Just set up my new Dell Ultrasharp U2515H Monitor

[Cage]

It arrived a couple of days ago but I've been busy cleaning up storm debris.

My first impression was 'WOW', this thing is as sharp as a tack. The monitor comes pre-calibrated and my only adjustment so far has been to back off the retina destroying factory brightness pre-set.

I've got it running side by side with my old Dell S2209W and I was very surprised at how close the colours were. As the new monitor has been pre-calibrated at the factory it was a pleasant surprise that I'd got the colour set-up of the old monitor so close.

There is really no comparison between the two monitors as the new one's IPS screen and 2560x1440 resolution v the 1920x1080 res of the old one gives a far superior viewing experience. The blacks are blacker and the whites are whiter and no amount of fiddling with the old monitor can get it anywhere near close, although to be fair, it's about five years old and probably a bit tired.

All in all, a big :th3: from me for the Dell U2515H.

[ameerat42]

I betcher just :D:Ding!

[Cage]

Yep, can't stop smiling.

I'm going to mount the old monitor on a swivel stand in portrait mode and use it for mainly text as I tend to use some tutorials to assist me with my PP in CS6 and it's a pain in the bum having to switch between windows all the time.

[arthurking83]

Some more info for 'ya(if you're interested).

I'm assuming that you don't yet have a calibration device, as you say you're using the factory calibration:

Have a read of this review (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2515h.htm)
Scroll half way down the page to the calibration report(only the central section of the web page scrolls!)
According to this review, while the colour balance is OK, the colours are still out by a fair amount with delta E values in the 2-6 range(4 average).

This is too much, and if you calibrate it with a spectrometer of some repute you will see a significant shift when using a more accurate calibration.
From my understanding of having read a bit about all this, and my experiences .. delta E values up to approximately 1 are fine. Even tho we all want perfection, the human eye can't distinguish that sort of accuracy.
You can(apparently) see some subtle differences with Delta E values approaching the 2 range and above.
With my calibration, if I set some weird values in my colours to get delta E values above 2 up to about 3, I can see the difference in colour between calibration points.
But between about 1-2 values, this diminishes. And for values at 1(or below) I've never seen any difference between calibration points.
* and FWIW, my colour recognition is apparently in the pretty good range, going by the online colour test .. that I've lost the link too *

More links for 'ya tho:

Here's a link (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc_profiles.htm) to the database of calibrated profiles you can use for the time being.
(again, scroll down the D section look for your Dell model and click the link to it. It opens a download link for you to save the .icc profile you may want to try)

Rather than reinvent the wheel, and describe the process of using the calibration file .. TFT Central have a very easy to follow instruction set on how to use the .icc file you may want to download.

FWIW: calibration isn't some uber scientific dark art. Basically, all it is, it's a process where a piece of hardware creates a file that instructs the your hardware on how to behave. In the end, the calibration device simply creates a similar .icc file that is loaded automagically into the necessary location, which just saves you the trouble of doing it manually.
There is more too it tho, as the calibration software also autmagically loads an appropriate brightness setting too .. but in terms of more accurate colours .. the .icc file in that database will be fine for 'ya if you have manually set the screens brightness yourself(which most folks do anyhow).

Just some points to know: this is a generic hardware calibration, and is probably more accurate than the default Dell calibration(look at TFT's calibrated report just below the default calibration report).
The problem is that your graphics card is almost certain to be different to the one they had at the time of their calibration.
As long as it's an nVidia graphics chip of some type, the probable difference will be small.

What' I've found tho is that there is a large difference if you have an AMD/Radeon graphics chip of some type. The calibration will be 'more out of whack' if you try it.

That is, if your graphics is AMD/Radeon based, and you try TFT's .icc file, it will almost certainly not be as accurate as TFT's calibrated report.

If you take the time to read TFT's caveat section they'll say similar stuff .. and note that all this is easily reversible.

But the inevitable end point of all this is that you will probably still want to acquire a calibration device of some type to do it for yourself catered to your hardware requirements :th3:

hope that helps.

[Cage]

Many thanks Arthur for your comprehensive post.

I picked up on your reference to TFT in my thread about which monitor to buy and had a good read on their site before making my decision.

You raise an interesting point with the graphics cards as I used to run Asus boards and they were not at all happy with the nVidia cards, almost impossible to get a driver that worked as it should, so I switched to Radeon cards and haven't had any problems since. With my last build I changed to a Gigabyte board and in hindsight it's something I probably should have done much earlier.

I'm currently using a Sapphire Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 PCIE and it's doing all that I need.

The Calibration Report that came with the monitor looks similar to the one in the TFT review except that some of the Greys are nudging 3 and the blues are between 3 and 4. Is 'Calibration Report' a misnomer and should instead be called a 'Performance Report' as I would assume that if somebody was calibrating something they would have been looking to adjust to the best possible parameters and the Blues seem way out of kilter with the rest of the colours.

OK, it looks like some calibration is in order so I'm glad I also acquired a ColorMunki Display doodad, and if my use of the term 'doodad' gives you some inkling that I know Sweet Fanny Adams about this stuff, you are spot on. :confused013 :scrtch:

I'll post when I have adjusted/stuffed my new monitor. :oops:

[arthurking83]

.....

I'm currently using a Sapphire Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 PCIE and it's doing all that I need.

....

OK, it looks like some calibration is in order so I'm glad I also acquired a ColorMunki Display doodad, and if my use of the term 'doodad' gives you some inkling that I know Sweet Fanny Adams about this stuff, you are spot on. :confused013 :scrtch:

.....

Aha!

Then the profile on TFT is useless to 'ya .. it'll almost certainly be an incorrect icc profile for your hardware.
(I dunno, because all hardware works differently .. unless it's the exact same spec I guess)

But FWIW: I went from a uber, U-bute, nvidia graphics card down to a anaemic on board AMD/Radeon graphics chip and didn't think that the calibration may have been out of whack.
(had to donate my graphics card to another computer as this other one had no onboard graphic, and it's card died. I'd always had a plan to replace my card with another at some point .. but now going on 4 years later .. I reckon there's no point .. so the onboard graphics chip is what I still use :p)

So, not only did it not cross my mind that it could be whack with the change of graphics hardware .. but when I did eventually notice it, I couldn't figure out why it'd do this. Still don't, and it still doesn't make sense(why) .. but it did go out of whack, so had to redo the calibration, etc, etc.
I dunno if it's the drivers, or the actual hardware or what.

Most calibration software have a way to view before/after comparisons once the calibration is completed .. you'll probably be shocked to see how different they can be.

I always recommend tho ... because the main point of calibration is so that your prints ideally represent what you see on the monitor... it's helpful to compare the calibrated screen to a good quality print as well.

So, if you have a decently large enough print to compare with your screen now, do so. If you don't, and you can quickly get a print done, do so.
Even if this print is a cheapie $5 harvey norman A4 print .. it's interesting to note what differences you get/see/have .. or not!
Then once you have the screen calibrated compare with that print again to see if it's better or worse .. or whatever.

Like I said before, if your delta E values are at about 1 or so .. you won't notice the differences.
My nvidia card seemed to calibrate a little bit better than my onboard Radeon chip does. Not sure if it's because it's Radeon/AMD hardware or because of the driver(always updated) .. or what.
But with the nvidia card, average Delta was well below 1 I remember .. maybe 0.5 or 0.7 or so.
But with the Radeon, I get one spike in one of the blues but they're all a bit higher in value(remember this means less accurate calibration) .. but I still can't see any difference between my screen and my comparison print.

[John Humpo]

Interesting reading, I also have the U2515H Dell Monitor and love it, but I have not done any colour calibration as yet, I must say my prints appear to be a very close match to what I see on the Monitor, still I would be very interested to see the results using a colour calibration device and knowing the colours im looking at are as accurate as possible.

[oddo]

Thanks for the review!! I'm planning to buy the same monitor and it was good reading!!