New 28(ish) inch screen

[Tannin]

One of my much-loved Samsung 21 inch screens is dying. Now you might think that 21 inches isn't very special, but these are real 21 inch screens - 4:3 aspect ratio, 1200 pixels high: better resolution than any Full HD / 1080p monitor ever made (1200px makes a significantly more detailed picture than 1080). And they are big: don't be misled by the 21 inch diagonal; because of the 4:3 aspect ratio the picture is 330 mm high. For comparison, the 25 inch "wide screen" monitor on my seldom-used spare computer is 300mm high.

Trouble is, no-one makes big 4:3 screens anymore. All iPads have 4:3 screens, there is a growing trend for better-quality Android tablets to have them too, and you can readily buy 4:3 screens in smaller sizes for business and point of sale tasks, but no bigger than 19 inches. I have no doubt that you will be able to get 4:3 photographic size screens as big as my wonderful old Samsungs or bigger sometime in the next few years - the trend has started - but you can't buy them today.

Now I'll see about getting the Samsung repaired, of course. It will be the power supply again. I've had both of them repaired before: the power supplies seem to fail every five years or so, and always at the start of winter when the room temperature drops below 10 degrees. It will cost maybe $300 to fix, which is well worth it. (New, these screens were $1400 or so, which was real money in those days.)

Nevertheless, I am going to buy a new screen in the next couple of days, and when the Samsung comes back it can either be a second screen on this system or replace one of the cheap, generic screens on the spare system.

I'm thinking 27 to 30 inches, maybe more, certainly not less, and vertical resolution must be better than the 1200 I have now - i.e., 1440 or higher: I'm not sure how practical the really high resolutions are, never tried one. In any case, I might run into problems with display drivers for them - I'm running these off a laptop with docking station and I am certainly not going to blow two or three grand on a new Thinkpad when this T530 is running so beautifully and has years of useful life left in it. (Horizontal resolution doesn't matter within reason, it's the vertical that usually restricts you.)

This Dell looks like the sort of thing I'd like- http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=au&cs=aubsd1&l=en&sku=210-41434 - but at $2050 it's hellishly expensive. It has a 16:10 ratio (not 4:3 but noticeably better than the common 16:9), IPS (of course), has both Display Port and DVI inputs (DVI is the most convenient, but has max resolution limitations which might trip me up; if so, the Thinkpad has built-in Display Port which would be OK too - yes, you can get converter cables and so on, but I never really trust them, seen too many problems before.) It is reasonably energy efficient (not great but not bad) and of course it has good colour balance ex-factory. (I have a Spyder, but the better a screen's colour is in the first place, the easier life is.)

This 32 inch Samsung looks nice at around $1900 http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/monitor-printer/monitor/uhd-monitor/LU32D97KQSN/XY# but it's a lot of money.

At about $1000 there is this Viewsonic: http://www.viewsonic.com.au/products/lcd/VP2770-LED.php#pSpecs

HP have this one at around $800 http://h20386.www2.hp.com/AustraliaStore/Merch/Product.aspx?id=M1P04AA&opt=&sel=MTO and about six different high-spec models in the $2000 to $3000 range.

Of them all, I think I like the Dell best at this stage, but surely I can spend a good bit less than that and get something pretty decent. Ideas and experiences please good AP members?

[JJM]

BenQ have a couple that may interest you, we have a number of lower end models where I work and they seem to be reliable.

http://www.benq.com.au/product/monitor/bl3201pt
http://www.benq.com.au/product/monitor/sw2700pt

Phillips also have the newly released BDM4350UC which may interest you..... the 40" version rated well and the new version
is now an IPS panel and early reports suggest its pretty good.

[arthurking83]

Ah! good timing :D

I'm literally about to plunge into a new screen myself too .. been saying this for a coupl'a years now but I forget too when I have the money(too much work) or when I have the time(ie. no work) I can't afford it.

Anyhow .. nuff of that but I've ummed and ahhed for a couple of weeks and if you can justify the Samsung 97Q(name too long to fully post) .. I'd go with that one.
Probably a better overall long term prospect.

FWIW: I really tried hard to want the Dell 2715K which is 5K3K(ie. a bit more resolution), but the problem is finding a reasonably priced graphics card that can drive it.

I have to get a new graphics card anyhow, and my budget is ~$300 for that as my current onboard chip can't do 4K .. but as I'm seeing it for 5K I need at least 600-700 for a new card.

I read just about all the info I could on both the Samsung and the 2715K Dell and while the extra resolution of the Dell would be an advantage, the one feature I really liked about the Samsung is the ability to split screen aRGB and sRGB halves for the purpose of assessing differences between the two colourspaces.
That is, on any image on screen, it can be set to display half(vertically) the image in aRGB and the other half in sRGB.

For a professional needing to assess colour accuracy for potential customers that don't have aRGB capable screens this could be important.
For me, it's just handy to have the ability next time someone raises the issue here about colour spaces .. and I'm just a curious mad scientist ... bugga!

ps. for $2099 at a real shop here in Melbourne, you can get the Dell 3216(32") 4K screen .. so $2050 for the 30" 3014 is (as you say) hellishly expensive(by way of comparison).
pps. I have the thing for walking into a store and walking out with goods .. :confused013

Good screens tho(Dells) and from memory they have internal lookup tables for calibration purposes.
Can be handy for some folks so that you don't need to waste PC resources at bootup waiting for the calibration profile to load up.

That would have been a feature I'd like to have seen in the 97Q Samsung too, but from my research it doesn't do so.

Oh, and what actually swayed me to go for the Samsung(eventually) is that on at least one review they claimed it was the most colour accurate screen they've tested both out of the box and after a calibration.

Now, I actually need to order the damned thing!

I'll get back to you later ....

[Hamster]

This one arthurking83?

http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/monitor-printer/monitor/uhd-monitor/LU32D97KQSN/XY

[Hamster]

(Never mind)

[arthurking83]

Yeah, that's the one Hamster.
Just after my reply, I actually 'remembered' to order the damn thing.
Hopefully get it in a couple of days.
If you scroll down that page you linked too, it shows you the feature where it splits the screen with dual colour space displays.

I'm also going to keep my current cheapie TN .. barely sRGB capable screen as well as a peripheral screen so it'll give me a reference point when viewing/editing images.

And for Tony:
I wouldn't so much worry about the aspect ratio .. it's simply a figure, but it's done for a reason.
That is, a very common format is 1920x1080 .. the standard HD format.
That 16:9 ratio is exactly that HD format.

The way I see it is that with the 16:9 format, it allows you to view the full 4:3, or 6:4 or whatever format image your camera takes, but has that peripheral as extra space(eg. for tool bars and so on.

I used to have a 4:3 ratio screen which fit the image from the camera perfectly .. but then no room on the sides for editing palettes and other easily accessed tools, without reducing the size of the image itself .. which then wastes available space either top or bottom of the image
ie. in reducing image size for the lateral space requirement, you either lose the ratio perspective or have negative space top/bottom of the image!

I much prefer the wider aspect ratio for 'working' with.
If just viewing images or displaying them, then for sure the more normal photo formats make sense as it's just a display and no peripheral area is needed for tools and suchlike.

I would have like one of those new fangled 24:9 extra wide screen monitors .. basically mimicking two screens onto the one display.
But they don't yet have the same overall quality that the more photography oriented screens do.

If you haven't decided by the time mine comes(hopefully up and running by the weekend) .. I'll post back on how the Samsung looks.

[Hamster]

You said you don't think it's got the internal LUT, but from my scan I thought it did. For $2k I'd hope it would, that's Eizo Colouredge territory. Incidentally why didn't you got 27" Eizo, did you want the extra size?

"With an embedded calibration chipset developed by Samsung and a 16-bit look-up table (LUT)".

[arthurking83]

Ah, Ok .. may have missed it.
Better that it has .. always.

yeah, went for 32" coz my eyes are getting pretty bad when reading .. and getting worse.

I built my sis a new PC a little while ago now, and had enough in the budget for a screen, so went with a 27"
Ran it briefly next to my 24"(both HD size) and that extra 3" difference made a world of difference trying to see text a bit more clearly.

I do a lot of multitasking with at least three or 4 programs/windows open at once, and they're all semi minimised so I can see them in the background and so on.
So the 32" is simply for my eyes, more so than seeing 'more detail' .. which you won't.
Smaller screen with the same pixel numbers usually mean a sharper looking image(higher pixel density).

Also, that particular Samsung rated really well for colour accuracy on two sites I read up.

At that price range, there were two Eizo's that caught my eye.
31.5" 4K EV3237 .. but was nearly $400 more(basically the price of the GFX card .. but the other one was an interesting idea.
26" but a 1:1 format 1920x1920 screen. EV2730Q. I like the 1:1 format a lot and could see some merit behind that format for a screen.
But then again whatever I got has to last me about 10 years or so (that's usually my primary directive with PC gear!) .. so I thought 4K and large(as possible).
If I had gone with a lower res item .. I'd have kicked myself and started looking at higher res items before my usual 10year cycle was up.

[Dug]

I've got a Dell U2713HM which would meet your requirements.
Vertically it measures 340mm and I see wide aspect ratio as room for the side menus in Lightroom.
Res is 2560x1440 with a dot pitch of 0.23.

It's my first IPS screen and I'm really liking it.
Calibrates well with my Spyder5.

[Tannin]

Cheers all.

I've chased down the maximum res of the graphics chip on my Thinkpad, which is 2560 x 1600. So anything higher than that is out of the question. For example your Samsung, Arthur, is a non-starter.

I was about to press the buy button on the Dell - horrorshow cost notwithstanding - but on the off-chance I hunted around and found the same model at Mwave for quite a lot less. They advertise it at $1760 but by the time you add freight and fees it totals $1845 - still $200 cheaper than buying it from Dell direct.

Good luck with your Samsung - I'm sure it will be excellent - and I'll post again with a report on the Dell when it arrives.

[Cage]

@ Artie

Mate, when you crank that 32" up, you will think you have died and gone to monitor heaven. I know I did when I moved on from the 22" 1080p TN to the 25" 2560 x1440 U2515H.

I've just had to replace my GPU and I nearly got trapped with the length of some of these new cards, ie they just won't fit in my case.

Can't wait to hear your first impressions. (In your own thread, of course. :lol2: )

Tannin, apologies if this seems like thread hijacking but I guess it's all relevant.

PS: I'm sure you will be delighted with your new Dell. I sure was with mine.

[Tannin]

Not at all, Cage. Feel free. My agenda item has been resolved in the affirmative but there is no reason not to consider business arising. Go for it.

I'm a little puzzled, by the way, why there seems to be a need for these ginormous graphics cards. Sure, for gamers you need a heap of grunt, more so with a very high resolution, but a very modest graphics card should be perfectly capable of running any normal (non-game) software at, say, 4000 x 2000. Are the manufacturers artificially restricting the abilities of sensibly sized and priced cards so that they can sell more top-of-the-line models? I should know this stuff in my job, but I've long since stopped paying any attention to graphics cards as no normal (i.e., non-gaming) person ever needs anything more than on-board graphics or at most a cheap little graphics card these days, and add-in cards have become so rare that I've probably not sold one to anyone except a gamer for three or four years.

[Hamster]

Cheers all.

I've chased down the maximum res of the graphics chip on my Thinkpad, which is 2560 x 1600. So anything higher than that is out of the question. For example your Samsung, Arthur, is a non-starter.

I was about to press the buy button on the Dell - horrorshow cost notwithstanding - but on the off-chance I hunted around and found the same model at Mwave for quite a lot less. They advertise it at $1760 but by the time you add freight and fees it totals $1845 - still $200 cheaper than buying it from Dell direct.

Good luck with your Samsung - I'm sure it will be excellent - and I'll post again with a report on the Dell when it arrives.

When I looked at the Dells I couldn't get a consistent answer regarding the colour calibration software and use of calibrator. Sometimes it said that a calibrator could be used and that included the iDisplay Pro, other times it seemed to say it was only possible with an iDisplay Pro. I then tried talking to Dell tech support to clear it up and they were as much use a chocolate teapot (actually much less use)
Are you expecting to have to use an iDisplay pro to do your calibration?

[Cage]

Not at all, Cage. Feel free. My agenda item has been resolved in the affirmative but there is no reason not to consider business arising. Go for it.

I'm a little puzzled, by the way, why there seems to be a need for these ginormous graphics cards. Sure, for gamers you need a heap of grunt, more so with a very high resolution, but a very modest graphics card should be perfectly capable of running any normal (non-game) software at, say, 4000 x 2000. Are the manufacturers artificially restricting the abilities of sensibly sized and priced cards so that they can sell more top-of-the-line models? I should know this stuff in my job, but I've long since stopped paying any attention to graphics cards as no normal (i.e., non-gaming) person ever needs anything more than on-board graphics or at most a cheap little graphics card these days, and add-in cards have become so rare that I've probably not sold one to anyone except a gamer for three or four years.

Cheers Tannin.

Yep, the gamers are driving the technology for GPU's, CPU's and PSU's. Faster, hotter (more cooling) etc.

In my case my mobo has excellent on-board sound but no on-board graphics chip so an add-on card was a necessity. I found a Gigabyte card that suited, my mobo is a Gigabyte, with 4096 x 2160 res that accommodated the Dell's 2560 x 1440 res, that fitted comfortably in my case for a tad under $150.00 + postage. Some of the cards I've seen cost more than my whole set-up. :eek:

[Cage]

...yeah, went for 32" coz my eyes are getting pretty bad when reading .. and getting worse.

"Should have gone to Specsavers" :lol2:

[Tannin]

When I looked at the Dells I couldn't get a consistent answer regarding the colour calibration software and use of calibrator. Sometimes it said that a calibrator could be used and that included the iDisplay Pro, other times it seemed to say it was only possible with an iDisplay Pro. I then tried talking to Dell tech support to clear it up and they were as much use a chocolate teapot (actually much less use)
Are you expecting to have to use an iDisplay pro to do your calibration?

