Monitors viewing comfort : CCFL backlighting versus LED backlighting ?

Started Mar 5, 2013 | Discussions
alpshiker
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Monitors viewing comfort : CCFL backlighting versus LED backlighting ?
Mar 5, 2013

Well, I know it's a wide topic due to the fact that many factors are involved, but I'd gladly take some advice for choosing a monitor in the 27" to 30" range that would be eyes friendly. I shot my eyes years ago by using a large Trinitron, and now after reading some comments on eyes strain caused by the LEDs flickering, I would be rather cautious buying a LCD LED monitor. Should I skip the tempting features of newer LED panels and stay conservative ? CCFL monitors have their down sides as well with chemical contamination and radiations — I noticed that a palm leave left in front of a CCFL TV set gets toasted in just few days. The above reports on LED MBP date from some years ago, so maybe the LED technologies have evolved since ? Manufacturers seem to yield to environmental standards these days in their marketing hype. But what about user's friendliness ?

What are you users experiences ?

Paul

Alpha Doug
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,151Gear list
Like?
Re: Monitors viewing comfort : CCFL backlighting versus LED backlighting ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 5, 2013

There have been many improvements in both CCFL and LED backlights in recent years.  CCFLs are not as bright as LED in general, but they have issues with differing brightness across the field of view, and lowered output over a number of years, plus they vary enough over short time periods to make calibration a frequent thing.  LEDs are much more uniform across the field of view and have very little variation as a function of time, relegating calibration to an infrequent checkup.  However, most LED panels run WAY too bright for matching with Printer output.  Therefore, when calibrating your monitor, it is critical to get the output set to somewhere between 90 to 120 cd/m2.  This usually relates to about 50-60% of maximum.  I have never noticed any problem with "flickering" LEDs.  I believe there is also an issue with "color temperature" of the backlight.  In modern LCD monitors, light shines from behind the screen "through" the pixels.  So if the color temperature of the backlight is colder (more blue) for instance, it might be harder to calibrate the screen.  That is why calibration pucks and software have had to be changes and modified to calibrate LED backlit screens.  It's possible that in the near future we may be using OLED screens which will eliminate the backlight issues.

-- hide signature --

Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-} www.dougwigton.com/

 Alpha Doug's gear list:Alpha Doug's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: Monitors viewing comfort : CCFL backlighting versus LED backlighting ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 5, 2013

After I discovered that I was sensitive to the LED display used by the 11" MacBook Air I was concerned about using an external LED display.

Fortunately, NEC offers a variety of displays with CCFL backlighting. I got a 2490WUXi2 and I couldn't be happier with the monitor.  The NEC website makes it very easy to narrow-down the selection to CCFL backlit displays.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
afterburn
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: Monitors viewing comfort : CCFL backlighting versus LED backlighting ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 5, 2013

alpshiker wrote:

Well, I know it's a wide topic due to the fact that many factors are involved, but I'd gladly take some advice for choosing a monitor in the 27" to 30" range that would be eyes friendly. I shot my eyes years ago by using a large Trinitron, and now after reading some comments on eyes strain caused by the LEDs flickering, I would be rather cautious buying a LCD LED monitor. Should I skip the tempting features of newer LED panels and stay conservative ? CCFL monitors have their down sides as well with chemical contamination and radiations — I noticed that a palm leave left in front of a CCFL TV set gets toasted in just few days. The above reports on LED MBP date from some years ago, so maybe the LED technologies have evolved since ? Manufacturers seem to yield to environmental standards these days in their marketing hype. But what about user's friendliness ?

What are you users experiences ?

Paul

My eyes are extremely sensitive to display flicker and I can't tell anything with LED displays. To me, it is not even a contest. CCFL is crap. It's uneven, it's dim and it ages rather quickly. After a year of use, there is already a visible degradation of brightness and you'll be lucky if it lasts beyond 5 years, though long before you get there you'll probably replaced it already since the backlight became too dim.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

 afterburn's gear list:afterburn's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Apple Aperture +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Posts like this one are crap...
In reply to afterburn, Mar 5, 2013

afterburn wrote:

My eyes are extremely sensitive to display flicker and I can't tell anything with LED displays. To me, it is not even a contest. CCFL is crap. It's uneven, it's dim and it ages rather quickly. After a year of use, there is already a visible degradation of brightness and you'll be lucky if it lasts beyond 5 years, though long before you get there you'll probably replaced it already since the backlight became too dim.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

Making blanket statements like this does nothing to further the discussion and help the OP. The reality is that there are good CCFL displays just like there are good quality LED displays; there are also poorly-made displays using both kinds of backlighting. Aside from the longevity difference, high quality CCFL displays do not suffer from the problems you describe. In fact, some of the best monitors intended for high-end image and graphics editing have CCFL backlighting. CCFL backlighting offers some inherent advantages over LED backlighting such as wider color gamut and better color quality. LEDs are slowly catching-up but both Eizo and NEC continue to offer high-end CCFL displays.

Aside from the technical aspects of the two options, the fact of the matter is that some people are sensitive to LED backlighting while others are bothered by CCFL. I hope that the OP will have the opportunity to personally inspect the displays he is considering. If that isn't an option, then he should buy from a retailer with an excellent return policy. Even with a good return policy re-boxing and shipping a large display is not for the faint of heart. Making a video while unboxing the display will be helpful should it become necessary to return it.

Bottom line: If a display is literally painful to use it doesn't matter how long it lasts; you are going to regret purchasing it. Better to be sure it will work for you in the first place...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
afterburn
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
No offense...
In reply to f8BeThereToo, Mar 6, 2013

But this is a public forum where people voice opinions to questions. My reply was my opinion and I even indicated it was my opinion. You don't get to chose which opinion is crap and which is not because nobody has absolute truth, not even you. Each opinion, right or wrong, is equally valuable in a discussion. The whole idea of public forums is that you can get enough different opinions to form your own, not that everybody agrees with everybody.

If you don't like or can't handle other people's opinions, don't go strolling on public forums. Have a good day.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

 afterburn's gear list:afterburn's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Apple Aperture +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alpha Doug
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,151Gear list
Like?
Re: No offense...
In reply to afterburn, Mar 6, 2013

The scientific fact is that CCFLs do age much more quickly than LED backlights.  I have a very high end 24" Sony Monitor from a few years back that cost almost $1000 and was the best monitor available.  If you looked carefully, even when it was new, the lighting was slightly uneven across the full screen (you need to look at a neutral grey screen in order to evaluate it).  5 years later, it has a distinctly "brighter" area at the left edge of the screen which diminishes as you move to the right.  The LED backlit screen on my MBP has no such problem.  The biggest problem with LED screens is that people run them WAY too bright.  CCFLs are somewhat limited in brightness, so they run at about 50% of the brightness of LED when they are maxed out.  So many folks have issues with dark prints, and burnt out eyeballs because they run their LED monitors at max.  Simple fix.  Just lower the intensity to about that of a CCFL monitor.  About 50-60% or about 90-120 cd/m2.  You also will have to calibrate a CCFL monitor more often than an LED because the backlight does have more variation over time than an LED backlight.  So you pays your money and you takes your choice.  Either one can be a winner if used properly.

-- hide signature --

Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-} www.dougwigton.com/

 Alpha Doug's gear list:Alpha Doug's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
None Taken...
In reply to afterburn, Mar 6, 2013

afterburn wrote:

But this is a public forum where people voice opinions to questions. My reply was my opinion and I even indicated it was my opinion. You don't get to chose which opinion is crap and which is not because nobody has absolute truth, not even you. Each opinion, right or wrong, is equally valuable in a discussion. The whole idea of public forums is that you can get enough different opinions to form your own, not that everybody agrees with everybody.

If you don't like or can't handle other people's opinions, don't go strolling on public forums. Have a good day.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

Contrary to your opinion, all responses to a question are not equally valuable in a discussion. Your initial post is a great example of a response that adds little to the discussion.

You made a blanket statement based on your opinion. The reality is that not all CCFL displays are crap. And I can back it up with facts, not just an opinion based on my limited personal experience. (Which is why I didn't mention that after 2+ years my NEC CCFL display does not have any of the problems that have been noted as being associated with CCFL backlighting.) I have links to myriad websites that detail the benefits and liabilities of both kinds of displays, as well as reputable reviews of LED and CCFL monitors.

I provided information so the OP has a better idea about his options so he can make a decision based on his requirements, not mine. My opinion about CCFL vs. LED backlighting (which is evolving rather than being set in concrete...) didn't enter into my suggestions about how the OP can resolve his dilemma.

This forum would be a lot more valuable for people seeking help if more participants would take the time to offer constructive responses instead of seeking validation for their opinions.

Een goede dag verder!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,963
Like?
Re: No offense...
In reply to afterburn, Mar 6, 2013

afterburn wrote:

But this is a public forum where people voice opinions to questions. My reply was my opinion and I even indicated it was my opinion. You don't get to chose which opinion is crap and which is not because nobody has absolute truth, not even you. Each opinion, right or wrong, is equally valuable in a discussion. The whole idea of public forums is that you can get enough different opinions to form your own, not that everybody agrees with everybody.

Except that it was not clear in your post whether you were presenting your personal opinion or a large consensus opinion. If you present something without qualifiers, it is generally assumed to be something largely undisputed and not a personal opinion.

If you don't like or can't handle other people's opinions, don't go strolling on public forums. Have a good day.

What we don't like is presenting personal opinions as large consensus opinions.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alpshiker
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Bottom line ?
In reply to noirdesir, Mar 7, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

afterburn wrote:

But this is a public forum where people voice opinions to questions. My reply was my opinion and I even indicated it was my opinion. You don't get to chose which opinion is crap and which is not because nobody has absolute truth, not even you. Each opinion, right or wrong, is equally valuable in a discussion. The whole idea of public forums is that you can get enough different opinions to form your own, not that everybody agrees with everybody.

Except that it was not clear in your post whether you were presenting your personal opinion or a large consensus opinion. If you present something without qualifiers, it is generally assumed to be something largely undisputed and not a personal opinion.

If you don't like or can't handle other people's opinions, don't go strolling on public forums. Have a good day.

What we don't like is presenting personal opinions as large consensus opinions.

Hey guys, I hate to disrupt you but maybe I can narrow my question to this:
I gather from your posts (thanks a lot btw !) that LEDS are brighter than CCFL, more uniform, have longer lasting life, more accurate colors, and there is no doubt that they are the future in TV sets and monitors (probably with OLED). What I could gather however is that they are currently implemented in monitors in such a way that those monitors can be used in bright light conditions, for that's where LEDS clearly show their superiority over the former CCFL backlighting. The problem comes when you want to use those monitors in dimm light environments such as an ordinary image lab, right ? In order not to toast ones single pair of eyes, the brightness has to be reduced to minimal values. But the fact is that LEDs can't be dimmed. They have their optimal functioning at a rated power, and to simulate dimming, one has to induce a flicker by switching feed on/off at Herzial speeds. And even if the brain can't catch the fast flicker, the eyes will and they might tell you it's not good. Am I right ?
That would explain why some users of those monitors don't notice the flicker, when others will. When the monitor is set at full brightness, LEDs are continuously switched on and they don't flicker. But when you start tweaking the monitor settings, that's when flickering appears, proportionally to the dimming that is imposed to the LEDs.

So here's the bottom line I come to :

— Use a LED monitor if you work in a bright environment, where you will keep the monitor set at high brightness.

— Otherwise, if the monitor has to be dimmed a lot, it is advisable to stay on the CCFL route, until perhaps monitor manufacturers will bring low light level LED monitors to the market, designed for those particular working conditions.

Does that make sense ?
Paul

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Phil Rose
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,377Gear list
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 7, 2013

alpshiker wrote:

So here's the bottom line I come to :

— Use a LED monitor if you work in a bright environment, where you will keep the monitor set at high brightness.

— Otherwise, if the monitor has to be dimmed a lot, it is advisable to stay on the CCFL route, until perhaps monitor manufacturers will bring low light level LED monitors to the market, designed for those particular working conditions.

Does that make sense ?
Paul

Yes. Makes good sense.

And also keep in mind that when a CCFL monitor is used for photography purposes (esp. when printing is involved), the relatively low white-point luminance that will be used (mine is calibrated at 90 cd/ft2) has the desirable "side-effect" of probably prolonging the lamp lifetime relative to use at the retina-burning levels that so many people seem to believe is desirable.

I've had my NEC 2690 WUXi for exactly 5 (five!) years as of this month. It's a wide-gamut, CCFL-based monitor and has been running 24/7 for the vast majority of that 5 years. It's calibrated frequently and shows no signs of "degradation".

Phil

http://pirose.zenfolio.com

 Phil Rose's gear list:Phil Rose's gear list
Olympus E-10 Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to Phil Rose, Mar 9, 2013

If the longevity of your display is important to you, turning it off when it isn't in use is a free and simple way of extending its useful life. Allow your Mac to "sleep" whenever possible. Or turn it off if it won't be used for a prolonged period. If you need to leave the computer running for some reason but you aren't using the display, use the Energy Saver preferences to allow display sleep while preventing the internal drive from sleeping.

Energy Saver can also be used to schedule automatic on/off times. Set a time so it will be on when you need it in the morning and a power-off time when you are likely to be done using it. If you are still using it at the preset "off" time you will be provided the option to cancel the shutdown process so you can continue to use the computer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NewsyL
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,466
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 9, 2013

alpshiker wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

afterburn wrote:

But this is a public forum where people voice opinions to questions. My reply was my opinion and I even indicated it was my opinion. You don't get to chose which opinion is crap and which is not because nobody has absolute truth, not even you. Each opinion, right or wrong, is equally valuable in a discussion. The whole idea of public forums is that you can get enough different opinions to form your own, not that everybody agrees with everybody.

Except that it was not clear in your post whether you were presenting your personal opinion or a large consensus opinion. If you present something without qualifiers, it is generally assumed to be something largely undisputed and not a personal opinion.

If you don't like or can't handle other people's opinions, don't go strolling on public forums. Have a good day.

What we don't like is presenting personal opinions as large consensus opinions.

Hey guys, I hate to disrupt you but maybe I can narrow my question to this:
I gather from your posts (thanks a lot btw !) that LEDS are brighter than CCFL, more uniform, have longer lasting life, more accurate colors, and there is no doubt that they are the future in TV sets and monitors (probably with OLED). What I could gather however is that they are currently implemented in monitors in such a way that those monitors can be used in bright light conditions, for that's where LEDS clearly show their superiority over the former CCFL backlighting. The problem comes when you want to use those monitors in dimm light environments such as an ordinary image lab, right ? In order not to toast ones single pair of eyes, the brightness has to be reduced to minimal values. But the fact is that LEDs can't be dimmed. They have their optimal functioning at a rated power, and to simulate dimming, one has to induce a flicker by switching feed on/off at Herzial speeds. And even if the brain can't catch the fast flicker, the eyes will and they might tell you it's not good. Am I right ?
That would explain why some users of those monitors don't notice the flicker, when others will. When the monitor is set at full brightness, LEDs are continuously switched on and they don't flicker. But when you start tweaking the monitor settings, that's when flickering appears, proportionally to the dimming that is imposed to the LEDs.

So here's the bottom line I come to :

— Use a LED monitor if you work in a bright environment, where you will keep the monitor set at high brightness.

— Otherwise, if the monitor has to be dimmed a lot, it is advisable to stay on the CCFL route, until perhaps monitor manufacturers will bring low light level LED monitors to the market, designed for those particular working conditions.

Does that make sense ?
Paul

No, you can't go by the rules of thumb you have there.

There are good and bad in both CCFL and LED back lit monitors.

For starters, both CCFL and LED can be excessively bright at 100%, way more than most people require indoors in a light controlled room. If you're not editing in a light controlled room, you're just begging for trouble. Even in a office environment you shouldn't have to go above 180 cd/m2 and many of these monitors can go to 400 cd/m2 at 100% brightness. Pointedly... if you're doing serious editing you need to have controlled lighting, blinds on windows, and avoid a room with colorfully painted walls.

Both CCFL's and LED back lit monitors can be excessively bright at 0% brightness, yes, ZERO percent. It is the BOTTOM end minimal brightness you should be more concerned with in order to avoid the "Dark Prints" issue with edited images. Google that.

As stated in another post here, a common level of brightness is between 90 and 120 cd/m2. A lot of monitors cannot get below 120 cd/m2. For example, when new the much praised HP ZR24w with CCFL back light cannot go below about 135 cd/m2 using the brightness control alone. The Dell U3011 CCFL... 128 cd/m2. The ASUS PA246Q CCFL... 127 cd/m2. All approximate figures.

Then there are the LED back lit units - the Dell U2312HM... 114 cd/m2, the ASUS PA238Q... 135 cd/m2, among others.

Of course, one way to deal with a monitor that is too bright at 0% is to increase room lighting to match the monitor.

It seems that a lot of the recent (last 18 months) LED back lit units do have a good minimal brightness down to 60 cd/m2 or lower at 0% brightness. HOWEVER, some of them accomplish that using a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) technique to lower brightness where the LED's are turned off for a fraction of a second and back on again. Some people can perceive this as a flicker effect and for them it can be very fatiguing. Hence, the better monitor review sites are now testing for this method of reducing brightness. Read about it here...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm

.

Something else..... gamut coverage - standard sRGB and wide gamut (WG).

Most CCFL back lights offer reasonable coverage of the gamut they are designed for. Typically about 96-98% (measured) for standard sRGB gamut monitors and about 100% (measured) of sRGB and 100% of AdobeRGB for wide gamut monitors.

LED's have not been quite as good. Up to a couple of months ago a typical white LED provided about 94-95% (measured) coverage of the standard sRGB gamut. These sRGB units also have a notable spike in the blue spectrum that has to be compensated for.

With wide gamut monitors, a RG+B-LED back light could do about 100% of sRGB and AdobeRGB. RGB-LED back lit monitors are rare and very expensive.

In the past 2 or 3 months we've seen some monitors introduced with the latest generation of LG Display's IPS panels and a new back light system. The new white LED's provide about 98-99% coverage of the standard sRGB gamut while a new GB-LED provides about 100% of the sRGB and AdobeRGB spaces in a wide gamut monitor. These are discussed in reviews of the Dell U2413 (WG), U2713H (WG) and U2713HM (sRGB) monitors on TFT Central. Costs for the GB-LED back lit wide gamut monitors are much much lower than seen with the older RG+B-LED system. I expect a slew of new monitor introductions or updates due the new GB-LED system.

.

You're going to have to do a bit of homework....

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

.

-- hide signature --

________________________
Newsy http://newsy.smugmug.com
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to NewsyL, Mar 10, 2013

Now that is the kind of informative post this thread is begging for...  

Mr. OP, unfortunately there aren't any simple answers or a "bottom line" to your question. I suggest that you take advantage of TFT Central to educate yourself about current display technology; it is also the best website that I have found for reliable display reviews. In the long run that will serve you much better than soliciting opinions on this forum...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alpha Doug
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,151Gear list
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to NewsyL, Mar 11, 2013

NewsyL wrote:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm

.

Something else..... gamut coverage - standard sRGB and wide gamut (WG).

Most CCFL back lights offer reasonable coverage of the gamut they are designed for. Typically about 96-98% (measured) for standard sRGB gamut monitors and about 100% (measured) of sRGB and 100% of AdobeRGB for wide gamut monitors.

LED's have not been quite as good. Up to a couple of months ago a typical white LED provided about 94-95% (measured) coverage of the standard sRGB gamut. These sRGB units also have a notable spike in the blue spectrum that has to be compensated for.

With wide gamut monitors, a RG+B-LED back light could do about 100% of sRGB and AdobeRGB. RGB-LED back lit monitors are rare and very expensive.

In the past 2 or 3 months we've seen some monitors introduced with the latest generation of LG Display's IPS panels and a new back light system. The new white LED's provide about 98-99% coverage of the standard sRGB gamut while a new GB-LED provides about 100% of the sRGB and AdobeRGB spaces in a wide gamut monitor. These are discussed in reviews of the Dell U2413 (WG), U2713H (WG) and U2713HM (sRGB) monitors on TFT Central. Costs for the GB-LED back lit wide gamut monitors are much much lower than seen with the older RG+B-LED system. I expect a slew of new monitor introductions or updates due the new GB-LED system.

.

You're going to have to do a bit of homework....

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

I'm wondering what effect using OLED displays might have on this.  Since they are not backlit, I wonder how their brightness and gamut will work out.  In some ways, I understand the impetus to use the widest gamut possible all the way through your workflow, but then to output to printers that can barely handle sRGB is somewhat disappointing.

.

-- hide signature --

________________________
Newsy http://newsy.smugmug.com
.

-- hide signature --

Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-} www.dougwigton.com/

 Alpha Doug's gear list:Alpha Doug's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NewsyL
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,466
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to Alpha Doug, Mar 11, 2013

Alpha Doug wrote:

NewsyL wrote:


http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm

.

Something else..... gamut coverage - standard sRGB and wide gamut (WG).

Most CCFL back lights offer reasonable coverage of the gamut they are designed for. Typically about 96-98% (measured) for standard sRGB gamut monitors and about 100% (measured) of sRGB and 100% of AdobeRGB for wide gamut monitors.

LED's have not been quite as good. Up to a couple of months ago a typical white LED provided about 94-95% (measured) coverage of the standard sRGB gamut. These sRGB units also have a notable spike in the blue spectrum that has to be compensated for.

With wide gamut monitors, a RG+B-LED back light could do about 100% of sRGB and AdobeRGB. RGB-LED back lit monitors are rare and very expensive.

In the past 2 or 3 months we've seen some monitors introduced with the latest generation of LG Display's IPS panels and a new back light system. The new white LED's provide about 98-99% coverage of the standard sRGB gamut while a new GB-LED provides about 100% of the sRGB and AdobeRGB spaces in a wide gamut monitor. These are discussed in reviews of the Dell U2413 (WG), U2713H (WG) and U2713HM (sRGB) monitors on TFT Central. Costs for the GB-LED back lit wide gamut monitors are much much lower than seen with the older RG+B-LED system. I expect a slew of new monitor introductions or updates due the new GB-LED system.

.

You're going to have to do a bit of homework....

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

I'm wondering what effect using OLED displays might have on this. Since they are not backlit, I wonder how their brightness and gamut will work out. In some ways, I understand the impetus to use the widest gamut possible all the way through your workflow, but then to output to printers that can barely handle sRGB is somewhat disappointing.

Hopefully the OLED's that are used in monitors are better than the OLED used on my smartphone.  I'm not completely impressed by mine.... probably needs calibration. LOL

As I understand it there are plenty of printers that can output a print with a gamut wider than sRGB.  Check the Printers & Printing forum.  What I also understand is that most offsite commercial printing services want you to provide them  a file in the sRGB space.

.

-- hide signature --

________________________
Newsy http://newsy.smugmug.com
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alpshiker
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to NewsyL, Mar 11, 2013

NewsyL wrote:


.

You're going to have to do a bit of homework....

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

.

-- hide signature --

________________________
Newsy http://newsy.smugmug.com

Lots of thanks for your detailed and very informative answer, Newsy.

As you say: I should do my homework!

I had done a certain amount of homework before posting here however. But the fact is that it is almost impossible to make a decision on builder's specs alone. Even reviewers have to take account of a wide panel of users when they bring a product review. The interest of sharing in discussion forums is to get hands on experience from users and owners of the gear who are in the same boat. Maybe I should post in more specific forums, but let's see if there is more experience to draw from here first.

As I said, I had done a little bit of homework prior to posting here, and here is what I came to.

I will skip the Eizo line, mostly because the price range is above my budget. I settled for two brands and models:

NEC MultiSync PA271W

DELL UltraSharp U3011

Both are now at my reach with recent price drops. Both have wide gamut capabilities and internal LUT tables, which is great. It seems that many photographers are happy with either of those two. They have some cons however. Intrusive antiglare finish for the NEC, need for a specific calibration device for the DELL. Those two are now to be soon replaced by new models, so this is not latest technology (power consuming CCFL and no USB3 hub for instance).

So maybe there is a contender in the LED range ? I just read on the links you provided that some LED monitors have now non flickering light reduction electronics.

Would someone suggest a LED monitor that has been acclaimed by photographers who work in a controlled lighting environment?

Thanks again!

Paul

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
f8BeThereToo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 11, 2013

alpshiker wrote: Intrusive antiglare finish for the NEC...

I never notice it...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alpshiker
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to f8BeThereToo, Mar 12, 2013

MrMojo wrote:

alpshiker wrote: Intrusive antiglare finish for the NEC...

I never notice it...

Maybe it was the Dell, yeah think so.

Also, I just found out that the NEC MultiSync PA271W  is limited by firmware to software profiling, while the more expensive Spectraview 271 and Reference 271 can be hardware calibrated.

I thought that I had found my way to a bargain, but things aren't that simple !



Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alpshiker
Regular MemberPosts: 263
Like?
Re: Bottom line ?
In reply to alpshiker, Mar 12, 2013

I will skip the Eizo line, mostly because the price range is above my budget. I settled for two brands and models:

NEC MultiSync PA271W

DELL UltraSharp U3011

Actually Dell releases a new UltraSharp model these days: the Dell UltraSharp U3014

(sorry, it's in french). Unlike the U3011 CCFL backlighting, the U3014 uses LED. The product should be reviewed soon, I hope…

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads