# LCD vs LED Monitors



## SCraig (Dec 13, 2011)

I'm thinking about getting another monitor to go along with the one I already have (yes my video card supports 3 monitors).  I was looking around on the internet for comparison information between LCD and LED monitors when I ran across this titbit:

_While the technology of the displays of  LCDs and LEDs is basically the same, the LCD monitor uses cold cathode  fluorescent lamps as back-lights as compared to the LED monitors that  *emit diodes*.  _

I think I've decided not to go with an LED monitor.  I don't want to get smacked in the eye by an errant LED that was emitted   I also decided I wasn't going to bother reading the rest of their review.

Seriously I am looking for another monitor but I don't have any experience with LED monitors.  I do know the physical difference between LCD and LED (I have a background in electronics) but I don't know how well they work functionally for image processing use.  Naturally my primary purpose is going to be image editing so if I'm going to have problems calibrating an LED monitor or if they just plain don't work well for that purpose I'd certainly love to know.

I'm sure most of you have used LCD monitors but if any one has also used an LED monitor I'd really appreciate some input on how well they perform.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 13, 2011)

SCraig said:


> _compared to the LED monitors that  *emit diodes*._




 they don't emit diodes!  They ARE diodes that emit LIGHT... hence Light Emitting Diodes.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 13, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> they don't emit diodes!  They ARE diodes that emit LIGHT... hence Light Emitting Diodes.


Hence the smiley at the end of the line and the statement that reads "(I have a background in electronics)".  I just thought the comment in the review was a hoot.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Dec 13, 2011)

I have and HP 27" LED. While it doesn't have the greatest color gamut coverage compared to the high end monitors, it works well for me as a duel use editing/personal use monitor. I am planning on picking up a dell ultrasharp as the prices come down. I would get the new apple display since my computer has thunderbolt, but I hear they aren't the greatest for photography. 

One thing I will mention- if you have an older colorimeter, it may not read LEDs accurately. My old Spyder2 had this issue which forced me to upgrade to the Spyder 3.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 13, 2011)

SCraig said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > they don't emit diodes!  They ARE diodes that emit LIGHT... hence Light Emitting Diodes.
> ...



Bwah!  I read up to that line at which point I was laughing and had to stop to respond! Thats what I get for not reading everything. lol


----------



## SCraig (Dec 13, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> I have and HP 27" LED. While it doesn't have the greatest color gamut coverage compared to the high end monitors, it works well for me as a duel use editing/personal use monitor. I am planning on picking up a dell ultrasharp as the prices come down. I would get the new apple display since my computer has thunderbolt, but I hear they aren't the greatest for photography.
> 
> One thing I will mention- if you have an older colorimeter, it may not read LEDs accurately. My old Spyder2 had this issue which forced me to upgrade to the Spyder 3.


Thanks, that's the kind of info I was looking for.  I'm not looking at ultri-high end but a good one.  I'm just not sure yet.  I run the network at work but even there all of the monitors are LCD.

My colorimeter is a Spyder 3 so I should be good there if yours works OK.  That was my other concern 

Thanks, I appreciate the input.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 13, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Bwah!  I read up to that line at which point I was laughing and had to stop to respond! Thats what I get for not reading everything. lol



Jeez, if I had a buck for each time I've done that same exact thing I'd just buy a monitor FACTORY and be done with it!:lmao:  Not a problem at all.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 14, 2011)

I don't think that there would be any difference except in lifespan and possibly uniformity. I really like the LED display in my 15" Macbook.


----------



## pemaleso (Dec 14, 2011)

Nice thread. 
I have my 2007 lcd monitor and works just fine with my nvideo card. 
I use free software calibrize once a month.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## SCraig (Dec 14, 2011)

pemaleso said:


> Nice thread.
> I have my 2007 lcd monitor and works just fine with my nvideo card.
> I use free software calibrize once a month.





unpopular said:


> I don't think that there would be any difference except in lifespan and possibly uniformity. I really like the LED display in my 15" Macbook.



Thanks guys.  I "Think" you are correct in that the differences are minor but I don't know that for certain.  I hate to just go to a store and look at them since there is no telling how they have been adjusted.

Your comment did remind me that I one of the laptops we have here has an LED display on it.  I remember when I ordered it that if it didn't work well I'd never hear the end of it, but then forgot about it when the guy I got it for didn't gripe about his display.  I remember that when I was setting it up I noticed how bright it was and that it didn't seem to retain its image a lot better when viewed from different angles.

