Displays [update: Good news, everyone!] - New Dell U series coming Q3. A downgrade big time

The thing with the idea of "seeing over a billion colours" isn't that you can consciously tell the difference if given a panel of two colours that vary only by that amount. When given a real image at the higher colour depth it contributes to how real the image seems because the gradients are much more natural.

Consider this: At 30Hz you can't consciously identify each frame and look at how it differs from the last, nor can you at 60Hz. No one is going to argue that running at 60Hz over 30Hz is pointless though As with colour, it's not the individual frames that matter, it's how they contribute to the overall effect.

 

Indeed it is, and I didn't mean to start a debate on what was quite a minor part of your post.

 

I have two monitors. The left one is a wide gamut, 8-bit S-PVA display (uncalibrated in this case), the right is a generic sRGB TN panel. As an unscientific comparison, here's a photo, with the bezels cropped out, of a green filled screen (the sophisticated 'stretch MS Paint across the two screens' method). Having the two together, it's easy to see quite how differently things are displayed, even when they're properly calibrated.

 

more news on Dell monitors:

source: TFTcentre

those VA panels look interesting. their professional series is now really for business. whereas before, they were selling eye burning TN panels.

 

VA eh?.. probably MVA panels to keep the UltraSharp series above. Well at least they are not TN's.

I am glad to hear that TN panel are dispersing a bit.

 

...Why the downgrade?

 

That's because one is a wide gamut screen and one isn't. Unless you view material in a colour managed environment the sreen will always appear greener on the wide gamut screen. I'll try to explain. Let's assume I want to display a nice rich red on a normal sRGB monitor. I'd create a file in PS and give it let's say R:255, G:0 and B:0. That gives me the maximum red I can have with a 24bit (8bit per pixel) image. As it's the maximum red possible, if I then display this file on a wide gamut screen it will appear more red. The file is the same, but the monitor is capable of displaying more saturated, vivid colours as it has a wider gamut.

In order to display the colour the SAME on both screens I'd have to ensure the file was in the correct colour profile, displayed on a calibrated monitor, and viewed using an application that honours ICC profiles. Any one of that chain missing and the wide gamut screen will display the colours inaccurately.

If I create a new file in PS... and create it with a colour profile of sRGB...



Then select the colour picker and choose maximum red of 255, 0, 0...



...and then just fill my sRGB document with that red...

..and measure it once it's in place, it's obviously still 255,0,0



However... if I then convert the file's colourspace from sRGB to Adobe RGB 1998 (a much wider gamut) and measure the same file...




what do you think will happen in a colour managed environment?

This happens....




Look at the numbers and the new/current swatches!. Because Photoshop is a colour managed environment and I changed the document's colourspace from sRGB to a wider gamut profile, Photoshop has honoured that profile by keeping the red the same VISUALLY by reducing the red from 255 to 219.

Why has it done this? Because it knows that 255 red in sRGB is less "red" than in Adobe 1998 and when I converted the profile, it adjusted the colours accordingly. Therefore, once in profile it would look the same on ANY monitor, so long as it's being viewed in a colour managed application like photoshop.

But.. what do you think happens when you view this file in a NON colour managed environment, like most websites, or image viewers that don't recognise ICC profiles.... or if I had NOT changed that profile, and just shown this sRGB file on a wide gamut monitor... what do you think would have happened?

It would have remained as R255, and not been converted to R219. The result? Oversaturated reds because it will merely be telling the monitor to display maximum red, and not R219. As the Maximum red on a Wide gamut screen is much "redder" than a sRGB screen... colours are wrong.

For this reason, unless you are a photographer or artist working in Photoshop and other colour managed environments, you don't WANT a wide gamut screen. It's all a marketing ploy. Viewing websites, and watching movies or playing games on a wide gamut screen set to it's maximum colour depth will result in inaccurate and oversaturated colours. For this reason, for a games player and general user, something like the HP ZR24W would be a much better screen, as it's a nice IPS screen, but standard sRGB gamut. If you have a wide gamut screen, unless you're in a colour managed application such as PS.. it should be set in a sRGB mode or your colours will be wrong. however.. most still set it at max depth and praise it's "saturated" colours... well.. if you like that, fine... so long as you understand it's wrong.

So... in short... the above shots of the green prove nothing, other than one screen is a wide gamut screen. This is not an indication of one being more accurate than the other. The ONLY way you can establish that is by showing the same colour managed file in the same colour managed application on each colour calibrated monitor. Which you have not done.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about colour depth, wide gamut screen, and colour accuracy in general... even in a forum like this, it's widely ignored, and massively misunderstood.

 

if i set Adobe RGB in Windows Colour Management, then in Advanced, set "Windows colour system defaults" to sRGB. would that make windows colour correct?

 

Saw the updated title. Instantly thought of the Dacia Sandero.

 

Nooooo.... Adobe RGB1998 is a ICC colour profile, but the profile section in Windows Colour Management is for ICM (monitor) profiles... that's totally different. Unless you have a colorimeter and have created a custom profile for your screen, just let Windows take care of this... don't set anything in there. In the advanced tab though, sRGB (WCS) should be set for viewing conditions profile, yes.

However.. if you have a wide gamut screen, unless the application used to view your media acknowledges ICC or ICM profiles, normal gamut media will appear oversaturated. Unfortunately, that means most web pages, all videos, and all games. This will happen no matter what your Windows colour settings are. The ONLY way to get media to get normal gamut media to display properly on a wide gamut screen is to ensure the media has the correct ICC profile, and that the application used to view it honours that profile.

 

Interesting Pookeyhead, nice post.

 

Guys,

Am on the brink of a new monitor. Was going to get the U2311H becasue I can not afford the U2410.

However I see that the HP ZR24W is a 24" IPS for under £330. Anyone have any views on this monitor, it had a decent review?

Mostly for gaming but some movies.

 

Read my post above (#327). If you are mainly interested in games, movies or other non critical stuff, then it's the ideal monitor for you. It's a really good IPS screen but standard gamut, so no colour anomalies if you aren't using colour managed software.

This is the screen I recommend to anyone who is not particularly interested in digital imaging, graphics or anything colour critical. This is not because the colours are inaccurate, but because games and movies on "wide gamut" screens will be oversaturated and inaccurate unless operated in sRGB mode. On the ZR24W that's not something you need to worry about. Just plug and play.

 

For non critical color work, and you go with the Dell U series. They are 2 things you can do:
-> just set your monitor to Adobe RGB pre-calibrated profile (on the monitor options), and get Windows Update to install the monitor ICC profile (does that anyway), and you are essentially set.

-> Set it sRGB using Windows default ICC profile in Windows

I prefer the first method, as your desktop icons don't end up.. well not looking washed out... but flat colors, I should say.

Of course, the ideal setup, is no mater what monitor you have, you get a nice color calibrator and calibrate your screen. But let's ignore that as you are not a person that does critical color work.

However, I must say... if you are not using a fancy XLR camera to take your pictures... Wide gamut or not, and wide gamut with the above settings, makes picture looks way to flat. And as most people don't have money to invest in fancy cameras.. well it just adds complications to get everything setup.
Second method on top helps... but Adobe RGB using Windows default color profile (on a wide gamut monitor) provides you with the most realistic looking pictures, despite a slight hint of saturation.
And to make mater worse, some people adjust the picture they took form their camera (or have the camera importer software that comes with it), start adjusting the pictures automatically, as now you really lose the correct colors. Especially if the person is doing it using any standard cheapo monitor (most people).

At the end of the day, I think, for non-professional color work, but a xillion time better than a TN panel, it doesn't mater what you pick, because the saturation level different isn't huge.. maybe about (visually calculated, and I know PookeyHead will have some sort of equipment to say the difference), about 10% off. Stuff don't look like cartoonish, and don't look very flat and boring. To me, in my view, it's not a night and day thing... it's close, but way off, so for non-color critical work, it doesn't mater what you pick.

But, I must say that PookeyHead is absolutely right (he's a pro in the field).

 

SO...

U2412M will be available in the next couple of days.

TFT Central are offering a £12 pound discount through PCBUYIT who I notice are promising to honour the Dell zero pixel defect warranty.

This means you can buy this new 24" IPS monitor for £288 with guaranteed no dead pixels.

First reviews should be with us any day now. Will the LED backlight be as bad as Goodbytes fears, or will this monitor actually be a bit of a bargain?

Exciting stuff!

 

Hmm no you miss read...
Dell offers a Zero Bright pixel warranty:

http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&s=dhs&sku=294438

Meaning if a pixel or sub-pixel is missing the LCD liquid inside, or stuck on white.

 

Interesting, but on PCBUYIT they say "any pixel defect". I am sure you are right though and they will probably stiff you if it is 1 dead pixel.

In any case I am just excited to see the first reviews that was all.

I am sure it will not be as good as the existing 24" Dell, I just wondered if it will be a good compromise for those of us on a tight budget.

 

As in: Choose this over a HP ZR24W? I'm reasonably sure the ZR24W would still be a better buy, but of course it'll also be more expensive.

It's rather more interesting to find out how the U2412M stacks up against the U2311H. Considering the latter can be had for almost 100 GBP less the U2412M had better bring more to the table than just 120 vertical pixels more. As stated earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) an LED backlight doesn't really count as progress; rather the opposite.

 

I tried to pull the trigger on the ZR24W this evening. The only reason I did not get my wallet out was because I could not get the free postage for Bit Tech readers to work on the CCL web site - I have dropped them a line.

I nearly purchased a U2311H, but I got my tape measure out and realised that the vertical height of the screen was actually half an inch LESS than my 22" 16:10 Samsung 226BW. I do not really want to lose vertical space if I can help it.

Are LED's really that bad? I read the review of the NEC EA232WMi on TFT Central, and it seemed to say that if anything the picture quality was a small improvement on the CCFL version. Is it something a gamer will notice or just colour pros?

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea232wmi.htm

CCL missed out on my impulse purchase tonight - now I will have a think about it over the next couple of days.

I may still get the U23 and spend the money I have saved on an internal Blu Ray player and couple of Blu Rays.

What I also liked about the HP was that it is a true 8 bit panel where the U23 is 6 bit + HRFC. Again though, I am not sure if that is something the man in the street (me) would notice?

Choosing the monitor is probably more fun than actually getting it, but I will let you know what I decide!

 

It depends. Like anything in life, you have excellent products and piss poor ones.
You can have really good high-end white LED's, like you have peace of crap ones.

Apple displays uses some nice white LED's... still a hint too bluish, but so far I haven't see anything better in term of white LED technology. Then again.. I never looked at white LED's displays on high end monitor market such as the NEC monitor.

Same applies for CCFL back light. When LED's came to market on the low range TN panels.. people were impressed by it, and yes they were right to be, because back then low end CFL was used, and everything is was way too yellowish (visible to anyone). Then again, a high grade CFL can provides a nice true white. So it all depends on which CFL lamp NEC used previously.

I don't know... I don't have both side by side. But technically speaking, yes.
How big of a difference? Well if one screen is awfully calibrated out of the box, and the other is pretty well calibrated out of the box, then well.. it does change your perception.

I think, in your case, it's the type of situation that it doesn't mater, but it's always nice to have.

Based on people feedback on this forum. Weather you pick the U2711, U2410, U2311H, or the HP one, or even the LG IPS231P-BN, they are excellent choice for your money. There is no "better deal". All of them give you a lot for your money.

What you should maybe look, is which one provides you the best out of box experience. Which is better calibrated out of the box, which is faster, which feature is more important to you, heck also maybe looks might be important to you.

The only things that bugs me with the HP monitor, is looking at HP web site, I see that they have many monitor, including the one that you have, have 2-sub panel models. And these models are different between regions.... the problem is seeing what a person or review is using on his HP one, and it's not well explained or mentioned at all. And the price difference between the 2 sub-panels model on HP website is quiet substantial. Is most stores have the lower end one, and HP send the fancier one to reviewers? Who knows.
I highly doubt it's night and day... but it's still an annoyance.