![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
High price doesn't necessarily mean top quality. There are other dynamics that can make price higher such as wrong business model and failure to identify potential markets that can be provided with products derived from the same investment spent for developing products for a niche market.
They have put up the PA271 on their website now.
Fair pricing, only $320 more than the PA241.
PA241W
$1,079.00
Estimated Street Price
PA271W
$1,399.00
Estimated Street Price
No pricing info for us europeans yet though, checked both the English and the German website. Hopefully the difference will be about the same.
Ah, cool, checked that price tracker and Dutch shops charged ~1400 euros for the PA271. Seems reasonable.
NEC doesn't implement correction matrices in SV II (at least in the versions I was able to test). Therefore I would strongely recommend the NEC version. According to the description it should be trained for a WCG-CCFL spectrum (and I suppose that NEC also uses selected models with a better inter-instrument agreement than the standard EOD2). Only alternative is a spectrophotometer.
I think that Lacie implements corrections for their own WCG screens (like Eizo in Color Navigator) but it seems that there are no generic corrections (have for example a look at the readings of tftcentral here - they are using the Lacie Blue Eye Pro bundle and the whitepoint differs a lot from the actual whitepoint of the NEC in this mode, even though a comparison based on the CCT (we have measured ~6400K via the EyeOne Pro) is very vague). So you should take the Quato bundle.
No. It differes considerably from the CIE standard observer (that would be the requirement for a colorimeter that could measure every screen - you will not find such a device in the consumer sector*; one alternative is a spectrophotometer that has other limitations but generally works good with WCG-CCFL screens) but has a good inter-instrument agreement which is one requirement for a good result concerning a correction like in iColor. The inorganic filters are also quite resistant to age. Look also here and here.
does this mean that no high end software includes wcg monitor corrections for a range of displays (NEC, HP, DELL etc) in conjunction with the equivalent colorimeters?prad.de said:
Eizo has implemented corrections in Color Navigator, Quato uses individual corrections for their own and generic corrections for WCG-CCFL displays (see here). Lacie should use corrections for their own screens and HP delivers a selected OEM EOD2 with the LP2480zx (I can't say if the correction is implemented in software or hardware in this case because the OEM EOD2 only works with the HP software). NEC offers "their" version of an EOD2.
No individual but as you can see in the linked DELL review the generic correction usually leads to feasible results (compare the DTP94 and DTP94 (generic cor.) column) - at least when using the DTP94 with its good inter-instrument agreement.
Indeed, "it seems like a more accurate reproduction of the colour space".
This is the Dell 2408 sRGB mode known to have one of the best color space matching on paper and one of the worse picture quality in reality.
Should be not too problematic. At least with the DTP94 I have made the experience that the measured values are - relative to the wrong whitepoint (non 72% NTSC CCFL spectrum) - correct => If you adapt chromatically from this whitepoint to the same basis you will get comparable results with an EyeOne Pro as reference. But corrections are of course necessary because the whitepoint otherwise is way off your desired one (especially also far away from the blackbody curve).
During profile validation these adaptations are executed by the software. iColor displays shows for example also the Lab (D50) values for the measured samples. The differences between EyeOne Pro and DTP94 are low even though there is of course a great difference in whitepoint. But however: Using a profile validation for testing purposes during a review is in any case (expressiveness is very limited) not the way to go - but often exclusively used.
Have you the XYZ tristimulus values available?
One of the few colorimeters I would trust is this because it seems to match the CIE standard observer. But software compatibilty and price will be a problem.