Originally posted by: mamamia
The new Eizo CG241W doesn't say what kind of panel technology it uses, is it S-IPS, as the NEC?.... I think that should be a major considration when deciding between the two... Or am I wrong...
When I wrote the post I was fairly sure it was using an S-PVA (as the other Eizo CG24**s do). Automatically, it's not anything worth $1400 compared the NEC. When you look at it from a perpendicular (normal) viewing angle, details will be missing. Yellow and purple color shift will be apparent when viewed from other angles. It's pretty certain they've done nothing to compensate for this, or it would be a huge marketing point.
Yes, I am making an assumption here that it is using an S-PVA. If it uses an S-IPS, the viewing angle problems will be gone, but the high price is still there. Additionally, the 92% color gamut is going to throw you a curveball when you've been used to 72% all along. Colors will suddenly look more vibrant whether they match your prints or not. Wide gamut LCDs give you less accurate colors for the 72% space (although the difference here may be negligible if there is a 72% emulation mode somewhere in the LCD, like the Samsung XL20 features).
I read what you, xtknight, say about your choice of BenQ with a colorimeter, and I'm not in a position to dispute it, but I wish I could support that with what other professionals are saying, 'cause it could be an EXCELLENT solution for me... Especially since I don't really feel like spending a $1,400 for the NEC 2940 PLUS ANOTHER $250 for getting a calibration system, that would be used ONCE....
And I'm also a bit surprised to read the claim that "The Eizo is just a BenQ with some fancy marketing terms and a high price." That doesn't sound right to me...
I probably went a little far there. But after calibration, that is not far from the truth. Yes, the 12-bit LUT will bring out a few extra details but nothing that is going to help you match prints, and nothing that is worth the $700 extra. Your topic title indicates that you wanted to find the best value, and the Eizo certainly isn't it. Even if it has slight advantages it also has sizeable disadvantages (wide color gamut may cause inaccuracy, exorbitant price, viewing angle and details missing).
The NEC will almost unquestionably make it easier to match your prints than the Eizo, so perhaps the NEC would be worth it to you. But, I doubt that it is going to get you that much more than just using the BenQ with a colorimeter. Without a colorimeter the NEC would beat it, no contest.
If you want truly better performance then I would start waiting for the LCDs with LED backlights. As it stands the Eizo is just another CCFL LCD with a few extra features that aren't worth it for most people. I don't know for sure whether the wide gamut will help you match prints or not. It could really go either way.
The wide gamut LCD (TVs) I've seen didn't look all that much different than the 72% gamut ones. In fact, I chose a Mitsubishi 72% TV over a 92% Sony, simply because most material is 72% these days. You're may see more JPEG artifacts with a 92% gamut display because everything will be more apparent. If you use Adobe RGB then it might be a good thing, but otherwise I can't see it helping, only hurting.
And, NO, I don't want a 21" monitor (too small for my needs) nor am I interested in a 30" one (for the same price, large size is nice, but less quality is not nice)...
The Dell 3007WFP is actually very high quality. It uses an S-IPS panel and cost around $1300. Here are calibration results:
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/d...7&mo2=198&p2=1911&ph=6
Better than the BenQ FP241W due to the S-IPS panel (it will be able to maintain accurate colors all the way). Also, details won't be absent at perpendicular angle. No color shift with viewing angles.
I think they're only selling the -HC version now (wide gamut) and plus at that price you won't be able to get a colorimeter with it, so it's probably out of the question for you.
The BenQ FP241W has been known to display a better grayscale than the Dell 2407 and Samsung 215TW. It also has less backlight bleed, so it's a prime choice.
P.S. it's probably best to recalibrate at least once every two months if you're doing critical work, so you'll be using the colorimeter more than once, certainly. You'll have to experiment with the settings too.
Originally posted by: clandren
Originally posted by: xtknightThe Eizo is just a BenQ with some fancy marketing terms and a high price.
care to give some proof to back that up? i'm curious how you might think this.
I hope this post answers your question. If not, I'm happy to answer anything else.
What I'm trying to bring to light is the overwhelming lack of evidence that anything the Eizo may offer over the BenQ is going to help you match prints. I am fairly confident that the NEC could do a much better job for the same price, simply due to its S-IPS panel. If Eizo really cared about quality they would definitely be including an S-IPS panel. There seems to be no explanation for why they keep using S-PVA panels (if that is indeed the case this time around), except to save money which means more profit for them. That alone makes me skeptical of anything else Eizo may claim. There are intrinsic properties that make S-IPS panels better for photo editing (better at distinguishing details, stable viewing angle, better real uniformity, ability to maintain a tighter gamma curve, more natural color) that are not reversible by means of more "ASICs". Which is why I generally recommend against using VAs for any critical work compared to IPS panels, but the BenQ is about as good as it gets for VA tech, and that's your only choice if you don't want to pony up $$$ for the NEC.
Also, I don't believe proofing the display with the printer is really possible because they're different mediums. Even if the Eizo helped a tad it wouldn't be worth that amount of money right now. Save it for LED backlight LCDs, or maybe even SEDs or OLEDs. I'm not sure why I'm still talking about the Eizo anyway, because the NEC would offer better performance for the same price. I don't think even the NEC is worth it over the BenQ at this point in time. It doesn't make much sense to me to pay that much when it's not going to make much difference.
P.S. this is getting a bit long.
Final thoughts:
Any of a few selected high end LCDs should be great for photo editing. Beyond that, it's just you needing to get used to the monitor's flaws. You can't seriously believe that one LCD that costs $700 more that is based off very similar technology is going to help you that much. If you just have money to throw at the wall, it would be something to consider, but then you should go for the $6000 NEC LED backlight LCD. There's a reason you don't see those all over the place (it's just not worth all that money for little benefit). I got the impression you didn't have much to spend.
The only field for which I would consider putting that much down for an LCD today is the medical field (examining high-res grayscale X-Ray images).
Originally posted by: clandren
hmm actually i just found
LG L245WP - the first S-IPS 24"
This actually uses a P-MVA panel from AU Optronics.
heres a few others i found along the way:
NEC LCD2690
BenQ FP241W
and
BenQ FP241WZ (didnt read any of it - so no idea what the difference is between the two is.
The 'Z' version of the BenQ employs their response time acceleration tech (backlight blinking), which has three levels of operation.
I do realize that this post was about as one-sided against Eizo as it gets. That's because I think you're being blinded by all that advertising. It gets me sometimes too.
Please check reviews before making any final decisions. The Eizo (S-PVA?) has simply not proven itself yet, anywhere. AFAIK, the last Eizo X-Bit Labs reviewed was the CG21, which used an S-IPS.