![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
My NEC LCD2690WUXi review
- Thread starter Sycraft
- Start date
This debate just keeps on giving...
(It's so subjective depending on what one is looking for.)
Agreed. I think part of the problem is that it is very difficult to convey the subtle differences between some of these monitors which can vary significantly in price. I know that when I was considering 24-26" monitors, I had a very hard time putting a price on the differences between say, the DoubleSight and the NEC, or the 2490 and 2690. Even after taking the time to truly understand the wide-gamut issue, nothing replaces a side-by-side comparison which in most cases is impossible.
I did end up purchasing the 2490 which shipped in one day (Provantage has a warehouse next door) and it works for me. It has one stuck subpixel, but it's really only visible on black or white backgrounds and from less than a couple of feet. I don't notice it at all during movies or browsing the web. The lag issue is nonexistent for me as I don't game. 1080p movies look breathtaking with no tearing or ghosting.
Hi!
Phew, the monitor is surely expensive in Czechia. However, it is not so expensive in nearby Germany
I'm starting to seriously think about getting one. It the seller can guarantee no-dead pixels, I'd hate to spend loads of money to get dead pixels :-/
Anyway, I'd like to ask some quiestions:
1) So how does the monitor fare in games compared to better *VA monitors? It seems OK judging by your posts.
2) Is the pannel matter? How much?
3) What about the size, isn't it overhelming? I fear even 24" is very large, however I often need to have open at least two documents at once. Pixels are larger, aren't they?
4) Is the monitor quiet? No sounds from the power source?
5) Can you compare the input lag with some more *VA monitors? Which are faster, which are slower?
6) One last question/request: Please post some screens!
Thanks
Phew, the monitor is surely expensive in Czechia. However, it is not so expensive in nearby Germany
I'm starting to seriously think about getting one. It the seller can guarantee no-dead pixels, I'd hate to spend loads of money to get dead pixels :-/Anyway, I'd like to ask some quiestions:
1) So how does the monitor fare in games compared to better *VA monitors? It seems OK judging by your posts.
2) Is the pannel matter? How much?
3) What about the size, isn't it overhelming? I fear even 24" is very large, however I often need to have open at least two documents at once. Pixels are larger, aren't they?
4) Is the monitor quiet? No sounds from the power source?
5) Can you compare the input lag with some more *VA monitors? Which are faster, which are slower?
6) One last question/request: Please post some screens!
Thanks
DremoraLord
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 70
Well, you quickly get used to the size being bigger, trust me. 24" seems small now compared to 30"
1) I'd say it does better in games due to it's faster dark-dark transitions. The VA panel I had had a bit of ghosting visible in dark games. Not a big deal, but it was noticeable. No problems on this monitor. Also, I feel that the wider gamut is good in games. Makes colours more rich and vibrant.
2) Not sure what you mean here.
3) That's part of the reason I got it. 24" was just a little too small, pixel wise, for my tastes. This seems about good. It is a little larger (it is actually 25.5") and from a normal viewing distance is nice. I don't see the pixel grid, but if I move in a little bit I do, and that's right where I like it. I want the pixels as big as possible before it actually start to look, well, pixelated. That was one reason I ruled out 30" monitors is that they actually have smaller pixels than 24". I like things big so it is easy on my eyes. Until apps get better at true resolution independence, I'll be sticking with larger pixels.
4) No sound that I can hear at my sitting position. It does, of course, emit some sound, all devices do, even my power amp (which is designed to be as silent as possible). However I sure can't hear it over my computer, and suspect I couldn't hear it even if the computer was off. I have to put my ear right next to the top to hear any noise.
5) Subjectively I can't compare the input lag because I don't notice any. Perhaps I simply am too slow, perhaps I'm used to it, perhaps lag isn't as big a deal as people say. Objectively it is around 33ms, or 2 frames. That's in the same ballpark as a number of popular VAs like the BenQ FP241W. Actually the BenQ is a little higher, but not so much that it'd matter.
6) I don't have a camera that is of sufficient quality to post worthwhile shots. Also, I'm not really sure how much that would reveal. For example you can't see the wide gamut, because if your monitor isn't wide gamut the colours will just be compressed down to the gamut your monitor can display. The only useful thing I could shoot I suppose is the backlight bleed, but again I'd need a real good camera since it is very faint, and only visible on a totally dark screen. Also the bleed that my particular monitor has is not representative of all the monitors. Another given panel could have more or less.
2) Not sure what you mean here.
3) That's part of the reason I got it. 24" was just a little too small, pixel wise, for my tastes. This seems about good. It is a little larger (it is actually 25.5") and from a normal viewing distance is nice. I don't see the pixel grid, but if I move in a little bit I do, and that's right where I like it. I want the pixels as big as possible before it actually start to look, well, pixelated. That was one reason I ruled out 30" monitors is that they actually have smaller pixels than 24". I like things big so it is easy on my eyes. Until apps get better at true resolution independence, I'll be sticking with larger pixels.
4) No sound that I can hear at my sitting position. It does, of course, emit some sound, all devices do, even my power amp (which is designed to be as silent as possible). However I sure can't hear it over my computer, and suspect I couldn't hear it even if the computer was off. I have to put my ear right next to the top to hear any noise.
5) Subjectively I can't compare the input lag because I don't notice any. Perhaps I simply am too slow, perhaps I'm used to it, perhaps lag isn't as big a deal as people say. Objectively it is around 33ms, or 2 frames. That's in the same ballpark as a number of popular VAs like the BenQ FP241W. Actually the BenQ is a little higher, but not so much that it'd matter.
6) I don't have a camera that is of sufficient quality to post worthwhile shots. Also, I'm not really sure how much that would reveal. For example you can't see the wide gamut, because if your monitor isn't wide gamut the colours will just be compressed down to the gamut your monitor can display. The only useful thing I could shoot I suppose is the backlight bleed, but again I'd need a real good camera since it is very faint, and only visible on a totally dark screen. Also the bleed that my particular monitor has is not representative of all the monitors. Another given panel could have more or less.
1) The monitor is good for games, at least as good as that BenQ FP241W you tried out, Biges. The nice part is that the overdrive can be turned on or off
2) Panel size is the same as any other 24", but with a very small bezel around the panel
3) Same as any other 24", but with a slightly wider, but stable stand.
