what luminosity setting to use for a true matching soft proof..  What I found was about 90-100 cd/m2 matched the tonal luminosities so they looked identical.. This luminosity setting corresponds to a number of professional designers Iv read that say about 80-100 is needed for true softproofing.  
Quote
My 2690 is set at what I think is a safe, minimal luminance or 150cd/m2.
 That number (at least on the 2690uxi2) is way to high for softproofing, but probably ok for nonsoftproofing.


Quote
hat is the minimal level of brightness ? (with colorcomp off) Can it be set up to 80, 90 cd/m2
The min is 50 cd/m2 with or without colorcomp. color comp only limits the max luminance to 170cd/m2  at max uniformity setting setting. With uniformity comp off, the brightness can be set set up to 320 cd/m2.







Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2009, 11:39:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
Well, then your in for a surprise.. I know I sure was!  This wuxi2 has internal backlight sensors and allows you to directly  set the brightness by  luminosity in cd/m^2   on the monitors front panel controls.

By physically lowering the backlight OR adjusting the panel (albeit in high bit)?

On my two NEC's, I don't need to lower this via the OSD as I can specify what I want to hit with the SpectraView II software. Point is, there is a true, physical lower luminance the panel can hit by actually controlling the Fluorescent bulbs. I've been told by reliable sources, out of the box, 150cd/m2 is that limit which will lover over time (usage).

Finally, why drive it so low (other than to get the max possible hours out of the unit which is arguably 25K or so). One of the benefits of LCD displays over CRTs is the fact we don't need to drive them so low and work in a dim cave. Not that the ambient light can be too low.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2009, 11:44:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
That number (at least on the 2690uxi2) is way to high for softproofing, but probably ok for nonsoftproofing.

Its fine for soft proofing. It matches my GTI box once I control it's luminance with the digital dimmer. At 150cd/m2. I'm ONLY at 50% on the digital readout for the reflective output.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mbalensiefer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2009, 12:16:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi. What is an ATW polarizer?
Logged
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2009, 03:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't have a desktop viewer .. so am using ambient office lighting unfortunately... and for for this, 90 to 100 cd/m2 looks very comparable for luminance levels to softproof.. If your using a brightly lit viewbox then It sounds your 150 is needed, but without I can see 150 would be way overblown   for ambient office light. Now you can see I shouldn't be using ambient.. but im constrained..  also im putting out to 24x36"



Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2009, 03:52:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
I don't have a desktop viewer .. so am using ambient office lighting unfortunately...

Which is suboptimal. Unless the stars all align, getting this viewing condition to match both the luminance and color temp to match the display is iffy. If the idea is a close screen to print matching, its real useful to have as much (or more) control over the viewing of the print as you have over the display. If we can calibrate and define (profile) our displays, there's little reason we can't do this for the print viewing. ICC output profiles make some assumptions here (usually a default of D50). My printer profiles are tuned to my viewing booth(s). That affects the soft proof and the output.

Everything you can do to narrow the variables and define the CMS, the closer your match.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2009, 05:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
All my work goes to 4 color presses for all my clients, magazines, marketing, etc. When I get tearsheets back I know that for the most part my setup is as generally close to provide the correct density and output when it goes to presses I have no control over. So how does it when we all have our monitors at different luminance.

The luminance (box and display) should match the clients (or vise versa). There has to be standards implemented for configuring remote sites in the print to display pipeline.

If you got output profiles for the contract proofing system, you'd be soft proofing far closer still.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2009, 05:17:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
So what I am trying to understand is, if three of us are working on files and we all have different luminances with the end goal of sending files out, what prevents the person with high luminance from getting dark prints, the person with low luminance from getting too light prints.

We don't. We all do have the same luminance settings. These don't have to be static either. You can build sets based on the output. But there has to be defined targets everyone aims for.

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2009, 05:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
You lost me there on We all do have the same luminance settings. 110, 120, 150. How do these not majorly affect output density if we manipulate images visually.

There are two processes here. One is getting the screen to match the print. That means they have to be very nearby (otherwise how do you know they match? Running into and out of rooms doesn't count).

The numbers one uses to hit the calibration targets vary just as the ambient light and control, the setup of the print viewing conditions, down to the color of the carpet, all play a role.

Then there's the idea of multiple people seeing the same thing, meaning you build a reference environment and carefully spec all the parameters for each site (I'm actually doing this now with a big client). What the client sees in room 206 and what someone on the other side of the world see match. Both are in this reference environment with specified viewing and calibration target values.

YOU can build a suite of such settings. Proofing under your own light box, which matches client A who will view both a proof and final press run, like you, under the same viewing conditions is the key. Another client might use a different viewing condition which you need to attempt to simulate (or get them set to match you).

Someone at the press site will pull both a contract proof and a press proof and view them under some controlled and hopefully specified condition of which you can also view that printed output (and of course, match to your display).

