sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's also no indication of uniformity compensation or the A-TW polarizer or anything else that might make it worth considering.
Uniformity compensation?
Lol, we are talking about general purpose monitor focused on gaming, not about high end professional monitors.
probably locked to 60hz again like the fs2331
no-go for gaming
the 1920x1200 is really nice of course
Uniformity compensation?
Lol, we are talking about general purpose monitor focused on gaming, not about high end professional monitors.
you're right? It's 1920x1080.
Through the tonal value spreading the perceived contrast is raised."Power gamma for gaming"? Again, if the display was following the PC standard of 2.2 accurately, why on earth would I be messing with it? How does changing gamma make a game feel more "two dimensional"?
Through the tonal value spreading the perceived contrast is raised.
http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2010/test-eizo-fs2331-bk-teil9.html
Personally I don't recommend it. A real visual advancement would arise through sRGB gradation on display side instead of a fixed gamma of 2.2. This enhances details in dark tonal values (based on gamma 2.2 corrected material).
Best regards
Denis
2.2 gamma is overrated. It is a standard made for offices where monitors are stared at in bright rooms. In darker rooms, which gamers and movie watchers often use, it is hopelessly flat and dull. 2.3-2.35 is way more preferable (if the monitor can do it without crushing blacks) for movies and games, generally. It increases perceived contrast and makes colors pop out more. Hell, IIRC old uncalibrated CRTs usually had gamma of 2.4-2.5! Thats why CRT picture is often perceived as very deep.
Ideal gamma is very dependable on the lightning of your room, capabilities of your monitor and your own tastes AND what you are watching. There is no universal standard that is exactly right and accurate everywhere. In photo editing gamma of your monitor and the picture should match. But 2.2 is just one standard amongst many, its not universal. There is no way to know what standard whatever game/movie uses as there is NO de facto standard which everyone follows. Im not sure if I am putting all this exactly right, but the point is that dont fret about it...
Flat and dull? Well not on my monitors.
But wait now, isn't that just entirely subjective?
In other words, 2.2 gamma isn't overrated, it's the proper one for video/gaming.
AFAIK it can be different with photography or printing, but I'm no expert on that stuff.
Why do you think monitor colorimeters come with ambient room light checker? I am not a photo editor either and definetly not an expert on these things, I am merely a gamer and movie watcher too.
The ambient light checker will 1/ look at room light level and guide you towards an appropriate target luminosity and 2/ some will look for significant colour tinting of your ambient light and produce warnings or take corrective action.
Neither has anything to do with gamma. Suggested display luminosity varies with ambient room lighting. You need to see what's on the screen so the target is higher in a bright room. This does not affect the target whitepoint, the primaries or the gamma curve. It may affect the blackpoint, depending on the technology of the display. If a display technology is able, you may be able to increase the whitepoint without increasing the blackpoint thus increasing the contrast ratio. Whitepoint must be set prior to calibrating/profiling gamma.
I've read the thread you've referenced. 2.5 looks pretty poor on my plasma (where gamma variance is "permitted" according to viewer taste) and is clearly incorrect for colour mastering work. In the days of CRT and analog it was easier to play with these things without experiencing crush and banding. It's harder to get away with it in the digital world as it applies to "home" applications.
Regarding material that was gamma corrected with respect to a gamma of 2.2 on display side this will always lead to a black crush. Exception: A managed workflow that transforms the data correctly on basis of the participating profiles.And yes, 2.5 IS way too high. I doubt any modern flat panel can achieve it without crushing greys and blacks anyway.
About gradation: There is always one "right" gradation: The inverse of the gamma correction of the material. In an ICC workflow this is transparent for the user as long as the actual display characteristic is desribed correctly in the profile. In the video sector it gets more complicated as we have a "blackbox" system. When looking at my material (DVB, DVD, Blu-ray) it's nevertheless quite obvious that the Rec.709 gradation isn't used for HD material - that's not astonishing because it would make no sense - nor regarding backward compatibility (no CRT has a native behaviour that is close to this characteristic). In most cases I assume that a gradation with a fixed gamma of 2.2 is assumed on output side. Does it make sense to use an other gradation than the one which was assumed during gamma correction? This depends on the "rendering conditions": We have very different and often not very ideal situations regarding playback so it can make sense to adapt to these situations. If for example details get lost in darker areas I would recommend the sRGB gradation which "moves" dark tonal values earlier in a brighter region without deviating too much from a fixed gamma of 2.2.
Regarding material that was gamma corrected with respect to a gamma of 2.2 on display side this will always lead to a black crush. Exception: A managed workflow that transforms the data correctly on basis of the participating profiles.
Ideal gradation for the transformation of tonal values from a linear space to a gamma corrected space with limited tonal values is L* because it reflects human perception. So we have density in places where we need it. ECI-RGB 2.0 is based on this gradation and a good choice for RAW development. We won't see it in the video sector because of backward compatibility reasons and high requirements regarding the display electronic.
Best regards
Denis
The PRAD.de sneak peak Review is up, they gave it a very good rating.
The PRAD.de sneak peak Review is up, they gave it a very good rating.
for some reasons, i have opened my FS2332
Surprisingly, the panel is a SAMSUNG PLS LTM230HL01, not an LG IPS
for some reasons, i have opened my FS2332
Surprisingly, the panel is a SAMSUNG PLS LTM230HL01, not an LG IPS
Yes, Samsung sticker with part number on the back.
I thought maybe it was only the backlight, but the part number seems to be for the whole panel.
(that explain the normal coating)
During use, you can't tell the difference with an ips panel. (Same "ips" glow etc..)
http://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-solutions/pdfs/PSG2011_FINAL-092011.pdf
(page 27)
I really can't belive that EIZO sell a PLS monitor as an IPS one.
This is really disappointing not because I prefer the IPS over the PLS but because they sell something different from what they advertise.
I hope that someone will shed some light on this soon.
Can't decide between the SA850 and the 750D. Just wish they could make a 120hz panel with low response times and great colors.
PLS is IPS.