That is a great deal, but that NEC is is not an IPS panel. I understood that IPS is the way to go with photo editing...?
HUGE thank yous to all of you with these fantastic, detailed responses. I continue to learn and I think I understand the process. I'm going to call NEC and see how things mesh with the Macs, and do more digging on other panels. However, I have to say that if I can get mine calibrated properly it looks like a good panel, well-made, does not emit heat, and the specs seems to be top shelf. This is it - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=asus+proart+pa246q&N=0&InitialSearch=yes
Another thought and question, again for those accustomed to the pretty Mac glossy screens: Do you think that I was just taken aback because of the difference between the Mac and the ASUS just simply in terms of how they look? I've used these screens for years, and perhaps my expectations were off. I'd really love to hear from Mac users who use and are happy with professionally editing photos on their Apple displays. (The current, glossy ones.) I ask because it may be that I am better off with the Apple panels. I really want to start printing or having files sent out, and of course want a decent level of accuracy!
Sharon, generally speaking, glossy panels give a "snappier" image that have more "pop" (don't you love the technical terms?) compared to a matte screen. However, I'm sure you're aware of the reflection problems that can occur with glossy screens. If the lighting in the room is such that reflections won't be a problem, then there's no reason to exclude considering glossy screens.
As for the NEC monitor not using an IPS panel, you're correct. However, it uses an S-PVA panel which, while not quite as good as an IPS, comes a very close second and has better blacks than an IPS. I wouldn't let the S-PVA panel make you automatically reject the NEC.
Howardm4, the NEC P-221W is a wide-gamut display using PVA technology, not IPS. This provides for deeper blacks onscreen, which is one knock against IPS.
If I were looking for a larger display and wanted to spend $500+ more, for sure I would spring for the 24-inch PA-241W, which has an IPS display and a 16:10 resolution ratio (more vertical real estate), unlike the 16:9 of the 23-inch PA-231.
Sharona, I did a lot of shopping around, as you are now. I became concerned with the ASUS PA246Q over its brightness. I was still trying to figure out it if I could dial down the luminance to print-match values of 85-100 cd/m2 and still maintain color accuracy. I never did find a conclusive answer before I came across the NEC P-221W.
Sharona, I've not done photo editing on a glossy screen, having avoided them for the issues Bob mentions. I can tell you that when holding a print from my Epson 3880 along-side the non-glossy NEC P-221W, the print is clearly sharper. I assume this is always the case when comparing a sharp print against a monitor....
Thanks once more, you guys. Joel - you are so right, the ASUS is one bright monitor, and that is an issue. So, you are enjoying your NEC non - IPS for photo editing? I can't afford that 24-inch model!
Alan321 wrote:
So now you know that if you get either the x-rite i1 Display Pro or the new x-rite ColorMunki Display then you cannot go far wrong in terms of monitor technology. What I don't know is whether or not these units will play ball with the NEC Spectraview II calibration software or the Eizo software.
The i1 Display Pro definitely plays ball with the SV II software, plays ball like Willie Mays!
But she doesn't have a NEC so this is a bit off-topic.
It doesn't matter if you don't have an NEC or Eizo monitor but the principle applies to all monitors - if the monitor has its own software to properly use the advanced internal hardware features then you need a profiling device that is compatible with it.
True, I haven't heard of any special ASUS probes though so either they have no internal LUT control or they use standard DDC control that third party software can interface with (actually I believe Eizo uses standard DDC, for one, NEC does not, for another).
howardm4 wrote:
you dont plug the puck into the screen.
Certain screens (notably the NEC P/PA series and the Eizo) have their own color engines and independent Lookup Tables. The associated software (Spectraview and ColorNavigator) are the only software that can access the monitor internals (BasICColor is a special case whereas it can also do the NECs).
I'm pretty sure ColorEyesDisplayPro can also talk to EIzo internal tables. Eizo seems to stick more to the real DDC standard. NEC never seems to.
However, in the case of NEC and Eizo, you'll want *their* software to access the monitor internals.
There is also 3rd party software such as ColorEyes or BasICColor you can purchase if you want (not required). These software often have more capability & options than the puck mfgr's software. These are in the $150 zone but again, not needed.
Actually, the only difference between the Spyder Elite and Pro *is* the software (ditto ColorMunki Display and i1Display Pro). The puck is the same.
In short -- yes, Sharona, I'm enjoying this non-IPS monitor. Its accuracy and performance is a pleasure. Also, no dead pixels, and the stand allows the monitor to sit very low where I don't have to crane my neck looking up.
I was reading about wide gamut IPS panels and had the NEC PA-241W with Spectraview II kit ($1089) in my B&H cart for days when it went out of stock. Good thing, it turned out. When I saw that the P-221W was also wide gamut, I rationalized the "downgrade" from IPS thinking I could always make this a second monitor if things didn't work out, and "save" money by getting the PA-241W without the Spectraview II kit, since I'd already have it.
Well, that's probably never going to happen -- there's just no need for this serious amateur. The ONLY difference in colors I'm seeing compared with print is that very bright reds as printed in a color test chart (Epson 3880) appear just a tad brighter on screen in relation to other colors. Skin tones and all the rest: perfect. And there's those deeper blacks of the PVA....
I'm guessing this singular non-issue (for me) might be addressed by the 14-bit built-in LUT (Lookup Table) of NEC's IPS displays, versus the P-221's 10-bit LUT.
i.e. I wouldnt buy an LED for professional use. Having good CCFL is better lighting for bright tones.
IPS is very nice but I can live without it. CCFL + IPS = win
Thats my order of priority in purchasing.
So. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED KIDS.....
Sharona needs an i1Display Pro, it will work with her MBP, internal monitor LUT's are not a concern.
I know that the OP has a concern with heat. I've read this is an issue with some (all?) CCFL. (?)
Howardm4, I see you suggested earlier using NEC's Multiprofiler to set paper oriented profiles (e.g. 4800K and 100 luminance for Harman Warmtone, as I've done). I see it's a free download from NEC. Do you think there's an advantage to using this over Spectraview II, if one already has that? I'm curious.
I have both and I think it's a workflow and personal preference. In your method, you're *always* effectively in softproof mode since the profile is set to match the paper until you load a different profile. I'd prefer to be neutral(-ish) and only do a final adj. layer targeting specific papers. And I don't tend to use papers that are that warm.
But have you discovered the trick?
Using Multiprofiler, you can set the PIP image to a preset that just happens to be a paper profile. That way, you can have neutral and softproof images on the NEC simultaneously via it's PIP mode. And that is a whole lot of cool for a monitor
JoelWilcox wrote:
Just saw your response on PVA, Bob. Neat.
Sharona, I've not done photo editing on a glossy screen, having avoided them for the issues Bob mentions. I can tell you that when holding a print from my Epson 3880 along-side the non-glossy NEC P-221W, the print is clearly sharper. I assume this is always the case when comparing a sharp print against a monitor....
It probably should be the case because the print will have a much higher dots-per-inch count, allowing finer details to be seen at the same physical size. However, such comparisons between print and monitor are rarely done without the viewer realizing that one or the other (or both) is being treated unfairly because what makes good lighting for viewing a print also makes bad lighting for viewing a screen, and vice versa. The difference is even more significant when dealing with glossy screens than with matte screens.
JoelWilcox wrote:
... Also, no dead pixels, and the stand allows the monitor to sit very low where I don't have to crane my neck looking up. ...
Joel, this raises a few points for Sharona or anyone else wanting to use an external monitor with a laptop. Only one of the screens can be directly in front of you unless the bigger one is in the background and much higher up. You need to assess the ergonomics in terms of screen positions, keyboard position (including whether or not to use a separate keyboard), mouse/trackpad position, and so on. Then this extends to whether the external screen is used as a mirror of what is on the laptop screen or as a second screen displaying different stuff, and from that comes the screen size ratio, dpi, etc. needed to make the screen more user friendly.
^ I can attest to the ergonomics being crap. Biggest problem is readjusting your eyes to the different pitch and position of the monitor. Also a laptop screen is never going to be as good a decent external, the chances you can get the two matching perfectly are remote.
At this point, I don't see myself using both screens at once. At this point. If the external monitor, after calibration, still looks quite different from the laptop, I def. won't use them at the same time. It's discombobulating! my Macbook screen is a lot cooler, colorwise, than the large screen. I wonder if that is just the norm for Macs.
I'm pretty anal about ergonomics, as well, so that shouldn't be too much of a concern.
