What display would you recommend?

[rodolgo]

Hello everyone,

So far, I'm doing all my image processing on my laptop, a Lenovo W500. I now see the limitations with the display (and in other areas such as processing speed but this is not today's matter). I'm running Win7 64 b, and I'm considering investing in a quality display with a good resolution, but I have no idea of what to look for.

Do you have any "affordable" advice/recommendation ?

Please note I'm living in France (Europe) this would limit the search to widely distributed devices. I'm also familiar with the calibration process, so don't be shy

Thanks in advance for your help,

Rodolphe

[Andres.Pozo]

I have a Dell U2711 and I am very happy with it. It is not cheap but I expect that it will survive a couple of CPUs.

[oldwexi]

Hi Rodolphe!
It was  a difficult search. All Dealers only do have those HDMI Monitors on stock. HDMI's are for watching videos
but nor for image processing of DSLR and CCD images.
Finally i took
2 Eizo S2402 WFS-BK Monitors. They are higher (1900x1200) than the usual HDMI's (1920x1080).
Both screens are connected to one AMD Radeon HD6870 card which support the higher resolution of
1900x1200 on 2 monitors side by side. So my PI-Workspace can be extended 3800x1200.
Color and brightness is perfect.
I can really recommend this combo.  I paid 450 Euro per monitor. But its worth the more money!
Be careful on the graphic card - many of them also only support HDMI and not 1900x1200 pixel!

Aloha
Gerald

[Nocturnal]

I think Gerald is maybe confusing HDMI (an interconnection standard) with 1080p? I have never seen a graphics card that's limited to just 1080p. I've driven non-1080p displays with HDMI and DVI both.

[oldwexi]

Hi Sander!
Yes, you are right.  I was talking about the 1080p Display Standard which is
in my opinion not the best for image processing.

Aloha
Gerald

[Nocturnal]

Hi Gerald,

I don't think display resolution is as important as intrinsic quality of the screen. The benefit of 1080p is that it's a commodity resolution so you should be able to find a better display for the same money in 1080p than in other resolutions. If money is no object then this is not a consideration of course.

[rodolgo]

Hi folks,

Thanks for the good advices

Best regards,

Rodolphe

[sdh]

I had the same question 2 or 3 years ago. My experience was surprisingly negative.

At that time, mass-market LCDs were made for games and videos, not high-quality color applications. One of the main problems was that color fidelity was being degraded in order to decrease screen update times. Advertisements competed for the lowest refresh rates, 2 milliseconds or less.

When I say degraded color fidelity, I mean the info I read on the web stated that 8bit RGB channels were effectively reduced to 7 or 6 bits. Whatever the cause, color spectrum test images posted to the web would show banding if data bits were lost on the viewer's display.

This was not just academic theory. After much study, I bought an NEC LCD, highly rated, good reviews, somewhat expensive. The manufacturer's data was insufficient to decide whether it could truly provide 8bit RGB channels. It did not. I found banding in the on-line test images, and far worse, false color aliasing in my own images. Fortunately I was able to return it. The NEC was not a "bad" monitor, not at all, but it was made for games and video, not at all for astro imaging.

I eventually bought a Samsung XL20, which I use today. It cost over 2X as much as the NEC. It took a long time to save enough money to pay for it. The XL20 is acceptable, but for imaging, it must be used with the settings I calibrated into it when I bought it.

However, if you search the web, you will see the XL20 is no longer made. Furthermore, there is no Win7 driver for its calibrator, so my XL20 cannot be calibrated again. I am unaware of any similar monitor currently made by Samsung.

My advice is gather as much info as you can before you buy something. Also, buy from a vendor who will allow you to return the monitor if you find it unacceptable. If all mass-market display makers have abandoned the high-quality color market, you may find prices from specialty makers to be very, very, very high.

I hope I am wrong. I still remember common CRT monitors which were better than any LCD I have ever seen, and fairly affordable.

[Nocturnal]

One thing to keep in mind is your target audience. If you only work for yourself and maybe a print or two then it makes sense to get an expensive monitor. If you want 'the world' to see your images on their crappy monitors perhaps it doesn't make much sense to invest heavily in a monitor. No one will ever see the image the way you do.

I use relatively cheap displays and calibrate them with a Spyder 3 Pro. The result is acceptable. Let me put it this way. I don't think my monitor is the limiting factor in my image quality. I think that's perhaps the import point. Getting a better monitor will not magically improve your images. You still need good source material and good processing. Obvious, I know. Still it had to be said because some new guy will read this, plop down $1000 for a monitor and not really get any benefits. Once you've maxed out what you can achieve with a cheap monitor by all means upgrade.

[mkraemer]

I just started using PI (still a newbie in many ways) but I may be able to share some practical experience : I work for a large movie studio, and as you can imagine, we do pay a fair amount of attention to our displays.

What SDH mentioned about the bit depth and interpolation tactics was true up about until 5 years ago. Most LCD monitors nowadays are true 8bits S-PVA systems with significantly better color responses as well as refresh rates, and there are even some 10bits devices on their way to the shelves soon-ish. LCD displays have problems though :
- the background is LED lit and tends to not be uniform across a large screen (particularly a 30" display)
- white temperature is usually not adjustable on the device
- none of the devices can be calibrated : you have to adjust the curves on the graphics card, thereby degrading the input signal (not so much a problem with DVI cables nowadays)
- even if you bother calibrating them, the significantly shorter "half-life" of LCDs mean that they go measurably out of calibration within 2 or 3 weeks (major pain when you have over 1000 monitors to calibrate)
- blacks are much higher than CRT's
- color accuracy is very poor in general

For a while things were actually pretty bad as most manufacturers discontinued their CRT products, including their "pro" lines (the FW9000 in particular), prompting most visual effects / CG shops to start stockpiling and refurbishing CRT monitors.

Nowadays LCD monitors are borderline acceptable for color sensitive work (the cheap 30" HP models are OK, Apple's Cinema Display panels are actually pretty good) and coming on par with the quality of the CRT's of old. I don't think astrophotography work is quite as dependent on color accuracy as broadcast material, since the signal processing is less for aesthetic reasons than to "reveal scientific truth"... but I am sure that being sRGB aware as well as maintaining a tight control over color gamuts can't hurt.

Anyway : hope this helps

Manu.

[RBA]

It depends on your budget.

You said affordable so I'd guess €8000 and above are out of the question, but are €500?

If you can go to €500 and a bit more, I'd recommend the Dell U2711. I have one. Love it.
Dell's price is around 800€ but they are also sold for around 528€ if you look around. Don't pay the high price.
If you can go to €300 and a bit more, I'd recommend the Dell U2410.

The two above monitors are wide gamut, which is not for everyone, so before you buy a wide gamut monitor, be sure to understand its pros and cons.

If you're really really on a budget, U2412M.

Bottom line, if you want the best bargain for the price, these IPS monitors from Dell are among the best value for the money you can buy IMHO.

[Nocturnal]

I've heard good things about the Dell UltraSharp monitors. I don't know who actually builds them. For a while I kept an eye on logicbuy.com to get notified of discounts on them. I had an excellent Samsung CRT up to a few years ago. Bright, crisp, sharp. Weighed a ton though. A real desk sagger.

[RBA]

You said affordable so I'd guess €8000 and above are out of the question, but are €500?

BTW that €8000 in my post was supposed to be "eight HUNDRED", not "eight THOUSAND"!!

[Warhen]

Hi guys,
             The Dells are OK. IMHO, the Eizos are OVERrated. I am LOVING the new ASUS ProArt 246- check out the reviews, it is wonderful. As clsoe to a pro display at $500 out there. Edges out the U2410. Don't touch the U2412, I did not like the white LED backlight. Stick with CCFL backlights for now an true IPS of course.

RBA, if you are back at it, write me privately on our last chat. Hope you are well!

[Juan Conejero]

FWIW, we currently use two Dell UltraSharp U2711 monitors with our main development workstations. In my opinion this is probably the best price/value monitor in the market.