[Retired] The LCD Thread

[thatsright]

Help!!

Setting up my new HP LP2475W. Connected the stand and was attaching all the cables. I tuned the monitor on its side ('Portrait' mode) and the thing slid right out of the mount. Thank god it was the back side that hit the table.

To 'lock' the monitor in place do I have to move the quick release lever to one side? Or is it locked when its at the 12 o'clock position, the default position?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: riemster37
First off I wanted to say that this is the most helpful thing I came across while looking at monitors. I am very glad I found this. I've been searching for monitors for almost 2 weeks now. Also, I have tried to understand the stats and descriptions of today's monitors.

I am in need of a good gaming monitor. I play games professionally and have been using a 17" CRT since I can remember. I want a good monitor, but gaming would be the highest priority. I would like to watch movies on it also. I download a ton but currently use my 360 to put them on a TV. The TVs at both locations, home and college, are not the best (not HD and still glass). Besides video (movies) and games there is one more use for a new monitor I have been pondering. Hooking my 360 directly to my monitor. This is really a tertiary reason, but I think it would be very simple if I got a monitor with HDMI to my 360s HDMI. I am looking for a 22"-24", 16:10, input lag obviously less than ~5ms and proportionately priced.

I was recommended the #2 on this list, LG L227WTG-PF, months ago before I ever found this site. It looks like this is the best option. Newegg has it at 219.99 and free shipping makes me just want to get it now, but I'm still debating. There is no HDMI, but does a DVI (monitor) to HDMI (360) work as good as HDMI to HDMI? (probably a stupid question) Would I get HD 720p?

The other monitor I'm looking at is the #4 on this list, BenQ G2400WD. I think I'm just making things difficult, but it has 1.9 input lag, 2" larger, 1080 and HDMI. The pricetag is a bit pricey but if it's worth it I'll buy it. The problem with this monitor is that it's not on newegg or stores (that I've seen) and is on back order from their site.

Help? I'm kinda rambling and I'm still lost in the world of monitors/PCs even though I've been playing games professionally since 04-05. I'm really not quite sure what I'm even asking because I think the LG monitor is the best buy anyways.

*edit* I was told by a Best Buy employee (lol) that 120hz for a monitor is pointless and not good for gaming. Is this true? I thought it was because it's more like a CRT but it has a higher response time!?!

professional gamer eh. what are your peers using? That's what I'd go with if I were a pro at something.

 

[alkemyst]

how are those dell 240xFPW's for gaming? I am going to need a gaming monitor that is capable of accurate color (I do graphics work/web design). I play/code/design at 1600x1200. I'd love the Planar/Doublesight 26", but they are a bit expensive to justify.

 

[riemster37]

Originally posted by: alkemystprofessional gamer eh. what are your peers using? That's what I'd go with if I were a pro at something.

from what i posted, "I was recommended the #2 on this list, LG L227WTG-PF, months ago before I ever found this site."



I want another opinion. I stated that it probably is the best choice but I still have my concerns. I wanted to know if there was another monitor like it (just as good) which that BenQ G2400WD is close, but it is on back order till October :[

Also, I was concerned about the resolution with my possible future HDMI to DVI cable for my 360 would work on the LG L227WTG-PF. What resolution it would put out, which i would hope would be at least 720.

 

[arcarsenal]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
how are those dell 240xFPW's for gaming? I am going to need a gaming monitor that is capable of accurate color (I do graphics work/web design). I play/code/design at 1600x1200. I'd love the Planar/Doublesight 26", but they are a bit expensive to justify.

Unfortunately the Dell 2408WFP can't display the sRGB 72% gamut perfectly (it is a wide gamut 102% NTSC monitor), and thus it is not recommended in the "PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or web design)" section at the start of the thread.

If you're not that serious about it, I guess it would suffice, but if you can handle 22", the Dell 2209WA would better suit your needs if gaming and photo editing/web design are your primary interests.

Other than that maybe the BenQ G2400WD?