Most LCD monitors I've used have a "Sweet Spot" where viewing them from a particular angle looked best by far.  The monitor on that laptop didn't seem to be as bad about that and now I'm wondering whether that is a trait of LED monitors.  Guess I'll do a bit more digging.

Thanks again everyone.  I appreciate the input.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 14, 2011)

I think in general you're getting your technologies confused. There are no LED monitors available for a reasonable price. They are LCD monitors with an LED backlight. Calling them LED monitors do a complete disjustice to actual LED displays. They are quite a different technology and will one day be the future of displays. The term "LED Display" is marketing bull**** making something sound futuristic and will likely just cause confusion when actual LED displays hit the consumer / TV market.

The difference between LCD that use cold cathodes as their backlight and LEDs as their backlight are .... thickness. Little more than that. LED backlit displays can also go brighter so they are great to use outdoors but that is only really important for laptops, and even that that is at odds with conserving power. Even my LCD I consider has an average max brightness compared to some other displays and rarely ever gets turned up past the 70% mark.

Gamut, viewing angles, colour depth and all those other actual important things have very little to do with the backlight, and everything to do with the LCD display itself. To that end:

The viewing angle or "sweet spot" as you just called it is dependant on the layout of the crystals and the electrodes. For photography the key acronym is IPS (in-plane switching). IPS displays as opposed to PVA or TN panels are perfect viewing angles but have slightly slower response times. The most common display type is TN panel (they are cheap and thin), they have poor viewing angles, and they can't actually display 8bit colour instead opting for 6bit + firmware dithering to fake the colours it misses. PVA, the great middle ground, has better viewing angles but suffers from what isknown as "black crush" which is when viewed dead on you lose the ability to display fine shades of very dark colours. That said they offer greater viewing angles, and true 8bit colour so they are good if you're on a budget. 

You'll rarely if ever see an IPS display in a laptop since until recently with the likes of the iPad and similar tablets they have been hard if not impossible to make thin and light. 

In summary:
- You can get all different display types with both cold cathode backlights and LED backlights. They do not affect the performance of the display technology itself.
- You can not get 8bit colour out of a TN display regardless of the backlight. You don't want this for photography.
- TN panels make up the vast majority on the market.
- TN panels offer poor viewing angles regardless of the backlight.
- PVA and IPS panels can offer wider colour gamuts regardless of the backlight.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 15, 2011)

Garbz said:


> I think in general you're getting your technologies confused. There are no LED monitors available for a reasonable price. They are LCD monitors with an LED backlight. Calling them LED monitors do a complete disjustice to actual LED displays. They are quite a different technology and will one day be the future of displays. The term "LED Display" is marketing bull**** making something sound futuristic and will likely just cause confusion when actual LED displays hit the consumer / TV market.
> 
> The difference between LCD that use cold cathodes as their backlight and LEDs as their backlight are .... thickness. Little more than that. LED backlit displays can also go brighter so they are great to use outdoors but that is only really important for laptops, and even that that is at odds with conserving power. Even my LCD I consider has an average max brightness compared to some other displays and rarely ever gets turned up past the 70% mark.
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting that information.  I did a bunch of reading on the subject last night and you are 100% correct in what you say, and most certainly in that I had the concept of an LED monitor completely wrong.  I did not realize that the LED's were simply providing the backlight, that puts things in a completely different perspective.

Thanks again for that very informative post.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 16, 2011)

There are many types of flat monitors...
LCD using fluro tubes for backlight- Toss it after 2000 hours or when the display yellows or greens.
LCD using LED backlight- eventual odd shading from the LEDs as they are over driven and fail in different modes.
LED - no backlight but totally unatural color for precision editing.
OLED - extremely punchy color, but with proper adjustments, could begin to approach the gamut of a tube.
PLASMA - with a huge dot pitch and the highest power hog of any display device it is not even suitable for television.
TUBE - it's big but it just works, and works, and works....

If you are buying for energy savings, go tube. It uses less energy and lasts much longer.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 20, 2011)

Cruzingoose said:


> LED - no backlight but totally unatural color for precision editing.
> OLED - extremely punchy color, but with proper adjustments, could begin to approach the gamut of a tube.



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sorry but it looks like you've got a few things quite backwards there.

