NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: ColinM on February 04, 2020, 15:37:46
-
My monitor has developed a yellow band which comes and goes.
I've got a few hundred € available for a replacement.
What would you recommend (connecting to a Windows PC)?
-
I still have my 2009 Hewlett Packard 24 inch wide gamut S-IPS that I can still calibrate with Gretag/X-Rite Display 2. It was 550€ about 11 years ago and I am still happy with it.
downside: It heats up, it is heavy and it uses up a lot of Electricity, more than 100 Watts
-
I left the "high photographic monitor demand" train and chose a cheap 4K Philips 276E8VJSB which I have calibrated.
Paired with my Mac Mini 2018 it works the charm.
-
Take a look at the BenQ monitors.
After some eight years of faithful service, my very expensive 27" wide-spectrum NEC became too dim and could no longer be calibrated.
I have replaced it with a 27-inch wide-spectrum (99% AdobeRGB) BenQ which can be hardware calibrated and profiled through LUTs with either the xRite or the Spyder 5 pucks.
These monitors are quite moderately priced and mine included a well-made hood.
If you edit Photographs for printed output, you absolutely do need a wide-spectrum monitor which can be calibrated and profiled.
-
Yes, BenQ are the other brand to look for, but you need 700 to 800€ for these, because they are hardware calibrateable
current model is BenQ SW270C and it is 850€
so look out for last years model that might be 200€ cheaper
-
I left the "high photographic monitor demand" train and chose a cheap 4K Philips 276E8VJSB which I have calibrated.
Paired with my Mac Mini 2018 it works the charm.
Thanks! Looks like an affordable yet good performing option to the very expensive monitors,,,
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/philips-276e8vjsb/
-
But note the "negative" comments at the end of the Review and especially this one:
"No support for extended gamuts".
That would prevent the use of this monitor for my purposes.
My feeling is that the Philips was built as a Gamester's Monitor and has only a limited sRGB gamut and is therefore not suitable for professional photographic editing and calibrated and profiled output purposes.
-
Yes, but not everyone must have RGB ;D
It's a nice monitor if one is working in sRGB 99% of the time as I am now for instance.
So I would be happy with this one I believe 8)
-
If you always shoot only JPGs and no longer shoot RAW, the Philips might be OK.
I always shoot only RAW (and then convert to ProPhoto RGB 16-bit} so I want to be able to see, and work with, as much of the captured spectrum that I can — even if copies of some of the images may later be saved as sRGB JPGs for web site display.
-
I shoot raw and deliver jpg in sRGB for all the stuff I do now it’s by far enough.
Nothing scientific or high end printing will come out where more is needed.
It’s good enough for me and by far better than risking an RGB file ends up on the web :o
-
Dear all thank you so much for your recommendations and sorry to not come back quicker than this.
There's plenty of food for thought here. I'll go & have a look and see what my budget can cover.
Meanwhile just to show you the equipment only misbehaves when it thinks you might be inconvenienced, the yellow line has now disappeared from my monitor so I have a little bit more time ;)
-
Dear all thank you so much for your recommendations and sorry to not come back quicker than this.
There's plenty of food for thought here. I'll go & have a look and see what my budget can cover.
Meanwhile just to show you the equipment only misbehaves when it thinks you might be inconvenienced, the yellow line has now disappeared from my monitor so I have a little bit more time ;)
Perhaps more time, perhaps not. The fuse is lit, making it quite possible that it will quit when you need it the most.
-
If you always shoot only JPGs and no longer shoot RAW, the Philips might be OK.
I always shoot only RAW (and then convert to ProPhoto RGB 16-bit} so I want to be able to see, and work with, as much of the captured spectrum that I can — even if copies of some of the images may later be saved as sRGB JPGs for web site display.
I think I'd be less disruptive if the advice were concentrated on the OPs specific requirements, not the advisors personal requirements!
What you choose to do may not be what Colin needs.
I shoot raw, never shot anything else. Don't care for jpgs, all get deleted once they get used, I have no issue with a budget monitor($200) for the majority of useage.
But yes, I have an extended gamut(Samsung) screen that cost a bomb(for a non pro, a highly superfluous expense).