 

[Luddite]

Originally posted by: arcarsenal

Unfortunately the Dell 2408WFP can't display the sRGB 72% gamut perfectly (it is a wide gamut 102% NTSC monitor), and thus it is not recommended in the "PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or web design)" section at the start of the thread.

Sorry, why aren't wide-gamut panels not recommended for photo editing again?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: tech249
I agree, what are people buying now instead of the two above mentioned monitors? I need 24" and 1920x1200. Primarily for gaming.

Maybe BenQ E2400HD but that's 1080p. I don't know, really. The ASUS VK246H looks good. The HP w2408h is decent as well. The Samsung T240 is alright but far from stellar. It's slower than a really old Samsung 17" LCD. As you know I'm picky about what I put on my list. I don't like putting up "mediocre but decent" monitors, but only excellent or exceptional monitors most of the time.

Some reviews:

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore...eview-asus-vk246h.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ung-topaz_9.html#sect0

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Josh7289

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Josh7289
xt,

Are you planning on modifying your recommendations soon regarding the BenQ G2400WD and Samsung 2493HM, since they have both been listed as 'deactivated items' on Newegg for a while now?

I mean, it's probably a good idea to keep them in your list until they're basically nowhere to be found at all, but it looks like they've been discontinued so I don't know how long that will last...

And it's really disappointing that all the low input lag 1920 x 1200 monitors seem to be disappearing now. I really don't want a 1080p computer monitor (mostly because it's not possible to fit 1600 x 1200 onto a 1080p panel).

The G2400WD is still available at many places but the 2493HM has basically dried up, so the latter was removed. Thanks for letting me know. Sometimes it is hard to maintain such a long list of monitors and laziness takes hold. I have been thinking of a better way to do it for a long time now but haven't come up with anything. I wanted to put it on my website with live price updates or something but I'm still working on that.

Do you happen to still have your entry for the 2493HM that you had on the list? I'm still interested in reading the input lag measurements and notes you had listed for it.

Here it is:

[*]24": Samsung SyncMaster 2493HM, 1920x1200 (16:10)

• Panel: anti-glare TN, 72% NTSC, 16.7M colors
• Inputs: HDMI, DVI-D (HDCP), VGA
• Scaling: Full
• Input Lag: 0 ms, avg (prad)
• Ergonomics: Height Adjustment, Swivel, Tilt, Pivot, VESA Mount
• Info: official specs | prad
• Reviews: prad
• Notes: Zero input lag panel (at native res) with decent characteristics. However, it lacks 1:1 and the scaler introduces some lag. Aspect scaling mode works improperly (see here).
• Price: ~$400 USD

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Wazzap
Hi friends.

Please help me out. I can't make up my mind.

I am looking for a 24" monitor (but I can go with 22" too if it's better than the 24" ones I am looking at). My two main concerns are viewing angeles and input lag.

What do I use the monitor for:
* Gaming (mostly)
* Surfing/Coding/Chatting (mostly)
* Movies (sometimes)
* Video-editing, picture-editing and so on. (Nothing too major, hobby stuff, rarely)

Basically "all around". I am no hardcore gamer, I just do some Team Fortress 2 maybe every now and then, some Call of Duty 4. I don't do competitions and those stuff to have the latest best thing etc.

I have been looking at these two:
* Dell 2209WA
* BenQ G2400WD

I don't know which one to pick, in fact maybe you guys can recommend something better. I have never used a large TN panel monitor and I am afraid the colors will put me off. I have used a 19" TN monitor and I was very, very happy with it.

I also have no idea how to calibrate.

I am not that sensetive, at least I don't think so!

Response time is no big deal, the rest is no big deal.

Please help me out!

In my opinion the 2209WA is good for you due to the IPS panel. You do quite a large range of activities and would benefit from the increased viewing angle.

Originally posted by: ankit
xtknight, thanks so much for this amazing thread!

