Wide gamut monitor advice

[Astro]

Dan, I would probably not willingly go back to a 24inch screen. For me I think it has something to do with :-
a) viewing distance.. I'm much more comfortable sitting at my desk with the larger screen
b) I really like being able to see a life size pre-print (A3/A3+), render, directly onto screen.

[DanK]

James,

thanks. Interesting. A standard rule of thumb, for what it is worth, is that the minimum comfortable viewing distance for a screen is the diagonal. If you'll pardon the non-metric measurements, I sit 28 inches or so from my monitor, but I find I can't apprehend all of even a 24" monitor at a glance. Still, I have a hunch I would like a 27" more for editing.

Dan

[Round Tuit]

Dan,
I too have an ASUS wide gamut monitor that I purchased in 2011 for about $500 CDN. It is a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 pixel IPS monitor (Model PA246). I have been very satisfied with it. It covers 100% of sRGB and 99% of Adobe98 even though its gamut is actually larger than Adobe98.
If I ever have to replace it, I will not go larger than 24 inch as I find that size almost too large now that I need glasses.

[Cantab]

Dan,
I too have an ASUS wide gamut monitor that I purchased in 2011 for about $500 CDN. It is a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 pixel IPS monitor (Model PA246). I have been very satisfied with it. It covers 100% of sRGB and 99% of Adobe98 even though its gamut is actually larger than Adobe98.
If I ever have to replace it, I will not go larger than 24 inch as I find that size almost too large now that I need glasses.

My Asus is the same as Andre’s, except purchased in 2013.

[george013]

James,

thanks. Interesting. A standard rule of thumb, for what it is worth, is that the minimum comfortable viewing distance for a screen is the diagonal. If you'll pardon the non-metric measurements, I sit 28 inches or so from my monitor, but I find I can't apprehend all of even a 24" monitor at a glance. Still, I have a hunch I would like a 27" more for editing.

Dan

Like all rules of thumb don't take them to serious. Beside the metric sizes of your screen there is also a pixel size of your screen and together the pixel pitch.
And the ratio horizontal and vertical. A wide screen gives you the ability to have more windows open next to each other.

The mentioned 24 inch 1920 x 1200 pixel IPS monitor (Model PA246) by example has a density of 94ppi. Personal I preferred a little bit over the 100ppi.

George

[Sergio M.]

Dan, my previous monitor was a 23" but I wanted to keep the same aspect ratio (16:9) so I went with the 27". I do enjoy editing much more on the 27" and the increased resolution and screen real estate is a plus.

sm

[DanK]

Thanks, folks. I had read a lot of reviews of the BenQ and Eizo options. These postings prompted me to look at the current Asus models.

Asus has a bewildering variety of models. Most are sRGB. The two that appear to be the relevant ones are the 24 and 27 inch PA249Q and PA279Q. B&H sells neither, which is surprising. The 27" on Amazon is only $50 cheaper than the less expensive of the two Eizos of that size, so I think I will stick with Eizo if I go for that price range. The 24" apparently isn't sold by Amazon either.

[Astro]

I sit 28 inches or so from my monitor, but I find I can't apprehend all of even a 24" monitor at a glance. Still, I have a hunch I would like a 27" more for editing.

I too sit about the same distance from the screen and it is raised so that the center of the screen is on my eyeline.

I take your point about taking in the 'whole' screen in detail, but what what is particularly useful for me is being able to see a life sized screen render at a realistic viewing distance for a 'default' A3 sizing, and not have to scroll the image on the screen to examine it.

As regards George's point about about opening multiple windows being easier/more usable? on the larger screen... I'm afraid I am one of those people who gets frustrated flipping between multiple windows.

I prefer to run a secondary 24 inch monitor to the left of my main screen and park Photoshop panels etc there.

Additionally, I have an 'old' 27 inch (sRGB) monitor to the right of the main screen which I keep in portrait mode, which I use for web browsing, and very occasionally to display images in portrait mode. I have a feeling that when either of the secondary panels shows any sign of failing I will look to replace it with a fully RGB compliant 27inch screen and set it up in portrait mode. (Though I expect this is not likely to happen soon!)