OK, I'll play dumb here (someone has to ask the obvious questions!) why couldn't ...

(a) I just use it straight out of the box? My two big Samsungs are factory set pretty well, so much so that it doesn't especially matter if I calibrate them or not. Mostly I do, but I'm not really fussed if I don't for some reason. The Dell (and most of the other models we have been chatting about here) claims to be factory calibrated. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the colour will be perfectly acceptable without me needing to do anything at all besides plug it in. (Compare with my assortment of other screens - the two cheap generic TN/film screens on my seldom-used home desktop system, the huge but very old 21 and 22 inch CRTs on my office accounts and workshop systems, and the built-in screens on the two laptops - all six of these are pretty much unusable for photographic work without calibration, and rather unpleasant (to my eye) even for just casual image browsing. (Well, the gigantic old Mitsubishi 22 inch CRT is fairly OK, but the others are awful, especially the older one of my two laptops.) The worse the screen, the more important calibration becomes, it seems to me. As further evidence for this point, I present to the court my girlfriend's screen, another Dell Ultrasharp, which is quite decent out of the box, though better still after calibration. Calibration for good screens - which everybody does - isn't really all that necessary, while calibration for cheap screens (which nobody does!) is essential!

(b) I run the Spyder 4 on it the same as any other monitor? For that matter, why couldn't you run your X-rite iDisplay over it the same way you would with a Samsung or an LG or a Phillips? Does the Dell have peculiar internal settings that are only adjustable using its own proprietary software? If so, is this common with other high-spec monitors of the same general kind?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<rant>
More generally, I think people tend to go to extremes with colour management. Most people don't even know what it is, let alone think about it and I'm sure that most of us here share my experience of visiting friends and discovering that their screens are so hopelessly out of balance that using them is like looking at the world through a glass of something alcoholic and expensive served with a sprig of mint and a paper umbrella in it, usually blue grenadine but I've also seen screens coloured galliano, midori, and probably sump oil.

That's one extreme. At the other end of the scale, many photographers and graphic artists go to the other extreme and get very precious about it. I've known people spend more time mucking about calibrating and fiddling than they do actually using the system for its ostensible purpose. Why? It's not as if anyone will ever, ever notice the miniscule adjustments they fuss with. Nobody looking at the picture sits in a darkened room with a balanced, measured light source from a calculated angle falling on a 100% gamut, fully calibrated monitor. They just look at the pictures on the screen they have. And - let's be realistic here - in any normal room, the ambient light varies all day long, even with the shades drawn it still varies, and there is always more ambient light than the calibration software likes. The way I see it, you get more daily variation from ambient light than you get between (say) my big Samsung uncalibrated and the same screen perfectly adjusted five minutes ago. So why worry? Check it, get it around about right if it's a long way out, and then get on with real work, that's my motto.
</rant>

[Dug]

The Dell (and most of the other models we have been chatting about here) claims to be factory calibrated. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the colour will be perfectly acceptable without me needing to do anything at all besides plug it in.

You should find like when I got my Dell Ultrasharp IPS monitor that it come with a print out of the factory calibration.
It was a couple of months before I got a calibrator for it.
The Spyder 5 pro also makes allowance for room brightness and colour temperature, which most likely accounts for the difference in my before/after comparison.

[Hamster]

OK, I'll play dumb here (someone has to ask the obvious questions!) why couldn't ...


Sorry, I wasn't trying to induce a rant ????. Some valid points, if that's how you want to use your screens then go for it I say. But if that is the case why not just get a screen costing half the price and use your spyder on that?
The real value of correct calibration is in the printed outputs. You cannot stop people looking at your photos on a crappy screen, you are correct.
Carry on.
<backs slowly from the room>

[Tannin]

<chuckle> :)

I can't comment on print calibration, I have a mono laser and only print invoices.

Why not spend $800? Because the picture quality often doesn't compare, at least not in my (fairly limited) experience. I've never for one moment regretted any of the other mega-expensive screens I've bought over the years - the 21 inch Hitachi CRT ($1400), the 22-inch Mitsubishi CRT ($1600ish) or the two 21-inch Samsungs ($1500ish each). In their day, they were all equivalent to maybe a $3200 screen today, so the Dell is just a cheapie. (Does that sound like a glib rationalisation? Sure it does. Don't knock rationalisations. Rationalisations are more important that sex.*)

Probably I'd be fairly happy with about half of the $800ish IPS screens around, but which half? Damned if I want to buy one in hope and then discover that I hate it.

But I didn't actually want to spend the best part of two grand - I had about half that in mind to start with. Then I was seduced by the resolution of the Dell. I can't use anything higher (unless I spend two or three thousand on a new Thinkpad - can you even get one these days with three internal hard drives? Doubt it) and I'm certainly not going to downgrade to a 1080p screen, which leaves me with only the 1440 and 1600 height models. I'm not sure how many of the 1440s would go OK on my laptop - they come in a motley variety of shapes and horizontal resolutions, some of which probably won't be compatible, and (so far as I know) none of then have the superior aspect ratio of the Dell. (16 x 10 = 4 x 2.5 which is quite a bit closer to the ideal 4: 3 than 16 x 9 = 4 x 2.25.) **

But you are right Hamster: I don't need all that fancy colour stuff in the monitor itself, I quite possibly won't even install the software for it. But I do need the biggest, best quality, highest res screen I can fit onto my system, which seems to be the Dell. It's a bit like wanting the factory sunroof and discovering that the only way you can get it is to pay an extra $15,000 for the alloy wheels, the sat-nav, the V8 engine and the leather seats.



* Yes, honestly. Ever tried to go a week without a rationalisation?

** See *^

[Hamster]

<chuckle> :)

I can't comment on print calibration, I have a mono laser and only print invoices.

Why not spend $800? Because the picture quality often doesn't compare, at least not in my (fairly limited) experience. I've never for one moment regretted any of the other mega-expensive screens I've bought over the years - the 21 inch Hitachi CRT ($1400), the 22-inch Mitsubishi CRT ($1600ish) or the two 21-inch Samsungs ($1500ish each). In their day, they were all equivalent to maybe a $3200 screen today, so the Dell is just a cheapie. (Does that sound like a glib rationalisation? Sure it does. Don't knock rationalisations. Rationalisations are more important that sex.*)

Probably I'd be fairly happy with about half of the $800ish IPS screens around, but which half? Damned if I want to buy one in hope and then discover that I hate it.