I am looking for a screen to go with my new 13" macbook pro. My main use for the screen is as follows (all are roughly equally important):

- Programming in Matlab, C etc. (basically text editing in vim)
- LaTex for writing papers (more text editing in vim)
- Some Illustrator/Photoshop work
- Watching movies (typically DVDs or downloads from the web)
- Some photo editing (I am an amateur photographer)

The one thing I don't plan on doing is playing games on this. Ideally I would like a 24" screen, but can live with a 22" as well. I would really like something that has good colors (though I probably would not really calibrate it properly, so this is not all that important). I have been reading about the Dell 2408WFP, the Dell 2209WA, and the HP 2475W. All else being equal, I'd rather spend less and get the 2209WA. Do you recommend one over the other between these three for my intended purposes? Which of these would be the best for watching movies? So far I have completely ignored TN panels; should I look at them as well?

Thanks!

The 2209WA would suffice for you unless you want more real estate and much more vibrant colors, in which case the HP LP2475w is good. I guess overall I would choose the LP2475w. I don't like the 2408 quite as much due to the S-PVA panel. I wouldn't bother with TN panels when you have these choices.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: riemster37
First off I wanted to say that this is the most helpful thing I came across while looking at monitors. I am very glad I found this. I've been searching for monitors for almost 2 weeks now. Also, I have tried to understand the stats and descriptions of today's monitors.

I am in need of a good gaming monitor. I play games professionally and have been using a 17" CRT since I can remember. I want a good monitor, but gaming would be the highest priority. I would like to watch movies on it also. I download a ton but currently use my 360 to put them on a TV. The TVs at both locations, home and college, are not the best (not HD and still glass). Besides video (movies) and games there is one more use for a new monitor I have been pondering. Hooking my 360 directly to my monitor. This is really a tertiary reason, but I think it would be very simple if I got a monitor with HDMI to my 360s HDMI. I am looking for a 22"-24", 16:10, input lag obviously less than ~5ms and proportionately priced.

I was recommended the #2 on this list, LG L227WTG-PF, months ago before I ever found this site. It looks like this is the best option. Newegg has it at 219.99 and free shipping makes me just want to get it now, but I'm still debating. There is no HDMI, but does a DVI (monitor) to HDMI (360) work as good as HDMI to HDMI? (probably a stupid question) Would I get HD 720p?

Yes, the L227 was the first thing on my mind too. It has lower lag and faster response than the 2209WA technically, which is best for pro gaming. (Though I'd recommend the oh-so-slightly slower 2209WA to most people due to other better characteristics.)

The other monitor I'm looking at is the #4 on this list, BenQ G2400WD. I think I'm just making things difficult, but it has 1.9 input lag, 2" larger, 1080 and HDMI. The pricetag is a bit pricey but if it's worth it I'll buy it. The problem with this monitor is that it's not on newegg or stores (that I've seen) and is on back order from their site.

Help? I'm kinda rambling and I'm still lost in the world of monitors/PCs even though I've been playing games professionally since 04-05. I'm really not quite sure what I'm even asking because I think the LG monitor is the best buy anyways.

*edit* I was told by a Best Buy employee (lol) that 120hz for a monitor is pointless and not good for gaming. Is this true? I thought it was because it's more like a CRT but it has a higher response time!?!

No, it's not pointless. In fact I think the 2233rz is probably a better choice than the L227. It's pricey but I'm thinking the 2233rz is the one you should go for.

The G2400WD is fine too but like you said hard to find nowadays.

DVI-to-HDMI should work just fine. What I can't guarantee is whether the monitor will input or show the signal properly; for that you may have to do some research on the web, particularly on HardForum where people talk about this stuff more in depth.

The 2233rz is actually available standalone for $400 now. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...l-_-SAMSUNG-_-24001311

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
how are those dell 240xFPW's for gaming? I am going to need a gaming monitor that is capable of accurate color (I do graphics work/web design). I play/code/design at 1600x1200. I'd love the Planar/Doublesight 26", but they are a bit expensive to justify.

The HP LP2475w is probably a better choice for you due to the H-IPS panel.

