I was curious as to wheather David Brooks had come to any conclusions on the 19" or 20" LCD monitor he was testing for review. I am in the market for one and am getting anxious.
Hey! Your rushing me. I regularly spend a full month with a new product working with it full-time before coming to any conclusions. I have one of the SyncMaster 244T/214T displays. And, I can say it does reproduce just about the best quality of screen image I have seen. George Schaub has the 19" 970, so you'll have to find out about it from him.
In general about the problem of choosing an LCD display, with the many brands of displays marketed for home/office use with computers there are some serious potential problems using them for doing digital photography because of their very high brightness and high contrast. Natively they DO NOT display digital photographs so you can see effectively the characteristics of the image and make color correction and editing adjustments effectively. Some brands have the controls of brightness, backlight level, contrast and color temperature which allow adjusting the display so it works with Photoshop. Others don't. Each brand's controls are different.
There are some LCD display made specifically for pro graphics and digital photography, including Eizo, LaCie and Apple's Cinema Displays, and the latter will work with Windows PC's if you have a video card with a DVI (Digital Video Interface) connector. And the Apple Cinema Displays are the least expensive of the displays factory configured to support pro graphics and digital photography.
So, it is not just getting an LCD display that works. If you have an older PC you will probably have to also upgrade your video card to one that has DVI output. I recommend ATI first and nVidia second.
On the Samsung Syncmaster 244T/214T beside a beautiful screen image, it took me almost two weeks twiddling, tweaking and profiling to get it to where I could color correct a digital camera image effectively and then obtain a perfectly matched color managed print.
Think about it!
Thanks David, It seems most of the real experts agree that the Apple Cinema is the best way to go.
The Apple Cinema displays have a major drawback: the color temperature cannot be adjusted to anything lower than about 6000K. Many people believe that, in order to get a good monitor-to-print match, the color temperature of the monitor and lighting used to view your prints should match. The highest color temperature for high-quality, high CRI lighting is 5000K (SoLux 5000K low-voltage tungsten-halogen bulbs). So, in order to get a good match, the monitor should be adjusted to 5000K to match the 5000K of the SoLux lighting.
This is a subject that is not well understood and needs to get much more attention. Many people struggle with a poor monitor-to-print match, but don't understand why that is.
I will not argue that the configuration of 5000K and gamma 1.8 works for you, and some others. The many people you refer to who ascribe to using monitor settings of 5000K and gamma 1.8 would be few if you exclude non-photographers, because most who are using that configuration are pre-press, and other graphics pros producing work for CMYK output to an offset press, not an RGB printer like an Epson R2400.
A very high percentage of both photo and graphics professionals use Apple Macs, and Apple has been exclusively LCD for some time now, so tell me how they are using a 5000K gamma 1.8 configuration if it is not possible with Apple Cinema Displays?
As I said I don't question what you think is ideal, or why you think so. My perspective is that just because it works for you effectively and you find it essential, human vision and perception varies quite dramatically between different individuals, so what is right for you may not be ideal for many others.
However, I know you don't agree with me and think color management is a matter of cut and dried absolutes. So I referenced this issue to Steve Upton, President of Chromix.com a professional color management service that is highly respected. Here is his reply:
My comment overall would be this:
All LCD displays made today are suffering with the same limitation. Unlike CRT displays, in which the white point is varied by balancing the RGB output values, LCD panels have a backlight that is fixed at a specific white point (like any light source). In order to adjust an LCD panel's white point to another color temperature you are forced into filtering the backlight by applying the LCD filters in varying amounts. This dims the display somewhat and on displays which are not very bright this can be disagreeable.
There are some displays under development and making their way to market which use a combination of 3 bright RGB LEDs as an array backlight. As there are 3 different colors, their balancing can be altered to create a wide variety of color temperatures without the filtering problems with conventional backlit LCD's. These displays will probably be quite expensive to start and some manufacturers (EIZO for instance) are delaying their use of this technique because they are finding the color balance unstable.
In regards to white point matching: There are a bunch of technical reasons behind how and why the eye views white points differently under different lighting conditions but it is correct to summarize it like this:
- if the light source (CRT display, for instance) is not very bright, especially relative to surround lighting and the illumination of nearby objects, then 5000K white will appear quite yellow and dull to the eye. CRTs typically put out around 85-100 CD/m2 and that is not bright enough for it to overpower normal lighting conditions.
- if the surround light is dim or off then 5000K is often an acceptable if slightly warm version of white. Most people who promote 5000K calibration work in dark lighting conditions.
5000K lighting is the ISO standard for Graphic Arts viewing and most commercial light booths are set to this color temperature.
That said, because of the brightness problem with displays, you will often find that 6000-6500K color temp on a display will match the white point of paper in a 5000K booth. Sounds strange I know but it is the truth.
The best point of advice for screen-to-print matching is to buy a quality color-balanced light booth or system and then match the white of your display to the white of a sheet of your paper in the booth. Having the whites match is MUCH more important that adhering to some color standard number in the calibration of the display.
If you don't have a standard light source then at least choose a white point so that the white of the display looks good in your environment. White is all about adaptation of the eye. If you offer the eye two whites (display white vs paper white OR display white vs surround white) then you mess up adaptation and color matching is impossible.
- note that this doesn't mean that I think the color temperatures of the light and booth should differ just that I am preferring the perceived difference (your eye in your environment) rather than the measured difference (which only measures the objects themselves and doesn't factor in your perception)
See issue #2 of our ColorNews newsletter for more information about screen-to-print matching.
You and I have gone over this ad nauseam. With all due respect, none of your arguments have held water.
Your latest argument, it appears to me, is that because there can be significant differences in monitor and viewing area brightness, there is a need to significantly increase the color temperature of the monitor. This argument is invalid as my position has been all along that both the brightness and color temperature of the monitor and viewing area need to be matched in order to get the best monitor-to-print match. All bets are off if there is a difference in brightness. Trying to compensate for this "problem without a real solution" by diddling with the color temperatures is not a solid engineering solution in my book; matching both brightness and color temperature is.
I have offered you several times a method to demonstrate objectively if the monitor and viewing area match, but you have declined. Unless you are willing to engage in a real discussion on this subject, I am no longer interested in argueing with you.
Whew! I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. Let me ask a comparatively simple question. In the new edition of PC World magazine a rewiew compares the five top rated 23-24 inch wide screen LCD's. The Apple Cinema had the best text quality by far and was second to the Samsung in graphics quality by only a fraction of a point (87.9 vs 88.6). However, they stated that a shortcoming of the Apple, when used with a PC, was that the only screen setting control available was brightness since all other controls reside in the Mac OS where Windows users can't reach them. How much of a problem is this?
I for one like to have the best possible monitor-to-print match so what I see on the monitor is the closest possible to what my prints look like in the digital darkroom. This requires:
- high quality lighting in the viewing area with the highest possible CRI and no spikes in the color spectrum
- a brightness match between the monitor and viewing area
- a color temperature match between the monitor and viewing area
If you cannot adjust the color temperature of the Apple Cinema display, you cannot match it to your viewing area lighting.
You may want to read an article that I wrote on this subject at: www.solux.net/ies_files/Digital%20Darkroom%20Lighting.pdf
Don't argue with me and say I am wrong, I referred the issue to one of the country's most respected experts in color management and posted what he said, and with more detail backup provided if you follow the URL provided.
You may consider yourself an engineer and scientist, but that does not in any way disprove that human sight and perceptions varies greatly or that making a comparison between an image seen by reflected light, a print, is at all the same or identical to an image produced by projected light (monitor/display).They will not be perceived quite the same by different people because they are inherently and functionally distinct.
Why are you needing to make this issue into religious dogma which you dictate??
Like I said before, I will no longer argue with you and I hope you will do the same for me. I give inputs to the Shutterbug Forum based on what I believe to be correct and you, I don't doubt for a second, do the same. I wish we could have engaged in a more constructive dialogue.
You did not stir up a hornet's nest, it already existed and has filtered down to people whose CRT's are getting old and the only thing available are all kinds of different brand LCD's.
The reason it is a problem is we meaning photographers and people who do graphics creation and processing are no more than 5-10% of the computer market at best, so the LCD displays are made for people in offices and homes who are using computers primarily for very different things like using a web browser or a spread sheet application in usually quite brightly lit environments like offices and even home kitchens.
The problem with evaluations like those you read in PC World is that their evaluation is directed to that 90-95% of people who don't use a computer principally for running Photoshop and processing digital photographic files.
And sadly what works for that 90-95% of consumers does not work well for digital photography. They are not concerned with obtaining a monitor display match to a photographic printer output.
In that respect Frans is correct. What I argue with him about is that what works for him visually and perceptually does not necessarily work so well for the rest of us because we don't all see and perceive alike. He claims that a piece of paper (print) illuminated by 5000K clean light is matched perceptually by setting your display to 5000K. Sure the numbers are the same but I and a lot of people doing photographic computing think a display set at 5000K does not look the same it looks warmer and yellower (and duller) than the white paper illuminated by the 5000K clean light. That is why both Adobe Photoshop and Apple Computer recommend a display setting of 6500K and a gamma of 2.2 if you are doing pro graphics and digital photography. And that is why the Apple Cinema Displays are factory set to close to 6500K and also contrast is factory set to display graphics and photographs ideally, so only a brightness setting is provided. approximately 80% of Apple Cinema Display user are pro graphics or photographers, so they produce products for us that small 5-10% of the computer market.
It would be constructive if you did not insist that you are absolutely right and therefor I am wrong. And, I have said many times your perspective if it works for you is quite correct, but for me and many more something a bit different works better. You seem to insist on absolutes, and I and others when it comes to color management see it more complexly because it has to accommodate human diversity to work for everyone.
I will no longer argue with you.
I guess I just thought it was a simple question!
Next question. Since I will have to buy a new graphics card anyway to get the DVI output required for the Apple display, how much card do I need? No games, just photography and routine stuff. ATI cards w/DVI are available for $100 or less, but I don't want to skimp. What does Apple recommend? What do you recommend?
This is a public forum, and anything posted is if the content is debatable, subject to question and contrary opinions. We are all in the same boat here, it is inherently democratic, so the ideas that win are those which survive on the basis of merit. No one including myself has an advantage in authority.
Is anything that involves human diversity ever simple? Sadly photographers, even though a very popular interest and vocation, is a small niche in the whole of things, so sometimes we have to work rather hard to make things work for us, and particularly so because there is great diversity even among photographers.
Apple computer in their G5 model systems offers the choice of either nVidia or ATI video cards. It is pretty generally agreed that nVidia does better with 3D graphics and vector rendering, and ATI provides a shade better 2D graphics performance and provide somewhat superior Photoshop performance.
Amongst the card offered by either brand there is a range that affects price. The higher the bit-depth and on-board memory the better the performance in both speed and image quality displayed. So a rule of thumb is to go as far up-scale in the models offered as your budget allows. But with either brand, the least costly that meets minimum requirements will provide good acceptable performance - not to worry.
However, there is a huge advantage having a digital DVI output compared to running an LCD from an old analog only video card. Digital video signals produce a much crisper, cleaner and color accurate LCD display image. So whatever you spend on a DVI card will be well worth it.
Two last questions (hopefully) before I go pick up my new Apple Cicema and video card. Apple says all that is required for the Cinema to operate on a PC is a video card with DVI and DDC technology. 1)What is DDC technology? I can't find it listed in any or the ATI card specs. And 2)A geek friend of mine warns that my 3 year old Dell 8200 may not support a new 8X AGP card (2X or 4X may be the max). He suggests buying a new computer, but if I am going to do that I would rather wait on the new MS Vista OS. Any thoughts or comments?
The age of your computer may be a problem, but I don't involve myself enough in PC technology any more to know in detail all that may be involved. I had 10 years of fighting the PC Windows battle and then switched to Macs, and very glad I did. Apple cares about graphics because it is the core of their high-end business. Microsoft has never been able to penetrate that market and what is the core of Microsoft's market could care less about graphics and photography.
Microsoft has published a white paper on the their new color management system that is supposed to be part of their new OS coming out next year. It is a proprietary system and is not based on the ICC standard, although MS says it will function with ICC. They made similar claims about their ICM 3.0 which was supposed to be part of Windows 2000, but then could not finish it and left it out of 2000. If this new proprietary MS color management system is finished and included in the new OS expect there will be all kinds of problems for at least 1-2 years while all the 3rd party vendors like Epson and Adobe try to sort it out and make it work. I would personally not get a new PC anytime soon after the new OS is released, and the wise will avoid it until all the bugs and 3rd party problems are resolved.
Currently I have one IBM NetVista Pro Graphics PC with Windows XP Pro I use only when I have to work with Windows only software. I'll hang onto it until the dust settles. By that time Apple will be running Intel processors, so it is expected that I'll be able to run Windows on a Mac and have a dual boot capability so I won't need to maintain a PC thankfully.
Sorry I can't be more encouraging and my helpfulness is limited. I would suggest to resolve the technical issue that you make contact with the people at ATI. I am sure they will be able to advise you correctly as to what you can do successfully if you need to make the move to a DVI video card and using an LCD. But your friends caution should be considered, putting very much into a 3 year old Dell may not be wise or a good investment.
Well first off, your Dell 8200 will support an 8x AGP card. Here is a review from August of 2002 where they tested the (then) hot new ATI Radeon 9700 Pro in a Dell 8200 and it worked just fine.
But what you're really looking for is a digital output. The 8x is a good thing, but what that does is increase the speed of your screen redraws. It's designed to run games where the whole point is to refresh the entire screen 30 times per second. You don't need to pay extra for that sort of blazing performance if what you're trying to do is view photos.
Go to your local Circuit City or some other electronics store. They'll have a good selection of last year's video cards discounted for quick sale. Though a new top-flight video card will cost hundreds of dollars, you can get a perfectly good card that'll do everything you need. Last year I picked up an Nvidia GeForce 5200 which provides standard, digital, AND S-video outputs with 128Mb of on-board memory for about fifty bucks. Even that is way more than I need. The "last year's card" you get this year will be even better.
DDC stands for Data Display Channel and is a standard part of the Digital Video Interface (DVI) architecture. Any card made since 2003 which offers a digital output will be compatable.
Incidentally, your geek friend is right - buying a new computer is a good idea. But wait until after Christmas; you'll get a lot better deal in February than you will in December. And don't get the first iteration of the Vista OS. Microsoft is notorious for bad bugs in the early versions of practically anything. Wait until after the first couple of service packs come out; then it'll be stable enough to rely on.
I was a dedicated PC and then Windows user for over 10 years until I was totally disillusioned by Microsoft in '98 in their inability to finish ICM 3.0 to include in Windows 2000. In fact for about 3 years, from '95, I had a side business of putting together networked PC's for companies that wanted to set up graphics departments to take their advertising and marketing in-house. The PC systems I used were custom made by a small Seattle area company that was a subsidiary of Lenova, the company that recently purchased IBM's desktop business.
Now with six years of Apple Mac experience under my belt I can only recommend an Apple Mac to anyone primarily using a computer for digital photography. It used to be Apple Macs were a great deal more costly than PC's, but that has changed. A G5 dual processor Mac is less than $100 difference in price from a top of the line Dell M20 workstation with just a single processor.
Quite a few Shutterbug readers have switched to Mac on my recommendation. Not one has reported they have regretted making the change.
Some may be skeptical thinking maybe I obtain some advantage from Apple. All I can say is just try to get any advantage from Apple on the basis of being a journalist. It isn't even easy to obtain their support to write about their products, which I have done only rarely.
I do digital photography almost every day most of each day, and nothing has made my work easier or better than working on Macs instead of PC's. The only incentive I have for promoting Macs for digital photography is that other might enjoy the advantages I find so valuable.
Well, I would like to purchase the Apple Cinema LCD. I am using a custom built computer from my nephew. Graphics card is a "RADEONX300 series. It has both Analog and DVI connections on the card. Does anyone know if there is a problem using an Apple Cinema on this PC?
Thanks for any replies.
Chances are it will work. But I'd not wait until someone else with your setup tries it and chances to report where you might see it, it may be a very long wait. Just purchase from a very reputable source like Apple direct so you can return the display if it is not compatible. The one really great thing about the Apple Cinema Display is that the factory settings for contrast, whitepoint and gamma are close to what is ideal for displaying photographs and doing Photoshop editing. So all anyone really needs to do to get an Apple Cinema Display to function ideally with a computer is to profile the display so your computer knows what colors you are actually seeing.
Hi Mr. Brooks:
Any more news/observations on the Samsung 214T? Hope I'm not rushing you.
I worked with the 24" 244T version of the same basic Samsung Syncmaster for a moth and just shipped it back to Samsung today. It is just about the best quality display I have used, and reproduces gorgeous color. In addition I was able to adjust gamma, contrast and brightness to a level and balance that supported doing color correction and editing adjustment from raw files that I found I could reproduce with an Epson R2400 with matched results. I don't think you can expect much more than that from any general computer display, and maybe not much more from pricier displays made especially for the pro graphics market.
Wow, that's a pretty strong recommendation David. At first I was somewhat put off by the $1,600 price, but excellent quality is going to be expensive no matter what. Like the Canon L glass, once you get past the sticker shock the benefits become a lot more attractive. I've got to admit that a 24" sparkling-clear screen has a lure all its own.
Earlier in this thread you mentioned that it took you "almost two weeks twiddling, tweaking and profiling to get it to where I could color correct a digital camera image effectively and then obtain a perfectly matched color managed print." Was the 244T unusually difficult to calibrate, or was it just the normal amount of trouble which you have to go through to calibrate any monitor? Has the frustration of all that tweaking faded as you look at the result? You certainly seem happy with this monitor. Thanks for the analysis.
Hi Mr. Brooks:
Thanks you that is very good news. A couple more Qs if you have the time.
1) Any specific problems calibrating the monitor? Is it user friendly (I understand the whole process is only so user friendly )so to speak?
2) What product did you use to do so? Are you familiar with Gretagmacbeth Eye One Dipslay 2? If so, would it be a best choice?
3) What did yo use to profile the printer?
Thanks again. This was my first post here and part of my online "due diligence" before buying the 214T. I've heard quite a few good things now and your contribution will likely "seal the deal" for me.
I'm mainly a birder/naturalist who uses photography and anything but a techie. So I appreciate your help and thank you for your time.
I was not in a rush to get the Samsung 244T adjusted, so I took the time to try a lot of combinations of adjusting brightness and contrast until I had a combination that reproduced the range of values in a photo test image ideally. At default setting the 244T is very contrasty and bright just like is ideal for a business computer needs to be in a bright office to display spread sheets, charts and graphs effectively.
Although I still have not found out from Samsung what the native color temperature is, it did not look far off another LCD set at 6500K, so I profiled the monitor at native white point after making all my adjustments. The calibration and profiling took maybe 10 minutes. What was time consuming was setting and resetting the balance of brightness and contrast and then profiling and then using the monitor to color correct images and make test prints to get to a near ideal print matching result with an R2400. If an image as displayed looks too far off in brightness and contrast then the adjustments to image attributes done in Photoshop don't result in a file that produces a match print, with LCD 's the print often is too dark because the LCD's brightness and contrast skews perception affecting where the mid-point gray is placed.
The controls on the Syncmaster 244t/214T are pretty standard for most monitors, no harder or easier than going through making menu adjustment settings with a digital camera.
I use a ColorVision Spyder2 Pro colorimeter and software, which I find works very effectively, and is more affordable than its competitors. Calibrating and profiling with it is a simple follow the on-screen directions process that just takes a few minutes. The result is effective and supports very accurate print matching once the level of brightness and contrast are set to achieve accurately color corrected and adjusted images using Photoshop.
With my Epson R2400 I have used the Epson profiles with good results with their papers. With 3rd party fine arts papers I profile them for the printer using a ColorVision Spectro, (and I have been beta testing CV's new PrintFIX Pro system with their new spectrometer that will be released early in 2006).
Thanks a lot.
I wish to thank everyone for their feedback on this thread. I appreciate David's no nonsense brief initial evaluation of the Samsung 244T LCD. I've been searching for ANYONE who has anything to say about this monitor. I'm a monitor novice about to purchase an expensive new computer and wanted a high end LCD monitor. Not sure what all the technical babble was about, but it sounded rocket scientist cool. All roads lead here and I'm very thankful. Many thanks to Frans Waterlander firstname.lastname@example.org for being an arrogant [censored] I'll fight you online anytime Just kidding Frans
You are so welcome! All kidding aside, the sad thing is that this particular position (that both the color temperature and brightness of the monitor and lighting used to view your prints should match to maximize the monitor-to-print matching and that the only high-quality lighting available is low-voltage tungsten-halogen of 5000K) don't get enough press and when I bring it up, David Brooks tries to debunk it every time. The other sad thing is that there is just no good information available that compares several lcd monitors that are suitable for color-critical work. This Samsung monitor that David Brooks is promoting and the Apple Cinema are, in my opinion, not very well suited for color-critical work and I can back that up with the hard facts, but again I get flack any time I bring this up. The only LCD monitors that in my opinion are worth considering are the top-of-the line monitors with dedicated calibrators from NEC.
What are your recommendations for an LCD? It's a braod question, but you may have some answers.
For others on this thread, here is a guy from Epinions.com with his November 2005 review on the Samsung 244T
Here is my list of lcd monitor requirements:
- Size: 19 or 21"
- Native resolution: 1280x1024 for 19"; 1600x1200 for 21"
- Brightness: at least 200 nits (cd/m^2)
- Backlight adjust: to reduce brightness to 80-120 nits
- Contrast ratio: 500 a must, 600 a want
- Gamma correction: 10 bits
- Gamma range: at least 1.8-2.2
- Viewing angle: at least 170 degrees horizontal and vertical
- Color temperature: at least 5000K and 6500K, preferable also 4900K
- RGB gain control: included
- Gamut: at least 69% of Adobe RGB (1998)
- Pixel out spec per ISO13406: Class II
- Calibrator: preferably dedicated
As far as I have been able to determine, the only LCD monitors that meet all these requirements are:
- NEC Professional MultiSync 19" LCD1980FXi, 19" LCD 1980SXi and 21" LCD2180UX
- LaCie 19" 319
LaCie has been very unresponsive to technical inquiries. They buy their 319 from NEC and the specs are identical to NEC's LCD1980FXi. Recently they introduced 2 new medium quality LCD monitors and then weeks later, removed those from their website. Go figure.
None of the other LCD monitors, including Samsung and Apple, meet my requiments as far as I have been able to determine. The color temperature requirement of 4900K or 5000K is particularly important to me to match my monitor to my digital darkroom lighting to maximize the monitor-to-print match.
Next month Dell is releasing a 30 inch LCD which I suspect is manufactured by the same company that Apple uses for their 30 inch cinema display. Dell's 19 inch was manufactured by the same company as Apple's 19 inch.
It's supposed to be released within two weeks.
Not even the inside industry experts can identify for sure which company is actually manufacturing Apples Cinema Displays. So how do you know when it is such a tightly kept secret by Apple?
And does it matter, because what THE company makes for Apple is according to Apple's specifications and it is a sure thing the agreement between the manufacturer and Apple involves an specification of exclusivity, that the same monitor will not be sold under another brand name.
Just because the size is a 30 inch, does not mean it is in any way otherwise identical to the 30" Apple Cinema Display.
I'm just speculating. I think that there will be a lot of that starting next month.
Have a Happy New Year
Given that none of the current Dell LCD monitors (and most other companies') meet my list of requirements (see a couple of posts back), I doubt that the new Dell LCD monitor will. Dell so far has aimed their products at the mass computing market, not at color-critical applications.
Thanks very much for your patience and work on the LCD monitor issue. I have held off getting a new LCD for your review of the 24T & hopefully comparable 214T. It is not practical to buy both a new computer and monitor so I will be using a PC. Your thoughts on the Apple 20" cinema versus the Samsung 214T, using a PC.
Your review of the 24T was very high and I believe the pricing between the Apple 20" and Sumsung 214T are close enough.
Thanks again for your patience.
I have not used the 20" apple Cinema Display recently, and not with my IBM as it does not have a DVI output video card, and I don't want to spend almost $200 to replace essentially the same card I have with a newer one just to get the DVI output.
But have been running a 30" Apple Cinema Display for a month for a user report. The settings of the Apple Cinema Display as delivered are quite close to what is required for pro graphics and photo image editing, so the only adjustment on the display is for brightness. Adjust it to get an ideal balance between highlight and shadow detail, and then calibrate and profile, and the Apple Cinema Display will provide a close to ideal perceptual environment for doing Photoshop. The Apple Cinema displays are quite competitive with the Samsung Synchmaster 214T and 244T in performance and easier to set up and get adjusted appropriately for photo image work. Prices are close as you noted. But I expect LCD prices will go lower further on into 2006 according to industry news. Both Samsung and L.G. Phillips the second largest manufacturer after Samsung have just increased production capacity significantly according to Reuters news Service just yesterday.
Not even the inside industry experts can identify for sure which company is actually manufacturing Apples Cinema Displays.
Sorry David, I love your articles and postings and have learned a lot from them but the above is a complete load of hooey! It's not that hard to figure these things out (for electrical engineers at any rate).
FYI the Apple M9179 uses a 30 inch 16 ms S-IPS panel manufactured by LG.Philips, part number LM300W01.
Furthermore, the LG L3010T uses the exact same panel. (Doesn't mean it is the same display though).
Keep up the (mostly) excellent work!
...the sad thing is that this particular position (that both the color temperature and brightness of the monitor and lighting used to view your prints should match to maximize the monitor-to-print matching and that the only high-quality lighting available is low-voltage tungsten-halogen of 5000K) don't get enough press...
Frans, with all due respect that is because a lot of color management experts have found it often doesn't work that way. For instance, Steve Upton, founder of Chromix.com, wrote in one of his newletters:
In theory you should calibrate your monitor's white to 5000K to match a viewing booth with 5000K bulbs. In reality 5000K on screen often looks too warm / reddish. We suggest calibrating your screen to 6500K. It will give you a more pleasing white color on screen and will probably match your booth better. If your monitor calibration system allows the selection of many different white points, experiment to see which one works best. Before you get worried that this may be an unorthodox method, remember that your eye is the final judge. If the viewing booth has good quality 5000K bulbs installed and an instrument-calibrated monitor looks wrong then change the monitor's white (in the profiling software). Just because the instrument says it's OK doesn't mean you should believe it!
Link to the newsletter:
There are also some interesting comments on 5000K light sources.
A lot of color management experts, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other professionals seem to agree with my position on this subject. I experienced first hand severe monitor-to-print mismatch problems when I first started my digital darkroom years ago. I developed my solution to these problems by trying many different alternatives, applying engineering analysis and lots of reading up on the subjects of color science and human perception.
I have verified my methods in different and independent ways: critical application of my own eyeballs and optical measurements. The underlying color science, my own observations and the optical measurements are all in agreement.
As I have explained before I use brightness-matched high-quality 5000K lighting and 5000K monitor calibration/profiling. The monitor-to-print matching using this setup is striking and the mismatch when I change the monitor color temperature to 6500K is dramatic, both when observed with the eyeball and optical measurement method. It is interesting to note that none of the naysayers has taken me up on the offer to share the optical measurement method and results with them. The standard reply goes something like "maybe this works for you, but it is just plain wrong and doesn't work for me". It is almost as if the naysayers are afraid to be proven wrong.
The information you posted about the Apple Cinema Displays is interesting, and I would not question the facts as you state them. It does satisfy the curiosity the mystery has elicited.
However your remark in paranthesis (Doesn't mean it is the same display though), is what users should take most seriously. Just because a particular display involves the same or similar hardware, does not provide any indication of how it will perform, particularly if the application is photo image display and processing. Whether it is Apple or Dell selling the display makes all the difference in the world as to how it is configured from the factory and what is inside running the display, and will very likely make a large difference in what a user actually experiences on screen.
In this arena of LCD's the old saw 'caveat emptor' is a warning that should be taken seriously.
Thanks for posting the quote from Steve Upton. I have spoken to Steve and several of his colleagues in the color management field, and everyone holds him in very high regard as not just one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the color management arena, but also he is articulate and readily understandable.
Now as more and more photo imaging applications provide color management support beyond just Photoshop, photographers who want to obtain optimum print matching performance, particularly as printers like the Epson R1800 and R2400 offer even higher performance and accuracy, the role and function of device independent workspace profiles like Adobe RGB (1998) really needs to be understood and implemented effectively. Unfortunately other than in the documentation that accompanied the release of Photoshop 5.0 through 6.0, there is not much guidance or understanding available in what has been published since. And it is functionally key to what users see on screen affecting what they do with their images.
I read the whole thead about the Samsung 244T 24" display.
Even if it was really interesting, my main interrest isn't the photography, prress or printing.
I mainly work in video and I'm looking for a monitor better than what apple Cinema Display can do.
I look around for a 244T review but found nothing really interresting when it comes to :
-displaying DVD by the S-video or component inputs
-displaying a DVD from a computer (using DVI)
-displaying a full HD movie in 1080p from a computer
-displaying a s-video or component input using the PIP function
-playing a game like quake, even not in native resolution
All this to say : is this screen fast enough to see video without shadows or artifacts ?
I hope you'll be able to help me answer this question as this monitor is starting to be delivered now in France !
Prune - cv at lecentre dot net
My tests and evaluation was almost entirely as a computer monitor primarily to do digital photography editing and processing.
The aspects of what you want to apply it to you listed I did not test, although I did play a DVD movie (a standard motion picture release in HD format) with it through my Mac G5, and all aspects of picture quality were really very good. In fact I would say I would be very pleased to use it to replace my TV!
For good "real-world" color temperature/white point screen-to-print matching Mr. Waterlander and Mr. Upton recommend using quality light in the viewing area. Both also describe varying methods (I'll call it the "number matching" solution) to use color number matching between viewing area and monitor to create a "real world" solution.
Mr. Waterlander's method is to match monitor and viewing area brightness as measured by an objective method he offers to provide.
Mr. Upton says brightness problems with displays and/or overly bright ambient lighting often cause real-world color number mismatch issues, but notes that sufficiently dim ambient lighting allows color number matching between viewing area and monitor to work as a "real world" solution.
Mr. Upton suggests that for alternative scenarios a method (I'll call this the "number warming" solution) for changing monitor color temperature can create an acceptable "real world" solution. Mr. Waterlander implies that is possible for anyone to achieve matching monitor and viewing area brightness and hence not need alternative scenarios, which he also implies work less well.
If Mr. Waterlander were to address HOW successful number warming COULD be, and Mr. Brooks were to address WHETHER most persons could implement number matching that might help bring them into the same discussion space. (Mr. Brooks implies that successful number matching is rare, and likely no better than number warming. Mr. Waterlander states that it is better, and implies that number warming is not necessary. )
This is a test post, please ignore.
This is another test post, please just ignore.