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
  #41  
Old 07-22-2012, 05:40 PM
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
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]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
context of this thread and the OPís experience and perceived needs.
I'm going to exit the conversation as you're ignoring the reason I referenced that (read where I mention origination), so feel free to have the last word. The D50 target is not appropriate for general use for most people. They aren't using a D50 working space, and it's further from the display's native characteristics. Those figures were developed for a very specific environment and you quoted them without context. The reason some of them are even higher is that 160 isn't that bright when it comes to trying to match an immensely bright viewing source. They just needed something that could be maintained for a suitable number of hours. If you try to work normally at that brightness, it can become incredibly irritating as the jumps between colors can seem too great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrodney View Post

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 canít. We can be disappointed in these facts but we have to live with the facts none the less.
Ugh... you're intentionally being obtuse. I explained it well enough in that the visual evaluation of a display of that brightness is likely to lead to poor judgments and blocked up tones. It's quite common. A lot of displays crunch highlight detail at such a brightness level, so it becomes difficult to judge what is appropriate there. Shadows start to look grey beyond the darkest tones. This can also lead to poor decisions. I indicated that a conservative setting is a good idea for general use. Nowhere did I suggest matching every display viewing the internet :P.
Reply With Quote top
  #42  
Old 07-22-2012, 06:14 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"

Hi Tony,

I did this test today daytime as looking the only test I was concerned about was inversion (pixel walk).
Looking at test now night outside some dim lamp in the far end corner of the room I can observe following out of target:
Gamma calibration seems pretty off:
at 48 % red at 1.5 green at 1.5 blue 1.7 white 1.7
at 25% green 1.7 white 1.8
at 10% green 2.0 white 1.9

Gradient seems ok unless I am very picky and see very subtle bars .
The adobe RGB sample from download viewing in Adobe RGB mode looks best. It is natural and vibrant. In sRGB mode dull in ,,Full,, native monitor resolution it looks a little bit saturated . Gradient from white to black I cant see the last 4 steps. All other photos correspond to the target guide on the notes. Just a little bit valley shadows by the end left corner gets black .
Second thumbnail: I can still differentiate 6 and 253
Thanks Tony
Reply With Quote top
  #43  
Old 07-22-2012, 08:54 PM
andrewrodney's Avatar
andrewrodney andrewrodney is online now
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
The D50 target is not appropriate for general use for most people. They aren't using a D50 working space, and it's further from the display's native characteristics.
Doesnít matter a lick in ICC aware applications. Outside ICC aware applications, all bets are off anyway.

Quote:
Ugh... you're intentionally being obtuse. I explained it well enough in that the visual evaluation of a display of that brightness is likely to lead to poor judgments and blocked up tones.
Iím not and no you didnít (explain it well enough). You point is what? If you canít or donít want to calibrate a display to produce a match to something else, just set the targets so it looks good? If so, just say that.
Reply With Quote top
  #44  
Old 07-23-2012, 03:12 AM
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
Doesnít matter a lick in ICC aware applications. Outside ICC aware applications, all bets are off anyway.
Saying it's lossless isn't actually true when it has a certain number of addressable values. You're just saying it can choose to only address those monitor/display values which fall within the D65 based working space. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't see one or the other suggested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrodney View Post
Iím not and no you didnít (explain it well enough). You point is what? If you canít or donít want to calibrate a display to produce a match to something else, just set the targets so it looks good? If so, just say that.
Response was going to get too long so I will word it differently.

Some things are a given. Manufacturers typically balance/optimize for Gamma 2.2. D65 is used because it's close to the hardware's native temp. Either one should be close enough. Gamma 2.2 is typical because it matches sRGB/Adobe 1998. Choosing 1.8 or D50 means that color managed applications can only address a portion of the display's addressable values. It's not really an ideal way to go. As for luminance, a few things remain important no matter what. You want it to be sustainable for the period of time you expect to use the display, meaning that while the hardware brightness setting may be higher later in its life, the actual output luminance should be consistent. You want it to be able to produce adequate highlight and shadow detail. Those things are basically given.

D50 1.8 settings are only really prescribed for soft proofing as part of a system meant to reproduce theoretical target values across the chain. If you noticed I responded to that earlier as they were quoted as general use values when they're not. It means to display properly within a color managed application, you're unable to use the brightest values that fall outside of it (as in RGB set to max would grant too warm of a white if displayed correctly). Then again you already knew all of that.

I was trying to suggest something that would give him predictable behavior and longevity given that he has no theoretical target. D65 Gamma 2.2 would match his working space. In terms of luminance I went based on a starting point that could be maintained. If he is sending things out to be printed, it will likely require minor tweaks. Using an invalid display profile (remember he was tweaking the settings yet the display profile fed to the OS would remain the same there) and fully arbitrary settings is just asking for a long series of headaches. In no way was I suggesting going by on screen aesthetics. I'm under the impression that he's lacking a quality printer, and I suggested measured settings that closely approximate sRGB or Adobe RGB (whichever is closer to native display gamut) as he's likely to be working in one of those spaces.
Reply With Quote top
  #45  
Old 07-23-2012, 06:42 AM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,414
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Tomas,
Pleased to hear that you have had a look at the tests, just remember that visual calibration is not ideal. The gamma figures seem to be out from ideal. On my monitor now in full daylight I am close to the 'ideal' of 2.2 as viewed in daylight conditions. Until you properly calibrate to a known target values take what you are seeing with a pinch of salt and adjust your values if you want to try and get a better look.

The sample image is likely to change when you calibrate. Not 100% sure of this but it is possible that the monitor is internally calibrated to aRGB which may go some way to explaining why it looks better here?

The second image is a very rough guide and what you see sounds quite reasonable - after calibration you may well be able to see lower values than 6 and may even see 254

There was a point made about lowering luminance of the screen to extend the longevity of the display. This is something you may want to consider but then you will need to think about in doing this am I sacrificing accuracy of a 'proper calibration' for possible monetary savings. The CCFL backlight in your monitor has quite a long life I do not know the figures quoted by NEC but typical figures from other sources suggest a half life of around 20,000 hours. My own monitor (not sure how long I have had this) shows 6165 hours which equates to around 8 hours per day 365 days a year for just over 2 years - and no it is not on that long. Most backlights can be replaced the cost of the parts is relatively low but labour costs need to be accounted for.
Reply With Quote top
  #46  
Old 07-23-2012, 08:39 AM
andrewrodney's Avatar
andrewrodney andrewrodney is online now
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
Saying it's lossless isn't actually true when it has a certain number of addressable values. You're just saying it can choose to only address those monitor/display values which fall within the D65 based working space. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't see one or the other suggested.
Quote:
They aren't using a D50 working space, and it's further from the display's native characteristics.
The WP of a display will make a significant visual difference. You pick one to match a print (or something else or it doesn’t matter). The WP target for display calibration and the WP of the working space don’t have to match, have no relationship to each other. You can have a D50 working space WP and a D65 display WP or a D65 working space WP and a WP for a dispaly that is based on a CCT value or x/y values. They have nothing inherently to do with each other. They don’t have to match. What would someone do working with ProPhoto and sRGB considering the two have differing WP’s (answer, nothing, doesn’t matter).
Reply With Quote top
  #47  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:21 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

There was a point made about lowering luminance of the screen to extend the longevity of the display. This is something you may want to consider but then you will need to think about in doing this am I sacrificing accuracy of a 'proper calibration' for possible monetary savings. The CCFL backlight in your monitor has quite a long life I do not know the figures quoted by NEC but typical figures from other sources suggest a half life of around 20,000 hours. My own monitor (not sure how long I have had this) shows 6165 hours which equates to around 8 hours per day 365 days a year for just over 2 years - and no it is not on that long. Most backlights can be replaced the cost of the parts is relatively low but labour costs need to be accounted for.
This isn't how half lives work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Wiki gives a better explanation than me on this one. In the case of displays, they follow an exponential model. NEC used to claim 35-50,000 hours to total backlight failure, but a realistic assumption for the usable life of a display is more like 15,000 hours. If you look at some of the archives on hardforum, people were usually happy with the NECs through the first 2 years, after which they dropped off sharply. The PA series should do a little better. Reducing brightness does slow decay, but it's not necessarily a compromise to accuracy. You may have noted this, but I try to keep it as consistent and stable as possible. Whether or not it's hitting a specific target, you want it to be in roughly the same spot. Any compensation that is necessary then remains pretty similar. You also don't want whites to look yellow, blue, green, etc. If it's noticeable visually, it's pretty far off as a bit off wouldn't be readily noticeable given the way your brain tends to neutralize things. As to changing brightness depending on your work area, ambient lighting changes in color temperature too. That's why there's often an emphasis on removing its influence.

Now on half life, the way these things work is that say it's 20,000 hours at the settings used on average (it's not entirely static). At 20,000 hours it would be 50%. At 40,000 it could be 25%. It's not a truly linear falloff, but at a bright enough setting you could hit the first mark well before 20,000 hours with CCFL. I had an older one that didn't have that many hours on it, yet it could no longer hit 100cd/m2 after 3 years or so. The spec sheet suggested roughly 300cd/m2 when new. Keep in mind if you use color comp, that value will drop. In the case of aging though, they eventually fail completely, but it's likely to become less usable prior to that. The NECs are still quite good. Some of the cheaper ones are really hit and miss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrodney View Post
The WP of a display will make a significant visual difference. You pick one to match a print (or something else or it doesnít matter). The WP target for display calibration and the WP of the working space donít have to match, have no relationship to each other. You can have a D50 working space WP and a D65 display WP or a D65 working space WP and a WP for a dispaly that is based on a CCT value or x/y values. They have nothing inherently to do with each other. They donít have to match. What would someone do working with ProPhoto and sRGB considering the two have differing WPís (answer, nothing, doesnít matter).
You are ignoring much of what I mentioned. We're still working with a fixed number of values. Regarding white points, unless you're using a specific system that suggests D50 for a match, why wouldn't you go with something closer to D65 or hardware native, as it's likely to produce fewer issues. I mentioned working space because the native hardware behavior and common rgb spaces are similar there. Prophoto isn't that common of a workflow. I could see if you needed to represent colors that don't fit within one of the others. You'll notice that the OP here doesn't have anything he's really matching to. I suggested something stable. If he prints at different labs or gets one of the cheaper printers that has a bit of ink variation, it would make his life easier to maintain stability at the display level. If something has to be tweaked slightly, you want it to be consistent whenever possible. Anyway I'm not sure where you're going with this. Was there a better suggestion of what the guy should do given that he doesn't have a real target? Profiling can at least get you a more accurate hardware representation of the display than the generic shipping profile.
Reply With Quote top
  #48  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:16 AM
creativeretouch creativeretouch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 502
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrodney View Post
You point is what? If you canít or donít want to calibrate a display to produce a match to something else, just set the targets so it looks good? If so, just say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kav View Post
You'll notice that the OP here doesn't have anything he's really matching to. I suggested something stable. If he prints at different labs or gets one of the cheaper printers that has a bit of ink variation, it would make his life easier to maintain stability at the display level. If something has to be tweaked slightly, you want it to be consistent whenever possible. Anyway I'm not sure where you're going with this. Was there a better suggestion of what the guy should do given that he doesn't have a real target? Profiling can at least get you a more accurate hardware representation of the display than the generic shipping profile.
I was always thinking that we need to mach an external target which is not a part of monitor or printer (or final print). And I was always thinking that this is the reason why we have ISO standards which should be considered as a target. And I was always thinking that we need to mach monitor to ISO target and printer to ISO target. In an ideal case print should mach monitor and monitor should mach print.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=44468
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=43234

I did not read these ISO standards but I expect they should tell us exactly what to do.

Regards, Filip

---------------------------------------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com & http://photoapps.info
Reply With Quote top
  #49  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:30 AM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,414
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kav View Post
This isn't how half lives work.
I did not say that this was the way it worked . I know very well the theories of how it works and also the practical aspects having worked professionally with manufacturers including Dome/Planar, Eizo, NEC, Totaku and Wide supplying high end solutions in a market where it was not uncommon to drive a display at over 150 cd/m2.

Although I have an opinion to be kind I will say that I fail to see the relevance of a lecture on how things work (in your opinion) as it is irrelevant to the OP's needs.

These needs I believe are to have a realistic target for purpose and without experiencing his situation currently no one can give him any sensible advice on accurate settings other than the wide range quoted in this thread (please do not quote 200 cd/m2 as the OP is well aware that this figure incorrect).

In the case of matching print to screen this will depend on several factors including his ambient viewing conditions. When he does establish his luminence value to get the closest match to predict print to screen then these will only apply to the conditions that were present at that time. Therefore accuracy will be reduced should any of the viewing conditions alter or monitor luminance change (all bets are off!) until such time as the effects of the changes are accounted for.
Reply With Quote top
  #50  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:59 AM
Tony W's Avatar
Tony W Tony W is offline
Senior Member
Patron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,414
Re: NEC PA231W 23" or PA241W 24"

Quote:
Originally Posted by creativeretouch View Post
I did not read these ISO standards but I expect they should tell us exactly what to do.
Hi Filip, yes IMO in an ideal world they should and there will be sectors of industry that have to comply.

To read them in their entirety will cost you approx £150 . I will not try and bore you with details but they give specific recommendations relating to monitor luminance range e.g should be at least 120cd/m2 and qualify that with other measures including ambient light level of less than 32Lux.

I would suggest that for many users the standards do not have to be complied with as the important part is getting the sometimes elusive print to screen match or at least be able to predict the result with good accuracy.

All IMHO of course
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 03:17 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