You will probably end up using 1920x1200 since scaling quality isn't and will never be very acceptable these days, still.

Neither of these are sRGB so the 2209WA is a good choice too for photo editing. It's 1680x1050.

For the wide gamut LCDs you will have to use color profiles to get anything remotely accurate.

Originally posted by: Luddite

Originally posted by: arcarsenal

Unfortunately the Dell 2408WFP can't display the sRGB 72% gamut perfectly (it is a wide gamut 102% NTSC monitor), and thus it is not recommended in the "PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or web design)" section at the start of the thread.

Sorry, why aren't wide-gamut panels not recommended for photo editing again?

With a wider gamut and the same bit depth, they can't display sRGB nuances nearly as well. And with color profiles enabled they look less saturated on sRGB pictures than a true sRGB monitor. Thus, a true sRGB monitor is the best choice for photo editing, although wide gamut ones can suffice for accuracy if you don't mind the slightly less saturated picture on sRGB-color-managed material.

 

[Luddite]

Originally posted by: xtknight

With a wider gamut and the same bit depth, they can't display sRGB nuances nearly as well. And with color profiles enabled they look less saturated on sRGB pictures than a true sRGB monitor. Thus, a true sRGB monitor is the best choice for photo editing, although wide gamut ones can suffice for accuracy if you don't mind the slightly less saturated picture on sRGB-color-managed material.

Thanks. I guess when I think of photo editing I think of print media, which you've listed the HP LP2474w under. So for best results in webwork, one needs a more accurate sRGB gamut, and for print a wider NTSC gamut, is this correct?

 

[Josh7289]

xt,

What do you see in the future for 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors, especially for gaming-happy models? Is the horizon basically filled with 1080p only?


I'm wondering if I should bite the bullet and hunt down a BenQ G2400WD now, or wait until October to buy a new monitor as I was originally going to do.

 

[thatsright]

Just got the gorgeous HP LP2475w monitor. Trying to calibrate it and not trusting the results. Using a Spyder 3 Pro w/ the following settings:

Brightness down to 65
Contrast to 90.
sRGB
Gama 2.2
Kelvin 6500k

For calibration I selected Grey balance. Spyder 3 strongly discouraged me from using RGB sliders so I picked Kelvin 6500lk. (But I did try RGB sliders and I could not get R channel to get within target values with it set at 255?) The process was quick but something is still off I think. I sent the Datacolor calibration photos you see at the end of the calibration to Adorama to be printed out. These photos were ?straight to print? original. But these photos look darker while onscreen its looks vivid and rich. I also had a Smugmug.com calibration print done at Adorama and got the same results, noticeably darker/duller.

Can you suggest anything? Is it best to use RGB sliders to set color temperature?? Is the brightness still too high?

 

[Paladin]

thatsright,
Here's the review at TFT Central that also talks about calibration here
Here's the profiles.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: thatsright
Just got the gorgeous HP LP2475w monitor. Trying to calibrate it and not trusting the results. Using a Spyder 3 Pro w/ the following settings:

Brightness down to 65
Contrast to 90.
sRGB
Gama 2.2
Kelvin 6500k

For calibration I selected Grey balance. Spyder 3 strongly discouraged me from using RGB sliders so I picked Kelvin 6500lk. (But I did try RGB sliders and I could not get R channel to get within target values with it set at 255?) The process was quick but something is still off I think. I sent the Datacolor calibration photos you see at the end of the calibration to Adorama to be printed out. These photos were ?straight to print? original. But these photos look darker while onscreen its looks vivid and rich. I also had a Smugmug.com calibration print done at Adorama and got the same results, noticeably darker/duller.

Can you suggest anything? Is it best to use RGB sliders to set color temperature?? Is the brightness still too high?

Turn down your contrast further

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: alkemyst
how are those dell 240xFPW's for gaming? I am going to need a gaming monitor that is capable of accurate color (I do graphics work/web design). I play/code/design at 1600x1200. I'd love the Planar/Doublesight 26", but they are a bit expensive to justify.

The HP LP2475w is probably a better choice for you due to the H-IPS panel.

You will probably end up using 1920x1200 since scaling quality isn't and will never be very acceptable these days, still.

Neither of these are sRGB so the 2209WA is a good choice too for photo editing. It's 1680x1050.

For the wide gamut LCDs you will have to use color profiles to get anything remotely accurate.

Originally posted by: Luddite

Originally posted by: arcarsenal

Unfortunately the Dell 2408WFP can't display the sRGB 72% gamut perfectly (it is a wide gamut 102% NTSC monitor), and thus it is not recommended in the "PHOTO EDITING/WEB DESIGN (classic sRGB/web-target photo editing, or web design)" section at the start of the thread.

Sorry, why aren't wide-gamut panels not recommended for photo editing again?

With a wider gamut and the same bit depth, they can't display sRGB nuances nearly as well. And with color profiles enabled they look less saturated on sRGB pictures than a true sRGB monitor. Thus, a true sRGB monitor is the best choice for photo editing, although wide gamut ones can suffice for accuracy if you don't mind the slightly less saturated picture on sRGB-color-managed material.

I think you are incorrect here xtnight. A wide gamut display should show the sRGB image exactly the same when color managed(in regards to saturation). You should also mention that wide gamut monitors can be better for photo editing if you will mainly be handling your own material. If so, you can see more colors from RAW image sources that would be lost on a sRGB monitor.

Also you are correct that wide gamut monitors lose a bit of resolution in the color range due to having to span a larger color space with the same 16.7 million colors. However, your choice of "can't display sRGB nuances nearly as well" is exaggerated in my opinion. Here is an example:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Sdiver2489/CRW_0859.jpg

This image was taken in RAW format and loaded into photoshop as a sRGB 8 bit image. This is equivalent to a sRGB monitor displaying a sRGB image.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Sdiver2489/CRW_085912.jpg

The same image I then loaded into photoshop as a AdobeRGB(typical wide-gamut) 8 bit image. This results in a loss of resolution in color due to the increased color space. I saved this image. Then loaded it(to make sure photoshop wouldn't go back to the DNG to get more color information) and converted it to a sRGB image. This means that the detail inscribed in the adobeRGB was all that was available in order to convert to sRGB. I think you'll find that the results are indistinguishable.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I think you are incorrect here xtnight. A wide gamut display should show the sRGB image exactly the same when color managed(in regards to saturation). You should also mention that wide gamut monitors can be better for photo editing if you will mainly be handling your own material. If so, you can see more colors from RAW image sources that would be lost on a sRGB monitor.

This is true. I think people who use RAW format know this though.

Also you are correct that wide gamut monitors lose a bit of resolution in the color range due to having to span a larger color space with the same 16.7 million colors. However, your choice of "can't display sRGB nuances nearly as well" is exaggerated in my opinion. Here is an example:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Sdiver2489/CRW_0859.jpg

This image was taken in RAW format and loaded into photoshop as a sRGB 8 bit image. This is equivalent to a sRGB monitor displaying a sRGB image.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Sdiver2489/CRW_085912.jpg

The same image I then loaded into photoshop as a AdobeRGB(typical wide-gamut) 8 bit image. This results in a loss of resolution in color due to the increased color space. I saved this image. Then loaded it(to make sure photoshop wouldn't go back to the DNG to get more color information) and converted it to a sRGB image. This means that the detail inscribed in the adobeRGB was all that was available in order to convert to sRGB. I think you'll find that the results are indistinguishable.

Practically speaking I cannot tell the difference between these pictures.

Well it's pretty surprising to me given my experiences. When I used Firefox on my wide gamut LCD (LCD2690WUXi) and compared it to a native browser on my sRGB LCD (20WMGX2), the 20WMGX2 still had more vibrant colors. The color management dimmed down the LCD26 a lot and I didn't like it. Maybe the images were supposed to be dimmed down, because there's no telling what would happen if I enabled color management on the 20WMGX2. I never tried it. I had the same experience with using mplayer with a color management plugin: woefully unsaturated colors. I guess that Photoshop does a better job, or the 20WMGX2's gamut differed enough from sRGB to be oversaturating color (which I thought was rare).

Unfortunately for the non-color-managed apps such as many video editors it does make more conventional editing more difficult. But you're right that Photoshop isn't nearly as bad as I thought it was at converting between the spaces and really, in practicality, no detail is lost. In Photoshop I can reproduce your results and on here as well (tagged pics in Firefox).

I don't have an sRGB monitor near me at the moment, but I guess what's wrong is that that monitor was actually oversaturating the material. So this may be important to mention. Unfortunately, most home users might have monitors oversaturating the material then. That's only if it's because of gamut though; I'm really not sure if that was why color managed material on a monitor closer to Adobe RGB always looked dimmer. It goes to show that perhaps color management is important on LCDs closer to sRGB as well.

Thank you for the demonstration pics.

 

[Luddite]

This is getting interesting...but at the same time I'm still a little confused over the terminology. When you say using an sRGB monitor, you mean a standard/common color gamut monitor, where a wide gamut monitor is not a sRGB one, even though a wide gamut monitor like the NEC 26090WUXi displays 107% of Adobe RGB and 103% of NTSC. ?(hmmm.. is sRGB different from Adobe RGB?).

Incidently I noticed there are now two models of the 24" NEC 24090WUXi, one business and the other professional (NEC 24090WUXi2)

 

[Wazzap]

Those who have 24" TN panels. How bad are the colors if you always sit straight looking at it without moving your head up down or whatever.. well OK. Sometimes you move your head around but a centimeters only.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Wazzap
Those who have 24" TN panels. How bad are the colors if you always sit straight looking at it without moving your head up down or whatever.. well OK. Sometimes you move your head around but a centimeters only.

You'll notice color shift on solid blocks of color when looking at the sides of the screen from a straight on view. Other than that...maybe some slight shift in black/grey at the edges.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Luddite
This is getting interesting...but at the same time I'm still a little confused over the terminology. When you say using an sRGB monitor, you mean a standard/common color gamut monitor, where a wide gamut monitor is not a sRGB one, even though a wide gamut monitor like the NEC 26090WUXi displays 107% of Adobe RGB and 103% of NTSC. ?(hmmm.. is sRGB different from Adobe RGB?).

Incidently I noticed there are now two models of the 24" NEC 24090WUXi, one business and the other professional (NEC 24090WUXi2)

sRGB is a color gamut that encompasses a certain area of the color spectrum. This was defined many years back as a standard for manufacturers to conform to.

There are many different color gamuts each encompassing a different amount and section of colors. Wide gamut monitors generally follow a color space fairly close to adobe RGB. This space encompasses all of sRGB plus more in the greens and blues.

If you are not going to calibrate your monitor with a device capable of measuring wide gamut screens(spyder3, i1 display2, etc) then I wouldn't recommend the wide gamut monitor. At a very minimum you should make sure that the manufacturer of your display provides a generic color space file that you can use as a "close enough" approximation of what your screen is. I use a wide gamut monitor and enjoy being able to add a little bit of detail from the additional color space in photoshop. However, I would probably be pretty annoyed at the overblown reds if I didn't calibrate the color space and the internal gamma curve.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: Wazzap
Those who have 24" TN panels. How bad are the colors if you always sit straight looking at it without moving your head up down or whatever.. well OK. Sometimes you move your head around but a centimeters only.

I keep my head in a vice which is attached to the back rest of my chair. And tighten it up nice 'n tight. And keep aspirin at arms length. Sometimes when I roll my eyes, green turns to red and red to blue and then I throw up all over my screen.



Okay, okay. Colors are good. Really.

 

[Luddite]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: Luddite
This is getting interesting...but at the same time I'm still a little confused over the terminology. When you say using an sRGB monitor, you mean a standard/common color gamut monitor, where a wide gamut monitor is not a sRGB one, even though a wide gamut monitor like the NEC 26090WUXi displays 107% of Adobe RGB and 103% of NTSC. ?(hmmm.. is sRGB different from Adobe RGB?).

Incidently I noticed there are now two models of the 24" NEC 24090WUXi, one business and the other professional (NEC 24090WUXi2)

sRGB is a color gamut that encompasses a certain area of the color spectrum. This was defined many years back as a standard for manufacturers to conform to.

There are many different color gamuts each encompassing a different amount and section of colors. Wide gamut monitors generally follow a color space fairly close to adobe RGB. This space encompasses all of sRGB plus more in the greens and blues.

If you are not going to calibrate your monitor with a device capable of measuring wide gamut screens(spyder3, i1 display2, etc) then I wouldn't recommend the wide gamut monitor. At a very minimum you should make sure that the manufacturer of your display provides a generic color space file that you can use as a "close enough" approximation of what your screen is. I use a wide gamut monitor and enjoy being able to add a little bit of detail from the additional color space in photoshop. However, I would probably be pretty annoyed at the overblown reds if I didn't calibrate the color space and the internal gamma curve.

Thanks PurdueRy. I'm on a CRT now and planning to move over to LCD within a couple of months. If I do plan to calibrate the new LCD monitor, would there be a significant difference for photo editing whether I get a wide gamut or not? It sounds from what xtknight is saying that wide gamut might not be as suitable for some purposes. Would web based colors, for example, appear washed out? My usage pattern is about 30% photo editing and 70% office and web browsing, including my own website. Thanks.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Luddite

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: Luddite
This is getting interesting...but at the same time I'm still a little confused over the terminology. When you say using an sRGB monitor, you mean a standard/common color gamut monitor, where a wide gamut monitor is not a sRGB one, even though a wide gamut monitor like the NEC 26090WUXi displays 107% of Adobe RGB and 103% of NTSC. ?(hmmm.. is sRGB different from Adobe RGB?).

Incidently I noticed there are now two models of the 24" NEC 24090WUXi, one business and the other professional (NEC 24090WUXi2)

sRGB is a color gamut that encompasses a certain area of the color spectrum. This was defined many years back as a standard for manufacturers to conform to.

There are many different color gamuts each encompassing a different amount and section of colors. Wide gamut monitors generally follow a color space fairly close to adobe RGB. This space encompasses all of sRGB plus more in the greens and blues.

If you are not going to calibrate your monitor with a device capable of measuring wide gamut screens(spyder3, i1 display2, etc) then I wouldn't recommend the wide gamut monitor. At a very minimum you should make sure that the manufacturer of your display provides a generic color space file that you can use as a "close enough" approximation of what your screen is. I use a wide gamut monitor and enjoy being able to add a little bit of detail from the additional color space in photoshop. However, I would probably be pretty annoyed at the overblown reds if I didn't calibrate the color space and the internal gamma curve.

Thanks PurdueRy. I'm on a CRT now and planning to move over to LCD within a couple of months. If I do plan to calibrate the new LCD monitor, would there be a significant difference for photo editing whether I get a wide gamut or not? It sounds from what xtknight is saying that wide gamut might not be as suitable for some purposes. Would web based colors, for example, appear washed out? My usage pattern is about 30% photo editing and 70% office and web browsing, including my own website. Thanks.

Provided you use color managed applications for your critical work it won't matter really. The wide gamut will give you a bit of an advantage for RAW pictures or pictures saved in adobeRGB format(rare) but otherwise they will look the same displaying sRGB material.

Adobe RGB images will look washed out on people not using color managed applications where they are assumed to be sRGB. The solution to this is only save as adobe RGB if they are staying on your computer. If they go to the web...they should be sRGB. Note that this is a property of the image NOT the monitor. If you don't save your images to the web as adobeRGB you won't have this issue.

I wouldn't let color gamut stop you from getting either monitor. Either variety is capable of accurate sRGB color reproduction.