^^^ I am just exited that the Eizo's use the A-TW polarizers. NEC backed out on those. I can't really justify purchasing for myself but good options for 'real' color pro's. Granted you don't need them for VA panels but whatever...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Specials galore: Which 27" monitor?
- Thread starter macmesser
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What display card do you have? I have GeForce GT 120 which was standard equipment in my used Mac Pro 09. I might need to factor in a new graphics card but maybe not. I'm just doing fairly basic Photoshop image correction.
Where did you get 16.7M from?
From your quoted article entry at TFT .
" ... Like the new 24" model this screen seems to be aimed more at professional and higher end colour critical work. Along with the wide gamut support the screen comes factory calibrated with a deltaE of <2, offers 6-axis colour adjustment, 10-bit colour support (1.07b colours - again likely 8-bit + FRC) and features a programmable hardware 14-bit LUT. ... "
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/27.htm#dell_u2713h
From Dell's website on the tech specs
" ...
Color Support:
Color Depth: 1.07 billion colors
Color Gamut (typical): Adobe RGB 99%, sRGB 100% and 120% (CIE 1976)3
...."
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...e_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch
Dell's entry for the U2711
"...
Color Support:
1.07 billion colors
...."
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...e_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch
The "8 bits + FRC " means the 10 bits are dithered. But given there is only 3-4M pixels on the screen and a 14 bit color LUT internal to the monitor means this is far from the muddled approximation that "6 bits + FRC" dithered solutions presented on limited 6-bit TN panels of the past.
The 2713H is a slightly different IPS techonology ( there is a 0.002mm difference in pixel pitch) and is newer in the non-panel aspects. There is a mini Display Port ( on a Mac standard apple cables will work, since standardize on mini-DP). There are USB 3.0 ports. And the backlighting is LED ( so lower power. ).
There may be a difference in how they have applied the antiglare layer but even that specs out the same ("hard coat 3H" ) .
P.S. I think you may have mixed up the Dell U2713HM ( released a couple of months ago. ) that is limited to 16.3M ( http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713hm.htm ) . The "extra" 'M' isn't the better model.
Last edited:
I was surprised to learn from your links that this monitor came in two versions. I did not realize that the one which didn't come bundled with the SpectraView calibration package was unable to communicate with the SpectraView software. I assume you own the SV enabled model. What are your thoughts on the "lamed" version? From what I read it seems that American standards are lower when it comes to calibration and color accuracy, which is not surprising given our characteristic pragmatism. Perhaps our industry standards are whatever is "good enough." Given a protracted and complex workflow which might assume that a "reasonable" deviation from perfection needs to be factored in at the outset, is there a real and perceptible advantage in striving for perfection; specifically the greater accuracy of the fully enabled display? Or would the increased accuracy be lost in the sauce, as we say? My personal POV? I'm sort of semi-professional. I don't yet understand all the technicalities but I've corrected enough large batches (which I shot myself with my EOS 40D) to have had the nagging doubt that my labors were doing much (if any) good. A professional photographer friend (she's one of the official photographers for the NY Metropolitan Opera, and more of an artist than a technologist) once told me that sheer accuracy is over rated and that I should just make my images look warm and inviting. Her advice was of course tailored to my own untrained work flow, which is photographing objets d'art for the web for a small business. Yet I always wanted to ensure, as much as possible, that if a brochure was needed my images would be good to go. Why the heck not, given the work involved in doing it wrong, do it right? But it is possible to strive for a degree of perfection which the process simply doesn't recognize. As someone attempting to professionalize myself, I'd appreciate your thoughts and insights . . .
Last edited:
You do realize that the TFT review you are reading is almost 2.5 years old? Software generally isn't that static. There have been more than few updates to several profiling/colorimeter software packages in the mean time. That includes some software packages that can deal with LED backed panels.
For whatever reason, NEC don't sell their SV bundled version here in France. So I have the regular (PA271W-BK) monitor, coupled with the US software version (SpectraView II) and the X-rite EyeOne Display Pro calibrator (which I had to buy separately).
This calibrator plus the US version software gave me extremely pleasing results, with a Delta E mean value as low as 0.25 and a very large gamut coverage (see first two images - in the second picture, the two empty triangles figure AdobeRGB and sRGB color spaces respectively). Delta E is a measure of color accuracy: between 5 and 3 - very good; between 3 and 1 : excellent; any value under 1: exceptional (see the fourth image).
The regular version monitor which I have still can be calibrated at hardware level, but not totally - and that, be it either with US or European software version (the former is called SpectraView II and the latter, SpectraView Profiler).
Why not totally? Because the bundled SV version display firmware allows total communication at hardware level between the computer and the display, which the regular version (non-SV) display firmware is not capable of. Yes, the regular version of the monitor does have a different firmware. In which extent is it still supporting calibration at hardware level? Only NEC knows. But definitely it does it in a certain extent.
I have tried the demo version of the European software (SpectraView Profiler), and I am quite positive: same final calibration quality in my configuration (see third image). So I finally stuck with the US version.
As a final word given here on the basis of being involved in the worst case scenario (the most heteroclite hardware+software combination): I'd say that whichever version of the display one might have (SV or regular), calibrated with a decent calibrator by means of whatever latest NEC software version, one obtain very high level final results with this monitor.
Attachments
Last edited:
The U2711 appears to have dropped to $650 today, directly from Dell. If I am not mistaken it was about $900 just a couple of days ago when this thread started.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=224-8284&s=dhs
Thanks. I have an Eye-One display 2 (rev. 1) calibrator kit from Gretag-Macbeth which is about five years old. Just checked out their web site and was pleased to see that they have a software upgrade for Snow Leopard and Lion, which my Macs are on. The program is EZColor. So I will start with this and probably the NEC monitor.
Anybody knows can U2713H's adjusted LUT be used with OsX?
Dell is only offering sw for adjusting LUT only for windows (of course), but if the monitor is calibrated with windows, can the adjusted LUT be also used in OsX or does the monitor somehow bypass the adjustments with OsX?
Dell is only offering sw for adjusting LUT only for windows (of course), but if the monitor is calibrated with windows, can the adjusted LUT be also used in OsX or does the monitor somehow bypass the adjustments with OsX?
HP LP2480zx
Eizo costs the same and is better. Same relative panel, better bin and implementation. HP quality is suspect. Both have polarizers. I am not giving HP $2000.00 for anything. I'd rather have the u2413 from Dell as it is pretty much the same components minus the polarizer. IPS with RGB-LED and A-TW polarizer are just damn expensive.