LED and OLED are the same in terms of colour production. Both of them generate photons from a tuned band gap in some material. The photons are always emitted at the same energy and thus are generated in a way that the colour could not be any more pure. Look at an LED or OLED emission spectra on a spectrum analyser and they are bested only by really stable lasers in terms of colour purity. Every LED or OLED produces a gamut dot on the very edge of the horseshoe diagram. Furthermore by providing essentially infinite contrast and no change in spectral response with respect to brightness, even when the gamut is plotted in 3D it appears perfect. You can't say this is unnatural for precision colour editing and then trump the supposed wide gamut of tubes at the same time. What you need is colour calibration and management in any case unless your display perfectly matches the sRGB gamut, which would also make it a rather poor performer in terms of the above. 

CRTs gamuts were defined by their phosphors and filters. They were quite standard covering around 73% of NTSC. Consumer grade LCDs have been able to match this for more than 10 years. Furthermore the best wide gamut LCD ever produced achieved 97% coverage of the AdobeRGB gamut, cost around $8000 too. By comparison my LCD display achieves the same coverage, is larger, has better a contrast ratio, internal hardware lookup table calibration so that a calibrator won't reduce the output of the video card, and was less than 1/8th of the price. The best LCDs on the market leave this for dead. Sony's experimental OLED display left the best LCDs for dead.

As for energy savings, I don't know of a single LCD on the market that chews up more power than a CRT, and LED backlit LCDs are by far the most power efficient display devices available. And then the notion of it just works, and works, and works .... but only for about 3 years after which phosphor degradation means that very quickly your CRT's gamut changes, shrinks, the display darkens and the contrast ratio drops. 

I haven't a clue where anyone gets the notion that CRTs are by any measure the best displays on the market, unless you count the ability to kill someone by dropping a display on them. All of what you said applied only for the first 2 years that LCDs hit the market. 

Oh an in case you're interested here's the colour gamut of my phone. The red line is my phone, the light blue line is 99.99% of CRTs ever produced.


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 21, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Cruzingoose said:
> 
> 
> > LED - no backlight but totally unatural color for precision editing.
> ...




>> The LED monitors seem to change their color and brightness with  different viewing angles while the OLED appears more tube like and not  so variable but still very punchy. Tube phosphor colors overlap each  other slightly while LED colors are quite narrow leaving gaps. Then  there is the "dead pixel"  or "live pixel" issues a tube will never  have. You have not viewed a flat monitor with a black or brightly  colored dot or two or more that does not change? How about colored lines  or flickering patches?  As flat panel pixel size shrinks, the higher  chances of these defects rendering the device less than desireable.

>> The few rich people that spent the $8 on a display certainly  deserves a quality monitor, but like all electronics, in a few years, if  it still works, will be passed down to the kids for playing video games  and soon to be ready to buy another. These devices are not what the  general public will spend their money on. The $99 or less Wal&^%t or  E&^y is what most people buy.  If you are directly facing the  display things look fine. Move up/down or side/side and the color,  brightness, blacks/ shadows change greatly. The viewing angle has been  improving but is nowhere as good as an LED or tube screen. You don't  have to turn a tube so another person can share what is on the screen. 

>>> I stand corrected. If the LCD has a LED backlight there  will be an energy savings at the expense of color reproduction and  brightness over time. White LEDS are not known for high CRI ratings.  Fluro tube backlights which are most common, but have excellent CRI  ratings, fade and die too quickly, usually after 2000 hours.  Being a  Ham Radio Operator and electronics tech, audio/videophile , I've waited  for the day I would find flat panel displays in the dumpsters and on the  side of the road. Now they are here, and in masses. It's been a great  source if extra income picking these things up, replacing fluro tubes,  inverters and capacitors in the power supplies, then taking them to the  local pawn shops and taking the $$$ I can get from them. Some of these  are not even 2 years old. 

>>>I did not want to imply a tube was the defacto standard and  nothing works better. The tube is so far the most consistant and cost  effective over time, most are still in operation for over 15 years for  computer use and 60+ years in televisions.  It is all a matter of money.  Consumer grade goods just don't measure up to broadcast quality specs  and most people just don't know any better.  And I compliment the color  accuracy of your phone's display. I'm sure the OLED display in my  Samsung Captivate is right up there also, but I wont be caught dead  restoring a photograph on it.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 22, 2011)

>> What LED monitors are we talking about now? The giant 5m high displays, or LCDs with LED backlights? The latter's viewing angles have been discussed and is nothing to do with LEDs, and the former as far as I know hasn't been manufactured in a consumer display size. If anything LED monitors have massive pixel pitches.
OLEDs on the other hand have a different display arrangement. They are usually a pentile display which is largely due to manufacturing constraints on the blue pixel. Expect this to change. CRTs only had the advantage here because their pixels were laid out in a triangular pattern, the phosphors definitely did not overlap each other and they were nearly always run below their maximum resolution (on account of their max res normally subjecting the viewer to horrendously low refresh rates). Run a CRT and an LCD at their highest res and the LCD looks much sharper and clearer. 

>> I haven't seen a dead pixel since before the mythical y2k bug. Most if not all manufacturers have a dead-pixel free warranty policy. 

>> IPS displays can be had for $300. PVA for less than that. We're on a photography forum where people talk about buying $200 calibrators for their monitors, I don't think the common man rules apply. You're arguing one cheap technology for another, there's problems regardless. Sure there were less colour related problems on a cheap CRT, that is very true and given a horrendously low budget I may concede this point of view, but they certainly are by no stretch of the imagination nice to use. 

>> Dead / faded displays are again a function of being cheap not a function of the technology. My father has been through 3 cheap LCDs (wasn't the CCFL that died, but rather the inverters). Good displays should last for a long time. The NEC Multisync displays in the control room at the plant I work have been on 24/7/365 for 7 years, and only one was replaced because an operator put his fist through it. With most things you get what you pay for.

>> We'll have to agree to disagree on the consistent / cost effective bit. I've had greater success with LCD than tubes. I guess it comes down to what we buy, how we use it, and maybe even a bit of luck 

As a matter of interest, other than the lack of colourmanagement functionality in Android, why wouldn't you edit a photograph on an OLED display, given how in theory it would be the ideal display for it?  ... Oh and given that you'd probably be disowned by the photography world for editing a photo on your mobile 


I should mention that I'm kind of biased towards new technologies. I've done quite a bit of work including a thesis in opto-electronics, so I kind of hold dear that OLEDs are going to rock our world


----------



## rambler (Dec 22, 2011)

Simply put In LCD the light comes from directly behind the screen in the middle.  With LED the light comes in from the edges towards the center.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 22, 2011)

Cruzingoose said:


> There are many types of flat monitors...
> TUBE - it's big but it just works, and works, and works....



And it drifts and it drifts and it drifts. CRTs are notorious for instability.

CRT's have significant advantages in viewing area and resolution at any given price, but can you please admit you kind of made that up a little?


----------



## SCraig (Dec 22, 2011)

Garbz said:


> As a matter of interest, other than the lack of colourmanagement functionality in Android, why wouldn't you edit a photograph on an OLED display, given how in theory it would be the ideal display for it?  ... Oh and given that you'd probably be disowned by the photography world for editing a photo on your mobile


Sadly there are photo editing applications written for Android.  I've never bothered to install one since I'm not crazy enough to try and edit a photograph on my cell phone.

I appreciate everyone's help in responding to this question.  I decided to go with an NEC MultiSync P221W with their SpectraView color management system.  It's PVA technology, wide gamut, and so far after only 2 days, seems to be a good addition.  I haven't been able to play with it much yet but I think I'll like it.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 22, 2011)

rambler said:


> Simply put In LCD the light comes from directly behind the screen in the middle.  With LED the light comes in from the edges towards the center.



... The technology and application have nothing to do with each other. My LCD has CCFL's from behind the screen, 4 of them oriented vertically. My laptop's has the CCFL at the bottom. My TV and my monitor at work have the CCFLs on the side. Samsung's ultra thin TVs have LEDs on the side, and there are Asus screens with a grid of LEDs from behind. Actually there's a HDR display which analyses the image being produced and then modulates the power of grid of many LEDs from behind to achieve incredible contrast ratios for an LCD screen by selectively turning off backlights in darker areas.



SCraig said:


> I decided to go with an NEC MultiSync P221W with their SpectraView color management system.



Nice. As a matter of interest how much did the SpectraView addition cost? Also does it still come with  this calibration puck or do you get something different now?

Also the display you chose is a wide gamut display. Welcome to colour management hell. Before you edit any images make sure you use your calibrator. Also make sure any program you use to edit images is aware of the colour profile of your display or you'll produce things that look like garbage and won't realise it.

Some programs like Lightroom and Photoshop read the settings straight out of windows. Others like ACDSee Pro, and irfanview need you to specify which colour profile to use. It's up to you now to check every program understands colour management.

For browsers this is easy, you have one choice, Firefox, and you set it up you can either install this addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/color-management/ or go to about:config and edit the variables gfx.color_management.display_profile = Yourdisplayprofile.icc , and set gfx.color_management.mode = 1


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 23, 2011)

Garbz said:


> >> What LED monitors are we talking about now? The giant 5m high displays, or LCDs with LED backlights? The latter's viewing angles have been discussed and is nothing to do with LEDs, and the former as far as I know hasn't been manufactured in a consumer display size. If anything LED monitors have massive pixel pitches.
> OLEDs on the other hand have a different display arrangement. They are usually a pentile display which is largely due to manufacturing constraints on the blue pixel. Expect this to change. CRTs only had the advantage here because their pixels were laid out in a triangular pattern, the phosphors definitely did not overlap each other and they were nearly always run below their maximum resolution (on account of their max res normally subjecting the viewer to horrendously low refresh rates). Run a CRT and an LCD at their highest res and the LCD looks much sharper and clearer.
> 
> >> I haven't seen a dead pixel since before the mythical y2k bug. Most if not all manufacturers have a dead-pixel free warranty policy.
> ...



>>>>If anything LED monitors have massive pixel pitches.
OLEDs on the other hand have a different display arrangement. They are  usually a pentile display which is largely due to manufacturing  constraints on the blue pixel. I should mention that I'm kind of biased towards new technologies. I've  done quite a bit of work including a thesis in opto-electronics, so I  kind of hold dear that OLEDs are going to rock our world

OLED has incredibly fine dot pitch and will likely be the winner as soon as technology progresses. If there is any flat display that will truly replace the tube, OLED may be the one, but not now as it has some aging problems. The blue fades a lot faster than green or red making the display cool and harsh when new but will fade to a warm yellow at its end of life. This aging is already manifesting itself in yearling phones. 


>>>I haven't seen a dead pixel since before the mythical y2k bug. Most if  not all manufacturers have a dead-pixel free warranty policy. 

Not according to others on the phone and laptop forums. Although some manufactures will replace a device ONCE, repeated replacements are not available during the warranty period. 


>>>CRTs only had the advantage here because their pixels were laid out in a  triangular pattern, the phosphors definitely did not overlap each other  and they were nearly always run below their maximum resolution (on  account of their max res normally subjecting the viewer to horrendously  low refresh rates).

I know the phosphors did not physically overlap, the color spectrum reproduced indeed does, making a more continuous viewable spectrum.


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 23, 2011)

rambler said:


> Simply put In LCD the light comes from directly behind the screen in the middle.  With LED the light comes in from the edges towards the center.




Not exactly....

LCDs are edge backlit by LED or fluro tubes. If you take one apart, you will find the light source on an edge of plastic with lots of layers of different plastic sheets sandwiched. This spreads the light making it appear that the light source is behind the display. Think before the days of computer video projectors. The overhead project used clear sheets and magic markers. Then came the early LCD units that replaced the plastic sheets. These were transparent displays using the light source in the projector to present the image.

LED displays generate their own light. There is no backlight.


----------



## matthewo (Dec 23, 2011)

Most lcds use ccfl bulbs with an inverter.  Think small scale floresent tube lights.

I once replaced an inverter for a custom project i was doing rebuilding an lcd display that stopped working

I agree a good lcd display will last a long time.  My 21" gateway lcd has been a champ for 5+ years.  But it wasnt a cheapo one. It was around $400


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

Cruzingoose said:


> rambler said:
> 
> 
> > Simply put In LCD the light comes from directly behind the screen in the middle.  With LED the light comes in from the edges towards the center.
> ...



Often manufacturers will call LED backlit displays simply LED Displays, prob to get some cross marketing from the true oLED display mystique.

I don't know how my LED backlit display arranges the backlighting, however I do know that my old iLamp had four CFL tubes running horizontally along the back of the monitor - i know this because I did take it apart. Not all monitors are constructed the same or have the same configurations in regard to backlighting.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Nice. As a matter of interest how much did the SpectraView addition cost? Also does it still come with  this calibration puck or do you get something different now?
> 
> Also the display you chose is a wide gamut display. Welcome to colour management hell. Before you edit any images make sure you use your calibrator. Also make sure any program you use to edit images is aware of the colour profile of your display or you'll produce things that look like garbage and won't realise it.
> 
> ...


I like it so far.  I've still only had it a few days but so far I think it will do a good job.

I don't know how much the SpectraView cost since it was bundled with the monitor.  B&H shows the Colorimeter and Software for $285.  I got a blank image when I looked at the JPEG of the colorimeter you showed, but the one in the B&H link above is the one I got.  I got the monitor, colorimeter, and software for $529 on sale at B&H.

I have been calibrating my Samsung monitor with a Spyder 3 so I'm aware of color management hell   The great thing about the SpectraView combination is that I do absolutely nothing except start the software, put the colorimeter on the screen, and take it off when it's done.  The software is capable of setting all of the monitor's values so it's completely automatic.  I don't have to adjust a single thing on the monitor itself, just tell the software what color temperature I want it calibrated for and then sit back and let it work.  It sure beats having to make tiny adjustments to RGB, contrast, brightness, etc. and then go back and do them again and again and again.

My only complaint with SpectraView, and it is slight, is that I can't control the name of the color profile.  I've kept 5800K and 6500K profiles for my Samsung and swap between them from time to time.  With SpectraView it decides what name to use, I think it's based on the embedded monitor serial number, and that's it.  The good side to that is that I don't have to change the name in any software since it's always the same.  The down side, which is minor, is that I can't have multiple color profiles for a monitor.

I use Nikon Capture NX2 and DxO Optics Pro 7 for editing.  Both are color-managed so no problems there.  I've got Windows 7 configured to use the proper color profile on both monitors so I have both NX2 and Optics Pro configured to use Windows color management which seems to work properly.  The two monitors are slightly different, the NEC is a bit cooler even though they are both calibrated for 6500K.

As to a browser, I agree that Firefox is the only real choice. I've been using that exact same plugin for the past year or so   I gave up on Internet Degrader years ago and wouldn't use it if Microsoft paid me.  Firefox is, to me, the only real browser available.

Thank you for taking the time to provide so much useful information.  It is much appreciated.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Often manufacturers will call LED backlit displays simply LED Displays, prob to get some cross marketing from the true oLED display mystique.
> 
> I don't know how my LED backlit display arranges the backlighting, however I do know that my old iLamp had four CFL tubes running horizontally along the back of the monitor - i know this because I did take it apart. Not all monitors are constructed the same or have the same configurations in regard to backlighting.


That was what caused my original confusion with the monitors.  I was under the impression that LED monitors provided the color illumination using LED's and it was only after I started this topic that I realized my mistake, thanks to those who pointed it out.  I do agree that the confusion is most likely intentional on the part of the manufacturers.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 23, 2011)

SCraig said:


> I got a blank image when I looked at the JPEG of the colorimeter you showed, but the one in the B&H link above is the one I got.  I got the monitor, colorimeter, and software for $529 on sale at B&H.



Interesting. Thanks for the info. I have the i1 Display 2 puck which is the same as the one provided by NEC, I was asking because the i1 Display 2 has been discontinued and I didn't know if NEC switched to something else.

There's various levels of colour-management and there's various degrees of problems they introduce. Just a word of caution to not take it for granted  If you came from a non-wide gamut monitor you may have always not loaded the colour profile in the applications you used and seen no real problem. Last time I used Capture NX2 it didn't read the monitor profile out of windows, but that was a long time ago so sounds like they fixed it  In any case if the exported JPEG from any application looks consistent when you open in Firefox then you're all set 

Also the reason that NEC doesn't provide you with different profiles is that it's not something that should be needed. Colour temperature should be set once to something consistent with the displays, the environment, and, if you're comparing to a print, the colour temperature of the lights illuminating the print. If you have a dark room (<70-90lx) and you don't compare to prints you should set the colour temperature as close as possible to native for your primary monitor. Your eyes will adjust to them. If you have overpowering lighting in the room set it to make the monitors look as close as white as possible (since your eyes will adjust to the room lighting rather than the monitor temperature). 

Unless you have some other crazy application that requires you to change colour temperature?



Cruzingoose said:


> I know the phosphors did not physically overlap, the color spectrum reproduced indeed does, making a more continuous viewable spectrum.



A more continuously viewable spectrum means poor colours. The key here is the colour gamut is defined by the relative amplitudes of the peaks of colour and how little overlap there is with adjacent peaks. Two screens which both conform to the sRGB gamut (which is 99.9% of all LCDs and CRTs on the market) have incredibly similar spectral output from each of the red green and blue filters. This is how they get their defined gamut. A wide gamut monitor on the other hand has less overlap, and an OLED screen has effectively zero. The ability to generate colours is made up of a triangle between the 3 primary points. The closer these points lie to the edge the more of the visible colour spectrum can be reproduced. With 3 points we can cover nearly all of the space between red green and blue, with an inability to produce only a pure cyan. 

The spectrum of CRTs and LCDs are essentially the same.
The spectrum of CRTs and sRGB LCDs are both piss poor in terms of ability to produce the visible spectrum. 
There are more, affordable, wide gamut LCDs, and LCDs can also be made as a wider gamut then CRTs, so I'm not sure why you think this is a good point for CRTs.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

^^ yep. don't forget that this is a composite system. if you maximized so-called overlap, you'd have a monochromatic, b/w monitor. More overlap means less reproducible color, not more.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Interesting. Thanks for the info. I have the i1 Display 2 puck which is the same as the one provided by NEC, I was asking because the i1 Display 2 has been discontinued and I didn't know if NEC switched to something else.
> 
> There's various levels of colour-management and there's various degrees of problems they introduce. Just a word of caution to not take it for granted  If you came from a non-wide gamut monitor you may have always not loaded the colour profile in the applications you used and seen no real problem. Last time I used Capture NX2 it didn't read the monitor profile out of windows, but that was a long time ago so sounds like they fixed it  In any case if the exported JPEG from any application looks consistent when you open in Firefox then you're all set
> 
> ...


Thanks for the information.  I really appreciate it.

I generally try to watch applications that are capable of color management to make sure they use the proper profile, but I probably miss from time to time.  As a matter of fact I just checked NX2 after reading your comment and it does NOT indicate that it will use the Windows profile as I thought.  I had it set to my Samsung monitor so I changed it.  DxO Optics Pro does have a "Use current profile for the display" checkbox so I guess that's the one I was thinking of.  Anyway they are both set up correctly now.

Both my Spyder that I use on my Samsung and the i1 for my NEC recommend 6500K so that's what I have both monitors calibrated to.  There is a slight difference between the two but not really as much as I expected.  I can split an image so that it shows on both monitors and the Samsung is just slightly cooler than the NEC.  Not enough difference that I'm going to worry about it.  I'm planning on using the new NEC for photo editing anyway so I just don't want to see a huge difference in color when I move a window from one monitor to the other.

I'll take your advice and just leave things set the way they are.  I don't have anything that requires changing color temperature so there's really no reason to change.

Again, thanks for the help.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 24, 2011)

Well there is still one reason to change. By forcing a colour temperature that is not native onto a monitor which doesn't have something fancy like an internal 12bit colour lookup table, you actually end up retarding the output of your video card slightly. The closer your screen is to native white balance the better it will perform.

- If you have a lot of natural light in the room stick with 6500k
- If you have a dark room I suggest that you try calibrating to 5500k, this will be closer to native for your LCDs and they may match each other better. Remember when you initially calibrate they will look a bit yellow but give it a minute or two for your eyes to adjust.

The 6500k recommendation is a throwback to the CRT days which had colour temperature naturally that high. Personally I calibrate my monitor by measuring the native white balance which will likely have a significant Delta E (green or purple cast) and calibrate back to whatever the default white balance was. It probably makes little difference, but I take the view of why not let your gear perform as best it can .


----------



## SCraig (Dec 24, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Well there is still one reason to change. By forcing a colour temperature that is not native onto a monitor which doesn't have something fancy like an internal 12bit colour lookup table, you actually end up retarding the output of your video card slightly. The closer your screen is to native white balance the better it will perform.
> 
> - If you have a lot of natural light in the room stick with 6500k
> - If you have a dark room I suggest that you try calibrating to 5500k, this will be closer to native for your LCDs and they may match each other better. Remember when you initially calibrate they will look a bit yellow but give it a minute or two for your eyes to adjust.
> ...


There is zero natural light in here.  The curtains and miniblinds are behind a bunch of stuff that makes them hard to get to and I'm lazy 

The Spyder I use with my Samsung states that the ambient light is low and recommends 5800K.  The colorimeter for my NEC states that the ambient light is high and recommends 6500.  If natural daylight is "Bright" then I would certainly classify this dungeon as "Dark".

I haven't tried 5800 on the NEC but I have on the Samsung and it looked really warm.  I've got them both at 6500 right now and they are really close to each other as far as just Windows dialogs look.  I'm doing all my editing on the NEC now and just want the Samsung to match closely enough that when I move a window from one monitor to the other I don't see a huge color shift.

I can set the i! colorimeter for the NEC to 5500 but I can't set the Spyder to 5500.  The only three choices on it are 6500, 5800, and Native.  I can't find the value for "Native" in the specs but I can get the Spyder software to tell me during the calibration.  I'll play around with it some on Monday.  If I don't like it I can get back to this pretty easily.


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 26, 2011)

Cruzingoose said:


> I know the phosphors did not physically overlap, the color spectrum reproduced indeed does, making a more continuous viewable spectrum.



A more continuously viewable spectrum means poor colours. The key here is the colour gamut is defined by the relative amplitudes of the peaks of colour and how little overlap there is with adjacent peaks. Two screens which both conform to the sRGB gamut (which is 99.9% of all LCDs and CRTs on the market) have incredibly similar spectral output from each of the red green and blue filters. This is how they get their defined gamut. A wide gamut monitor on the other hand has less overlap, and an OLED screen has effectively zero. The ability to generate colours is made up of a triangle between the 3 primary points. The closer these points lie to the edge the more of the visible colour spectrum can be reproduced. With 3 points we can cover nearly all of the space between red green and blue, with an inability to produce only a pure cyan. 

The spectrum of CRTs and LCDs are essentially the same.
The spectrum of CRTs and sRGB LCDs are both piss poor in terms of ability to produce the visible spectrum. 
There are more, affordable, wide gamut LCDs, and LCDs can also be made as a wider gamut then CRTs, so I'm not sure why you think this is a good point for CRTs.[/QUOTE]

>>>>This link will go into the details of CRT and LCD displays, good info. Digital Photography - Marcel Patek: LCD Displays - liquid crystals - gamut - phosphors - polarization 

>>>> So, to be the "perfect" display device, there should be NO overlap and wide separation of the primary colors? (AMOLED) I've believed that fluro tubes are awfull at reproducing color because the color and amplitude of the phosphors are unable to produce a continuous spectrum of light. White LEDS are not able to produce a pure spectrum of color either. I imagine the final say in the matter is the video card's ability to address and remap the display's weakness while still being able to reproduce the widest gamut of color.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 26, 2011)

The phosphor is only part of the equation. Given an unequal spectrum of light filters can be designed to compensate and correct for the peaks and dips in the light source. This is how wide gamut monitors achieve their wide gamuts despite still using CCFLs or LEDs as their backlight. Phosphors can also be mixed and matched to produce a variety of peaks and that can be seen in some of the horrendous light cheap fluros give off. The important part is that when a display shows white we are not actually seeing the light source, we're seeing the combination of the light source through a matched red, green and blue filter. 

The wide gamut is a function of how good these filters are. The video card, or rather the display driver since in reality you don't want the computer's video card to compensate anything at all, can really only make colour corrections between the gamut points defined by these filters, and not make the gamut any wider. It is very much an opto/electrical problem rather than one that can be fixed by software.


----------



## Z06Nut (Dec 26, 2011)

So now to simplify things.

With all that (above) being said:

What would you buy if money was no object?
What would you buy if you had a $1000 budget?
What would you buy if you had a $600 budget?
What would you buy if you had a $300 budget?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 26, 2011)

Hell. If money were no object I'd have a high resolution full color e-ink display built for me custom with a Wacom tablet integrated and an xRite spectrodensitometer. It might cost $2 million, but it would be AWESOME!


----------



## Cruzingoose (Dec 27, 2011)

Well, after all that education and $300 budget, I'll wait until my tube fails then start looking at 17-20" class AMOLED or OLED display.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 29, 2011)

Z06Nut said:


> So now to simplify things.
> 
> With all that (above) being said:
> 
> ...



1) Top of the line NEC or Eizo display with ultra wide colour gamut, IPS panel, 14bit lookup table.
2) The display I have now, a 26" NEC Spectraview, except the MkII model 
3) One of the cheaper NEC or Eizo displays with an emphasis on IPS technology, but no colour lookup table, wide gamut, or extreme size. 
4) Dell UltraSharp U2312HM



unpopular said:


> Hell. If money were no object I'd have a high resolution full color e-ink display built for me custom with a Wacom tablet integrated and an xRite spectrodensitometer. It might cost $2 million, but it would be AWESOME!


At risk of sounding perpetually disagreeable, e-ink can currently produce only 4096 colours. Combined with the horrendously slow update rate you may want to give this a pass for photography work 



Cruzingoose said:


> Well, after all that education and $300 budget, I'll wait until my tube fails then start looking at 17-20" class AMOLED or OLED display.


I hope your tube lasts a while. Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV is only 11" and costs $3k  I expect several years will still pass before OLED displays at TV sizes become economical.


----------



## Cruzingoose (Jan 1, 2012)

Cruzingoose said:


> Well, after all that education and $300 budget, I'll wait until my tube fails then start looking at 17-20" class AMOLED or OLED display.


I hope your tube lasts a while. Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV is only 11" and costs $3k  I expect several years will still pass before OLED displays at TV sizes become economical.[/QUOTE]

Being somewhat sour on flat screens, I've collected "for free" several 17-19 inch tubes to last a long time. In a few years, that Sony monitor will be $500 and the 20 inch version will be $2k. Then I'll buy the used Sony for $200.


----------

