| 1 |
Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I thought about getting a wide-gamut display, namely a Dell with |
| 4 |
> rgb-LEDs, but in the end decided against it because its quality seems |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
About two years ago I tested two Dell U3011. The first one had such a |
| 7 |
bad homogeneity of luminance that I sent it back instantly. The second |
| 8 |
one was a lot better but nevertheless not as good as my Acer and after |
| 9 |
some days of thinking I also sent it back. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Same thing with my new Samsung monitor. The first one I received had a |
| 12 |
big problem with backlight bleeding so I contact the vendor. They |
| 13 |
exchanged the monitor and the second one was ok. It also has a little |
| 14 |
backlight bleeding on the upper left side, but it is only slightly |
| 15 |
visible when watching dark pictures in a low light environment. At |
| 16 |
normal conditions it is invisible. So I decided to stay with this one. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It seems that these days the quality of a lot of products fluctuates, |
| 19 |
even in the professional domain. Of course that depends on the quality |
| 20 |
control of the manufactures. But even very expensive products (like |
| 21 |
professional camera lenses) from well-known manufactures are often |
| 22 |
concerned by quality variability. But if you buy online, you always |
| 23 |
have the option to send back a unsatisfactory product. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> to fluctuate a lot. And while I do some photography, I don’t do it |
| 26 |
> professionally or deal with printing. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
A wide gamut monitor is a great thing even if you don't need it for |
| 29 |
softproofing. I shot a lot of colorful photos (e.g. from bugs, blossoms |
| 30 |
and live concerts with colored limelights). They look great on an |
| 31 |
AdobeRGB monitor but much more "boring" on a standard monitor. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It's the same with UHD. The sharpness is amazing. I never saw my photos |
| 34 |
in such a great quality. Everything looks so clear and realistic, |
| 35 |
almost three-dimensional. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I never planned to spent so much money for a monitor, and the expense |
| 38 |
still hurts. But since I have it I never wanna give it away. :-) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> > If your monitor don't have a wide gamut but have a LED backlight |
| 41 |
> > then some of the cheaper colorimeters are also not suitable because |
| 42 |
> > LEDs doesn't emit a continuous spectrum and thus can "confuse" older |
| 43 |
> > colorimeters like the Spyder2 AFAIK. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> That’s good to know. I decided for an Eizo with a standard IPS panel |
| 46 |
> and probably white LEDs. It is reported to have a good colorspace |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I also thought about buying an Eizo. But they are very pricy. An |
| 49 |
Eizo without wide gamut, without factory calibration and without 16bit |
| 50 |
LUT hardware calibration costs more as my Samsung with all these |
| 51 |
features. Maybe the Eizo is more reliable over the years, but who knows. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> coverage, though. But as I mentioned, ideally I also want to use it |
| 54 |
> on my laptop which has a very bad TN panel with LEDs. Perhaps I could |
| 55 |
> even use it on my very old CCFL monitor which is still in very good |
| 56 |
> shape. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Try out an Spider4. You can buy it as a new device for about 75€. Test |
| 59 |
the results on your monitors and when you are not satisfied, just send |
| 60 |
it back. No risk at all. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
You can also buy a Spyder2 at ebay. A friend of mine bought one for |
| 63 |
20€. Of course you can't send it back when it doesn't work for you (I |
| 64 |
don't know if it works well with LED backlights). |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Regards |
| 68 |
wabe |
Archives