But I didn't actually want to spend the best part of two grand - I had about half that in mind to start with. Then I was seduced by the resolution of the Dell. I can't use anything higher (unless I spend two or three thousand on a new Thinkpad - can you even get one these days with three internal hard drives? Doubt it) and I'm certainly not going to downgrade to a 1080p screen, which leaves me with only the 1440 and 1600 height models. I'm not sure how many of the 1440s would go OK on my laptop - they come in a motley variety of shapes and horizontal resolutions, some of which probably won't be compatible, and (so far as I know) none of then have the superior aspect ratio of the Dell. (16 x 10 = 4 x 2.5 which is quite a bit closer to the ideal 4: 3 than 16 x 9 = 4 x 2.25.) **

But you are right Hamster: I don't need all that fancy colour stuff in the monitor itself, I quite possibly won't even install the software for it. But I do need the biggest, best quality, highest res screen I can fit onto my system, which seems to be the Dell. It's a bit like wanting the factory sunroof and discovering that the only way you can get it is to pay an extra $15,000 for the alloy wheels, the sat-nav, the V8 engine and the leather seats.



* Yes, honestly. Ever tried to go a week without a rationalisation?

** See *^

[emoji106] Yes, I know what you mean, I'm often guilty of over speccing things in order to be sure I got what I thought I wanted :-)

It sounds like you've thought out your reasons pretty well for what you require. I asked about the calibration side because I want to make sure I have the complete workflow sorted, right through to high quality print for something like competition entry. Which means heading down the "extreme" end of things.

[arthurking83]

On the topic of calibration, definitely agree that on a cheap (TN type) screen calibration is important if you want to view your images even roughly close to what many other's see them.
For me it's not so much about seeing what others see(that is I don't really care if others use cheap screens) .. just that I want to set an image in a particular way and see it that (correct) way.

My current cheapie when not calibrated has a huge error margin in terms of colour .. measured in Delta E(ΔE).
Anything at about 1 or less is very good.
0.5 or less is excellent.

My screen uncalibrated shows 4-6 on the review software.
When calibrated it shows an average of 1.(something tiny) .. mostly 0.5ish except on one colour plane. That colour plane depends on which way I set it.
So either blue is out to about 2 or 3 or 4 or black is out by about the same margin or whatever.
I can get those specific colours back into the less than 1ΔE range, but at the expense of another colour somewhere else .. that's why the average is higher than the real average.
So I'll get 9 out of 10 colours all under 1ΔE and then one colour spikes to something like 4(which ruins the average colour accuracy rating).

Like Tony said .. usually a calibration point that is good enough(ΔE between 1 and 2) is good enough for all of us to use.

I remember reading about some specific screens(maybe Dell and or Samsung) that required the use of a specific X-Rite calibrator .. but only for use with the manufacturers software if the need was to calibrate the internal LUT of the screen.
That is, you could use whatever calibrator you liked/had and calibrate the screen to the graphics card, but if you did want hardware calibration on the screen, then it needed to be used with the manufacturer's software using their specified calibrator model.

I checked the Samsung and the use of their specific calibration software(Natural Colour Expert) and they list a few calibrators for use. Problem is they list the Spyder 5(specifically .. and not Spyder's!) and I have a Spyder3.
So I can only hope that NCE recognises the Spyder 3 too.
If not I'll end up getting a i1 Pro myself too one day. No rush tho, I can still calibrate it or check calibration of it using my Spyder 3 and Basicolor software anyhow.

And the graphics card problem annoyed the hell out of me too.
Could have got a cheaper card too .. but been there done it before.
Before you know it you have the wrong device and it can't do what you had planned.
My plan is to run two screens, the 4K Samsung and the current cheapie(1080).
Whilst many cards say they can do 4K .. and I have no doubt they can do that, they don't always specify at what refresh rate they do so .. and if they can also drive another screen at a decent resolution, or if you have to lower the one screen to compensate for another screen.
Also can it drive two 4K screens at the same time .. AND at a proper refresh rate!
60Hz is the minimum refresh rate I want to see. Anything less is not going to cut it.
I prefer to use a lower resolution at a higher refresh rate rather than the higher res at a lower refresh rate.

I'm the first to admit that spending money on stuff I don't fully use is something I hate.
So much so that the onboard graphics card is plenty enough to run my current cheapie HD screen at HD resolution and 60Hz refresh rate.
But! .. I had to use a HDMI cable to do so. I have a ton of DVI cables all over the house. No idea why, but I have about 7 of them.
MY current screen wouldn't do HD res at 60Hz ... only 30. I've never needed a HDMI cable, so didn't have one.
When I finally cottoned on as to why the screen wouldn't use 60Hz(grey out), I had to find a HDMI cable, fitted and bingo!. 60Hz brilliance!
Also unlocked a few extra settings on the OSD menu for the screen too.

My original graphics card(had to use it on another system) wouldn't run the two screens I had back then.
That was this current screen and another old crappy 1280x1024 screen as well. It had all the required ports, just could run them concurrently.
I wanted both to run off the same graphics card, but had to eventually settle on the new(current) screen on the graphics card and the old crappy HP screen (I salvaged) on the graphics chip on the M/board.
This was all back on '09 after I built the PC. I eventually stopped using two screens, simply because my sisters PC graphics card died and I 'loaned' her my graphics card for her to get by(she's runs a small business). That was some 6 years ago! :D .. so the second screen was ditched(necessity) and I've been running a crappy screen via an onboard graphics chip since then with the view to update/upgrade ever since.
So I don't necessarily need an uber high end graphics card as such< and in fact I don't want one. I want a lower end fanless card that makes no noise and uses as little power as possible.

The need for a high end graphics card makes sense for specific situations tho.
eg. 5K screens .. they use a lot of graphics bandwidth.
I really can't understand tho, why a card that can run 2 separate 4K screens at 60Hz .. can't run a single 5K screen(which is less bandwidth) tho.
That pissed me off.

.. and it seems I ranted a bit there too .. so </rant off> :D


I'm thinking my next big purchase will be a good quality printer too. I don't particularly get excited about prints/printing personally, so it's a waaayyyy off possibility. Something Epson R4900-ish maybe.
So if I do print on such an expensive machine to print with, at least I can set myself up so that if I do print something, I haven't printed it massively out of whack. (ie. wasted all that expensive ink on a rubbish print) .. etc.

[Lance B]

I have a Dell P2715Q Ultra HD IPS screen, 3840 x 2160. Love it. The resolution is fantastic as are the colours. I callibrate it with an i1 Display by X-Rite, no issues. I run a Nividia G Force Graphics card to run it to take full advantage of the Hi res Screen

[arthurking83]

Finally got the time to get the new Samsung screen up and running.
Had it for a couple of weeks sitting in the back hallway taking up a ton of room .. just no time to fit it and do some other stuff.

Anyhow, it's big, but not WOW factor huuge. screen area is impressive(32") but the screen isn't that much bigger overall than my old 24" LG. The bezel is half the size, and creates a bit of an illusion.

In typical homebrew crapola software tradition .. the useless Samsung Natural Color Expert software was a wasted few megaytes of disk disruption! :rolleyes:

Colours are nice-ish .. I think.
Compared to my old LG, there is a difference, but not as big as I thought it'd be considering my old LG is about as cheap and crappy TN tech as it comes.
I have to say tho, according to BasicColor calibration software, it calibrated well on many colour channels except blue. And the Samsung screen is a lot colder in colour rendering than the much warmer looking old LG.

BasicColor's validation tool says that the Samsung calibrated very accurately with no spikes in colour channels.
But the new graphics card(Geforce) also helped the old LG calibrate a little better than the onboard graphics chip.

As is commonly commented by folks that switch to 4K screens(and I think many folks will back this comment up) .. detail and crispness of image clarity is a massive bonus, over 1080 screens!
What I like is the ability to see more stuff on a given screen, eg. pull A4 page lengths of a PDF or whatever .. large spreadsheets .. etc. The higher pixel density allows more stuff on the screen(why I wanted 32" over 28 or 27") to see more stuff at the same time.
(I'm a habitual multitasker for some reason).

I also got a Adtec single post twin arm monitor stand too, to declutter my desktop. So now one thin post holds up both screens and I can easily move screens fore/aft for better viewing comfort.
Only downside of the Samsung is the massive weight. 10+ kgs .. I think 12, but have to confirm. Whatever it is, it's past the Adtec's ability to hold the weight.
Chap at Scorptec made a point to leave a note as I collected the bits .. "warning, weight of screen exceeds the specs of the stand!"
The Samsung stand is nice, and it definitely one of the nicest I've seen in a long time. Smooth and very silky in the way it operates. But the footprint of the base is proportionate to the screens' weight .. massive(by comparison to what I'm used too) .. hence the single post twin arm stand.

I just flicked the Samsung's setting to the aRGB mode in the OSD and validated this setting with the BasicColor software and it came up very nicely accurate from startup. Basically no need to calibrate it.
But it was wayyy to bright to what I thought should be right. Checked against my dedicated print for brightness/tone/colour and it looked ok. But about twice as bright as my old screen which also looked good against the print.
(I think this could be an illusion due to the whiter colour of the Samsung tho).
Anyhow, validated the LG again(going from an onbaoard Radeon chip of jurassic technology - to a higher end nividia card now) and of course it was massively out of whack(by comparison),
Did a quick express calibration on the LG and set it to do it's thing, now the LG looked completely crap .. so had to tweak it a bit to look 'nice'.

Looking at the screens side by side tho .. (remember the LG is a cheapo crappy TN screen, barely capable of sRGB let alone aRGB!!) .. and I think the difference between aRGB screens and sRGB screens is a little overrated by many.
Maybe, if I was impossibly pedantic and needed to set all my jpg images to aRGB, I may see a difference between them, but I'm doubting that it's going to end up a deal breaking feature.

My main priority was in 4K(detail/resolution) and size(as big as, without being an 80"TV!! :p or costing the earth).
So I'd recommend the Samsung on both those fronts: big, colourful, a little better colour clarity etc, etc ... but I'm thinking that if one is expecting to see more exact colours than their current well calibrated screen .. the WOW factor may not be as significant.

Some other downsides to consider(not Samsung's fault here tho!).
Some software is just stupidly made:
Nikon's god damn awful idiotic Capture NX-D is one that I've recently discovered.
It's all well and good to have as much screen real estate as possible .. not having to scroll toolbars and so forth, but these people bring the term incompetent to new levels!
A microscope is required to see what any text is supposed to say.
Almost all the tools are now in the viewable area(due to the 4K setting) but the scaling hasn't remained constant. I can't see any setting to up the font size and or scaling.
Almost all other software I've tried so far has scaled well.
eg. Firefox, Excel, Thunderbird, and whatever other(I just can't think of them now!) .. have all scaled the text font size well .. this way you can still see what it is you're trying to read/click/etc.
Not Nikon! .. the text size is about 1/4 of what it used to be!
What's more annoying is that the old ViewnX2(and Capture NX2) both scale well.
So it's a matter of those idiots that coded CaptureNX-D that are to blame here(in this case it's the universally derided Silkypix folks!) .. and Nikon who got them to write the Nikon version of this ridiculous software!
The point isn't to blast Silkypix or Nikon for using this garbage .. again (even tho I enjoy doing this as regularly as I can manage) .. the point is that with a 4K screen, to be wary of any potential software issues like this.
I suspect that reasonably good software will be properly written to eliminate such issues.
One thing that surprised me tho is the switching of a program from the one screen to the other and maintaining the scaling proportions well(ie. sending a program from the 4K to the HD screen and vice versa)
The switch from one resolution to the other and back is seamless(except for Nikon's CaptureNX-D)

Summary:
Samsung's U32D970(is one of the model names) is great if you want a big high quality and accurately calibrated screen .... and big fonts .... and lots of screen real estate to go with your order(sorry no fries tho!)
If you want to see the same excellence in the above, mirrored in some miraculously amazing colour accuracy display of uberness .. I think the result will be less impressive(taking into account the current calibration setting of the screen tho).

[arthurking83]

BORING ALERT! :p

a bit of an update.
I played with calibration again last night.

Samsung's Natural Color Expert did finally work(to a degree) in that I figured out why it opened(and immediately had to be closed) with a 'no compatible monitor' message on start up.
Had to install a driver for the screen to be recognised for what it is, rather than a generic monitor.
I installed a few of the Samsung supplied apps off the supplied CD. You'd think that if you were installing apps from the manufacturer, somewhere in the routine the manufacturer would see fit to install a required driver of some kind!
Windows(10) only recognised the screen as generic(not Windows's fault as the screen is more recent than the OS .. it won't have built in drivers for a device that didn't exist when it was created!
Bad Samsung.
Anyhow, driver located and loaded, now the screen is recognised by Windows as the U32D970Q .. and badly coded Natural Color Expert see it :rolleyes:
Problem: NCE doesn't work with the Spyder3! .. here we go again.
But(more on the Spyder) ... I may think this is for a reason.
Even tho I got the Spyder 3 and have been using it for some time .. I don't think it's a great calibrator. While it does work, I'm dubious and doubtful that it's actually an excellent calibrator.
That is it's good, but not great or excellent .... basically it's better than nothing.
But it's giving me weird results.
Pre proper calibration, I did a validation(should'a taken a screen shot of that validation).
All delta E's were in the low range(under 1).
So I calibrated the screens.
I initially used the Samsung's pre cooked calibration.
That is, via the on screen menu(OSD) I set the Samsung to aRGB. Just did a validation via BasicColor and it had a good calibration setting.
Prior to that, the Samsung screens colour rendering was more on the cool side to what I'm used too, and confirmed when comparing to my years old LG.
So I calibrated it using the advanced menu, set my preferred options(basically the Photography preset option in BasicColor) and it set the colour temp to D50 .. much warmer now.
I've used that setting on the LG for years .. so used to it.
Now the Samsung is much more warmer in overall tone .. which I think I prefer .. but until I do more confirmation checking .. I'm not 100% sure.
What the issue is now, is that the old LG screen(which looked warmer before) now looks cooler(using the same Photography, and hence D50 settings).
So the calibration of the Samsung has changed dramatically.
I can't get the same luminance and blackpoint settings, as the range is much more limited on the LG(older/worserer tech), but the colour settings is what I was chasing here.
Manually brightening the LG only exaggerates the temperature differences, and actually makes the LG look slightly worse(text fonts and clarity).

So now my dissapointment has extended to the Spyder3 calibrator.
I stopped using the annoying Spyder software years ago, when it randomly ceased to load the calibration settings and just did what it thought was the appropriate thing on any given day .. basically pot luck as to what you got.
Purchased BasicColor years ago and haven't looked back(using the Spyder 3 as the calibrator).
The calibrator works, but how well is anyone's guess(more on that in a sec!) .. I'm thinking ... 'randomly' ok on that front too tho.

It just won't work with Samung's software. Why this is important is for the purpose of possibly loading the calibration to an internal LUT on the screen.
I have to look into this, and I think BasicColor has done this, but cant' confirm this(yet).
There is no confirmation of any type, other than it allows you to use that as an option, but not exclusively. The option to load the calibration to the screen has to be done together with the graphics card LUT too.

** For those not quite sure what this means(and more boredom here) .. idealy what you want is screen hardware LUT setting. that is get the calibration onto the screen, not onto your computer(irrespective of OS).
IN a nutshel, and the main benefit is that the screen is now set to a calibrated point .. move the screen to a new PC, or another pc and it's still calibrated. What you've done with that type of calibration is calibrated the screen.
If the screen doesn't support monitor based hardware calibration, the calibration will go into the graphics card's LUT.
So the calibration setting will only work once your OS has loaded.
You should see this at some point during boot up(if not, you probably have an issue)! This is why I got rid of Spyder's software .. it sometimes worked, sometimes not .. there was no rhyme or reason for it.
And .. once I demoed BasicColors free period, have calibrated with Spyder's software and validated with BasicColor, BasicColor said it was way off in terms of accuracy.

Stangely tho .. I can't confirm if the calibration has yet been set to the Samsung. It does allow me to use many calibration points on the OSD now, and many of them are weird! Just some strange calibrations that specific users may want.
But it's changed the built in aRGB setting.
If it was a truly hardware LUT this shouldn't have happened. I haven't touched the aRGB calibration on the screen.
I'm thinking that what this OSD ability does, is simply load a calibration point off the PC.
My Calibration settings comes under menu item Calibration 1(there are 3 user settable calibration options to choose from plus the 10 or so other built in settings .. stuff like sRGB, aRGB, BT.709, Dicom, etc).

I'm currently suspecting that the calibrator is an issue here:
Reason is simple.
I validated, got an excellent result, and then proceeded to calibrate.
Validation now points to a good(down from excellent!) result.
That in itself isn't a problem tho.
What's concerned me is that after validation, I calibrated the LG screen and went back to compare with the Sammy again. Not a problem. Validation on that is 'acceptable' not as low as the Samsung(and at 20x the price .. you'd damned well expect the Sammy to be much better :D)
What's a bit worriesome is that after a validation only on the Sammy again, it was different to the last validation. That is with nothing else done on the Samsung screen after a validation, I did a validation again.
The two are slightly different. Common sense would dictate that that they really should be no different .. even taking into account the change in position of the calibrator on the screen. I'm 99.9% sure that isn't the cause .. the Spyder probably is.

I'll post the validation reports if anyone is interested(or still awake :p)

126363
LG screen: it doesn't say it, but the calibration is set to D50 as in the Sammy's settings.

126362
Sammy validation immediately after calibration.

126361
Sammy validation #2. Validated again after the LG screen was calibrated and validated. The only two operations done on the PC after validation #1.
There should be less than 0.1 delta difference if you were to take the movement of the calibrator off the screen and back onto it again.

I'll probably head out to get an X-rite calibrator today.

[Hamster]

These kind of hassles, and things like LanceB's link posted on 1/6/16 are the reason I'm buying a 24" Eizo tomorrow. I have far more faith in getting a successful (& low stress) outcome from buying one from my local (excellent) source. For this I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of size to keep the cost down, since it'll be parked next to a 27".
Thanks for your info..
Of course if I have lots of trouble still; I'll be keeping quiet [emoji6]

[Lance B]

These kind of hassles, and things like LanceB's link posted on 1/6/16 are the reason I'm buying a 24" Eizo tomorrow. I have far more faith in getting a successful (& low stress) outcome from buying one from my local (excellent) source. For this I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of size to keep the cost down, since it'll be parked next to a 27".
Thanks for your info..
Of course if I have lots of trouble still; I'll be keeping quiet [emoji6]

How was the link that I posted taken as a hassle? No issues whatsoever with calibrating the DELL I purchased. You will still need to calibrate the Eizo as well.

[Hamster]

I read that article of a whole list of reasons why various monitors cannot be properly calibrated.
This is my summary of what I read.

First paragraph about LG, Benq Samsung.
"Hence, their software won’t get accurate readings, which in turn leads to inaccurate calibration."

So lets talk about Dell then
"and below are their issues"

"This is the sad tale of affordable wide gamut monitors"
"when looking at its competitors in this price range, the sad tale becomes a tragedy"

But that doesn't mean there's no hope, if you can find one of these old Dell models..and you're aware of the limitations, then that should be OK.
"This is the point of this article, to learn, evaluate, and if possible fix their flaws"

So in summary, things look pretty poor, this bunch are no good at all, most of the Dells are no good. But there's a few Dells that can be made to work, flawed though they are.

So let's look at the software to calibrate...
Forget the first version, that's crap.
Use this preferred version, unless you notice bugs, otherwise shift to this version which "should" work
"should behave in a similar way unless bugs or Apple hardware limitations or incompatibilities are found. Ask Apple support team if DUCCS does not work for you…you are on your own since it seems that there is no official support of Dell monitors with Apple proprietary hardware configurations.

"may need a firmware update (http://www.dell.com/support/article/SLN300986) (at your own risk)."

"If this screen does not display and you see the usual i1Profiler calibration target with white point, luminance and contrast, then your monitor is not recognized by DUCCS as a GB-LED Dell with hardware calibration. Unfortunately, it is a common issue for 2013 Dells under OSX."

"If this screen does not show up, you are not able to hardware-calibrate your Dell because of some software or hardware issue. If an error shows with information about “no USB cable plugged from monitor to computer”, check it, but maybe monitor’s USB hub drivers are not properly installed, or maybe it’s just another DUCCS bug. Sadly, if this happens, you are on your own."

"You can report this problem to Dell, but it’s very doubtful that the folks from support will be able to help you."

"since all other application options are useless: uniformity, validation…not reliable, not accurate, not to be trusted."


To me that whole article sounds to me like it can be a right PITA to properly calibrate these screens for high end use. I'm not wanting to get things about right, I'm wanting them to be properly right so I can have accurate professionally produced prints.

I have also heard that Dell screens can have quality issues (so can anyone though to be fair) and if you are unlucky enough to need any kind of customer support from Dell, then be prepared for frustration.

I have hard much more consistent good news about Eizo and NEC and have done a training course that involved Eizo calibration, plus talked to various Eizo reps who have bent over backwards to help me (and I haven't even bought one of their screens yet!).


So my comments were not in any way a criticism of your posting of the article, they were just my interpretation of what the article told me about these types of screen.

[Lance B]

I'm afraid that the issue is mostly with the Dell calibration manager, not he X-Rite software that you use to calibrate the Dell screens. I think you are reading way, way too much into the article, especially about issues that are only affecting a few screens many of which are old versions, like a few of the 2013 models which are irrelevant now. You have also cherry picked the not so good comments and again these issues only affect a very few of the models. My Dell screen is well calibrated and very easy to do. Just put on the X-Rite calibration tool do a few readings and all is done. What's more, prints look exactly the same as the screen version.

For the price the charge for those Eizo screens, they'd want to be bending over backwards for you - I'd want them to come to my house every month and calibrate it for me. LOL.

[arthurking83]

For me, I never see issues such as these as hassles.
More so that they can be helpful(if resolvable) in that they highlight what the differences are in this that and the other(thing/stuff/doodad) .. which leads to the point that you're changing something for a reason, and has this change helped?

So I've been mucking about with this for a coupl'a days now, on and off .. it hasn't really bugged me.

** Actually what has bugged me is simply that annoyance of a program from Nikon called CaptureNX-D!
Warning, if you have a 4K screen, it's basically unusable. I still can't figure out a way to set it so that it shows at full screen mode on either screen.
It's full screen on the HD screen(old LG) and then 1/4 screen on the new 4K screen, or full screen on the 4K screen which then inflates to the despicably annoying 4x screen sized LG .. scrolling it to find the ends of the page takes forever and a day just to resize it ... anyhow, not an issue with the screens as such, just that there could be gotchas to look out for in unlikely places.
All other software opened so far, have behaved themselves. FSViewer was weird in that the first run it behaved similarly to CaptureNX-D, but then when I opened it a second time it worked fine.

But in looking into this calibration stuff, I discovered the feature that also seemed appealing about this screen, which is the dual/split colour mode ability.
It's very awkward to access, in that about 40 button presses are needed to get to it(whereas the little used multi screen feature has it's own button!) .. anyhow .. you get a split screen where on one side you have your calibrated screen, and on the other side you see one of the built in calibration points.

I wanted to see the difference between the built in aRGB and my BasicColor calibration points, and there are very subtle differences which can be ignored for all intents and purposes!
The I tried the sRGB mode on one split side, and as far as the eye can see(well, my eye at least) .. the differences look massive when split on the screen like that, but less so when compared to the LG screen right next to it on this dual stand.

That is, the sRGB side of the split screen which is the side next to my old LG looked, as far as I could tell identical to the point that they were [identical!
But the line that split the two sides of the Samsung was clear and decisive.
Going out of split screen mode and while I could now differentiate the differences between the aRGB Sammy and the sRGB LG .. a little more clearly, I still can't see the benefit.

I haven't assessed all my images, but I've sifted through a few selected images I remember caused me some issues in the past(basically some posterization on my old LG).

It's definitely better on the new aRGB screen, but I was expecting to see no posterization at all!
The advantage is there, but so far, I'm not see as much of a benefit as I was expecting to see.

ps. it's easy to assume that maybe the images I've reviewed are posterized in some way, but printing them on a crappy quality(well not really crappy, just not super duper uber quality) laser office style printer(mainly for cheap docs) .. they print unposterized. Not fantastically photographically .. but at least not poterized.

So .. the split screen mode thingy is kind'a cool.

Note that this screen has multiple images in the once screen mode too .. as well as a PIP(Picture in Picture) mode.
This multi screen mode is strange in that you connect multiple sources up into it, and you can view all or any combo of them as you wish.

I can't see myself using that personally, and considering the 1/4 size of the screen nature of doing 4 sources at the same time, I can't see it as an advantage of any kind to most folks either.
it's a kind of system as in those surveillance systems where you see multi camera image on the one screen. Why would you use a high end screen in this manner.
But the split screen multi colour mode is a great feature to have access too .. would'a been better if access to it was made easy tho(or a user configureable button of some type).


(for Hamster)
But the reality is that no matter what screen you buy, you can't assume that all things on your computer will work perfectly with it just because it's an Eizo.
There is no assurance that your calibrator will calibrate it and your old still connected screen well!
Samsung's calibrating software (NCE) has no specifics on what devices do and don't work .. this is just guesswork.
As far as I can tell, it seems that the screen is hardware calibrated(that is LUT is on the monitor).
I couldn't see an option on BasicColor just for hardware(monitor only) and I used the hardware/software option.
I'm going to delve into it again, but that could have been because I have the old LG monitor connected up too ... which won't support monitor LUT calibration.

[Hamster]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. Is it i1displaypro only? Dell customer support couldn't tell me either time I phoned to ask (they really did reinforce opinion that Dell customer support needs improving). If so, there is another expense. It just seems like there's always some subtle nuance waiting to trip the unwary.
My local place has a deal on at the moment that comes with an Eizo (X-rite re badged) calibrator, plus I can take my MBP in and they'll set it all up first time. Yes it's more, there may be no issues with a Dell and I could solve problems myself, but I haven't got time for anything but a smooth set up. I'll have enough problems solving colour space and editing issues that the improved screen reveals :-)

[arthurking83]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. .......

I can't think of any situation, or instance where a calibrator won't work with any screen!

I think what you may be confusing with the term 'work' is where there could be a particular screen model that can have an internal hardware LUT calibrated, but requires a specific model of calibrator to achieve this.

For most folks, you buy a calibrator and you generally use the software that came with the calibrator to calibrate the screen. All good, this will almost certainly only calibrate the screen via the operating system only.(for most screens and software that will be true.

Some screens come with their own software, and it's this software that may or may not work with some models of calibrators.
Say for example the the higher end Dells will come with their own software, just like my model of Samsung screen came with it's Natural Color Expert software.
It's this software that can (or can't) calibrate the screens' internal hardware table.

Just coz the screen is an Eizo, and can be internally calibrated, doesn't mean that all calibrators can do this .. there is a 99.9% chance that Eizo's software will require a particular brand/model of calibrator to do this too.

For Samsung's NCE software, so far(via a thirdparty website) I've found 'some information' listing what calibrators do work:


The supported meters are X-Rite’s i1 Pro, i1Display Pro, and ColorMunki; Datacolor’s Spyder 4; and Minolta’s CA-210 spectroradiometer.

Damn! Spyder 4 listed, but not the Spyder 3(that I have!) .. typical :rolleyes:


Overall, so far: The Samsung is fantastic :th3:
I finally figured out why the old LG displayed my current desktop image with a lot more detail and clarity than the new supposedly super detailed 4K samsung was displaying ... (I forgot that) the image I used was set to 1920x1080 resolution :lol2:

Uploaded a 3840x2060 version and ... WHOA! .. :th3:

The new graphics card I also got calibrates the old LG screen much better(less variance across all colors and lower overall DeltaE values)

So, there is so much that could go wrong(like I had with Spyder's software on my Win7 years ago, and why I switched to BasicColor software) .. there is no one hardware set that will 'just work' just because it's Brand X and Model Y.

If your screen and software supports the idea .. definitely try to get it hardware calibrated.


What I've discovered so far in all this: I'm not seeing the benefits of now having an aRGB(10 billion colour) capable system!
The old LG is still running as a side screen and I don't think it's barely even sRGB capable, where the Samsung is supposedly 100% sRGB capable and 90-something aRGB capable.
I really like this split screen mode on the Samsung, where it can display half the screen aRGb and sRGB, and luckily the sRGB half is on the same side where my old LG is, so directly comparing the sRGB half with the old LG is made a little easier.

There is clearly a defined difference between the two colour spaces, no doubt about that .. what's 'unimpressive' is that the differences are very subtle and minute, and not the lyrically waxed be all and end all that many folks have raved about.

My next project is figuring out if a Colormunki Photo calibrator will work with Natural Color Expert, before I waste my money.

[Hamster]

I think what you may be confusing with the term 'work' is where there could be a particular screen model that can have an internal hardware LUT calibrated, but requires a specific model of calibrator to achieve this.


Yes, sorry, I expected you to read my mind on that one. Yes, I am only interested in screens with hardware calibration capability.



Some screens come with their own software, and it's this software that may or may not work with some models of calibrators.
Say for example the the higher end Dells will come with their own software, just like my model of Samsung screen came with it's Natural Color Expert software.
It's this software that can (or can't) calibrate the screens' internal hardware table.


Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe the Dell screens require the use of an i1displaypro (+$350 on screen costs for me)



Just coz the screen is an Eizo, and can be internally calibrated, doesn't mean that all calibrators can do this .. there is a 99.9% chance that Eizo's software will require a particular brand/model of calibrator to do this too.


Actually it's not too bad. The following calibrators can be used, which looks like a pretty good list.


Supported Sensors Notes
X-Rite
i1 Monitor, i1 Pro, i1 Pro2, i1 Display, i1 Display 2,
i1 Display 3, i1 Display Pro
Ambient light adjustment is not available with the i1
Monitor and i1 Display.
ColorMunki PHOTO, ColorMunki DESIGN
ColorMunki Display and ColorMunki Smile are not supported.
DataColor
Spyder 3, Spyder 4, Spyder 5 Ambient light adjustment and gray balance
EIZO
EX1, EX2, EX3 prioritizing function are not available.
Built-in calibration sensor Ambient light adjustment and paper white measurement are not available and
therefore calibration using such measured values is not available.
basICColor
DISCUS
Klein
K-10 Ambient light adjustment and paper white
measurement are not available.
Konica Minolta
CA-210, CA-310, CS-1000, CS-1000A, CS-2000, CS-
2000A, CS-200
Ambient light adjustment and paper white
measurement are not available.
Driver not included with ColorNavigator 6.
Photo Research
PR-655, PR-680 Ambient light adjustment and paper white measurement are not available.
Colorimetry Research

CR-100, CR-250





What I've discovered so far in all this: I'm not seeing the benefits of now having an aRGB(10 billion colour) capable system!


There is clearly a defined difference between the two colour spaces, no doubt about that .. what's 'unimpressive' is that the differences are very subtle and minute, and not the lyrically waxed be all and end all that many folks have raved about.


If you're working in sRGB for display purposes, i.e. showing people on the web then there is no reason to use aRGB. IN fact, given you have no control over the level of calibration/settings of the screens other people view your images on, you could even argue that you don't need to worry too much about calibration. But lets assume everyone on this site at least has a calibrated screen to look at images you post.
If you are never wanting to print then why bother with aRGB. If, however, you want to be able to edit your images in aRGB to get them correct for printing then ......... To see the biggest example of differences you probably need to look at images that have saturated colours outside of sRGB capabilities and then flick between the two. (this link seems to summarise OK https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167 I only had a quick look though) The differences are, however, not always spectacular, but they are there and I, for one, want to know that if I send the image to another output medium that is properly calibrated and able to display the correct colour space, it will display what I intended because my own screen showed me reality.

[Lance B]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. Is it i1displaypro only? Dell customer support couldn't tell me either time I phoned to ask (they really did reinforce opinion that Dell customer support needs improving). If so, there is another expense. It just seems like there's always some subtle nuance waiting to trip the unwary.
My local place has a deal on at the moment that comes with an Eizo (X-rite re badged) calibrator, plus I can take my MBP in and they'll set it all up first time. Yes it's more, there may be no issues with a Dell and I could solve problems myself, but I haven't got time for anything but a smooth set up. I'll have enough problems solving colour space and editing issues that the improved screen reveals :-)

I use the X-Rite i1 Display, worked perfectly with my previous and now my current Dell monitor. No big deal, all simple to work and use.

[arthurking83]

Maybe I should have got an Eizo! :p

I like their list .. bloody Samsung mongrels! .. basically nothing(by way of detailed info).

Samsung do list a couple of X-rite models their .. and you would assume that some other models may also work, but the colormunki Photo(that I'm looking to get) is an expensive model to take a gamble on(just yet).

So the way I'm reading that list Hamster is that the


ColorMunki PHOTO, ColorMunki DESIGN
ColorMunki Display and ColorMunki Smile are not supported.

so are the Photo and Design models are not supported either, or is it just the Display and Smile models that are not supported ?

The BasicColor software software I'm using allows the option of a software(ie. OS) calibration PLUS a hardware calibration.
It's not allowing a hardware calibration mode only.. I've disconnected the older LG screen and tried again .. still 'hard and soft' option only .. no hardware option only(greyed out).

When I go into the screen's OSD, the calibration seems to have been uploaded to one of the calibration slots.
The samsung has many pre set built in calibrations available, many of which I've never heard of, but stuff like sRGB, aRGB, etc .. then it has 3 custom slots. Without doing anything to the screen(myself manually) Custom slot #1 has been ticked(as in in use) and it seems to be that BasicColor has indeed calibrated the monitors LUT.
Using the split screen comparison mode, there is neglible differences between the built in aRGB calibration, and what BasicColor has created in the Custom 1 slot.

ps. after all these years of cursing the Sypder 3, it's now redeemed itself in that it has calibrated the Samsung pretty much as spot on as I've wanted. All delta E values are below 1(max 0.88 on one grey tone), and averaging 0.20 now :th3:
And it's now calibrated the old LG better(due to the new graphics card).

Only reason I want a new calibrator(and the Colormunki Photo at that!) is the ability to calibrate prints .. to balance calibration between PC and printer.
I have plans one day to get myself a half decent printer to finally get into some printing too.

[Hamster]

so are the Photo and Design models are not supported either, or is it just the Display and Smile models that are not supported ?


Just the Display and Smile are not supported. I'm told that generally the calibrators (hardware) have tiny variations, so there is no reason to make a screen only compatible with a top of the range sensor model. It wouldn't surprise me if there is some financial incentive provided by the sensor companies for a screen manufacturer to ensure their software only works with their type of sensor.

Incidentally, the Eizo calibrator I got with the screen is just a re badged Spyder4. I can't use it with other software than the Eizo colour navigator, but I don't care as I've got a colour munki for that.