It's use is appreciated, but side by side, the difference is so trivial, having it now I see the 'folly' in having used those funds on something that I didn't really need.
To the OP. be weary of 4K screens. Make sure your hardware can support it properly.
i.e. is your graphics card(or chip) capable of that output? If so, be sure it's properly capable of it(i.e. at 60fps, not 30fps).
There are a few gotchas when it comes to hardware you should make yourself aware of.
Another thing to be mindful of with 4K, is software. Not all software devs have the brains to set their interfaces up for 4K(looking at you Nikon!)
Some do, others don't. CaptureNX-D was updated with 4K support a while back.
ViewNX-i took longer to update. Both totally unusable at 4K before their respective updates .. near impossible to see their 'microfonts', and click on the correct part of the tool!
Most software works properly, but some don't.
Not that long ago I had to research screens(again) for my son .. maybe 6 months ago.
Found at that time, a Samsung 28" U28E590D, was the best value for money. Not the cheapest, cost me Aud $500 .... which would work out to about 300 Euro or so.
The only thing I don't like about it is the very plasticky stand they used. For son, it's fine. He does graphic design/animation type stuff.
Screen quality when calibrated is top notch(very low deltaE, using BasicColor).
Compared to my $2.5K Samsung, you wouldn't notice any difference unless your workflow was all in 10bit(hardware). Even then, the difference is too minimal to justify the additional $2K expense.
These extended gamut screens that Ann refers too, are specialist stuff. Totally useless if your entire hardware isn't capable of 10bit hardware settings. Not all graphics cards have that ability, no on board graphics chip(that I know of) has.
So if you do decide 4K is something you want(for the future too), then be sure your hardware can support it properly.
-
I think I'd be less disruptive if the advice were concentrated on the OPs specific requirements, not the advisors personal requirements!
What you choose to do may not be what Colin needs.
I shoot raw, never shot anything else. Don't care for jpgs, all get deleted once they get used, I have no issue with a budget monitor($200) for the majority of useage.
But yes, I have an extended gamut(Samsung) screen that cost a bomb(for a non pro, a highly superfluous expense).
It's use is appreciated, but side by side, the difference is so trivial, having it now I see the 'folly' in having used those funds on something that I didn't really need.
To the OP. be weary of 4K screens. Make sure your hardware can support it properly.
i.e. is your graphics card(or chip) capable of that output? If so, be sure it's properly capable of it(i.e. at 60fps, not 30fps).
There are a few gotchas when it comes to hardware you should make yourself aware of.
Another thing to be mindful of with 4K, is software. Not all software devs have the brains to set their interfaces up for 4K(looking at you Nikon!)
Some do, others don't. CaptureNX-D was updated with 4K support a while back.
ViewNX-i took longer to update. Both totally unusable at 4K before their respective updates .. near impossible to see their 'microfonts', and click on the correct part of the tool!
Most software works properly, but some don't.
Not that long ago I had to research screens(again) for my son .. maybe 6 months ago.
Found at that time, a Samsung 28" U28E590D, was the best value for money. Not the cheapest, cost me Aud $500 .... which would work out to about 300 Euro or so.
The only thing I don't like about it is the very plasticky stand they used. For son, it's fine. He does graphic design/animation type stuff.
Screen quality when calibrated is top notch(very low deltaE, using BasicColor).
Compared to my $2.5K Samsung, you wouldn't notice any difference unless your workflow was all in 10bit(hardware). Even then, the difference is too minimal to justify the additional $2K expense.
These extended gamut screens that Ann refers too, are specialist stuff. Totally useless if your entire hardware isn't capable of 10bit hardware settings. Not all graphics cards have that ability, no on board graphics chip(that I know of) has.
So if you do decide 4K is something you want(for the future too), then be sure your hardware can support it properly.
Wow, Ann merely posted her reasoning for her display choices. Please don’t tell people concerned with color accuracy that their inPut is worthless because you are willing to settle for less than that. Some folks shoot for museum quality, they’re people too.
-
CS: amusing post. arturking is an agent provocateur. possibly another multiple identity of Almass Ethan ...
-
..... Please don’t tell people concerned with color accuracy that their inPut is worthless because you are willing to settle for less than that. Some folks shoot for museum quality, they’re people too.
Yep, totally understood.
But the OP specifically stated that they had a budget of a few hundred Euro, so unless you can purchase high end gear, as Ann refers too, for a few hundred Euro, then my comment still stands.
Also, I never made any mention that Ann's info was "worthless".
The info about super high end, extended gamut screen is useless to the OP. That is, it's irrelevant.
My reply is more in tune with Erik's, in that a usable quality sRGB screen is fine for printing.
I say this with the experience, in having had a 10bit extended gamut screen right next to a cheaper sRGB(98%) screen, and for all intents and purposes, I've never seen any difference between my(few) prints and both screens.
Yes! .. in some cases, you can see differences between proper 10 bit screen and lower quality 6 bit screen(most are properly 8bit now, anyhow), but I've only ever seen that when an image had been pushed hard(mainly in shadows areas and blue tones).
But from what I've personally seen, a lot of lower end screens nowadays are actually better than in days gone by, where they may have been subpar in terms of color accuarcy.
Screen tech(and prices) have come a long way.
My take is like this: would I be happy with a 100%(or even 98%) sRGB capable screen for printing images, no problem at all.
I'd put more $ effort into calibrating(both hardware and software) and get it calibrated right.
Do I regret spending $2.5K on a high end extended gamut screen myself? .. sure do!
Could have spent the additional $2K on something else, and still been happy with a $500 screen instead!
@ Frank. Can't recall their name(s), but I do remember one chap and a robust exchange along the lines of Nikon's superiority on some things or other.
As for provocateur .. others can be the judge of that, I just prefer to see more targeted advice given .. and allowances made for any gotchas too!
-
I have been/am just as GAS'able as anyone.
Personally I have kinda landed now:
Eyes often wants more than the stomach.
Whatever floats your boat.
Personal taste.
Wallet.
-
Colin,
The Dell UltraSharp 24” Model U2419H is a nice full SRGB monitor that has a list price of $250 USD. There is a Model U2415 that claims it is calibrated from the factory as well for a few dollars more.
Should be a good choice within your budget.
-
I am happy with the NEC MultiSync PA302W, which is very adjustable and not limited to a choice of preset options options. It is not inexpensive ($1999), but affordable for me is something that actually works well.
-
The Dell UltraSharp 24” Model U2419H is a nice full SRGB monitor that has a list price of $250 USD. There is a Model U2415 that claims it is calibrated from the factory as well for a few dollars more.
Should be a good choice within your budget.
Thanks for this Bill
Several years ago, the Dell 2209WA I then bought was deemed fair quality, esp at the price I paid.
Your suggestion seems to be available for less than UK£200
Michael, I'm sure my eyes might love that NEC PA302W. But I'm retired now and if I had a choice on what to spend the extra $1,700, it would be on some overseas travel to take more photos :)
I realise my requirements are a lot simpler than many here on Nikongear and am grateful to have seen some of the other considerations for high end gear.
-
Colin:
There are monitors being sold at all price-points so the main things to determine are:
How much desk-space do you have available?
Do you shoot RAW or only JPG?
If RAW, do you wish to see the full gamut of colours which your camera captured?
Do you publish or print your images?
Do you care whether other people using different devices will see the same image which you see on your own monitor?
My strong advice is that only after you have decided on the answers to those questions, should you narrow-down your choice depending on price!
IF
you are the only person who will ever see your photographs;
you are perfectly content to see them with a very limited gamut;
and you are never planning to print them with any concern for reproducing the colours which you see on your monitor on the first print:
then any modern monitor is probably "good enough".
However, if you are more discerning;
have reasonably precise colour-vision;
intend to publish your images on the Web or on a printing Press;
or intend to print on an inkjet — without wasting a whole packet of paper and a complete set of (very expensive!!) inks on every print that you make;
then you need to consider a hardware-calibrated and profiled monitor.
Resolution is a separate issue:
4K may be over-kill and your choice here should be influenced by the software which you use and how scaleable its UI may be.
I happen to use a lot of software from different manufacturers so I need the capability of being able to set preferences to Scale my 2K 27" monitor to best accommodate applications which still do not provide scalable text in their UI — although I also use plenty of other software which does scale so I need to be able to change screen-resolution on the fly.
Another thing to consider is whether your GPU (graphics card) is capable of driving the monitor through the optimal kind of cable connector. My BenQ delivers 11-bit images though its DP port.
DP ports are the most desirable but HDMI also deliver good quality high-bit images.
If you have the kind of computer to which you can gain internal access, you could update the original GPU.
As an aside:
I have just taken my 2010 (!) Mac Pro Tower apart myself and changed most of its internal hardware.
It now has a new 8GB VRAM Radeon 580X GPU; a new 2 TB SSD for the Boot drive; more DRAM (for a total 40 GB) and a PCI card with an external extender to give me 8 modern USB 3.0 ports.
The rebilding has worked out very well (far exceeding what I had expected) and I now have a "new" Franken-Mac Pro which is totally silent, runs extremely coolly and is very fast — for about one sixth of the price of a new Mac Pro!
To return to the subject of Monitors:
I had originally intended to buy another NEC multi-sync (they are expensive but you may get 10 years of excellent service from one) but then became aware of the BenQ range. BenQ makes monitors in several sizes and with different levels of capability.
I ordered their 27-inch SW2700PT (it cost a little under $600 which is less than half the price of the equivalent NEC or EIZO) with the knowledge that if it wasn't satisfactory, I could always return it for something better.
Unlike what certain naysayers on the web may have reported, my example is absolutely superb.
It is evenly lit, has no dead pixels, sturdy and thoroughly ergonomic design (can be swung between vertical and horizontal aspects); has easy to reach ports of all kinds; an excellent Hood with a shuttered-opening on the top through which to hang a calibrator puck; and included seemingly excellent software for doing the calibration itself.
My BenQ also came with an external controller device which lets me alternate between two saved and stored calibrations — sRGB and Adobe RGB — at the click of a button.
For me, and my purposes, the BenQ is a "keeper"!
Even if you don't think that you need the capabilities of the SW2700PT model, do look at the lower-priced monitors which this company sells because I do think that you might like them.
Most importantly, try to buy from a company which will permit you to return a monitor (or any other equipment!) if it fails to meet your needs.
-
.....
I realise my requirements are a lot simpler than many here on Nikongear and am grateful to have seen some of the other considerations for high end gear.
I reckon a more accurate way to explain that would that your requirements may be a lot simpler than SOME .. not so much the many you referred too.
Me for example. Not a pro, don't care for publishing and suchlike, just a regular hobbyist/enthusiast/amateur .. I believe like so many others on NG.
So you're not alone!
(only difference maybe that I'm a gearhead, in that I tinker with all manner of stuff, and PCs and components are one of those aspects)
Resolution is good. more = better! simple as that.
Back about 10 years ago, I had the usual gear back then too. TFT screens, etc.
I had a thing for not very regular, but updating PC gear on an as needed basis ... more importantly value for money PC equipment!
If it was cheap, and it did the job, that'd be more than enough(for me).
Anyhow, many screen updates later, I'm happy with the screen I have, but I know I could have got better value for money from the thousand dollars saved that could have gone to holidays(which I'm not interested in) .. and more likely more other gear of some type.
So, now I have a massive 32" 4K Samsung screen, after much to-ing and fro-ing, I finally settled on. Main sell point on this screen is the built in hardware calibration setup. That is, I can hardware calibrate the monitor and not just software, ie. I can use the monitor on any OS now, and it's still calibrated.
The jump from HD(1920x1080) I can tell you is a very nice feature. Something that almost everyone appreciates, so resolution is important.
This is also off the fact that many of us hobbyists also use our computers for other things, and most likely don't have a dedicated computer for (say) just photo editing.
All software benefits from a resolution increase, even the simplest software like a browser! .. as long as the software was coded with 4K in mind(like CNX-D and VNX-i weren't for a long time).
Most is tho, so if you do spreadsheets, or whatever else .. that extra resolution sure if handy to have.
This is where I've realised my major benefit in having a 4K screen .. spreadsheets and web browser. It's nice to see more(better) detail in your images, but the ability to see more in other apps is probably the biggest advantage.
In fact, it's annoying going back to a lower res screen and having to put up with it.
But you need to have the right PC equipment to handle the data throughput, of higher resolution.
eg. if you don't have a graphics card to output to the screen, and you rely on the onboard graphics chip, it's most likely not going to give a nice 4K experience(if at all).
If you list your PCs hardware specs, it'll be an easy task to determine this.
Also, do you have a calibrator(of any type)?
So, 10 years ago my first LCD screen update was a simple and very cheap(and nasty) LG 2442 screen. Still works, calibrates well and I've printed a few very nice large(ish) prints for family and friends when they requested them.
Prints were done at a high quality pro level printing lab(for anyone in Melbourne, Prism Graphics are highly recommended!)
At the time I was worried about the print coming out as I saw in on the low gamut capabilities of this LG screen. Man at the printers took me in loaded up my image(off a D300) showed me on his multi thousand dollar screen .. no issues.
What I saw on my screen I then saw on his screen too .. so, no issues with this lower gamut difference. AND YES! all my images are raw only. File taken to printers was high quality TIF on a CF card.
That was my first ever large print(30"). My concern was that it contained a lot of green(foliage) and I was worried about out of gamut greens(due to the LG screens "supposed" limitations).
I'd kept that LG screen up until about 6 months ago when son asked for a second screen(here at my house). He does graphics type stuff(3D animations stuff I care nothing for) and just required a second screen for his stuff.
I got my 32" Samsung about 6 years ago, it calibrates very well, and for most of those 6 years, I had it and the LG screen side by side.
On an almost perfectly Samsung calibrated screen(very low, 0.3 Delta) and the LG(more like 0.9), I could see no difference(other than the massive resolution difference). And you won't see any difference, unless it's a very bad cheapie, hard to find nowadays, or if it doesn't calibrate well at all.
From memory a DeltaE of about 1.5 or lower is imperceptible to the human eye .. only a machine can determine any differences.
In terms of colour accuracy(screen to print to physical subject), having done a few prints for my sisters button shop, colours are near perfect seeing the button vs the print(on the LG).
Sister took the tif files I gave her and she printed them at the local chemist/photo print store! :o
I get what the more affluent members will tell you .. get a higher quality this or that .. I get that. IN many instances it's usually better.
But for some of us, that more expensive $700 item, or thousand dollar item .. isn't worth 5x the $200 equivalent!
I will end up getting another second screen to replace the LG I donated to son. I could easily just take it back, it's only 3 fee away, but a PITA to dismount, disconnect, and remount to my monitor stand.
I'm expecting to spend not too much more than about $400 or so myself, will most likely get another 4K(my graphics card can handle 2x 4K streams). Not sure if I do 24"(like the LG) or 27".
Dell usually has a very good lineup. Some of their older generation screens(like the 2413, or whatever) have very high quality outputs. They don't have mod cons like USB3 ports, or thunderbolt or whatever other usually meaningless thing, but screens can be of a very high quality. Low res tho if you think that higher res would be of benefit.
I just had a quick peek at the Dell(UK) site and of the three 24" models they currently have on offer(under 200), the older U2415 is the better deal, in your neck of the woods.
-
I actually find high resolution and large size of monitors to be problematic. I have a 27" monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and to move the mouse from one end of the screen to the other, it requires greater physical movement of the mouse (at maximum speed settings) than my previous 22" 1680x1050 monitor. I prefer to move my fingers as little as possible to avoid straining my neck and arm (many people who work at the office get symptoms if they have to lift their arm a lot). It's still manageable but a bit annoying.
Additionally, the relative size of fonts on the desktop, icons and text in many tools relative to the overall size of the display, so sometimes I have to spend more time looking for what I am trying to find on the screen. I imagine that if using a 4K screen, they would become still smaller. Using varifocal eyeglasses, I find myself tilting my head up and down a lot to read the small text in different parts of the screen. (If I didn't have varifocals, I'd have to choose whether I can read or see long distances, so I'd be swapping glasses a lot).
I think my current screen is a good compromise as it allows me to see a fullhd resolution image at 100% and have ample space around for tools. However, I would prefer if there were more options for customizing the mouse behavior when using high-resolution screens and if it were possible to increase the size of fonts, tools and icons across the system, I'd use that option to compensate for the high-resolution screen making them smaller. I am not convinced that using a 4K or 8K screen would make my life easier as it is.
-
Always considered 1600x1200 as the "perfect" monitor resolution.
-
>>>
However, I would prefer if there were more options for customizing the mouse behavior when using high-resolution screens and if it were possible to increase the size of fonts, tools and icons across the system, I'd use that option to compensate for the high-resolution screen making them smaller.
>>>>>
Ilkka:
I am not sure exactly how one would do this in Windows but I am sure that there is a way?
On a Mac, I just go to System Preferences > Display and click the "Scale" button.
There i can scale-down from 2560x1440 to 2048 x 1148 which is fine for programs like Dreamweaver which has not yet got around to updating its UI.
It is still a colossal bore to have to that — particularly because I use DW in conjunction with other software which has updated their UIs.
A 4K monitor would make the situation worse for what I do; but they are probably super for gamesters or for those who only use their computers for photo viewing and editing.
-
I am not sure exactly how one would do this in Windows but I am sure that there is a way?
For the mouse I am at maximum speed setting, and it still is a bit slow to move for my taste. For the fonts and icons, I will need to see if I can increase them from control panel.
-
I have a 27" monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and to move the mouse from one end of the screen to the other, it requires greater physical movement of the mouse (at maximum speed settings) than my previous 22" 1680x1050 monitor. I prefer to move my fingers as little as possible to avoid straining my neck and arm (many people who work at the office get symptoms if they have to lift their arm a lot). It's still manageable but a bit annoying.
Ilkka, I also use a 27" monitor with the same resolution, an iMac. My mouse responds to the speed I move it. If I move the mouse very fast I can swipe from one side of the screen to the other without moving my arm, just wrist action, about two inches, if I move the mouse very slowly I have to move it almost as far as it is moving on the screen, I would guess about a ratio of 1:1.5? This is directly related to the speed of movement, faster I move the mouse, the greater distance it moves on the screen compared with the distance I move the mouse. It's very natural, in fact I hadn't notice until I read this thread!
-
The problem with "built-in" mouse acceleration is overshooting the end point is highly likely if a larger distance is to be moved. Thus one gets there, but has to iterate into the final destination. I tend to set mouse acceleration to a minimum to have a better haptic response.
-
I found settings to increase the font size in Windows, ViewNX-i and Photoshop; good in theory, but I am not yet decided whether it is an improvement or not. ;-) I need to get used to the new settings.
-
Ps is OK for me with the "standard" settings for my monitor (because its Prefs let us choose a larger text size) but Dreamweaver (as just one example) does not give the user that option in its Prefs so I have to decrease monitor resolution when I am using DW.
Problem is that I have both programs open simultaneously; and am swapping continuously between them, so the text-size problem drives me bananas!
This must be doubly more infuriating for users of a 4k monitor
-
Under Windows 10, one can set a different text scaling for each application. No idea how this works on the Macs.
-
Sounds like the perfect solution.
If it does exist on a Mac, I have yet to discover where to find it.
-
This discussion has met and exceeded all my personal concerns; anticipating questions and providing answers faster then the speed-of-thought. ("Haptic" -- thanx Birna. I nearly wet myself when I read that... :D) In all seriousness, the best thread addressing practical remedies I've happened upon in a long time.
-
Thank you Ann, for singing praise on the Benq Monitor with hardware calibration. I guess I will follow your thoughtful recommodation as soon as my old monitor needs to be replaced
-
If it's any encouragement, that BenQ costs just 0.0006% of Apple's new "Best Monitor Ever" masterpiece monitor — and the BenQ price includes its excellent stand while Apple's stand is an additional $1000!!!
-
Must say that the only thing missing in the BenQ SW2700PT 27" is the 4K,,, if you can live without that it's the best colors for the money!Otherwise the 4K BenQ SW271 27" looks amazing 8)
-
Thanks again for everyone's comments.
The BenQ SW2700PT 27" is within budget, but Mr Amazon wants almost twice the price for the 4k version, so I will live with "vanilla" and maybe spend the difference on a visit to Norway :)
The money needed for some of the higher spec options will I'm afraid be earmarked for another visit to Costa Rica, or a deposit on the 500mm PF ! That's not to say i don't appreciate I'll have missed out on some features but i know Ann and others will understand how I've balanced my priorities.
-
Thanks again for everyone's comments.
The BenQ SW2700PT 27" is within budget, but Mr Amazon wants almost twice the price for the 4k version, so I will live with "vanilla" and maybe spend the difference on a visit to Norway :)
The money needed for some of the higher spec options will I'm afraid be earmarked for another visit to Costa Rica, or a deposit on the 500mm PF ! That's not to say i don't appreciate I'll have missed out on some features but i know Ann and others will understand how I've balanced my priorities.
It also includes some unmentioned future proofing or USB C, with it's USB 3.1 and 3.2 gen 1 porting. Then, if one wishes to take advantage of the faster speeds of USB 3.1 and 3.2 gen 1, there's the steep rise in the cost of cables required to allow those speeds. Just having the ports isn't enough, you also need faster ables. Of course the ports are backward compatible with slower cables, you just won't get the faster speeds without faster cables.
-
You definitely need modern cables but the monitor comes with a complete set of them.
Because my Mac Pro lives in a kennel under my desk, and my cables snake though a congested hole which is cut through the desk-top, I thought that I could save time and effort by merely re-using the older cables from my NEC which were already in place.
BIG mistake — the monitor wouldn't even run.
BenQ's manual does emphasize the importance of using their own provided cables and once I did exactly that . . . BINGO!!
-
Colin:
If you use software with panels that contain text which you need to be able to SEE, you may be very happy that you didn't pay extra for 4K?!
I find that the 2K on my BenQ SW2700PT 27" monitor is absolutely fine!
-
Thanks Carl and Ann
(Ann, I was waiting for you to start reminiscing about your trip to Costa Rica....!)
-
Colin:
Costa Rica was a truly fabulous experience and is one which I intend to repeat.
However, I have just received an invitation (a few minutes ago!) to go to Brazil and the Amazon so now I am seriously torn between doing that — or acquiring a D6!
Trouble is, I want to do both!!
::)
-
Colin:
Costa Rica was a truly fabulous experience and is one which I intend to repeat.
However, I have just received an invitation (a few minutes ago!) to go to Brazil and the Amazon so now I am seriously torn between doing that — or acquiring a D6!
Trouble is, I want to do both!!
::)
I am quite sure that we would all love to see what you and a D6 would do with the Amazon! 8)
-
BenQ GW2765HT LED IPS 27 inch is worth a look
-
I ended up buying
BenQ Designer PD2700U 27" 3840 x 2160 4K sRGB
and very happy with the performance with it on an ThinkPad W540
Don't know if I will be able to run it in 10 bit, i'll find out ;) so far it's 8 bit only
-
Somethings which I have discovered about the splendid BenQ monitors:
Always use the Advanced panel when Calibrating and use Native WB (and not Adobe RGB) for your Colour space;
and choose Relative Black Point as well.
This becomes very important if you use either Lightroom or ACR because those applications work in their own very large-gamut working space and you will get double-colour management (and horrible orange results!) if you profile the Monitor to other than Native WB.
There is a very good YouTube tutorial on the calibration of these monitors which is far better than the PME printed Instructions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9y3db9vRI
I also changed the graphics card inside my computer for one which provides a Display Port and also 8GB of VRAM too. Using a DigitalPort will give you the 10-bit diplay while you will only get8-bit via HDMI.
I am thrilled with my BenQ so hope that you will be with yours as well!
-
Thanks Ann!
That was quick answers to the two points I already discovered needed fixing ;D Much appreciated, as always ;)
-
Happy to have helped!
The way in which you Calibrate and Profile is vital with the BenQs — using Advanced and Native etc. is the key.
Have fun with that monitor — as I know that you will?!
:)