There isn't a single, correct setting for anything but TRC Gamma IMHO. That leaves of course luminance and white point.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 05:59:43 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2009, 11:51:07 AM »
ReplyReply

D.Dog.

You have far more experience and know how then myself  on this subject
Here is what I understand to be true from hands on use.....  

The element needed in this discussion is  viewing condition/light the print will be viewed in by end user.
From what I am seeing, working with a bright 150cd/m^2 would be good for properly well lit conditions but for what the environment I am printing for is office, trade show and for that lighting a lower monitor luminosity of 80-100 will get me a much more faithful match of tonal luminosities.  A 150 would indeed match a view box but when the print is viewed  in lower light, the lower tones would be lost.  I realize ideally the end product should be well lit, but this is not always the case and hence why I think some cases require a lower luminosity setting on the Monitor.

am i correct or missing something?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 11:52:14 AM by mlmcasual » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2009, 11:59:05 AM »
ReplyReply

If you don't need to match the display to a printed output, you can set luminance and white point to whatever you like as long as the brightest white in the environment is the display (and ideally the darkest black but that's affected by ANY ambient light).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2009, 04:50:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks,

Getting back to the thread topic..  Im very impressed with the 2690wuxi2 I have but have some additional warnings to potential buyers..


NEC spectraview2 software-calibrator  is CURRENTLY not compatible with the nec2690wuxi2. NEC is working on updating the spectraview software. I was told the opposite by NEC before buying the kit.. unfortunately they seem to be some disorganization there at NEC.




Logged
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2009, 06:03:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Very Odd indeed!

I have just the monitor (non-sv) which im pretty sure they are not shipping the SV. How can they? they don't even have the software written yet. ... I ordered the eyeone-spec2 kit separate.  Oddly the kit software did include some factory ICC's for the 2690wuxi2 but you can't get the ICC's nor drivers off the NEC website.

Bottom line is, NEC is selling and delivering the 2690uwxi2 without any drivers or cal support..    Not sure that is a wise move..
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2009, 07:51:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
By physically lowering the backlight OR adjusting the panel (albeit in high bit)?

On my two NEC's, I don't need to lower this via the OSD as I can specify what I want to hit with the SpectraView II software. Point is, there is a true, physical lower luminance the panel can hit by actually controlling the Fluorescent bulbs. I've been told by reliable sources, out of the box, 150cd/m2 is that limit which will lover over time (usage).

Finally, why drive it so low (other than to get the max possible hours out of the unit which is arguably 25K or so). One of the benefits of LCD displays over CRTs is the fact we don't need to drive them so low and work in a dim cave. Not that the ambient light can be too low.

How do this NEC monitor compare to the Eizo or Lacie?
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Elence
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2009, 12:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
How do this NEC monitor compare to the Eizo or Lacie?
Thanks Denis
Lacie - re-branded nec monitors with a bit higher price. Their 526 model is the same as nec 2690 wuxi1. (with Lacie calibration software and sensor) Eizo uses PVA panels. (cg 222, cg 241, cg 242, cg 301). IPS panel currently use: Lacie, Nec, Quatographic. As for the price/quality - Nec is very good.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 12:52:36 PM by Elence » Logged
Elence
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2009, 12:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
How do this NEC monitor compare to the Eizo or Lacie?
Thanks Denis
Lacie - re-branded nec monitors with a bit higher price. Their 526 model is the same as nec 2690 wuxi1. (with Lacie calibration software and sensor) Eizo uses PVA panels. (cg 222, cg 241, cg 242, cg 301). IPS panel currently use: Lacie, Nec, Quatographic. As for the price/quality - Nec is very good choice.
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2009, 04:04:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
...I'd be real hard pressed to see you get anything close to 80/90cd/m2, at least physically out of the unit. Even 140cd/m2 is getting pretty close to the lower end without resorting to non physical adjustments which are of questionable usefulness. Why drive a display so low?
...

The "Print Standard" target parameter file supplied with Spectraview II (or at least the version I have, which is 1.0.42) sets luminance at 80 cd/m˛.  What's up with that?

Nill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8915



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2009, 05:46:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nill Toulme
The "Print Standard" target parameter file supplied with Spectraview II (or at least the version I have, which is 1.0.42) sets luminance at 80 cd/m˛.  What's up with that?

I suspect its trying to mimic that old ISO spec. The PDF manual describes it as:
Quote
Print Standard
Commonly referred to as Proofing Standard. Used widely for the proofing of color transparencies or press output.

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2009, 06:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Finding it gave me a little more confidence as I kept ratcheting down the luminance on my 2090uxi, which is now at 80 cd/m˛ and gives me a good match to my prints.

I would like to start a new thread just to discuss this issue of finding the "right" luminance values for our monitors under various circumstances — together with creating, or at least recognizing, appropriate viewing environments for evaluating prints.  These are the parts that I'm still not grokking.

Nill
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 06:43:06 PM by Nill Toulme » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad