I believe the Nec 2090UXI is a good choice for a monitor. Is it worth the extra money to buy the one with Spectraview color calibration software? Or is it better to buy the Monitor and buy other color calibration software? Monte
The SpectraView software allows calibration within the monitor LUT so no levels are lost to adjustments in the video card. I'm not sure if the SpectraView software is available without the sensor at a lower price to allow for other brands of sensors to be used. I'd play it safe and buy the complete SpectraView package (sensor and software).
Frans, I cannot find anywhere that it comes seperate from the package deal. It appears from what I have read this would be a good investment. I will have to admit I know very little and have no experience in this area but know what I want is a quality system.
The calibration and profiling that can be added to the NEC in the Spectraview kit is not their own product but an add-on of the Eye-One that is also available with the LaCie 320 under yet another name. Based on comparative testing evaluating the profile performance the Eye-One is grossly inferior to the DataColor Spyder3, even the previous Spyder2.
That is the kind of things I like to know. If I buy the monitor first I can save for the other. I am new to a lot of this so I have much to learn.
Will the Spyder2 work on the Nec Monitors?
Yes and very well. As I said I used both the Gretag Macbeth (Eye-One 2, SpectraView and Blue Eye all the same thing) as well as a Spyder 2 with the LaCie 320 which is exactly the same as the NEC 2090 UXi. Both worked, but the Spyder2 provided a better calibration and profile performance based on software testing of the profiles made by each.
Thanks EFX, I am greatful for all the input on this. Now all I have to do is get going on it. I hope by next year to have the printer I want. Monte
Maybe David can comment on this: do the other software/sensor combinations allow the calibration to be done within the monitor LUT so no levels are lost through the video card? NEC + SpectraView is on my short list so this information is important to me as well.
Frans, I reley on information from you,EFX and others on this subject because I just don't know much here. My understanding is the Spectraview is just for the Nec monitors made for their purpose. I believe the Spyder2 will serve my purpose also for less money. It works on the LaCie 320 so should be good for the 2090. Monte
First of all what you describe as a potential weakness would only occur if someone were to put a $1,000 LCD display on a $399 Dell computer. With the exception of some less expensive laptops contemporary high performance computers have video cards that are not limited in LUT range, particularly not Apple Macs, and if they were they would also probably have a low performance codec chip which would make the issue of achieving high color performance moot.
There is only one brand of consumer LCD's that really have high level control of the LCD display's several dimensions of performance adjustment directly from the computer running it's own native calibration and profiling application, and that is Eizo. With the Eizo CE ColorEdge models the Eizo software connects with the LCD to control the displays adjusted color function via a USB connection, and this system can utilize all brands and models of high-end display sensors.
The NEC system and software connects with the display via the computer's video card DVI interface which only supports a single channel for the purpose, compared to a broad band multi-channel capability of a USB connection. The DVI connection that supports display adjustment was intended to provide the convenience of on-screen manual display control, not to facilitate high level interactive profile monitoring as the Eizo is designed to provide.
Thanks that really helps explain the question well. It is easy for me to get confused here. I am safe in assuming that the spectraview really is of no great advanage?
I'm not sure I understand your reply. With SpectraView all calibration corrections are made in the monitor LUT. Since the video card doesn't have to make the corrections, the number of available levels through the card is not reduced. Are you saying that this is also the case with the other calibrators mentioned in this thread?
LUT's are actually static data stores of values that translate one RGB value to another which are stored on a chip. There is nothing "used" per se when the Look Up Table is referenced, in other words, it does not become "reduced" by use.
Calibration sets the static condition of a display, and is always accomplished in the display and not in the video card; and can be accomplished by either manipulation of physical adjustment controls built into the display or through software that communicates with the display via a channel of the DVI interface, with the exception of Eizo ColorEdge displays which use an independent USB interface to communicate between the display control software running on the computer and the display.
As a part of the calibration/profiling process a profile for the display is created that defines the working parameters for the display by means of a boot-up initialization. This is done by an .exe executable file stored in the start-up folder of a PC, and that .exe file is created as part of the calibration and profiling of the display. With an Apple Mac this function is built into the Operating System and is integral to the system's startup sequence, which requires an internal Colorsync display profile to reference, instead of being an external add-on. The display's working color parameters are set to conform to this profile to bring its color response to a consistency with the ICC standard palette. This configuration of the display remains constant as long as the display and computer remain powered on constituting a use session.
I agree with what you say with one exception: an NEC LCD monitor when used with a SpectraView calibrator performs the calibration and profiling and stores the information in the monitor LUT so no corrections are needed through the video card, similar to how Eizo does it.
So, my question still remains the same: do the other calibrators mentioned in this thread also allow the calibration/profiling results to be stored in the NEC monitor LUT so no video card corrections are needed/desired?
"an NEC LCD monitor when used with a SpectraView calibrator performs the calibration and profiling and stores the information in the monitor LUT so no corrections are needed through the video card"
I would not agree that what you describe accurately reflects the reality, precisely.
I am really not interested in what has to be a theoretical discussion of something that cannot be observed directly and could only be validated by lab instrument testing.
My evaluation of performance features rests entirely on what can be demonstrated by an actual in-use test that will produce observable results that either confirm or deny a feature has a practical advantage.
I tested both the LaCie version of the NEC 2090UXi and the Eye-One 2 (spectraview) capability as well as the Eizo ColorEdge CE210W and its somewhat similar capability. What was an observable result was profile performance observable in the perceptual screen environment created.
In both instances (NEC Spectraview/Lacte 320 Blue Eye) (Eizo ColorEdge CE 210W) each display was calibrated with its proprietary supplied software and sensor in the case of the Blue-Eye, as well as being calibrated and profiled conventionally with my ColorVision Spyder2 Pro 2.0 sensor and software.
The resulting profiles were then compared using a set of test charts/image files with both the Colorsync Utility and the Chromix ColorThink software application.The results were that the profile made with the LaCie branded Eye-One 2 sensor and software for the 2090UXi was obviously inferior to the pofile performance of the the one created by ColorVision Spyder2 Pro. On the other hand the profile made with the Eizo software using the Spyder2 Pro sensor was definitely and obviously superior to the profile made conventionally with the ColorVision software and the same sensor both displayed by the Eizo CE 210W display.
To me it is the results that count if they can be demonstrated to be a practical advantage. Theoretical advantages that cannot be demonstrated and observed may have some advantage and may not; but if they aren't realized practically I cannot say and will not say there is anything to the theory.
I have a couple of observations:
1) You tested the LaCie monitor and its proprietary calibration software/sensor; those may or may not yield the same results as the NEC versions
2) The LaCie software/sensor may or may not be closer to the NEC original SpectraView or the later SpectraViewII
3) The conventional calibration method results in the loss of levels available through the video card and as far as I can tell you did not take that into consideration in your evaluation
I'd like to hear your comments on these.
As usual you take the low road of personal attack and insult.
1. LaCie does not manufacture anything, but simply rebrands products as made by others like NEC to sell under its own label. The LaCie 320 is identical to the NEC 2090UXi, including the sensor and software is the same as what is sold by NEC which is in tern the same as what is sold as the Eye-One 2. If you have any true and objective evidence to the contrary please provide it.
2. The same applies as this statement is redundant to #1.
3. This loss you claim is purely your personal fiction for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Unless you can produce objective verifiable evidence of your claim, it should be considered what I believe it to be: worthless conjecture.
Unless you have something positive to contribute to the discussion of this subject, why don't you just keep your insulting remarks to yourself, it serves no purpose and is disrespectful to others who visit this forum in its deliberate and personal contentiousness.
I just want to take a moment to say how much I am thankful for the knowledge you and Frans both have on this subject. As always I leave this site more informed than before. I see where things are going and only hope all is respected here. Nowhere else would people take the time to share priceless experience with us. I have some decisions to make and I know the Apple Mini MAc is in my future. As far as the Monitor I believe the Nec 2090UXI wins hand down here for me. Now I do not know for sure if I want to buy the package with SpectraviewII or just buy like the Spyder2. Either way I feel it works. Unless the Monitor with the software included has a real advanage over the other then I will go with the Spyder2. I feel experience on both your parts help contribute great benifit to the topic here. Monte
I hope sincerely your positive take on this is the final word. It is much appreciated. The best of luck with your plans and their execution.
It is. I have a lot of good information now to make choices. Much more than I started with. I value both you and Frans thoughts here. There were so many choices as far as monitors, others I am sure would serve my purpose well. For me this is an investment so I plan on having it for quite a while. Thanks again, Monte.
I'll ignore your nasty and uncalled for remarks.
During my visit to the LaCie US headquarters in Hillsboro, Oregon I was informed that both their monitors and calibration software may not necessarily be identical to those of the closest models/versions of the manufacturing companies, so there is a real possibility of different behavior between LaCie and NEC hardware and software. Test results for LaCie products do not necessarily apply to NEC products.
SpectraView II is a major upgrade from the original SpectraView resulting ,amongst others, in greater color accuracy. So this is a valid issue to consider.
On the issue of loss of available levels in the video card, potentially resulting in posterization, let me quote from the NEC SpectraView II description: "The software analyzes these measurements and sends color adjustment commands directly to the display monitor. This means that color adjustments are made in the monitor rather than in the video adapter, resulting in full use of the number of colors available on the graphics adapter and a much brighter image with the maximum possible color gamut. With SpectraView II, the video graphics adapter is not used at all to make any gamma or tone response curve corrections to the display, so the full color resolution and fidelity of the system is maintained."
Personal fiction? No evidence whatsoever? Worthless conjecture? I don't think so.
I still have the same question as before: do the other software/sensor combinations mentioned allow the calibration/profiling to be done in the monitor rather than through the video adapter?