jimmy462 wrote:
Being in the market for an external monitor for my M1 Max MBP I've given the Eizo monitors a good hard look (though my needs are for HDR video grading capabilities vs. Adobe RGB-space still image proofing), what I know about the differences between the CG and CS lineups comes directly from Eizo here...
All three of the monitors you mention are touted by Eizo as covering 99% Adobe RGB, so if you're main usage is photo editing I should think the CS2731 should suffice? Also, that model was released in 2019, so I'm not sure how late in the Eizo monitor-refresh-cycle it might be, perhaps you might wish to inquire?
As for me, I'm holding off until the rumored Apple 27" and 32" Mini-LED monitors arrive, despite Apple's, er, somewhat different color-calibration methodologies for their Color Space presets...
How to calibrate 14" & 16" MacBook Pro Liquid Retina XDR (MiniLED) Displays for Pro Color workflow! - YouTube
State of Apple Liquid Retina XDR, Can I calibrate these yet & some miniLED Q&A - YouTube
...links provided for educational purposes only, I am not affiliated in any fashion with youtuber Art Is Right.
Here's Eizo's methods...
EIZO Colour Calibration for Busy Photographers - the EASY WAY - YouTube
Brightest in the room, by a bit
Paper is not backlit, so don't over do it with the brightness
Max paper contrast is around 250 ... and how the math for that works, for black point.
I figure that info has universal value. The first two I already practice, but that last one was new info for me.
Haven't watched the Art is Right vids yet ... tbd.
bjhurley wrote:
have gotten pretty crushingly bad reviews from professional colorists;
I've always wondered about devices that ever increasingly tout their contrast ability ... 1000:1 < 10,000:1 < 1,000,000:1, etc., as being a consumer LCD viewing experience (or spec war) thing, vs. an accurate assessment tool.
bjhurley wrote:
Apple's monitors, including the Pro Display XDR, have gotten pretty crushingly bad reviews from professional colorists; Eizo would probably be a better choice for video if you can't spring for a Flanders.
I just watched the Art is Right video and ths guy drove me crazy. While there is some good info there, what drives me nuts is when he comes to a decision point he'll just say "we'll just choose this one" without tell you why. Way way too much of that going on to have to ignore. Ugh.
Several years ago I attended a not inexpensive seminar here in L.A. given by an industry colorist group that appeared to be sponsored by Flanders, and for the life of me, I could not figure out what Flanders did that you could not just as easiy done with Eizo for less than half the money. And no one there could tell me in any manner that made any technical sense other that to just regurgitate Flanders' advertising crap, and then I ran this by Eizo's rather great customer service and they were as baffled as I was.
On to the other two videos now but I will say that this Art is Right guy failed miserably when failing to address the black point both in real numbers and why it matters. As someone who had been hardware calibrating monitors since 1996, first with Radius PressView, then Barco Reference Calibrator, then Sony Artisan and finally Eizo it was only the two latter devices that even let you address black point luminance during calibration and what a difference that made. This whole idea that you must have the blackest black possible is a fallacy. What you want is a black that feels black enough but doesn't clip off twenty or twenty-five levels of shadow detail without asking is more important. After a lot of experimentation with that using the Sony Artisan back in the day the best number for my ambient lighting conditions which are fairly dim was .4 cd/m2 and that seems to translate well to the Eizo too, and certainly their built-in calibration devices have no problems measuring the black point. When you're setting the black point, a tenth of a point makes a huge difference which on the white point, that degree of precision is not necessary.
Peter Figen wrote:
I just watched the Art is Right video and ths guy drove me crazy. ......
I also just watched both of the "Art is Right" videos and it was an excruciating experience! What a BS artist.
In the second video he complains that some authors are plagiarizing his video. BS artists plagiarizing BS artists!
Peter Figen wrote:
When you're setting the black point, a tenth of a point makes a huge difference which on the white point, that degree of precision is not necessary.
That's because, as a divisor (i.e. reciprocal multiplier), it has the ability to make more of a difference.
Examples of how much difference that 0.1 jump makes ... relative to your target values.
Yes, and it's interesting that the Eizo gal from Australia recommends the same .4 cd/m2 setting that I arrived at through trial and error testing years ago, although she didn't really get into why it's more appropriate other than the vague references to contrast ratios, which are less relevant than the actual black luminance.
Peter Figen wrote:
Yes, and it's interesting that the Eizo gal from Australia recommends the same .4 cd/m2 setting that I arrived at through trial and error testing years ago, although she didn't really get into why it's more appropriate other than the vague references to contrast ratios, which are less relevant than the actual black luminance.
Yeah, that .4 cd/m^2 seems to fit perfectly against 100 > 250 (aligned to maximum for paper) and as one is in different settings (80 - 120) range, it still puts you not radically far off from 250 (200 / 300), as a starting point. Better to make the adjustment if needed, likely ... but if someone was going to pick ONE value, the .4 cd/m^2 doesn't seem like a bad choice.
I'm guessing that if someone was regularly printing on a lower contrast paper vs. a higher contrast (metal / acrylic), they might want to adjust that target a bit, but ... that's just a guess on my part. Or, is that part of what gets factored in when icc profiles are applied, etc. ... so, sticking around 250 lands you in the middle range, so the icc profiles have good response (i.e. more math) to the base relationship.
dclark wrote:
I also just watched both of the "Art is Right" videos and it was an excruciating experience! What a BS artist.
In the second video he complains that some authors are plagiarizing his video. BS artists plagiarizing BS artists!
ohsnaphappy wrote:
iMac guy since 2009. If I buy an Eizo for a ton of money and edit wedding pics, will the pics look correct on my bride's iPhone? That's really all that matters in my industry. Editing on an iMac the colors are identical to the iPhone and brides are always happy.
I think the best metric to go by, is to have a monitor that is absolutely accurate. Other peoples' screens will most likely be off - they'll be too warm, too cold, too contrasty, to dark, too bright...
The thing is we don't know what other monitors truly look like, so the best strategy is to have images correct on a totally neutral monitor.
A quality monitor has no character, no quirks, doesn't make a picture "look good." It merely displays the whole contrast range without artefacts or tonal imperfections. It will be stable all day long and the screen will be even all over both in colour and brightness with a very low delta performance. It will show at least the gamut range which we deliver in and it will be colour accurate.
We use calibration hardware to check colour accuracy because it is rare to find a monitor which is truly accurate out of the box. (Even the same brand of panels will perform differently from each other and they have a knack of drifting).
By matching to another flawed device like an uncalibrated iPhone invites all sorts of problems. And not every iPhone looks the same. And what of the people who view on different screens, or what about getting quality prints done?
It is a curse that everyone's screen looks different. When I had a music studio 30 years ago it pained me that someone may listen on a cassette in their car which sounded awful. So forget about matching different clients' screens. Best just deliver accurate versions of your carefully created work.
Peter Figen wrote:
Yes, and it's interesting that the Eizo gal from Australia recommends the same .4 cd/m2 setting that I arrived at through trial and error testing years ago, although she didn't really get into why it's more appropriate other than the vague references to contrast ratios, which are less relevant than the actual black luminance.
That' s what I saw as well. From memory I think she "recommended" /used something like 100/ 0.4.
I have mine set to 80 / 0.4, but maybe I' ll try 90 or 100/ 0.4. Or maybe even lowering the black point to 0.3 (keeping 80). Don' t yet know what that would give me, but I don't mind some deeper blacks. I' ll just have to test.
Only Hahnemühle fine art papers...and mostly matte papers.
Mujabad123 wrote:
That' s what I saw as well. From memory I think she "recommended" /used something like 100/ 0.4.
I have mine set to 80 / 0.4, but maybe I' ll try 90 or 100/ 0.4. Or maybe even lowering the black point to 0.3 (keeping 80). Don' t yet know what that would give me, but I don't mind some deeper blacks. I' ll just have to test.
Only Hahnemühle fine art papers...and mostly matte papers.
I'm at 90 or 95 cd/m2 for the white and .4 for the black. You'll just have to check and see if you're losing critical shadow detail at .3. I've also gone to .5 as well, but for me, .4 feels like the sweet spot.
Mujabad123 wrote:
I have mine set to 80 / 0.4, but maybe I' ll try 90 or 100/ 0.4. Or maybe even lowering the black point to 0.3 (keeping 80). Don' t yet know what that would give me, but I don't mind some deeper blacks. I' ll just have to test.
Only Hahnemühle fine art papers...and mostly matte papers.
80 / 0.4 = 200
80 / 0.32 = 250
(same as 100 / 0.4)
90 / 0.4 = 225
90 / 0.3 = 300
I might look at that 225, if using mostly matte, and coming from 200.
Kent - I never ever think about contrast ratios. I only think about whether I'm clipping either end on the display and with the ambient lighting level in the part of the studio where I edit those numbers I mentioned are just about perfect for whatever output I'm using from my own inkjet to outside large format printing or to magazines or sheetfed offset presses for posters and brochures. About 99 percent of my own in house output is on semi-gloss, satin or something like Hahnnemühle Fine Art Baryta which is just a bit more shiny than old air dried glossy black and white darkroom prints.
I might look at that 225, if using mostly matte, and coming from 200.
Target: 80 / 0,4 5800K on my Eizo CG gives as result: 80,3 / 0,35 / 229:1 contrast ratio / 5785 K
I' ll probably keep it like this. Prints on Hahnemühle Museum Etching (matte), match screen as perfect as possible.
Peter Figen wrote:
Kent - I never ever think about contrast ratios. I only think about whether I'm clipping either end on the display and with the ambient lighting level in the part of the studio where I edit those numbers I mentioned are just about perfect for whatever output I'm using from my own inkjet to outside large format printing or to magazines or sheetfed offset presses for posters and brochures. About 99 percent of my own in house output is on semi-gloss, satin or something like Hahnnemühle Fine Art Baryta which is just a bit more shiny than old air dried glossy black and white darkroom prints....Show more →
Gotcha.
I recall a visit to a printer using the Eizo monitors. I had sent him a file, and it looked much lower contrast on his monitors than what I had envisioned for the print. I'm guessing (few years back, now) that my calibration target back then, was set to a higher contrast target than his.
Hobby Photographer, mostly “publishing“ online. However, I bought an Epson SC900 so I will start printing (not for sale or so, just for me, my family, friends etc.).
I‘m currently using an EIZO CS2731. Basically, this one has never let me down. However, what I wished for: higher resolution, 32 inch screen.
For the resolution. Why does 4K not benefit photographers? I came across this quite a few times and I‘m still wondering why there‘s 4k is no advantage for photographers?
Well, 32 inch is something that seems to be far away at least if you want to stick with EIZO (sure there are 32 inch models, but those are for the pros and very expensive).
I wonder if an upgrade from the CS2731 to the 2700 series (S or X) makes sense?
Btw. someone said it‘s most important that picture look equal on an EIZO and an iPhone, iMac etc. That‘s one of my main issues right now. I use Apple devices (iPhone, iPad, Mac mini => Dispaly EIZO) and before publishing a picture online I always display it on my iPad before, since brightness, contrast, colors (in my view) vary (a lot?). Glossy vs. matt also plays a role, I would say.
Anyway, any opinions on an upgrade from a CS2731 to the CG2700x (that‘s the one I would like the most since it has 4k… but if 4k is nothing for photographers (I still wonder why?), then I could also go with the 2700s. But then I ask myself even harder why switch to a model that has the same resolution and screen since. Of course, there‘s the internal calibration device. But that‘s not that important for me. I can do it using an external one.
Thanks a lot in advance for every suggestion/opinion
P.S. There are also 32 inch screens from Asus… but well, I‘m still not sure if Asus (even thought they are also very expensive => 3500 - 5000 Euro here) can match an EIZOs quality. But at least they offer 4k and 32 inch. And that would basically be nice to have.
P.S. A 32 inch CS model would be great, because this would surely be affordable. But well…
