A chance to talk to FlatpanelsHD's reviewers.
By Draycat
#6578
Thanks for the review, it was very helpful. Just a quick question - how does this compare with something like the Dell 2312HM? I do a lot of photo processing and I'm looking for a new monitor - this costs about one third more than the Dell - is it worth the difference?
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6580
I think the Eizo has the edge and personally I could justify the slightly higher price.

If you do a lot of photo processing I would recommend the Eizo but it also depends on the nature of your work. In the end I think you have to decide but personally I would go for the Eizo for my kind of work.

The real question is maybe if you need a bigger monitor? I find that size helps a lot when working with text or photo editing.
By Draycat
#6581
Thanks for the clarification. I live in Japan so space is a bit of an issue. I use 2 monitors on arms which rules out anything really big. I have a Eizo 19 inch S1921 and Dell 20 inch 2005FPW so a 23 inch display is an improvement on what I have now! Long term I plan to replace both monitors. This month I will replace the Dell and a some point I will replace the S1921 and move up to something in the Eizo ColorEdge series once my income from photography increases. The new Eizo CS230 looks interesting - are you planning a review?

Just a final question - would it be worth looking at something like the Dell U2412M over the FS2333? The price is about the same, and for now something in the AdobeRGB gaumont is not necessary for me. Other than the additional real estate of 16:10 would there be any other benefit? I'm thinking in terms of displaying colour and grey scales.
By Draycat
#6582
Also would be interested in how this compares to something like the Eizo S2243w/S2242w. Would the newer IPS panel of the FS2333 be better for photo processing than the older VA panel of the S2243 (wider gamut and 16:10 resolution excepted).
By MattF
#6587
I notice that Custom calibration on this site often ends up turning the image to a very dark setting. I wonder if that's really necessary, and I find in this particular case that it even looks slightly strange. The colours seem mostly convincing though and are completely different from what I favoured. I made blue dominant over both green and red in equal measure. I think it is pretty balanced, but apparently the other way around is better.

But prad.de often seems to come up with different settings (see them actually using the "opposite" proportions for the FS2332), so I'm looking forward to their recommendations. I may not have found ideal settings, but overall I find these settings also hard getting used to after a while (in the sense that it doesn't seem quite right and natural) though in some depictions and at first glance it makes a convincing and kind of persuasive impression.

Maybe these setting are best, but then I'm afraid this monitor would have to come with the warning that it's only calibrated with an extremely dark and very unsaturated image, as a result of low brightness and all colours beneath 90%. The lack of saturation is visible in the way that some colours, though they may be right, look hardly offset from their surroundings. And daylight scenes look like ethereal shadow plays. Natural saturation and natural tone don't seem to be the same (as is confirmed, apart from many very different and excellent screens like a realistic CRT I own, by the clearly greater saturation of any real image).
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6588
Draycat wrote:The new Eizo CS230 looks interesting - are you planning a review?

Just a final question - would it be worth looking at something like the Dell U2412M over the FS2333? The price is about the same, and for now something in the AdobeRGB gaumont is not necessary for me. Other than the additional real estate of 16:10 would there be any other benefit? I'm thinking in terms of displaying colour and grey scales.
No C230 review planned, sorry. But we have tested one of the older ColorEdge monitors and their are very impressive:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php? ... 1281424353

The U2412M is also a great monitor. I can recommend both but in the end it depends on your needs. If the larger panel is the most important factor for you, U2412M seems like the obvious choice. If color reproduction is the most important factor, I still believe Eizo has the edge. :)
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6589
Draycat wrote:Also would be interested in how this compares to something like the Eizo S2243w/S2242w. Would the newer IPS panel of the FS2333 be better for photo processing than the older VA panel of the S2243 (wider gamut and 16:10 resolution excepted).
The wider gamut is only useful if you work in a wide gamut environment, meaning that all your devices operate with this gamut, including your camera and printer. If not, a wide gamut will give you anything.

I think IPS panels are better suited for graphics but I know that some people prefer VA for some specific tasks due to the much deeper blacks.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#6590
MattF wrote:I notice that Custom calibration on this site often ends up turning the image to a very dark setting. I wonder if that's really necessary, and I find in this particular case that it even looks slightly strange.
We always calibrate with 120 cd/m2 as a target. This is a "dark room target" and if you use your monitor in a brightly lit room you need to aim for a higher level. Color saturation also depends on your environment so if you use our setting in a brighter envionment, color saturation can seem a bit too low, yes. Everything is relative - epecially when you are talking about picture representation.
MattF wrote: Maybe these setting are best, but then I'm afraid this monitor would have to come with the warning that it's only calibrated with an extremely dark and very unsaturated image, as a result of low brightness and all colours beneath 90%
Saturation mostly depends on the brightness level so increase it and you should be good. We calibrate according to the picture standards. This is not our own idea of how a picture should look like. If other sites come with very different setting suggestions it is probably because they calibrate according to a birghtly lit room - or simply because they calibrate according to their own beliefs (and not the picture standards). In the latter case, I cannot argue with reason as it is purely a subjective decision and goal.

As said. Go for a higher brightness level if you are working in a brightly lit room. :)