Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: dell 2405  (Read 49244 times)
jacquescornell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2005, 11:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
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.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2005, 08:29:33 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2005, 10:25:38 PM »
ReplyReply

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...
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2005, 08:42:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's always the Samsung 213T. It's not the fanciest LCD technology, but luminance with default settings is about 120 cd/m (down from approximately 140 a year ago when it was new) and it calibrates very nicely.
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).

Quote
To test the 213T's color we used Colorvision's Spyder2 Pro Studio. This product enables user to test and calibrate the color of their CRT or LCD display.
The overall color representation of the 213T is acceptable, but not amazing. The Spyder2 showed us that the monitor at 100% brightness was producing about 228 cdm/2, a bit below the advertised brightness. As far as color accuracy is concerned the 213T did a pretty good job, though like many LCD monitors it had trouble producing reds accurately. This will not effect most users but if you are into graphic design you will probably want to get a tool like the Spyder2 in order to calibrate it properly. The use of DVI, which meant the colors could not be changed with the OSD, left the monitor looking cool and bluish before calibration and a bit warm and reddish afterwards. These issues can be more or less fixed with calibration but the color accuracy on the 213T is not the best out there.

Graphic designers who are extremely picky about their color may have some qualms with the 213T. Though the display had good contrast and excellent reproduction of dark colors the overall color representation could be improved upon. It was certainly acceptable, and better than most other monitors this size, but professional users may be happier with the Dell 2001FP, which is a bit smaller, but has the edge in this respect.

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

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2005, 03:16:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
There's always the Samsung 213T. It's not the fanciest LCD technology, but luminance with default settings is about 120 cd/m (down from approximately 140 a year ago when it was new) and it calibrates very nicely.
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.
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.
Logged

Jan
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2005, 09:37:46 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2005, 10:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael Tapes was in that Rob Galbraith thread.  I would suspect he would provide a nice answer.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2005, 08:43:35 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2005, 07:42:26 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2005, 08:20:23 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2005, 10:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And your impression is not correct anyway, note the following:

Quote
this seems to be especially true when i print on premium luster and colorlife photo paper (epson). on those two papers the print is remarkably similar to what i see on screen when i view them in daylight.
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
Logged
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2005, 08:46:22 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2005, 01:33:53 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2005, 08:20:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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  Cheesy ).
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".


Quote
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?  Cheesy
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

Quote
grayscale rendering that is on a par with high-end CRT monitors. The result is a much greater degree of color detail, especially in dark areas and shadows.
(EIZO's Adobe RGB boast-sheet)

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

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2005, 11:37:36 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Quote
As you say, it could be because the calibrator has been knocked around a bit,
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.

Quote
or maybe the canned Epson profiles you are using are simply not accurate enough.
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.

Quote
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.
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.

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

Jan
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2005, 08:23:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's always the Samsung 213T. It's not the fanciest LCD technology, but luminance with default settings is about 120 cd/m (down from approximately 140 a year ago when it was new) and it calibrates very nicely.

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
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2005, 09:57:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jani,
It seems there's a push towards greater brightness and contrast ratio in LCD displays to make them more suitable as TVs. I guess the Dell 2405 would be an attractive proposition for those who want their monitor to double as a TV set and who are not into critical color/graphics applications.

It's interesting that many big screen CRT monitors (20-22") such as LaCie Electron22blue now feature a 'high brightness' option to make them more suitable for watching video. Don't know if LCD technology inherently makes such an arrangement impossible, but as LCD displays compete in the TV market such an option would be very desirable.
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>

Quote
The other issue is 10 bit grayscale. It seems very few monitors are capable of this range.

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.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2005, 05:01:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
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)

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

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!
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2005, 09:51:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes. Good for slide shows, video and gamers. Not good for critical Photoshop work.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2005, 01:29:55 AM »
ReplyReply

In that thread Micheal Taps stated:
Quote
This Dell (and all of the recent ones that i have profiled) allows you to calibrate it so well, that the profiles are almost straight lines, which is how you want your monitor profile to be. A file that almost does nothing. I find the Dell to be high quality. I calibrate using Eye-One match 3.2 with an Eye-One pro spectrophotometer.

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:
Quote
I dialed down the brightness manually using the buttons up front... dunno why others have had to use their card software.

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.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad