Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: dell 2405  (Read 49269 times)
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2005, 04:01:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Of course if you are right (and you frequently are on matters photographic ), then the Dell 2405 would appear to be a monitor that is capable of being accurately calibrated despite what Daniel has been saying on this matter. Perhaps Jani now wonders why he returned his.
Well, Dell still hasn't come around to dealing with the shipping.

And there were other problems with calibration that I mentioned, such as the complete inability of the spectrophotometer to notice adjustments in individual RGB colors when I calibrated for a brighter target. I only achieved some degree of predictability (in terms of repeated, near-identical results) when I turned down the brightness in the ATI Catalyst Control Panel, and that showed visible, horrible results in a granger test chart.

That the spectrophotometer actually worked - with repeatable, near-identical results - for a dimmer monitor (my old Samsung 710T) seemed definitely to indicate that it had to do with the Dell's brightness being out of range for the sensor.

Maybe there is enough sample variation between the Dell monitors that this isn't an inherent problem, but I'm not willing to ask for a new monitor, wait another month, try again, lather, rinse, repeat until I get one that actually works.

And after making it work, I'd have to redecorate to get the correct ambient lighting. ::

I'm not discounting that I may have to do something about the ambient lighting anyway, but perhaps I can do that without making it too bright inside.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #61 on: July 28, 2005, 10:47:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I ordered the same model on June 24th, and my sample arrived yesterday. It's huge, but consider that praise.
I'm getting conflicting reports on the net regarding the blacks. Some say they are still not as good as a CRT. That extra real estate should be good for photoshop, but I hate having to compromise on quality. The PVA technology (patterned vertical alignment) is supposed to be a major improvement. How do you find the image quality in general, compared to a CRT? For a lower price than the Dell 2405 in Australia I can get a LaCie 22" CRT with a dot pitch of 0.24mm and maximum resolution of 2048x1536, which I guess would be more accurate than all but the most expensive LCD monitors. I'm undecided  Cheesy .
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2005, 06:21:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #63 on: August 01, 2005, 01:40:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or they're using a calibration device that isn't as good as some others available. See

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor...ation_tools.htm
Well it's not necessarily a matter of using a calibration device that's not as good as some others, but more like using a calibration device that complements the monitor or is the most compatible with the monitor.

The Dry Creek results you refer to support this. ColorVision Spyder2 is not particularly good on any of the monitors in the Dry Creek analysis, even the Sony Artisan. But all of the Dry Creek results are comparing the performance of different calibrators against a particular monitor. One cannot draw any conclusions about the relative performance of any particular monitor/calibrator combination.

It so happens I recently received in the mail, shipped all the way from the US of A, an X-rite DTP94 spyder with ColorEyes software. I look forward to testing this on all my monitors which include a very average 17" Sony SDM-S74 LCD which I bought to play around with my 64 bit system, but will eventually hand it down to my ex wife (the monitor, not the 64 bit system). Of course the DTP94 does not support 64 bit operating systems. (Didn't these manufacturers and software developers know that 64 bit was on its way  Huh ).

But I have a dilemma. I can't decide which has greater priority; demonstrating that fine grain MF film can be superior to the 1DsMkll, or demonstrating how much better ColorEyes is than my original ColorVision spyder  Cheesy .
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2005, 07:07:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
if i decrease the brightness on a monitor that has been calibrated, does that render the calibration completely useless?
If the monitor has been accurately and successfully calibrated, then of course any subsequent changes to contrast and brightness will throw out the calibration. Once your monitor has been calibrated, you should not make further adjustments, and in the case of an LCD, not even tilt the monitor.

However, I have little experience with LCD monitors. I would have thought a high contrast ratio should compensate to some degree for excessive brightness, ie. 1000:1 plus 500 cd/m2 perhaps could be adjusted before calibration to a contrast ratio of 500:1 in conjunction with a brightness of 250 cd/m2, but as explained before, if this can only be done through the video card, then you are throwing away much needed levels (0-255). In any case 250 cd/m2 seems still too bright.

When I calibrate my 19" Viewsonic CRT, starting with contrast at a maximum and brightness at a minimum, the initial measured brightness is around 130 cd/m2. The calibration instructions specify that brightness should be in the range of 85-95 cd/m2, which means I have to bring the contrast down from its maximum at some point during the calibration procedure.

I still don't understand how LCDs can be less strain on the eyes if one is staring at 500 cd/m2 of brightness as opposed to 90 cd/m2 for a calibrated CRT  Cheesy .
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2005, 10:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
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.
Are you sure that you're not confusing this with the old Blue-Eye?

There is a Blue-Eye 2 now, and the test is of the "Blue-Eye 1.0.3".

The Blue-Eye Pro is relatively new (January this year), and seems to be based off either the Blue-Eye 2 or something else.
Ah, then it may be based off the Eye-One 2. Still I'd be hesitant on buying it untill I know the software end of things is up to par. Since the Eye-One 2 is cheaper than either of the Blue-Eyes I'd personally just stick with what is proven.

Heck, if you want to spend $350 then just get the Eye-One and that Color Eyes software Michael reviewed and then you'd have a top-notch monitor calibration system.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2005, 04:31:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, it's true. People are dawn to shiny things. That's why chromium plated bumper bars and tail fins are (were) so popular on American automobiles.

But the fact is, if you're watching TV in a normally lit room, in daytime, you need a high brightness, high contrast ratio, TV set.

The move is now on to create acceptable LCD TV sets with sufficient brightness to be impressive even in daylight from a distance.
Over the past week and half, I've had to explain this point to several of my friends, while adding that it's not a bad monitor. It's just not right for this use. In a brightly lit room, there probably is no problem!

Quote
However, such screens are not ideal as computer monitors, unless they have a 'low brightness' mode.

The question is, is the low brightness mode ideal for calibration?
As long as the brightness adjustment is in the brightness of whatever actually emits light, and the lighting still remains even and reliably adjustable, I don't see why not. But perhaps your question is rather about whether it's possible to create something that works well on "normal" light levels as well as for burning bright?

I don't know.
Logged

Jan
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2005, 10:14:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Only in the sence that it'll be less strainfull on the eyes.
Logged
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 15, 2005, 05:38:05 PM »
ReplyReply

i've tilted the screen up and down and i dont notice any darkening. my monaco can actually measure the ambient light, but how accurate is that? and do i use that as a white point setting for my screen calibration? it is giving me a reading of 2750k.
Logged
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #69 on: August 15, 2005, 09:04:59 PM »
ReplyReply

ray when you say an ambient light reading of 2750 seems very warm what do you mean? do you mean there is not enough light?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #70 on: August 17, 2005, 12:38:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course if you are right (and you frequently are on matters photographic  Cheesy ), then the Dell 2405 would appear to be a monitor that is capable of being accurately calibrated despite what Daniel has been saying on this matter. Perhaps Jani now wonders why he returned his.

A monitor that is inherently too bright is likely to produce prints that are too dark. Suggestions sometimes can become self-fulfilling prophesies. Someone tells you the monitor is too bright. You expect the prints therefore to be too dark. You see a print that is too dark for obvious reasons that everything is too dark with insufficient light (except things like monitors that have their own light), and you think there's a problem.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2005, 01:10:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm getting conflicting reports on the net regarding the blacks. Some say they are still not as good as a CRT. That extra real estate should be good for photoshop, but I hate having to compromise on quality. The PVA technology (patterned vertical alignment) is supposed to be a major improvement. How do you find the image quality in general, compared to a CRT?
I must admit that I haven't seen a high-quality CRT in ages, and that it's a failing of my own. I had a medium-quality CRT, and after 5 years of service, I bought my Samsung 710T. Most of my friends and colleagues moved to LCD monitors before me.

Comparing is difficult without having a high-quality CRT right next to it, but from what I can see, I'm tentatively satisfied. The blacks are really very close to black, at least according to my eye.

The Samsung 710T was good enough (except for the lamentable brightness/contrast change depending on vieweing angle) to replace any consumer grade CRT, and similarly-priced CRTs were no longer available. The Dell 2405FPW is a very clear step above it.

I have no problem seeing myself choosing this one over a CRT, but the chief reasons would be:

 - Screen real estate
 - Geometric perfection
 - Desk space saved

There's currently no way that I could fit a 22" CRT on my desk, and even a 20" would be pushing it.


Quality wise, I'm reminded of the Apple Cinema Display HD 30" model, except for the size. Perhaps it is the same panel as in the 23" HD? Dell's panels are made by Philips, according to my Dell representative.

The factory supplied profile works well for daily use.

Viewing angle differences in brightness/contrast are nearly invisible, as they are on the Apple 30". I don't see significant differences until I've changed the viewing angle by 30 degrees or more.

Reflections from other light sources do not appear to be disturbing after my first two evenings of use.

The contrast is good (as it should be, with a 1000:1 specification). I see fairly clear differences between dark greys and near-black while retaining differences between different highlights, which is clearly better than the previous display. But there are still differences I'd like to see, which I hope will improve with proper calibration.

As others have commented, yes, the display is bright. But that is adjustable.

I can't comment on color reproduction yet, though it appears to be easier to get good reproduction out of this unit than from the 710T.

My images certainly look better, but whether that comes from spending approximately 1500 dollars on a display or not, well, who knows ...

There are no dead or stuck pixels that I can see yet.


And of course, being able to view entire images at 45% rather than just 30% has immense value for judging quickly whether something might be a keeper or not.

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

And I'll certainly post my opinion.

Quote
For a lower price than the Dell 2405 in Australia I can get a LaCie 22" CRT with a dot pitch of 0.24mm and maximum resolution of 2048x1536, which I guess would be more accurate than all but the most expensive LCD monitors. I'm undecided .
That monitor (LaCie Electron 22blue IV, I presume) is at almost exactly the same price as the Dell over here. Dell recently slashed the price by nearly 40%, permanently, just after I'd haggled for a lower price for my monitor. Maybe you can try to do the same.

I also considered the LaCie 321, but after reading a couple of favorable reviews of the Dell, I suspected that this monitor might just be good enough while providing a really comfortable amount of screen real estate.


*Thanks to Norwegian legislation on remote purchases, I'm allowed to decide to return this monitor within 14 days of receiving it, as long as it's in fundamentally the same state and I pay for the return shipping. So I'm not using it as a whiteboard quite yet.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2005, 03:48:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Calibrating this monitor feels like fumbling in the blind, now that I've done it a few more times.

I think I can see how the problems occur.

The Eye-One Pro spectrophotometer has a specified working range of 0-300 cd/m^2.

An unadjusted Dell 2405FPW is at well above that, according to the same spectrophotometer.

So, er, no wonder it has problems seeing the correct red, green and blue values if the brightness is high. If the brightness is low, the problem is less pronounced, but that means fiddling with the LUT in the graphics card instead.

For instance, my three latest calibration runs have passed with three quite different RGB settings in the monitor's configuration. I don't recall what the first of these value sets was, but I think it was 50-something red, 50 green and 53 blue. The second was 34/35/40. The third was 34/36/43. And I still couldn't get the graphical representation of the RGB sliders to align properly.

Of course, my eyes can't tell the difference between these settings, because it's impossible to do a side-by-side comparison. But what I can see quite clearly, is the following:

You can choose to have a "correct" brightness level with a color distribution that is as good as the monitor can do, but with fewer colors to play around with. Or you can choose to have a brightness level where every pastel in the Granger chart is too bright, and the brighter pastels are nearly white.

The monitor is so bright that it's uncomfortable working with in a normally illuminated room. Perhaps it would work in an operation room, a sunny pavillion or other environments where the lighting must be brighter.

In contrast (ha ha), the Samsung 710T that I want to ditch because of its narrow viewing angles, is far more easily calibrated. I don't have to fudge around with the contrast setting, it can remain at 100%. The only LCD settings I have to touch are brightness and RGB levels just ever-so-slightly.

The Samsung won't win any medals for representing the rose print I made to the Ilford paper, either, but it actually seems a bit closer this time. I suspect the problem with the Dell is that my screen just is a bit too blue after calibration, and that since the spectrophotometer can't read off the correct blue value, Eye-One Match generates an incorrect profile.


I'm not only inclined to agree with Daniel's assessment that this monitor is unsuitable for color critical use, I also think that it needs special circumstances to be a good monitor. All of this could probably be avoided if Dell had only allowed for a lower background lighting level, but perhaps that exposes other weaknesses in the panel.


I should return this monitor before I get too accustomed to a wide-screen working space. My finances and workspace don't allow for two big monitors on the same desk. ::

But what I should buy instead is an open question. Both the Apple HD 23" and the LaCie 321 are appealing and in the same price class (although 30-50% above the Dell). I suspect that the LaCie is the better choice then, though.

And should someone decide to dump a big load of money on me, the CG220 is waiting for my order.
Logged

Jan
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2005, 08:54:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Or they're using a calibration device that isn't as good as some others available. See

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor...ation_tools.htm
Logged

abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2005, 09:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

am i to assume that the conclusion here is that the dell is subpar? does it have any saving grace (other than size)?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 03, 2005, 08:02:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do I sense here that you really want to keep this monitor, Jani  ?
No, I've already called Dell and notified them that I want to exercise my consumer rights, and they accepted (as they have to, but they accepted in a very professional manner).

So a few days' worth of usage of this monitor has cost me the equivalent of 30 dollars in shipping and return shipping. It was worth it to find out, even though I hate wasting money.

Now excuse me for a few minutes while I whack my head for not ordering a GMB color checker when I ordered that Kata rain cover earlier from B&H. ::

There, back again.

Quote
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.
Of course, and I'm deliberating whether I should get the Blue-Eye Pro with the LaCie 321 (for hardware-to-hardware calibration), or if I should get the Eye-One Photo and have the option of making my own custom print profiles.

When you're hooked on getting better quality, it's hard to stop!

Quote
I wonder which LCD models use the other 24" Samsung panel with 300 cd/m2 brightness, the LTM240W1?
Me, too. I also wonder how I can find out, and if I should bother with it.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 04, 2005, 01:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah, then it may be based off the Eye-One 2. Still I'd be hesitant on buying it untill I know the software end of things is up to par. Since the Eye-One 2 is cheaper than either of the Blue-Eyes I'd personally just stick with what is proven.
It's not that much cheaper over here; the difference is approximately 50 dollars (incl. taxes) in favor of Eye-One 2 over Blue-Eye 2, if I buy them separately.

However, one shop sells the LaCie 321 with the Blue-Eye Pro for a premium of only 200 dollars (incl. taxes).

Quote
Heck, if you want to spend $350 then just get the Eye-One and that Color Eyes software Michael reviewed and then you'd have a top-notch monitor calibration system.
Well, importing ColorEyes (I haven't found a Norwegian reseller) incurs a 25% tax on the software and the shipping cost, so I'll first have to see how expensive shipping is. It's clearly not any cheaper than getting the Blue-Eye Pro. But that X-Rite bundle is of course tempting.

However, there remains the question of printer calibration, and I suspect that I might just get an Eye-One Photo set instead of purchasing two different devices to achieve this.
Logged

Jan
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 12, 2005, 10:00:47 AM »
ReplyReply

are you saying that the brighter my room is the better this monitor will perform?
Logged
abaazov
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



WWW
« Reply #78 on: August 14, 2005, 09:05:21 AM »
ReplyReply

i just downloaded a lut support test from the monaco website....apparently my ati radeon 9600 does not contain dac support....i am guessing that means i cant calibrate with it?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #79 on: August 15, 2005, 12:59:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, let's work through this in a logical fashion. Your prints are too dark, but are the colours accurate? To test this, view the print outside in true daylight (D65). Are you in fact making prints that are best viewed in outdoor light when you really want them to look best indoors in dimmer light?

If one wishes to be absolutely precise about this whole issue of calibration and print matching, any print will look best only under specific lighting conditions. A print that's created to look best in a daylit room cannot also look good in the evening with tungsten lights. (Well it might also look good. There's no accounting for personal taste, but it won't look the same.)

If you want to view the prints in a permanent fashion under your current lighting conditions but the prints are too dark, then the image on the screen needs to be lightened through real adjustments, that is, internal adjustments to brightness and levels. Changing the appearance of the image on screen by increasing the ambient light in your work area has no effect on the image data whatsoever of course.

Jonathan's solution is not as simple as it sounds. As far as I can tell, my X-rite colorimeter has no means of measuring ambient light. In fact, it seems designed to exclude ambient light as much as possible. If your prints are too dark for the lighting conditions you want to view them under, you have to change the viewing conditions for your monitor so that you would feel compelled to brighten the image on screen with Photoshop tools. Simply increasing ambient light around the monitor might be the solution if you want to permanently view the prints in those increased lighting conditions. If you don't, then you'll need to produce prints that actually look too light in the bright lighting conditions around your work area.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad