RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Hardware Computers, displays, tablets, scanners, cameras, printers, etc.

NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:11 AM
nebulaoperator's Avatar
nebulaoperator nebulaoperator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 390
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by creativeretouch View Post
Before you buy proper calibration device you can try this app:

http://www.bergdesign.com/supercal/

If you are on Mac …

Regards, Filip
-------------------------------------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com & http://photoapps.info
Thanks Filip but I have windows. I think I will go for a renting the calibrator.
Reply With Quote top
  #32  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:12 AM
andrewrodney's Avatar
andrewrodney andrewrodney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Fe
Posts: 1,090
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulaoperator View Post
I want to ask all monitor users and Nec PA241W in particular what cd/m2 settings do you work on?
The value that produces a visual match to a print in my viewing booth!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...too_dark.shtml
Reply With Quote top
  #33  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:47 PM
kav kav is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 574
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulaoperator View Post
I lowered back to 160 then added curves adjustment because image looked to me duller I also looked at curves that suggested highlights can be pushed brightened and saved. I made image Nr.1-160cd/m2
Then I increased cd/m2 to 220 previous state image looks brighter no need of curves saved the image Nr.2-220cd/m2
Uploaded. Compared both on the laptop. Nr.1 looks looks brighter and OK Nr2. looks duller.
Multiprofiler just works fine. A few things I can do on it including cd/m2 altering. Here is a screenshot of MP in action.
Edit: I hope this little experiment makes a sense if so my monitor at 220 cd/m2 is too much. Thanks Tony I will read a bit more later and let you know about some of the things you pointed in #25
one thing I can tell you and you can see on the screen shot that there is option called ambient light compensation. I am not sure how it does but for that reason there should be a some kind of sensor if so which communicates to MP software to make such an adjustments.
This is probably the worst method I've ever read. Your eyes are biased when you just try to determine what looks pretty on screen. I mean that is just absurdly high. Ambient compensation is a bad idea if you're trying to judge the look of photos off this. While luminance values mentioned by the display may differ from real ones, I don't suggest using it this high. Using it really high tends to wear out the backlight faster, and assuming it's in good working order, 220 is way beyond too high. It's not even sustainable. If you run it that high you'll eventually run into the issue that display aging will force you to reduce it with time. Brightening your highlights is an even worse idea if you want it to be remotely close to printed values. Hold up a sheet of paper next to that display. While this isn't very scientific, try to see what I mean here. Those luminance values will not look anything like a printed white.

Anyway I wouldn't have suggested anything over 100 unless your display simply doesn't perform well there. If you go higher, it will likely print down to a noticeable level. If the issue is that it looks dull, you have probably not grown used to it. If you're looking at it with way too bright of a setting, your eyes adjust to that, and you think it looks good.
Reply With Quote top
  #34  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:52 PM
kav kav is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 574
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrodney View Post
The value that produces a visual match to a print in my viewing booth!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...too_dark.shtml
I like this part..

Quote:
The point is, no specific cd/m2 target will necessary be correct without taking the print viewing conditions into account. Very low cd/m2 values are not necessary better, however the lower you can calibrate the display luminance, the longer that display will last. Displays do wear out.
He may not be printing there. He may not have a viewing booth. He may not have the budget. If they are being sent out for printing or displayed on the internet for others to view, such high settings are likely to lead to poor judgment. If his only reference point is photoshop on that display, he's likely to be disappointed if he views those same images on any other source.
Reply With Quote top
  #35  
Old 07-22-2012, 07:12 AM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,415
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kav View Post
This is probably the worst method I've ever read.
And this is a rude and uneccessary statement. What are you trying to do here, look good and all knowledgeable to your peers on this forum?

It is obvious that if you have read the thread then you failed to comprehend.

It is also obvious now that the OP is quite new to color management and quite sensibly he asked for some opinion. He had tried his new software and was under the impression that somehow the monitor was able to calibrate itself hence the confusion about the luminance levels. He later realised his error and posted as much.

Quote:
Anyway I wouldn't have suggested anything over 100 unless your display simply doesn't perform well there.
Nonsense, you cannot realistically specify any numbers without experiencing the monitor and working conditions and how these finally relate to printed output..

Even colour management experts disagree on certain aspects, I do not class myself anywhere near their level of expertise and from what you are saying you are certainly no an expert.

I think that most 'experts' if pushed may suggest a starting point of colour temp of D65, gamma of 2.2 and luminance level around 120 cd/m2. Which will also be qualified by stating that these values
will need to be tailored to the individuals needs relating to final output.

Other than that there is the wider rec. of between 80 - 150 cd/m2. The Spectraview people Basicolor have a different take on this and recommend their settings of D50 and 160 cd/m2!
Reply With Quote top
  #36  
Old 07-22-2012, 08:11 AM
kav kav is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 574
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony W View Post
And this is a rude and uneccessary statement. What are you trying to do here, look good and all knowledgeable to your peers on this forum?

It is obvious that if you have read the thread then you failed to comprehend.

It is also obvious now that the OP is quite new to color management and quite sensibly he asked for some opinion. He had tried his new software and was under the impression that somehow the monitor was able to calibrate itself hence the confusion about the luminance levels. He later realised his error and posted as much.
It was for emphasis. He should consider stopping right there and rethinking his methodology completely.

Edit: I'm really not egotistical. I don't know where you got that idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony W View Post
Nonsense, you cannot realistically specify any numbers without experiencing the monitor and working conditions and how these finally relate to printed output..

Even colour management experts disagree on certain aspects, I do not class myself anywhere near their level of expertise and from what you are saying you are certainly no an expert.
It was intended as a starting point. 120 cd/m2 is higher than anyone really used with crts. The migration toward a higher luminance there was mostly due to where lcds at the time performed well. They lost too much contrast and behaved weird when driven beneath that point. 200 is still a terrible idea as it will wear the OP's display out faster. He wanted years out of it. Running it that high can reduce its usable lifespan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony W View Post

I think that most 'experts' if pushed may suggest a starting point of colour temp of D65, gamma of 2.2 and luminance level around 120 cd/m2. Which will also be qualified by stating that these values
will need to be tailored to the individuals needs relating to final output.

Other than that there is the wider rec. of between 80 - 150 cd/m2. The Spectraview people Basicolor have a different take on this and recommend their settings of D50 and 160 cd/m2!
Again issue of origination on the numbers here which tend to be starting values. Brighter values at D50 are there for matching a hard and soft copy when the hard copy is illuminated by a viewing booth of whatever reference luminance. You can probably find the ISO papers on this.

Typically for simply evaluating an image on screen, it would be set much lower. 120cd/m2 was chosen because 6 or 7 years ago, that was the lowest you could get with an lcd display without sacrificing too much contrast to be practical. D65 and Gamma 2.2 match up well enough with the hardware and they match the reference white point values of sRGB and Adobe 1998. 120 cd/m2 still "typically" results in things that print down relative to how they're perceived on screen which is why I suggest that it's still pretty bright for a point of departure. Papers do not vary that much. It doesn't jump all over the place. The point was that on the higher values, that's assuming you're comparing to a print viewed under a very bright viewing light. The lower numbers I suggested were intended for on screen evaluation. Does that help clear things up (no sarcasm)?

The guy doesn't sound like he has a printer handy or the budget for a small viewing table. Anything worth buying will cost you over $1k. He wanted to know how to evaluate things on screen, and I provided reasonable reference there. There are hardware and software packages to both calibrate display and linearize a printer, so you can go beyond just matching one to the other under arbitrary lighting. If he just messes around with things, there are two problems. One is that he's likely to save results that will not look good later on. The other problem is that running a display at such a high backlight luminance will cut its usable lifespan. They won't hold up to hours per day for years at 200+. In this regard, I'm trying to save him money. I've gone through this stuff myself.

It's a pain in the ass finding good reference and the amount of material out there with seemingly conflicting information due to poor reference becomes frustrating very quickly. It quickly becomes an issue of uhhhh. I actually like the way Andrew generally explains it even if I don't agree with him on everything, but he insists on a reference printer. My point was to keep my suggestions to something conservative that works well and will not visually influence erratic adjustments such as making the image dark and high in contrast, thus blocking up the shadow values within the working color space if evaluating solely from the displayed image on screen. That can generally be verified by the histogram, but I didn't want to suggest that as it's not always easy to spot unless something is really bad.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrkaBosFyac

Check out the huge viewing light there.

Anyway ISO 3664 designates 80 - 100 or 120 (can't remember which) D65 Gamma 2.2 for evaluation of images on screen. If it won't calibrate well that low, turn it up. I just find visually that 120 has been too high on every display I've used. The problem with your other suggestion was that they didn't provide complete information as to the nature of their suggestion.

Edit: It also specifies a maximum ambient luminance level. I can't remember the exact figure, but basically they suggest this brightness range with the room as dark as possible. Working in a brighter area just makes the evaluation more difficult due to other inconsistent light sources. The point of the area being dark is that external factors do not affect your judgment.
Reply With Quote top
  #37  
Old 07-22-2012, 11:52 AM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,415
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

OK then, I will play for a while, but this post is going way off topic and getting needlessly technical for the OP's requirements

Tomas when you read this at least for the moment I suggest you ignore most as at this time I suspect that it goes far beyond what you need to know.

Quote:
It was for emphasis. He should consider stopping right there and rethinking his methodology completely.
If you had read the thread after that point you should have understood that he had already stopped when he realised his error – so the reply has no point and it may be embarrasing to the OP!

Please read these figures for setting a monitor:
Ambient light: 10 Lux
Uniformity response: 30%
Maximum Luminance: 170 cd/m2
Luminance Ratio: 250
Luminance +/- 10%

These are the recognized standard for digital communications in medicine (DICOM). Part 14 of this standard refers to the Grey Scale Display Function (GSDF) for display monitors.

I am sure you are now scratching your head and asking what is the relevance of this!

It is just as relevant as you quoting ISO 3664 i.e. hardly relevant in the context of this thread and the OP’s experience and perceived needs.

If you work to the ISO standards and comply with all then this is just fine – for you! Others for whatever reason cannot meet these standards. In that case they can try to aim for predictable and consistent results which I believe the OP is trying to do.

FYI:
There are actualy ISO standards for office lighting for graphics design and Pre-press work.

They are called Viewing Conditions for Graphic Technology and Photography i.e. ISO 3664 and the second related standard ISO 12646 Graphic Technology Displays for Colour Proofing Characteristics and Viewing Conditions which I believe requires more stringent colour pre-press viewing conditions for monitor calibration and room lighting.

For someone setting up a lab for comparing printed output and digital image files, then ISO 12646 I believe should be the standards to strive for.

If you are a Web developer or desktop publisher who rarely prints proofs the less stringent IS0 3664 may be more appropriate.

The target for ISO 12646 are defined as follows:

Display Type: LCD
Calibration Method: Hardware calibration (monitor LUT)
Calibration Settings: ISO3664 and ISO 12646
Profile settings: LUT based (accurate)
CIE Daylight standard: D50
Tonal response Curve: L* (recommended)
Specify: White and black luminance
White: 160 cd/m2
Ambient Light Colour temperature: 5000K
Ambient Light Intensity: ¼ the monitor white point

Black: Minimum neutral
Profile type: 16 bit LUT based

You obviously do not work to these standards and neither do I - I wonder why that is?

Last edited by Tony W; 07-22-2012 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #38  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:58 PM
andrewrodney's Avatar
andrewrodney andrewrodney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Fe
Posts: 1,090
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kav View Post
he may not be printing there. He may not have a viewing booth. He may not have the budget.
He may not be trying for any kind of match in which case, the discussion is somewhat moot. If he IS trying to match a print to a display, AND he wants a match, he has to control the print viewing conditions, with a booth or something else. And no, it doesn’t have to cost much money at all. One MR16 track and a Solux bulb costs less than a few prints!

If he doesn’t care if the display and print match, calibrate to any reasonable target and don’t view the print and display in context.

Quote:
If they are being sent out for printing...
He either wants a match to the display or doesn’t. I’d suspect given the choice, he’d want a match so the issues are still there. Control the print viewing conditions and the display for a match. Doesn’t mater who makes the print or where. You are either expecting a match or you are not.

Quote:
...or displayed on the internet for others to view, such high settings are likely to lead to poor judgment.
Attempting to calibrate or match internet images is folly since we have no control over what everyone else is doing in terms of calibration let alone if they are even using ICC aware browsers. You are trying to aim an arrow at a very wide barn here.

Quote:
If his only reference point is photoshop on that display, he's likely to be disappointed if he views those same images on any other source.
How would he know? What can he do when user A is working on a 10 year old CRT cranking out 60 cd/m2 and someone with a wide gamut LCD producing 200 cd/m2? He can’t. We can be disappointed in these facts but we have to live with the facts none the less.
Reply With Quote top
  #39  
Old 07-22-2012, 02:34 PM
nebulaoperator's Avatar
nebulaoperator nebulaoperator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 390
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

A few things I want clarify that at the moment I aim to calibrate to a reasonable target(something Andrew mentioned earlier) and here I am talking about displaying images on internet. I red a few hours ago that there is no way you make image look same for viewers due to wide gamut displays and CM of the browser but closest and most relevant thing would be sRGB with ICC( correct me if I wrong here). I was scratching my head today adjusting monitors brightness. Yes my previous 200 cd/m2 is too much. I simply knocked it to 120 and spend good few hours looking at images on photoshop reading material on internet I found my eyes very tired . While viewing images on PS at 120 I found a lack of contrast so eventually I raised to 140 and left it for couple of hours. Now my eyes feel comfortable.
As I don't have a calibrating tool I simply try different modes on my monitor.
What I found that using ,,full,, colour gammut setting on MP colours look vibrant and if I and broader .for example adobe RGB sapce images. This mode has wider colour gammut so I presume why images on the www looks ,,radioactive,,.
Then I switch back to sRGB and everything looks dim. I have no idea what settings I had on my old HP monitor but they looked much brighter vibrant. Could be the brightness cd/m2 ? What else?
At the moment I have 2.2 gamma curve., D65 .,140 cd/m2., sRGB monitor mode.
Should be simple conclusion if I work on adobe RGB colour space image my monitor should be set to adobe RGB mode ?!
I will take more interest in print and display match later though.
Thanks Tomas
Reply With Quote top
  #40  
Old 07-22-2012, 04:07 PM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,415
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

How does your monitor display for each of the tests highlighted run the online program that I have indicated in previous posts http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ?

Goto the link and click on each test as indicated in the attachment. Read the description of what you should be looking for then evaluate what you are seeing vs what is suggested you should see.

Try in any of your monitors colour modes and observe the differences.

Viewing your own edited images in PS may not be that helpful - what if you have edited by eye on a monitor that was way out of 'normal' calibration standards and therefore compensated in the wrong direction?

I would suggest that you download a reference image although designed for print to screen reference you may find it helpful. The Pixl testimage 2009 AdobeRGB is quite good because it describes how an image should appear on screen and in print - it is annotated with PS notes so they should be activated in PS. Goto http://www.pixl.dk/download/ and select and save the second one down

EDIT:I just came across this test file I made to establish the difference between what I could see on screen vs what I get when printing. It may give some insight into how you are seeing things on your monitor currently.
Click on the second attachment then when it opens right click and select copy. Now open PS and select file new and select from clipboard. When/if prompted choose sRGB. Now each square has a number printed both above and within the black or white boundaries. This number represents equal RGB values and should be what you see in the info palette in PS.
When viewing on your monitor what is the number of the darkest square shade you can percieve within the small boxes and what is the lightest box number?
I can differentiate the black box at level 8 from its surrounding black and the very light grey at 252 in my current viewing conditions
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Monitor.jpg (56.7 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg Test_Ramp.jpg (74.0 KB, 10 views)

Last edited by Tony W; 07-22-2012 at 04:58 PM.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What hood do you recommend for my 22" NEC Monitor? YoungRetoucher Hardware 7 06-13-2012 01:26 PM
Eizo CG243 vs NEC Spectraview Reference 241 hello Hardware 3 03-29-2011 02:47 PM
Help With Monitor Purchase NEC MultiSync PA241W TonyUK Hardware 5 02-06-2011 11:54 AM
Dual NEC PA241W-BK-SV Setup Manuel_A Hardware 21 01-29-2011 10:04 PM
NEC PA241W, colormunki, 9500 mark ii cyto1979 Hardware 2 10-23-2010 03:36 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved