First a quick hello as this is my first post on the forum here. While I have used LL as a great resource for years, I have never participated in the forums. I have been a member at fredmiranda.com for 4.5 years. I have some questions about my new LCD display, and noticed in doing google searches that there seemed to be more discussion of the panel in question here (and its big brother the 3090), as compared to fredmiranda.com.
And thanks in advance for anyone having the patience to help me out.
So I recently purchased the NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi2 and Spectraview II software with the kit calibrator.
I am setting a target intensity of 120cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: Monitor Default (It says with this setting it will maximize the contrast).
White Point D65
Color Comp is at the default setting.
The results I am getting are showing very accurate colors (low Delta E values), and it hits the target brightness and White Point almost exactly.
But the contrast ratio winds up being only 267:1
Now I realize that the lower intensity (cd/m2) will reduce the theoretical maximum contrast ratio, but I wasn't expecting values this low. For those with experience with the NEC displays, does this seem correct to you?
As it is calibrated now, I really do notice that the contrast seems lacking. Checking out fredmiranda landscape forum (using Mozzila with color profiles enabled) many images look like they do not have enough contrast.
Is this something that you think the measured contrast ratio (267:1) for this intensity (120 cd/m2) is correct, or is something else hampering performance? I have read (and as per Spectraview) that even 80-90 cd/m2 is better for soft proofing... I am terrified at how poor the contrast may be then (turns out it was around 180:1 when I tried it).
Am I now only seeing images as they were intended (with low uninspiring contrast) or is something else possible going wrong here?
In doing some more reading around the internets...
Firstly, there seems to be the issue of what contrast ratio a print can achieve. It seems that the theoretical best for a print might be in the range of 200:1 or 300:1. With this being the case, the 267:1 I am achieving should be ok for soft proofing.
But it begs the question of how we view and evaluate the images that we share online. If everyone is using monitors with higher contrast ratios (500:1 to 1000:1), then doesnt it become difficult to compare images? If I tighten up the contrast of an image (while viewing on my 267:1), will that not mean that it will appear overly contrasty to a user using a panel with a higher contrast ratio? How is consistency and comparability maintained? By the same token, will I not be prone to thinking the images of others are lacking in contrast. If a print can only achieve 200 or 300:1 , then what basis of comparison becomes most meaningful?But I digress. At the very least I would love to hear if my result of 267:1 at 120cd/m2 is similar to other users of the 2690wuxi2 panel.
I also wanted to add that I appreciate that my viewing environment will have an impact on my perceived contrast. I found that when shutting off my room lighting, the images I viewed looked better. Many appeared to have contrast that looked good... although comparing to my Dell 19" (which I reduced the brightness to match the NEC) they still appeared to be a bit lacking punch.
Finally, an issue about this new panel in general. My understanding was that the NEC panel uses IPS technology, which should allow for a better viewing angle with less shift in color. My second monitor is a Dell 19" TN panel, which should be comparatively worse in this regard. However, I am finding the NEC to be comparatively *worse* in this regard. When viewing a black or dark image on the NEC, any movement (note: not extreme movement) of my head to the right of the left reveals a kind of whitish glow to the dark areas on the panel. It does not stay black, but appears to have a bit of glowing whiteness to it. Much moreso than my Dell TN panel. Even when viewing a dark scene on the 2690xi2 head on, some parts of the image appear to suffer from this effect. Any viewing angle other than head on results in a quick decrease of (the already low) contrast, and the appearance of this "glow". Is this normal? (Maybe this is a result of the lack of A-TW polarizer. I guess I just expected it to be at least better than my poor old dell in this reagrd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pIysomGPI...player_embedded
Thanks infinitely in advance