1 |
On Friday 03 Apr 2015 02:57:07 wabenbau@×××××.com wrote: |
2 |
> Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
3 |
> > > A wide gamut monitor is a great thing even if you don't need it for |
4 |
> > > softproofing. I shot a lot of colorful photos (e.g. from bugs, |
5 |
> > > blossoms and live concerts with colored limelights). They look |
6 |
> > > great on an AdobeRGB monitor but much more "boring" on a standard |
7 |
> > > monitor. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > If the monitor is the only means of looking at the photos and the |
10 |
> > photos are the only reason for the monitor, then it’s not enough for |
11 |
> > me (right now anyway). And as far as I read, watching movies on a |
12 |
> > wide gamut will not be a very good experience, as those are tuned to |
13 |
> > look good on “normal” displays, resulting in much oversaturated |
14 |
> > colours. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> That's true as long as you cannot switch the color space of the monitor |
17 |
> to sRGB. But there are some models which can be used in sRGB as well as |
18 |
> in AdobeRGB color space. The Samsung that I bought even has some |
19 |
> additional modes for NTSC, PAL and HD-TV. When I watch videos, the colors |
20 |
> are much better than on my PlasmaTV. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> > > I also thought about buying an Eizo. But they are very pricy. An |
23 |
> > > Eizo without wide gamut, without factory calibration and without |
24 |
> > > 16bit LUT hardware calibration costs more as my Samsung with all |
25 |
> > > these features. Maybe the Eizo is more reliable over the years, but |
26 |
> > > who knows. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > I used to buy Samsung, but I don't like how they treat their |
29 |
> > customers in recent times, so they are on my no-buy list (same as |
30 |
> > Sony). And I do have a knack for buying more pricey stuff if it’s |
31 |
> > worth the quality. It gives me a feeling of “mine’s better than |
32 |
> > yours”. :o) Sure, I don’t quite like the lack of connections and |
33 |
> > features on the Eizo (such as picture-in-picture or HDMI), but I do |
34 |
> > like their appearance (no gloss, no touch buttons, no wobbly stand). |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'm sure that Eizo produces great monitors but the only one that fits |
37 |
> my meets (>=30",UHD, AdobeRGB + sRGB, Hardware Calibration) is the |
38 |
> CG318-4K. But it costs about 7500€ and I was not willing to pay this |
39 |
> price. :-) |
40 |
> I'm really willing to pay for high quality products, but if I can get |
41 |
> about the same quality for _much_ less money then the choice is easy |
42 |
> for me. And meanwhile I'm realistic enough to realize that my personal |
43 |
> purchase decisions are not affecting the market-price of such a big and |
44 |
> successful company like Samsung is. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> > > Try out an Spider4. You can buy it as a new device for about 75€. |
47 |
> > > Test the results on your monitors and when you are not satisfied, |
48 |
> > > just send it back. No risk at all. |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > I’m also not a big fan of that (buying and sending back). Especially |
51 |
> > if you buy it for a purpose and only then find out it’s not adequate |
52 |
> > or downright broken. While it’s convenient, it produces a climate of |
53 |
> |
54 |
> I think sending a product back is ok as long as one don't do this |
55 |
> intentional only to try out this product. |
56 |
> But I think that when one buy for example a colorimeter that is |
57 |
> according to its manufacturer able to handle monitors with LED backlight |
58 |
> monitors but then it fails to do so, it is absolutely ok to send it back. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Also when I buy an expensive so called "high quality" product but in fact |
61 |
> it has a lousy quality (like the two Dell U3011, the LG 31MU97-B or the |
62 |
> first Samsung U32D970Q that I bought) I really don't have any qualms of |
63 |
> conscience when I send it back. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> > “it’s normal that what you buy may be crap and you’ll have to try |
66 |
> > again”. It gives manufacturers the freedom to cut even more corners |
67 |
> > without anyone complaints from the consumers. And it’s ecological |
68 |
> > absurdity on all ends, considering how toxic electronic manufacturing |
69 |
> > is. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> I'm working as a photographer and like most of them I own a bunch of |
72 |
> lenses. I only bought (and will buy) high quality professional lenses |
73 |
> from well known manufactures, no cheap consumer glasses. These lenses |
74 |
> are the best you can get and are really expensive. And for the lot of |
75 |
> money that I have to pay for it, I expect a perfect quality. But more |
76 |
> than once I had to send back a lens, because it was faulty (for example |
77 |
> bad centering, big inclusions or one time even scratches in the glass, |
78 |
> unusable AF etc.). |
79 |
> |
80 |
> When I buy cheap, I don't expect much. But when sometimes even expensive |
81 |
> professional products from well known vendors are crappy because of bad |
82 |
> quality control, what else can I do than sending the crap back to the |
83 |
> vendor? I don't believe that the manufacturer will produce better stuff |
84 |
> when I would stay with the crap. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> > This is also why I put a lot of time and energy into research before I |
87 |
> > purchase something pricey. For instance, I read in hardware forums and |
88 |
> > through reviews for many weeks before I finally decided on all |
89 |
> > components of my PC that I assembled last year. I didn’t want to get |
90 |
> > into a situation that would force me to return something, b/c there |
91 |
> > is also risk involved - the extra expense, parts break during |
92 |
> > shipping, or problems with the retailer. I can’t be bothered with the |
93 |
> > hassle. |
94 |
> |
95 |
> I also do much research before I buy something. My wife often calls me |
96 |
> crazy because I sometimes need weeks before I make a decision, even when |
97 |
> I just wanna buy some LED bulbs for our kitchen. :-) |
98 |
> |
99 |
> But when I wanna buy something that is rarely bought before by others |
100 |
> (because its a new product or because its very expensive or special) then |
101 |
> I sometimes can't find many information about it and therefore I have |
102 |
> to try it out by myself. |
103 |
> |
104 |
> And even when I find a test report about a product, I can't rely on it. |
105 |
> For example I read a test report at Prad that attested a great quality |
106 |
> for the LG 31MU97-B. But in reality its color and luminosity evenness |
107 |
> doesn't meet my requirements and it also had a faulty firmware. |
108 |
> |
109 |
> > OK I noticed this has become more of a political manifesto. So I’m |
110 |
> > gonna stop here. :) |
111 |
> |
112 |
> Many years ago I was much more idealistic than nowadays. For example I |
113 |
> said, that I never would buy a product from MS. But now a Windows PC |
114 |
> stands beside me, because I need it for RAW conversion and image editing. |
115 |
> Yes I know that there are RawTherapee, Darktable, Gimp etc. but I have |
116 |
> to live from my work and I often have to edit hundreds of photos within |
117 |
> a short time and I can't do this (yet) with OpenSource. |
118 |
> |
119 |
> But of course there are still some principles to which I (hopefully) ever |
120 |
> will stick to. But I don't wanna explain them here because our discussion |
121 |
> is already way off topic. :-) |
122 |
> |
123 |
> -- |
124 |
> Regards |
125 |
> wabe |
126 |
|
127 |
Since this is off topic anyway, what did you conclude with your research on |
128 |
LED lighting? Is it really worth the cost, or are we talking of yet one more |
129 |
marketing lifecycle? |
130 |
-- |
131 |
Regards, |
132 |
Mick |