4) Very few people have complained about humming or whining from the thread that I went through.
5) Input lag is same as the BenQ FP241W, but less than most VA monitors. Not quite as good as TN monitors. It's rated around 22 to 40 ms, with 40ms being fairly rare.
You can also read a review here:
http://xtknight.50webs.com/lcd26/
One thing you will see is that the anti-glare coating on this monitor is not all dirty, grainy or sparkly, as I remember that's why you bought the BenQ, due to lower anti-glare than average.
I'll post some photos when my unit comes in. I'm hoping TOMORROW.
Regards,
10e
2) Panel size is the same as any other 24", but with a very small bezel around the panel
3) Same as any other 24", but with a slightly wider, but stable stand.
4) Very few people have complained about humming or whining from the thread that I went through.
5) Input lag is same as the BenQ FP241W, but less than most VA monitors. Not quite as good as TN monitors. It's rated around 22 to 40 ms, with 40ms being fairly rare.
You can also read a review here:
http://xtknight.50webs.com/lcd26/
One thing you will see is that the anti-glare coating on this monitor is not all dirty, grainy or sparkly, as I remember that's why you bought the BenQ, due to lower anti-glare than average.
I'll post some photos when my unit comes in. I'm hoping TOMORROW.
Regards,
10e
Hi!
Phew, the monitor is surely expensive in Czechia. However, it is not so expensive in nearby Germany
Anyway, I'd like to ask some quiestions:
1) So how does the monitor fare in games compared to better *VA monitors? It seems OK judging by your posts.
2) Is the pannel matter? How much?
3) What about the size, isn't it overhelming? I fear even 24" is very large, however I often need to have open at least two documents at once. Pixels are larger, aren't they?
4) Is the monitor quiet? No sounds from the power source?
5) Can you compare the input lag with some more *VA monitors? Which are faster, which are slower?
6) One last question/request: Please post some screens!
Thanks
You are a real help for many people around, 10e, thanks!
Yeah, I complained about sparkly look. Maybe the coating itself is not to blame. The problem with *VA monitors is, that looking ffrom side pixels are more light, that adds to that nasty "holoefect".
As for comparison with TN panels... well, I actually never used one for gaming
And from that review, the one thing that would have me get the 2490 instead:
"Cons: Not the best option for sRGB users (colors oversaturated in general use)."
I really can't see the point of spending that much money for a super accurate, 12bit LUT internally calibrated monitor that will end up being inaccurate most of the time, because it will be running in the wrong gamut. Accurate in photoshop, Disney the rest of the time. PC color management is a mess.
OTOH, the 2490 is sRGB and once you internally calibrate it, it will work across all applications/games/movies etc, even Linux (I dual boot).
Depends on what you are after. If you are after accuracy in terms of viewing an image or video or whatnot then yes, an sRGB display is a better choice if your software isn't colour managed since that's what most people will have.
However if your concern is just having a display that looks good, and having colours be internally accurate (meaning greys are neutral and such) then the 2690 is a fine choice. As I said: It looks good in games. There really isn't a particular accuracy target for games, they vary in appearance on different cards, they usually have functions to adjust the gamma curve and so on. In my experience the extra gamut looks good.
The only place I'm seeing that it might be a problem is movies, since I don't know of any colour managed video players. The web will be a non-issue fairly soon as Firefox 3 supports colour management and it'll be release quality soon.
So I think the question is whether you want absolute accuracy to the sRGB standard, or the best looking colour. There's no one right answer for that, but the idea that the 2690 is bad because of a wider gamut is false.
However if your concern is just having a display that looks good, and having colours be internally accurate (meaning greys are neutral and such) then the 2690 is a fine choice. As I said: It looks good in games. There really isn't a particular accuracy target for games, they vary in appearance on different cards, they usually have functions to adjust the gamma curve and so on. In my experience the extra gamut looks good.
The only place I'm seeing that it might be a problem is movies, since I don't know of any colour managed video players. The web will be a non-issue fairly soon as Firefox 3 supports colour management and it'll be release quality soon.
So I think the question is whether you want absolute accuracy to the sRGB standard, or the best looking colour. There's no one right answer for that, but the idea that the 2690 is bad because of a wider gamut is false.
2690 is pretty much only H-IPS monitor around in the continental Europe. I'd prefer 2490, but it is not sold in the entire Europe. UK has its Hazro, but that's all.
I hope I'll have a chance to test 2690 before actually buying it
I think accurate color is the best looking color. I didn't say the monitor is "bad" because it is wider gamut, but I do think it is a disadvantage given the state of PC color management.
Even if you have color management on your web browser, that doesn't give you an advantage for having wide gamut panel. Since 99.9% of the web is sRGB, you just get back to the point of mitigating the disadvantage for web browsing.
There is only a tiny niche of usage where the wider gamut can present some small advantage and a wide one where it is a disadvantage. Where do you think wide gamut will present an advantage?
As I've said, I think it is an advantage in games because it looks better. That's the only standard I use for games. Games aren't designed to try and have some optimal look, they can't be due to the incredibly wide variety of graphics cards they are called to run on. So I'm not concerned with hitting a certain standard, just with looking good, and it does look good in games.
I'm also not sure your statement is an informed one. Have you actually done any tests? Have you actually compared an sRGB display to an aRGB display? If so, were the displays properly calibrated so that the colours were internally consistent?
See I have. I had a BenQ FP241W which is sRGB, and I had it calibrated with a Spyder 2. Now a have an NEC and it is calibrated with SpectraView. So I've had the benefit of seeing both displays show the same thing, and in a situation where the hardware backing it is the same, and both displays are internally consistent.
It seems to me your opinion is more based on a standard of artificial purity, that somehow achieving the most "correct" image by some artificial standard is the best. I encounter the same thing all the time with people and audio. They are so concerned with getting a bit-accurate playback of the original material. Ok, that's fine if you are mastering a recording, but if you are just listening, you should do whatever sounds good. If that means applying EQ, then do it. Who care about accuracy? If it sounds good, it is good.
Same deal for graphics. If you are producing something for distribution, ok then worry about accuracy. Of course in that case your software should probably be colour managed. However if you are just using it for you, then worry only about what looks the best.
As a side note, if you really want accuracy per sRGB, you are going to have to do more than just get an sRGB colourspace display. sRGB also specified the brightness of the white point (80nits, which is very, very dim), the shape of the gamma curve (linear near 0, 2.4 elsewhere), the room illumination and so on as all these things affect the final look. If you aren't willing to do all that, then perhaps your quest for perfect accuracy isn't as necessary as you think.
I'm also not sure your statement is an informed one. Have you actually done any tests? Have you actually compared an sRGB display to an aRGB display? If so, were the displays properly calibrated so that the colours were internally consistent?
See I have. I had a BenQ FP241W which is sRGB, and I had it calibrated with a Spyder 2. Now a have an NEC and it is calibrated with SpectraView. So I've had the benefit of seeing both displays show the same thing, and in a situation where the hardware backing it is the same, and both displays are internally consistent.
It seems to me your opinion is more based on a standard of artificial purity, that somehow achieving the most "correct" image by some artificial standard is the best. I encounter the same thing all the time with people and audio. They are so concerned with getting a bit-accurate playback of the original material. Ok, that's fine if you are mastering a recording, but if you are just listening, you should do whatever sounds good. If that means applying EQ, then do it. Who care about accuracy? If it sounds good, it is good.
Same deal for graphics. If you are producing something for distribution, ok then worry about accuracy. Of course in that case your software should probably be colour managed. However if you are just using it for you, then worry only about what looks the best.
As a side note, if you really want accuracy per sRGB, you are going to have to do more than just get an sRGB colourspace display. sRGB also specified the brightness of the white point (80nits, which is very, very dim), the shape of the gamma curve (linear near 0, 2.4 elsewhere), the room illumination and so on as all these things affect the final look. If you aren't willing to do all that, then perhaps your quest for perfect accuracy isn't as necessary as you think.
It sounds like you are definitely in the camp of buying a wide gamut panel because it will appear over saturated when displaying the incorrect gamut, and Disney up your colors.
There is nothing artificial about wanting a monitor to display standard colors. Calling standards artificial is kind of silly. Standards exist for a reason, and nothing would work without them. Standard sRGB color is what everything is currently produced for the PC is based on, including games. Now if someone wants more color saturation they can tweak their graphics card settings (saturation, digital vibrance), no need to saddle the rest of us with the wrong gamut to satisfy your Disney fetish.
Since I am making the same transition as Sycraft, I will post a comparison between the BenQ FP241VW and the NEC concerning colors, HD picture, etc....
I am still waiting for my calibration kit for the NEC, so initially I will try and calibrate it with my cheapo Spyder2Express.
I think this is a highly subjective area. Some people love the new HP W2408H because of the wide gamut panel, yet the colors from the factory are OK. But the nice part with the LCD2690 in comparison, is that I've heard few complaints concerning the sRGB preset, if any at all.
While I agree, that for the specific purpose of color purity it would be best for the monitor to stick to the sRGB standard, there is also the advantage of wide gamut for those that have wide gamut output devices, such as my Epson R1800 printer, which apparently is one of the highest gamut printers in the commercial market.
This was a factor in my decision to purchase the 2690 over the 2490. I do use Photoshop and I'm always interested in accurate colors (thus my enjoyment of the BenQ G2400W) regardless of the output device, but since I have a wide gamut printer, why not spend the extra cash to get a wide gamut monitor
I will try and compare the sRGB pre-set to my G2400W and Dell 2005FPW, which are both fairly well calibrated devices, and see what differences I find.
I do realize that without the SVII-KIT that I have on order, that the LCD2690 will possibly be a bit out of whack, but it's a chance I am willing to take.
Alternatively, I still consider both the 2490 and the 2690 to be both the creme-de-la-creme of consumer level monitors and of the whole NEC line (outside of medical displays).
So we will see if I prefer "Disney" or "super accurate". I plan to run the course with this monitor both with PC, PS3 over HDMI/DVI, and Xbox 360 over VGA and let you all know (as best as I can) how it all looks, and probably post some more photos.
All the best,
10e
I am still waiting for my calibration kit for the NEC, so initially I will try and calibrate it with my cheapo Spyder2Express.
I think this is a highly subjective area. Some people love the new HP W2408H because of the wide gamut panel, yet the colors from the factory are OK. But the nice part with the LCD2690 in comparison, is that I've heard few complaints concerning the sRGB preset, if any at all.
While I agree, that for the specific purpose of color purity it would be best for the monitor to stick to the sRGB standard, there is also the advantage of wide gamut for those that have wide gamut output devices, such as my Epson R1800 printer, which apparently is one of the highest gamut printers in the commercial market.
This was a factor in my decision to purchase the 2690 over the 2490. I do use Photoshop and I'm always interested in accurate colors (thus my enjoyment of the BenQ G2400W) regardless of the output device, but since I have a wide gamut printer, why not spend the extra cash to get a wide gamut monitor
I will try and compare the sRGB pre-set to my G2400W and Dell 2005FPW, which are both fairly well calibrated devices, and see what differences I find.
I do realize that without the SVII-KIT that I have on order, that the LCD2690 will possibly be a bit out of whack, but it's a chance I am willing to take.
Alternatively, I still consider both the 2490 and the 2690 to be both the creme-de-la-creme of consumer level monitors and of the whole NEC line (outside of medical displays).
So we will see if I prefer "Disney" or "super accurate". I plan to run the course with this monitor both with PC, PS3 over HDMI/DVI, and Xbox 360 over VGA and let you all know (as best as I can) how it all looks, and probably post some more photos.
All the best,
10e
Lots of people love, the wider gamut when displaying sRGB (incorrect and over-saturated) and they love glossy displays and they love TN panels.
So are we headed for Glossy TN, over saturated panels for everyone? I wonder what these folks will think when we get the color management working properly in windows (Windows 7?)?
I think they will be disappointed when their monitors stop displaying Disney and go back to reality.
I have definitely heard complaints about the sRGB preset. One is you can't internally calibrate it with SV which defeats the purpose of SpectraView in sRGB.
Yes if you are doing professional color pre-press work you can garner some small advantage, but it is a tiny one, once everything is back in the correct gamut it, unsurprisingly, tends to look the same.
Also what are you using for source material? If your source is sRGB converting to aRGB before printing is going to do squat. Even if you have the complete chain, you will have a hard time spotting a difference when all is said and done.
I am sure you will enjoy the monitor, it is an excellent piece of kit. I am just disappointed that most panels are going wide gamut, long before the rest of the system is in place (proper color managed OS, and deeper bit data connection to monitor). Especially the bigger 30" IPS panels I would like to own. You can't buy one in sRGB anymore.
So are we headed for Glossy TN, over saturated panels for everyone? I wonder what these folks will think when we get the color management working properly in windows (Windows 7?)?
I think they will be disappointed when their monitors stop displaying Disney and go back to reality.
I have definitely heard complaints about the sRGB preset. One is you can't internally calibrate it with SV which defeats the purpose of SpectraView in sRGB.
Yes if you are doing professional color pre-press work you can garner some small advantage, but it is a tiny one, once everything is back in the correct gamut it, unsurprisingly, tends to look the same.
Also what are you using for source material? If your source is sRGB converting to aRGB before printing is going to do squat. Even if you have the complete chain, you will have a hard time spotting a difference when all is said and done.
I am sure you will enjoy the monitor, it is an excellent piece of kit. I am just disappointed that most panels are going wide gamut, long before the rest of the system is in place (proper color managed OS, and deeper bit data connection to monitor). Especially the bigger 30" IPS panels I would like to own. You can't buy one in sRGB anymore.
I guess it depends,
For those whose cameras can create Adobe RGB images, I would think there is great importance in this.
I guess for sRGB preset, I'll have to calibrate it via the old method and see what I get.
I have just connected the display to my macbook via VGA and it looks very good. There is one dead green subpixel, and this is the first IPS display that I've ever gotten with any pixel flaws. I will go along and see how I feel about it in a week, or whether I will call NEC to have it replaced. The colors are quite strong though
I just received it at work, and am just sorta going through the menus, but since I am at work, it would be a good idea to do some work right now
The display seems to run cool, and makes no noise, so I'm happy about that.
Regards,
10e
For those whose cameras can create Adobe RGB images, I would think there is great importance in this.
I guess for sRGB preset, I'll have to calibrate it via the old method and see what I get.
I have just connected the display to my macbook via VGA and it looks very good. There is one dead green subpixel, and this is the first IPS display that I've ever gotten with any pixel flaws. I will go along and see how I feel about it in a week, or whether I will call NEC to have it replaced. The colors are quite strong though
I just received it at work, and am just sorta going through the menus, but since I am at work, it would be a good idea to do some work right now
The display seems to run cool, and makes no noise, so I'm happy about that.
Regards,
10e
From what people have tested have said, there is typically no discernible difference in the final print. It is not like every image goes to the extreme of visual gamut. sRGB does a decent job of covering real world images. But if you want to test this aspect, I would be interested in hearing the results if you have such a camera.
Gee, an insult as a response. How unsurprising. This isn't about "Disney" this is about human colour perception.
sRGB wasn't created because it is a good subset of human perception, it was created because that's all CRTs could do. If you look at the original NTSC spec, you find it is much wider than sRGB. However, it turned out to be more or less impossible to make displays that could meet it. So sRGB grew out of what CRTs could do.
However, if you compare sRGB to the space of viewable reflected colours (which encompasses most of what we see in nature) you find it rather lacking, especially in the green area. aRGB, which this monitor comes close to, does a much better job. It covers almost all of it and no surprise, the point was to cover the ISOCoated print space.
Thus with a wider gamut you are getting closer to the range of colours you are going to encounter in the real world.
You show a rather marked lack in knowledge with the statement that "if someone wants more color saturation they can tweak their graphics card settings." No, you can't. Software cannot cause the monitor to reproduce colours outside of the range of it's physical capabilities. You can adjust the curves, you can cause it to clip (which is what turning up most of those does) but you can't display a colour that isn't in the range of the monitor.
If this is an issue that is important to you, I suggest you learn a little more about how colour is perceived, and how monitors generate it, and thus how a gamut is derived.
Also calling a wider gamut "wrong" is extremely ignorant. sRGB is not the One True Colourspace(tm). There are lots out there, and indeed pros often work in a number of different ones. Different devices use different ones. The new digital theatres, for example, have a brand new gamut called Digital Cinema that is wider than sRGB, but in a different way than aRGB. DLP TVs, which are rather popular, again have a different gamut, and it can vary by model depending on the setup of their colour wheel (or if they instead use LEDs).
Finally, I'm not trying to "force" wide gamut monitors on anyone. You should get what makes you happy. What I am trying to do is fight against the purist BS that sRGB is the One True Way(tm) because it conforms to some artificial standard of purity. Well, if you aren't a designer, then it doesn't matter. What matters is what looks good to YOU. Whatever you feel looks the best, and best is totally subjective, is what you should have. You shouldn't worry if that isn't accurate because that doesn't matter.
It is the same deal with audio. It is stupid to insist that the only proper way to listen to a recording is with no EQ, in a dead room, with a perfectly linear system. There is no reason to conform to an artificial standard of purity. If you like more bass, turn that shit up. Doesn't matter if that's not what the CD intended, matters what you like. If you like surround sound, use an expander like Pro Logic or CMMS. Doesn't matter if the recording was designed for stereo playback, if you feel the surround expansion sounds better, that's what matters.
So I'm not trying to get you to buy a wide gamut display if you don't want one. What I am trying to do is get people to stop spreading misinformation regarding how things should be. Things should be whatever way makes the end user the happiest. That is all that matters. Whatever look, sound, feel, etc is the best for you, that's what to go for.
Personally, I feel that the wider gamut looks just great in games. Trees are a more natural shade of green, a red flag looks red rather than red-orange, etc. Maybe you look at it and say "Nope, I don't like that, I prefer less saturation." Wonderful, then get an sRGB monitor. However don't simply dismiss a new technology because it doesn't conform to your standard of purity.
sRGB wasn't created because it is a good subset of human perception, it was created because that's all CRTs could do. If you look at the original NTSC spec, you find it is much wider than sRGB. However, it turned out to be more or less impossible to make displays that could meet it. So sRGB grew out of what CRTs could do.
However, if you compare sRGB to the space of viewable reflected colours (which encompasses most of what we see in nature) you find it rather lacking, especially in the green area. aRGB, which this monitor comes close to, does a much better job. It covers almost all of it and no surprise, the point was to cover the ISOCoated print space.
Thus with a wider gamut you are getting closer to the range of colours you are going to encounter in the real world.
You show a rather marked lack in knowledge with the statement that "if someone wants more color saturation they can tweak their graphics card settings." No, you can't. Software cannot cause the monitor to reproduce colours outside of the range of it's physical capabilities. You can adjust the curves, you can cause it to clip (which is what turning up most of those does) but you can't display a colour that isn't in the range of the monitor.
If this is an issue that is important to you, I suggest you learn a little more about how colour is perceived, and how monitors generate it, and thus how a gamut is derived.
Also calling a wider gamut "wrong" is extremely ignorant. sRGB is not the One True Colourspace(tm). There are lots out there, and indeed pros often work in a number of different ones. Different devices use different ones. The new digital theatres, for example, have a brand new gamut called Digital Cinema that is wider than sRGB, but in a different way than aRGB. DLP TVs, which are rather popular, again have a different gamut, and it can vary by model depending on the setup of their colour wheel (or if they instead use LEDs).
Finally, I'm not trying to "force" wide gamut monitors on anyone. You should get what makes you happy. What I am trying to do is fight against the purist BS that sRGB is the One True Way(tm) because it conforms to some artificial standard of purity. Well, if you aren't a designer, then it doesn't matter. What matters is what looks good to YOU. Whatever you feel looks the best, and best is totally subjective, is what you should have. You shouldn't worry if that isn't accurate because that doesn't matter.
It is the same deal with audio. It is stupid to insist that the only proper way to listen to a recording is with no EQ, in a dead room, with a perfectly linear system. There is no reason to conform to an artificial standard of purity. If you like more bass, turn that shit up. Doesn't matter if that's not what the CD intended, matters what you like. If you like surround sound, use an expander like Pro Logic or CMMS. Doesn't matter if the recording was designed for stereo playback, if you feel the surround expansion sounds better, that's what matters.
So I'm not trying to get you to buy a wide gamut display if you don't want one. What I am trying to do is get people to stop spreading misinformation regarding how things should be. Things should be whatever way makes the end user the happiest. That is all that matters. Whatever look, sound, feel, etc is the best for you, that's what to go for.
Personally, I feel that the wider gamut looks just great in games. Trees are a more natural shade of green, a red flag looks red rather than red-orange, etc. Maybe you look at it and say "Nope, I don't like that, I prefer less saturation." Wonderful, then get an sRGB monitor. However don't simply dismiss a new technology because it doesn't conform to your standard of purity.
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
This review desperately needs more pictures of the LCD and less chatter .
.Displaying sRGB content in the sRGB color space is not some "artificial standard of purity". It is using the correct colorspace the content was designed for.
sRGB conent must either be displayed in sRGB or properly remapped or it is just plain wrong. You will get huge color mismatches everywhere.
When you feed sRGB without remapping you are getting a big mismatch between the intended and displayed color. Nothing in your long winded rant changes that. There was also nothing new in your rant. I am not arguing that sRGB would be the best color space for a display, just that is certainly is the best one for displaying content designed for the sRGB colorspace.
Yes there are many color spaces for many applications in use and this is all fine and dandy. But in none of those proper applications do you take content designed for a different colorspace and just pump in those values unaltered. This does not give you back color missing from the sRGB colorspace. Instead it mis-maps all colors, even those well under the sRGB limit to a much higher and artificial saturation value.
Your analogy is completely flawed. Amplifiers ship with as flat and accurate a frequency response as possible. You can then you EQ to alter to taste.
Wide Gamut panels handed sRGB signals display output colors from the wrong gamut and the mismatch cause all colors to be wrong and this is pretty much uncorrectable.
Color management on the PC is a mess and simply feeding one colorspace values into another with no proper mapping is not a benefit. It is a huge glaring drawback. Unless you happen to like oversaturated mis-mapped colors.
Sycraft
Snowdog
Well, I really "don't understand" what you guys are disputing.
You are actually looking at your monitors while talking about color gamut in general. So you are talking about images on your monitors.
IMO this dispute may have sense only on condition that you put 2490/2690 together. Otherwise you discuss nothing.
Seems to me I have to go back to my post.
Now please look at your review, Sycraft:
Exactly, absolutely - you are describing 2490.
Closer to reality than what? Aren't as washed out as on what?
On crappy *VA BenQ!
This is what seems to me here.
What else could you expect comparing one of the two best monitors in the market with outdated *VA!?
IMO talking abstract things about gamut comparison, you actually see(directly or imaginarily) best example of wider gamut next to less than satisfactory representative of "standard" gamut.
What you actually see is more NEC2690 than wide gamut. As I have said, REAL monitors has to be compared to tell the difference.
Believe me, I am not looking for discoveries in your nice overview of 2690 - the full list of 2490/2690 discoveries was completed last year.
There is nothing more to add now.
But sharing opinions is always welcome.
I would underline this point from your post to conclude the conversation:
I do not have colors on my 2490 better or worse than on 2690.
When I take photos of faces I love and see them on 2490 - I see exactly the same live faces. This is what I like this monitor for.
Thus 2490 does not give me wider or not wider gamut - it gives me 100% "gamut".
Once again, there is noting to talk about gamuts unless you see 2490 next to 2690. Even after, until "wide gamut" becomes standart for everyday environement and unless your choice is dictated by professional requirements - it's purely matter of taste which of them to prefer. They are both Real monitors. You are breaking in the open door.
Just don't mess them up with SamsoDelloBenQs.
This review desperately needs more pictures of the LCD and less chatter
Sorry, all the plain pictures are helpless next to real 2490/2690 screen.
What are you going to get from those pictures?
Check aspect ratio and backlight uniformity of a particular unit?
Yes, the unique scaling ability of these monitors can be illustrated by photo and video.
What else?
Having "more game" from the screen.
Viewing angles vs CRT.
Viewing angles vs *VA.
Color tint of black improved over *VA and older IPS.
What else?
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
I just like seeing a few nice high resolution photos taken of a product in a real life surrounding such as the persons desk when I look at a review so that I can get more of a feel of the product. I hate a lot of the photos used in the more "professional" reviews due to the fact their pics are usually either rather small or they've taken a picture of the monitor and then cut it out in photoshop to slap it on a white or other unrealistic background. With as long of review as the OP posted in his first post it just would of been nice to have a handful of pics thrown in to space things out. All work and no play makes jack a dull reviewer.
Sorry I'm playing Crysis all the way through again, and watching every colorful movie I have on BluRay right now.
Yes, the colors are THAT strong, but like I said, I love color. Unfortunately, waiting for my SVII-KIT will be difficult, but I'll try and make it through.
I might take some photos, but they won't be up for a week, or two, or more, but with the better camera.
I have at least two of most things important to me. Unfortunate A.D.D. side effect
And Albovin, please don't bold my name, you make me look fat
Enjoy, because I am.
10e
Yes, the colors are THAT strong, but like I said, I love color. Unfortunately, waiting for my SVII-KIT will be difficult, but I'll try and make it through.
I might take some photos, but they won't be up for a week, or two, or more, but with the better camera.
I have at least two of most things important to me. Unfortunate A.D.D. side effect
And Albovin, please don't bold my name, you make me look fat
Enjoy, because I am.
10e
Got my SVII-KIT calibration software/hardware combo today!
I will post my thoughts tonight or tomorrow. I am really enjoying the monitor even though it has one dead green subpixel and another half dead one. Never seen a half dead green pixel before.
So far I'm fine with it because I have a panel that has zero backlight bleed, no noises (buzzing etc...) and very uniform backlighting. This truly is a nice, high quality product.
Weirdly enough, I'm also utilizing it alot as a PS3 monitor over DVI. It is phenomenal. The colors off movies JUMP out at you, and the saturation ability is over-the-top.
My only "half complaint" is that the input lag is more visible than my FP241VW which is an MVA panel reputed to have the same or more, but I've measured the NEC vs my G2400W and it is pretty much two frames behind 95% of the time, and three every 15th or 16th frame.
But that's what the G2400W is for: hardcore gaming. I haven't been using it as much since the LCD2690 arrived though.
Regards,
10e
I will post my thoughts tonight or tomorrow. I am really enjoying the monitor even though it has one dead green subpixel and another half dead one. Never seen a half dead green pixel before.
So far I'm fine with it because I have a panel that has zero backlight bleed, no noises (buzzing etc...) and very uniform backlighting. This truly is a nice, high quality product.
Weirdly enough, I'm also utilizing it alot as a PS3 monitor over DVI. It is phenomenal. The colors off movies JUMP out at you, and the saturation ability is over-the-top.
My only "half complaint" is that the input lag is more visible than my FP241VW which is an MVA panel reputed to have the same or more, but I've measured the NEC vs my G2400W and it is pretty much two frames behind 95% of the time, and three every 15th or 16th frame.
But that's what the G2400W is for: hardcore gaming. I haven't been using it as much since the LCD2690 arrived though.
Regards,
10e
Update,
I have initiated a warranty request/RMA with NEC displays.
My monitor has a build quality issue: Panel is mounted loosely in the top. If I clean it, the panel creaks and moves in the bezel.
Additionally I have a number of stuck green and red subpixels at the top that seem to be in the loosely mounted area. I noticed this last night when I was calibrating with the black screen surrounding the calibration point on the display.
I hope I can get this expedited as I have a vacation starting on the 9th and I'll be out of the continent. I am really loving this monitor. It is the best display I've ever used BAR NONE, and I just want one that is nearly perfect.
Regards,
10e
I have initiated a warranty request/RMA with NEC displays.
My monitor has a build quality issue: Panel is mounted loosely in the top. If I clean it, the panel creaks and moves in the bezel.
Additionally I have a number of stuck green and red subpixels at the top that seem to be in the loosely mounted area. I noticed this last night when I was calibrating with the black screen surrounding the calibration point on the display.
I hope I can get this expedited as I have a vacation starting on the 9th and I'll be out of the continent. I am really loving this monitor. It is the best display I've ever used BAR NONE, and I just want one that is nearly perfect.
Regards,
10e
Sorry to hear, 10e
I just bought mine last night with next day shipping. Hopefully I'll get a good one and will enjoy using it all this weekend. (bought it from Amazon.com)
I'll make sure to come back with my own experience.
(god I hope it comes in before the weekend. What good is a shiny new toy on a Monday night?)
I just bought mine last night with next day shipping. Hopefully I'll get a good one and will enjoy using it all this weekend. (bought it from Amazon.com)
I'll make sure to come back with my own experience.
(god I hope it comes in before the weekend. What good is a shiny new toy on a Monday night?
)Congrats,
It's an incredible monitor in my mind, probably the best consumer level screen that I've ever seen. Here's what you can expect:
1) Sharp text
2) Strong, accurate colors (made even better if you can get the SpectraView II calibration software/hardware combo)
3) Good response time with a toggle for overdrive and fairly low input lag
4) Various color modes such as Programmable, Native, and sRGB
5) Incredible scaling options that can be programmed PER resolution, and a high quality scaling chip for lower resolutions that smooths them out nicely.
It's an awesome monitor, just mine had a bit of bad luck with the slightly loose panel (that I'm convinced led to the other problems).
This is pretty much as close as a reasonably priced monitor can get to "perfect".
I've used it with PS3, Xbox 360, PC with zero issues. Once I get my new one I will report.
Regards,
10e
It's an incredible monitor in my mind, probably the best consumer level screen that I've ever seen. Here's what you can expect:
1) Sharp text
2) Strong, accurate colors (made even better if you can get the SpectraView II calibration software/hardware combo)
3) Good response time with a toggle for overdrive and fairly low input lag
4) Various color modes such as Programmable, Native, and sRGB
5) Incredible scaling options that can be programmed PER resolution, and a high quality scaling chip for lower resolutions that smooths them out nicely.
It's an awesome monitor, just mine had a bit of bad luck with the slightly loose panel (that I'm convinced led to the other problems).
This is pretty much as close as a reasonably priced monitor can get to "perfect".
I've used it with PS3, Xbox 360, PC with zero issues. Once I get my new one I will report.
Regards,
10e
Sorry to hear, 10e
I just bought mine last night with next day shipping. Hopefully I'll get a good one and will enjoy using it all this weekend. (bought it from Amazon.com)
I'll make sure to come back with my own experience.
(god I hope it comes in before the weekend. What good is a shiny new toy on a Monday night?
SupraSaiyan
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 59
Am I able to use the SpectraView calibration software/hardware on my plasma tv?
Hi! So I was finally able to borrow this monitor.
I see the color saturation is dicussed a lot here, so I'd like to ask, if there is a way how to *reduce* it (it is no problem to increase it :-/ ). So far is seems it is not possible I'm no artist or so, but these color are relly over-saturated even for general use.
Secondly, it is normal, that the power source produces slight "hum". It is the same sound as woth a faulty light tube
Thanks
I see the color saturation is dicussed a lot here, so I'd like to ask, if there is a way how to *reduce* it (it is no problem to increase it :-/ ). So far is seems it is not possible
I'm no artist or so, but these color are relly over-saturated even for general use.Secondly, it is normal, that the power source produces slight "hum". It is the same sound as woth a faulty light tube
Thanks
There are different color modes that you can try.
There is an sRGB color mode in the same menu as "Programmable", "Native", etc...
It does dial down the saturation and gives fairly good color quality, equivalent or better to most monitors' preset sRGB modes. The only issue with this mode is that it is not a mode that you can calibrate with SpectraView II software.
I don't get any noise on my monitor whatsoever. I would think that it might be defective.
The one I currently have is revision 4F and build date of February 2008.
Regards,
10e
There is an sRGB color mode in the same menu as "Programmable", "Native", etc...
It does dial down the saturation and gives fairly good color quality, equivalent or better to most monitors' preset sRGB modes. The only issue with this mode is that it is not a mode that you can calibrate with SpectraView II software.
I don't get any noise on my monitor whatsoever. I would think that it might be defective.
The one I currently have is revision 4F and build date of February 2008.
Regards,
10e
Hi! So I was finally able to borrow this monitor.
I see the color saturation is dicussed a lot here, so I'd like to ask, if there is a way how to *reduce* it (it is no problem to increase it :-/ ). So far is seems it is not possible
Secondly, it is normal, that the power source produces slight "hum". It is the same sound as woth a faulty light tube
Thanks
Thanks for the quick answer. I don't know which version do I have, but it is strange of NEC PR to use defective monitors (it is rev 2E or something)
Anyway, I heard pretty bad things about NEC QC and I'm not willing to go through the hell of swithiching monitors one for another :-/
I tried sRGB. Yes, it was better, but not enough.
Would hardware calibrator solve the issue?
(it is rev 2E or something)Anyway, I heard pretty bad things about NEC QC and I'm not willing to go through the hell of swithiching monitors one for another :-/
I tried sRGB. Yes, it was better, but not enough.
Would hardware calibrator solve the issue?
SupraSaiyan
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 59
any idea?
I don't think so,
You would need different software to work with the hardware calibrator (X-rite Eye One Display 2).
When I connected my Dell to my PC that had the NEC on it with SVII, it would not recognize the Dell or perform any calibration functions whatsoever.
Other calibration software (Spyder2/3, etc...) updates your computer by creating an ICM profile, so it would only work with your plasma if you hooked up a TV to it.
The best way to calibrate your plasma would be using a DVE (digital video essentials) or Avia / Avia II DVD.
Regards,
10e
You would need different software to work with the hardware calibrator (X-rite Eye One Display 2).
When I connected my Dell to my PC that had the NEC on it with SVII, it would not recognize the Dell or perform any calibration functions whatsoever.
Other calibration software (Spyder2/3, etc...) updates your computer by creating an ICM profile, so it would only work with your plasma if you hooked up a TV to it.
The best way to calibrate your plasma would be using a DVE (digital video essentials) or Avia / Avia II DVD.
Regards,
10e
Hi everyone-
I have been reading the NEC posts with great interest over the last year or so. I have finally taken the plunge. I bought a 2490 w/SpectraView II last month and it is a very good monitor. The viewing angle is MUCH better than a typical 22" TN panel, but surprisingly not as good as the 5-year-old 18" VA panels (Dell Ultrasharp 1800FP) I have. The advantage of the NEC seems to be that you don't get that white glow off-angle, and red doesn't shift to green off angle, so colors stay true. What does happen off-angle is that brightness diminishes. Also, the very edges of the screen near the bezel are just a little darker than the rest- maybe a few pixels all the way around. Not really a big deal. No dead pixels that I can see, no noise, no backlight issues. All in all a very good display, but I do wish the brightness didn't drop off off-angle. Maybe that has something to do with the polarizing filter if it has one- or does only the LCD2690 have a polarizer?
I actually bought the 2490 for my wife to use, but she complained that the text was too small. After thinking really hard about the implications of a wide gamut monitor, I decided to get a 2690 from CDW and try it out. The 2690 arrived last night. It is a Feb '08 Rev 4F, so it is new. A few things stand out versus the 2490:
1. Backlight uniformity is not good. The upper right 1/4 of the screen is much brighter than the rest, with some "splotches" elsewhere. The upper right portion is easily visible in daylight while the rest is only a problem with a black screen. However, given how great the 2490 is, I know what NEC can do with backlighting. For this reason I am exchanging this unit for another- no hassle from CDW at all on this.
2. No power supply noise issues that others have reported.
3. No hot pixels.
4. Same off-angle viewing issues as the 2490- much better than TN, but not nearly as good as, say, my 37" Sharp LCD TV set (LC-37D90U).
The 2690 powers up in wide-gamut mode from the factory, and it was immediately obvious it was in wide-gamut mode since I don't use too many color-managed applications. Everything was highly saturated. That can be fun, and it would probably be great for gaming (TF2 would look fantastic I bet), but definitely NOT useful when trying to match the display to the printer for photography work, which is the point of this monitor for my wife's use. I am figuring that sRGB mode plus calibration using the graphics card LUT will be sufficient for now; the Radeon has a 10-bit LUT for calibration, and I can probably live with that. Once more color-aware apps come out, or my wife starts using Photoshop, this monitor will really come into its own. It is intended to be a long-term purchase.
The upside of this is that I get to use the LCD2490 for myself. The text is a little small, but that's not a show-stopper, and I like the sRGB mode fine given that we have the 2690 if I need to do wide-gamut work.
--RX8
I have been reading the NEC posts with great interest over the last year or so. I have finally taken the plunge. I bought a 2490 w/SpectraView II last month and it is a very good monitor. The viewing angle is MUCH better than a typical 22" TN panel, but surprisingly not as good as the 5-year-old 18" VA panels (Dell Ultrasharp 1800FP) I have. The advantage of the NEC seems to be that you don't get that white glow off-angle, and red doesn't shift to green off angle, so colors stay true. What does happen off-angle is that brightness diminishes. Also, the very edges of the screen near the bezel are just a little darker than the rest- maybe a few pixels all the way around. Not really a big deal. No dead pixels that I can see, no noise, no backlight issues. All in all a very good display, but I do wish the brightness didn't drop off off-angle. Maybe that has something to do with the polarizing filter if it has one- or does only the LCD2690 have a polarizer?
I actually bought the 2490 for my wife to use, but she complained that the text was too small. After thinking really hard about the implications of a wide gamut monitor, I decided to get a 2690 from CDW and try it out. The 2690 arrived last night. It is a Feb '08 Rev 4F, so it is new. A few things stand out versus the 2490:
1. Backlight uniformity is not good. The upper right 1/4 of the screen is much brighter than the rest, with some "splotches" elsewhere. The upper right portion is easily visible in daylight while the rest is only a problem with a black screen. However, given how great the 2490 is, I know what NEC can do with backlighting. For this reason I am exchanging this unit for another- no hassle from CDW at all on this.
2. No power supply noise issues that others have reported.
3. No hot pixels.
4. Same off-angle viewing issues as the 2490- much better than TN, but not nearly as good as, say, my 37" Sharp LCD TV set (LC-37D90U).
The 2690 powers up in wide-gamut mode from the factory, and it was immediately obvious it was in wide-gamut mode since I don't use too many color-managed applications. Everything was highly saturated. That can be fun, and it would probably be great for gaming (TF2 would look fantastic I bet), but definitely NOT useful when trying to match the display to the printer for photography work, which is the point of this monitor for my wife's use. I am figuring that sRGB mode plus calibration using the graphics card LUT will be sufficient for now; the Radeon has a 10-bit LUT for calibration, and I can probably live with that. Once more color-aware apps come out, or my wife starts using Photoshop, this monitor will really come into its own. It is intended to be a long-term purchase.
The upside of this is that I get to use the LCD2490 for myself. The text is a little small, but that's not a show-stopper, and I like the sRGB mode fine given that we have the 2690 if I need to do wide-gamut work.
--RX8
I think 2490 and 2690 have both the same polarizer filter, but I'm net entirely sure.
Backlight uniformity can be enhanced by activating ColorComp and in advanced menu you can set the level of ColorComp, I ended with maximum level 5, which also slightly reduces the darker pixels on the edges.
As for the fotn size, just set it larger, I use 125% of normal size in Windows.
Personally I also think that the viewing angles are not the best, especially when dark becomes violet (looking from right to left, the problem is non-present when looking from left to right) and black is not as good as with *VA monitors. But no gamma shift, holographics effects, black crush in the center of the screen etc.
Backlight uniformity can be enhanced by activating ColorComp and in advanced menu you can set the level of ColorComp, I ended with maximum level 5, which also slightly reduces the darker pixels on the edges.
As for the fotn size, just set it larger, I use 125% of normal size in Windows.
Personally I also think that the viewing angles are not the best, especially when dark becomes violet (looking from right to left, the problem is non-present when looking from left to right) and black is not as good as with *VA monitors. But no gamma shift, holographics effects, black crush in the center of the screen etc.
Hi Biges-
Thanks. I had turned on ColorComp to the default level of 3. I will try turning it up to 5 to see if it makes a big difference. My feeling is that since the uniformity is bad enough that I can see it in daylight, I don't want to keep the panel. I'd rather start with something pretty good and 'tune' it to make it perfect rather than tuning a dud to make it just acceptable.
On the 2490, for example, I think there was a little uniformity issue in a dark room, and ColorComp level 3 totally cleared it up. I will try turning it up to 5 to see what it does to the edges on that panel. Presumably it addresses that by making the rest of the panel darker, rather than the edges lighter?
And yes I do use larger fonts, but they don't carry through everything in Windows XP.
I thought I got the violet shift on black backgrounds from both directions, but maybe not. I'll have to look at that again this weekend.
I guess XP is sort of a blessing- if we had true resolution independence, I'd be spending too much $$ on a 30" display. I will have to boot my Vista drive one of these days just to see how Vista handles text. I've heard it's a little better than XP but still not truly resolution independent.
The other good news is that input lag doesn't seem to bother me in the least.
-RX8
Thanks. I had turned on ColorComp to the default level of 3. I will try turning it up to 5 to see if it makes a big difference. My feeling is that since the uniformity is bad enough that I can see it in daylight, I don't want to keep the panel. I'd rather start with something pretty good and 'tune' it to make it perfect rather than tuning a dud to make it just acceptable.
On the 2490, for example, I think there was a little uniformity issue in a dark room, and ColorComp level 3 totally cleared it up. I will try turning it up to 5 to see what it does to the edges on that panel. Presumably it addresses that by making the rest of the panel darker, rather than the edges lighter?
And yes I do use larger fonts, but they don't carry through everything in Windows XP.
I thought I got the violet shift on black backgrounds from both directions, but maybe not. I'll have to look at that again this weekend.
I guess XP is sort of a blessing- if we had true resolution independence, I'd be spending too much $$ on a 30" display. I will have to boot my Vista drive one of these days just to see how Vista handles text. I've heard it's a little better than XP but still not truly resolution independent.
The other good news is that input lag doesn't seem to bother me in the least.
-RX8
Well, I think many monitors can have a problem with backlight uniformity, the larger, the more. Try NEC support, what will they say. I'm not sure you can get much better monitor, altou in the USA the choice is better, on the other side, it is expensive, so don't stay with something you don't like.
What other choices do you have?
What other choices do you have?