[DanK]

James,

Thanks. This is helpful.

I currently have a 24" monitor in front of me and a 23" diagonally to the right where I park things, for example, sources I have to refer to, a spreadsheet that I need to reference, etc. If I go to 27", I will probably keep the 23" (although I will need different hardware to install it).

The more I thought about it, the more I thought that my earlier point about the widest span one can apprehend at once really doesn't matter in this case. It is a rule of thumb for viewing movies and the like, but in using monitors for other purposes, one often ignores part of the screen.

I have a hunch I will end up thinking about this as I did about a tripod head: it's not the best place to try to save money.

I too sit about the same distance from the screen and it is raised so that the center of the screen is on my eyeline.

I take your point about taking in the 'whole' screen in detail, but what what is particularly useful for me is being able to see a life sized screen render at a realistic viewing distance for a 'default' A3 sizing, and not have to scroll the image on the screen to examine it.

As regards George's point about about opening multiple windows being easier/more usable? on the larger screen... I'm afraid I am one of those people who gets frustrated flipping between multiple windows.

I prefer to run a secondary 24 inch monitor to the left of my main screen and park Photoshop panels etc there.

Additionally, I have an 'old' 27 inch (sRGB) monitor to the right of the main screen which I keep in portrait mode, which I use for web browsing, and very occasionally to display images in portrait mode. I have a feeling that when either of the secondary panels shows any sign of failing I will look to replace it with a fully RGB compliant 27inch screen and set it up in portrait mode. (Though I expect this is not likely to happen soon!)

[DanK]

But yet more complications. Eizo has two 27" monitors that differ substantially in price. The lower-priced one is actually 8-b it+FRC and has a contrast ratio of 1000:1, whereas the more expensive is true 10 bit and 1500:1, if the specs are to be believed. NEC as a 99% Adobe-RGB 27" monitor, the PA 271 Q, which advertises true 10 bit and 1500:1 for almost the same price as the cheaper Eizo. The one negative I have read is that it handles video less well, but I don't do video.

Anyone have experience or knowledge suggesting that NEC isn't a safe way to go? That's how I'm leaning now, but it is a big investment.

[Sergio M.]

Dan, from looking at the Eizo site both the CG and CS models appear to be true 10 bit displays. I'm curious as to where you saw that the CS is an 8bit +FRC. That aside is your graphics card capable of outputting 10 bits?

As to the NEC my understanding from what I've read is that they're right up there with Eizo in terms of quality and performance both in uniformity and color rendition.

sm

[DanK]

Dan, from looking at the Eizo site both the CG and CS models appear to be true 10 bit displays. I'm curious as to where you saw that the CS is an 8bit +FRC. That aside is your graphics card capable of outputting 10 bits?

As to the NEC my understanding from what I've read is that they're right up there with Eizo in terms of quality and performance both in uniformity and color rendition.

sm

Interesting. In one place, Eizo says it is "10-bit simultaneous display": https://www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cs2730/. B&H says it is 8-bit+FRC: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._hardware.html. So does displayspecifications.com: https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/ae7670c. I can't make sense of this, as B&H seems to put manufacturer's specifications on its site. Maybe "10-bit simultaneous display means 10-bit via FRC. Or maybe B&H and the other site just made a mistake.

Interestingly, in looking at these reviews, etc., I see that the BenQ 2700 is often referred to as 8-bit+FRC, but I haven't checked further into that.

My video card does supposedly support 10-bit displays.

Even leaving aside the FRC issue, it seems to me that the NEC might be a better choice because it (supposedly) is higher contrast and happens to be the same price at the moment. However, I think the real bottom line is that either of them is going to be far better than what I have now and that the two are probably not that different from each other.

[xpatUSA]

Interesting. In one place, Eizo says it is "10-bit simultaneous display": https://www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cs2730/. B&H says it is 8-bit+FRC: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._hardware.html. So does displayspecifications.com: https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/ae7670c. I can't make sense of this, as B&H seems to put manufacturer's specifications on its site. Maybe "10-bit simultaneous display means 10-bit via FRC. Or maybe B&H and the other site just made a mistake.

I had no idea what FRC is, so I looked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate_control

As a practicing pedant, I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole, Dan. I imagine you'll be digging into the FRC issue a bit more, eh?

[Sergio M.]

Dan, thanks for the clarification and links. Like you I felt either monitor was better than what I had and it is by a large margin.

I also considered an NEC but ended up choosing the Eizo. There are so many factors to take into account and it can be frustrating at times, but you'll get there.

sm

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

[DanK]

I had no idea what FRC is, so I looked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate_control

As a practicing pedant, I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole,

I didn't know either. I don't want a monitor that uses it. I've ruled out the BenQ because of the many reports of copy-to-copy quality problems; there are lots of people, including Manfred, who have had good luck, but enough have had bad luck that I don't want to fuss with it. If that weren't an issue, and if that really is a monitor that uses 8-bit + FRC, I might consider it, given that it costs half what the competition costs. However, if I am going to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $1200, I want true 10-bit.

I'll sleep on this longer--a nicer way of saying that I will continue to squander time dithering about it--but I am leaning toward buying the NEC. I have found no negative reports about it.

[Sergio M.]

Dan, I can see how confusing it can be. I went to the display specifications link and looked up the Eizo CS2730 and the CG2730. They classify both as 8bit+frc while B&H has the CG as true 10 bit. Go figure. It sure can get difficult with all the different specs.

I think your leaning toward an NEC is a great choice. I'm sure it will do everything you want it to.

sm

[Cantab]

I had no idea what FRC is, so I looked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate_control

As a practicing pedant, I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole, Dan. I imagine you'll be digging into the FRC issue a bit more, eh?

Ted, I'm glad to see that I'm in good company in not knowing what FRC is. My guess had been that it was something good that everyone with a technical background knew about. So much for making unfounded assumptions!

[DanK]

Made a decision. Thanks to all who offered feedback and suggestions. After much dithering (of the nonvisual sort), I decided on the relatively new NEC PA271 Q. The reviews are excellent. It's a real splurge. Unfortunately, B&H is out of stock, and don't expect to ship for a week or two, so I won't be able to test it out for some time.

[stevejayd]

Thank you all for this discussion. My Viewsonic monitor starting flickering after 4 years and the company said, “its broken”. I am a photographer who uses many different papers and prints. Looks like the NEC is the choice. Any reliability issues found yet?

[DanK]

My NEC has functioned flawlessly. I have no regrets.

However:

This monitor is designed for a wide variety of uses, and therefore, the setup options are numerous, and they aren't entirely clearly described. I had to turn to their tech support for help once. Not a problem, as their tech support person was quick to respond and well informed.

Second, even though the monitor can be calibrated with the current X-Rite puck, which I owned, you can't calibrate it properly without the Spectraview software, which is sold separately. What software is needed to access the monitor's internal LUT. If you have X-rite software, the simplest thing is to uninstall it first, as otherwise, you will get popup notices warning you of a conflict and asking you whether to terminate it.

Third, I was initially a bit confused by the fact that the monitor comes with half a dozen pre-set profiles, including Adobe RGB and sRGB. If you are going to calibrate the monitor, you don't use them, or at least don't use them to access your profiles. Instead, you set the monitor for the Spectraview software, and then the software will come up automatically and load whatever profile you just left it at. You can change among calibrated profiles by calling up the Spectraview software. I turned to tech support for clarification, and again, I got a fast and very complete answer.

Finally, although I can't reconstruct the arguments, I was persuaded by others that NEC's advice is correct: for photo editing for printing, don't set it for Adobe RGB; set it for Photo Editing, which uses the monitor's full gamut, and rely on softproofing. I follow this advice for printing, but if I am editing for the web, I sometimes set it for sRGB, either with the software or with the presets.

Because photo editing calls for relatively dim illumination, it's handy that one of the pre-sets is a very bright general-purpose setting that is good for text editing, etc.