Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Purchase and setup of monitor calibration device
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:07:48
Message-Id: 201504031207.29081.michaelkintzios@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Purchase and setup of monitor calibration device by wabenbau@gmail.com
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies