![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dell U2410
- Thread starter Xcelerate
- Start date
Games have a habit of doing that sort of crap. You may be able to force it with a utility like Powerstrip?.. Other than that the only hope would be to email the game company and ask they obey your settings or even add a control for a saturation for wide gamut screens. This is going to have to become common since more and more screens are going to be wide gamut soon..
Yep. Brightness, contrast and Dynamic Contrast are about your lot. Fortunately, for many games, the saturated colours can often help as much as they hinder
But there's some games where it may annoy some people, and they'll either have to run it in a different mode or find a way to get their game to use their graphics card settings etc. The input lag in other modes is fairly acceptable for gaming anyway. The only time you'd really want game mode is in online games where you're playing other people and fast reaction times matter a lot.You mean a cheaper unit like Huey Pro can perform better than Spyder 3?
Yes, that's the sad truth
I'd argue that the avg user surfing the web should use sRGB mode in order to get the correct color. Also, calibration using sRGB mode does produce a very small delta-E meaning accurate color is achieved. See the tftcentral review on this LCD.
With Custom mode, you reduce the red channel manually meaning you're reducing the bits that are available for showing the red color. If you calibrate the LCD with such setting, the end result is inability to achieve 2.2 gamma curve and high delta-E.
sRGB's red is somewhat orange in appearance. It is more so on older LCDs when they have only about 70% coverage of the sRGB gamut. Newer screens such as U2410 does give you much more saturated red (in fact it is a bit overboard).
Color gamut is just a representation of color in two dimensions only, but the brightness is not specified. So color gamut cannot define the color behavior of a LCD panel. For example the red points for sRGB and Adobe RGB are not that far away but a picture displayed in Adobe RGB is much redder. It is because the red brightness in Adobe RGB is much higher than that in sRGB. By putting the U2410 in Standard mode, you're effectively providing a color gamut nearly identical to Adobe RGB.
Gamers find their colors pop on the screen because of those over saturated red and green. The colors are in fact not correct. Almost all images on the PC are sRBG based. It is like those big screen TVs. They all come default in Dynamic mode to give the prospective buyers the color pop in the showroom so the TV with the biggest pop gets the sales. It is not the correct color. Videophiles buy plasma screens and put the screen in Standard mode (not Dynamic mode).
The U2410 price in HK is HK$3699, which is approx US$477.
Just order one
Yes, it comes with Display Port cable.
Just ordered one as well Price is $499 today in the canadian store instead of $750!!!
Been waiting forever to get an IPS screen... hopefully this one will be nice.
It will be interesting putting it side by sode to my Acer F-20, which I still love to this day
Price is $499 today in the canadian store instead of $750!!!Been waiting forever to get an IPS screen... hopefully this one will be nice.
It will be interesting putting it side by sode to my Acer F-20, which I still love to this day
Ordered for $464 Canadian, hope it's good. I've been reading this thread every day so I hope I'm pleased with it
how'd you get it for 464?
Viewing this monitor w/ glasses is driving me nuts. Unless I'm looking at txt straight on, there's a red hologram effect to it that hurts my eyes. The 2007 WFP has no such issue. W/ contacts in, this does not become a problem.
Overall, I'm having a very tough time getting used to this panel compared w/ my 2007. It's just too big.
Unless I'm looking at txt straight on, there's a red hologram effect to it that hurts my eyes. The 2007 WFP has no such issue. W/ contacts in, this does not become a problem.Overall, I'm having a very tough time getting used to this panel compared w/ my 2007. It's just too big.
Viewing this monitor w/ glasses is driving me nuts.
Odd. Sounds like chromatic aberration from your glasses. Maybe turn the brightness down?
I remember a number of complaints about the HP2475 with a similar wide gamut panel, it seems the red pixel of the triad can be a bit overpowering.
Just as any image application worth its salt is colour managed (thus making wide gamut problems and sRGB mode bit of a non-issue) so Firefox is also easily colour managed. So, if you really want to browse the web with accurate colours, you use Firefox's colour management!
Forget charts and specifications for a second - they exist for reasons, but those reasons aren't necessarily what matters most to an ordinary end user, not least if meeting those specifications means introducing all sorts of compromises in other areas. Look with your own eyes - sRGB means orange reds, grainy blacks, and non existent colours below a value of 6. You've just bought a wide gamut screen that can display a beautiful array of colours, and now you're going to cripple it just for the sake of saying you meet a standard?!
Adhering to standards only makes sense to a certain point.. I'd argue that, for many end users, their own eyes should take precedence over everything else.
Yep, and I think there's nothing wrong with that at all. If you bump down the saturation in Custom Mode you have something that isn't over-saturated like Adobe mode, but likewise doesn't suffer the limitations of sRGB either, so it looks more like Adobe, in that red actually looks red, not orange. At the same time you also avoid the problems already discussed related to the LUT and Adobe/sRGB mode.
Unless you need to match things for photographic/printing purposes (in which case, as we've alread established, your applications are likely to be colour managed and you've calibrated which means all of what's discussed here is largely a non-issue) there's really nothing wrong with hybrid modes like this as long as you take some care tweaking by referencing several photos and comparing modes so that your colours aren't too far off. This way you have a monitor that looks its best. What's more important - a $200 device that thinks that red should be a bit more orange, or your own eyes? I'd argue, for most ordinary end users, their eyes matter more.
As I also said, there's a place for calibration, and modes like sRGB, but the end user has paid for a screen with a wide gamut. As long as they minimize saturation issues there's no reason they should artificially cripple their screen more than they have to for the sake of adhering to standards. If they really care about colour accuracy, there's nothing to stop them switching between modes to make visual comparisons on how accurate their colours are compared to sRGB/Adobe mode, and tweaking Custom mode or simply calibrating Standard Mode to their own requirements with a device.
I said "was". Exchange rates fluctuate, so the price is around 10% more now. Still significantly cheaper than many places, and half the price that the UK is charged..
On 0. This monitor + my eyeballs = pain. Add in the retarded touch controls, PITA issues from the wide gamut, and IMO worse viewing angles and txt glarity than my 3 yr old 2007 WFP and it's going back or getting sold. I can't take it anymore. I just want another 2007 WFP.
Yikes, that's crazy. I wear glasses and now you've got me worried, heh.
Anyone else with glasses care to chime in?
------------------
Oh, on a side note, since I don't have a Colorimeter, nor can I afford one... Would it be possible for me to uses someone else's calibrated colour profile?
Anyone else with glasses care to chime in?
------------------
Oh, on a side note, since I don't have a Colorimeter, nor can I afford one... Would it be possible for me to uses someone else's calibrated colour profile?
For all the Canadians that took advantage of the sales, good for you!! Patience finally paid off. I paid the full price ($860) and right now I'm pounding the desk w/ my 2 fists. Oh well this sux balls alright but at least I'm very content w/ my display. I now truly understand what they mean by a buyer's remorse, duh. For all the lucky Canadians, feel free to write some reviews when you receive it whether pleased or displeased.
It could be my glasses too. Either way, I'm very light sensitive, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I just moved it off my desk.
I'm getting tired of moving my head around the damn panel just so I can see black txt instead of black w/ red highlights. And a fella above's right. It sort of has a greenish tint to the whites. I did get a really nice deal on it though, so maybe I'll put it up on the classifieds for those of you that want something like this.
Last edited:
Is Firefox color managed? Yes and No.
Yes - it does display color correctly for JPEG images with tagged color profile.
No - it does not display color correctly for images without color profile. It just assumes the monitor's color profile instead, which is wide gamut in this case. Now, most photos/gallery hosting sites strip out color profile especially when creating thumbnail images. The color on such images will be wrong (too saturated).
Also, Firefox only understands v2 ICC profile and it does not understand v4 ICC. So if an image has v4 ICC profile, the colors will be displayed incorrectly.
Safari 4 understands v4 ICC and is the best color managed browser, but it has the same problem with Firefox - defaults to monitor color profile instead of assuming sRGB for untagged color images.
Check out this page and see for yourself:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
Actually, I was not correct before when I said OS X is fully color managed. It has the same problem with untagged images. The OS just defaults to monitor color profile instead of sRGB.
Check out the wide gamut color LCD issue Mac OS users faced:
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
Granted, most images on the web are sRGB based. Firefox or Safari should just default untagged images to sRGB or provide a color space option for rendering untagged images.
Standards are created so that different users with different equipment will get the same expected result. It is bad to disregard standards. Since when do publishers eyeball for colors on their displays? This would create inaccurate colors amongst magazines!
It is not easy to see a shade less than 6 on that blacktest chart. That test chart has indexed colors. You cannot attached color profile to it. If I use ACDSee, I cannot see any shade difference under 7 or so. If I open the same file in Photoshop CS4 with LCD under sRGB mode plus a i1 Display 2 fully calibrated monitor profile, I can see it down to shade 1.
The 2.2 gamma curve compresses the lowest values, so it makes it hard to distinish the darkest patches apart . The fact that you see them easily in Standard mode is because the shades are now being spreaded wider apart in the color space. But those are not the expected shade brightness in sRGB space (the blacktest chart is based on sRGB). Remember I told you the brightness for Adobe red and sRGB red with the same data value have different brightness? You're essentially looking at the brighter gray in the wide gamut space.
The red in sRGB is not very red. It is closer to orange red in the color spectrum. sRGB has narrower red and green but similar color gamut space for blue. This is the expected color. Adobe RGB was created because the press needs to find a way to have correct color displayed on their screens matching that of the printers, namely CMYK. aRGB resembles closely to the CMYK space. But for the PC, the sRGB space was created by HP and MSFT. Nearly all PC images and digital photos out of any digital cameras are based on it. One should use sRGB unless you're dealing with CMYK printing. sRGB was created because there were few displays that have such wide gamut at the time.
Wide gamut LCDs are created so that the manufacturers can find a way charge the end users more money. They have ran out of ideas to ask people to pay more for a display. End users need a good sRGB display that can display 100% sRGB.
I was told by an industrial insider that their plan was to make wide gamut screens so that they can ask for more money, and then develop the IC chips so that it can properly convert the color to sRGB for general use. But the IC chips for properly displaying sRGB are still in their infancy, and the chips would have been created if not because of the current economy. Currently, only high end displays have such chip for proper conversion, like Eizo.
Honestly, do you think it really cost LG that much more money to have a wide gamut CCFL in the LCD panel?
There is no exchange rate fluctuation, HK dollar is pegged to USD at a fix 7.75 rate.
Last edited:
Been using the 2007 WFP as the main monitor for 15 minutes now. SOO glad to be back. Better txt clarity, better colors, more uniform colors, less color wash, more accurate white vs black, less heat output, menu system that doesn't require 14 extra clicks, better viewing angle by far. I just want another one of these! Or maybe a 24 inch version of the same exact panel!
Most importantly, it does not give me a headache or any eye strain. The odd red txt glitch's completely gone. I didn't realize what a problem that's been for me for the past couple weeks!
EDIT: I'm no color expert, but even in SRGB mode the 2410 seriously messes w/ the rainbow.
Most importantly, it does not give me a headache or any eye strain. The odd red txt glitch's completely gone. I didn't realize what a problem that's been for me for the past couple weeks!
EDIT: I'm no color expert, but even in SRGB mode the 2410 seriously messes w/ the rainbow.
To further show you what you have perceived being right on the brightness on the Lagom blacktest, do this:
Put the monitor in sRGB mode. Take the blacktest.png file, open in PS using sRGB working space and convert it from Index color to RGB. Then use "Edit->Convert to Profile..." and convert the image from sRGB to Adobe RGB. Now save it as JPEG wih maximum quality. (At this step, you probably see all the dark patches brighten up as if you have viewed the original file in Standard mode.)
Now, if you have a calibrated monitor profile in Standard mode, switch to Standard mode and load that monitor profile (you may need to logoff and logon again for the new profile to become active). Open the JPEG above under PS. You'll find that the shades are essentially the same as the original PNG file viewed under sRGB mode.
This shows you that you have been viewing the brightness of the shades incorrectly in Standard mode.
PS - the blacktest.png file has indexed color space. It means whether you open it in sRGB mode or Standard mode, the shade brightness will look the same to PS as long as you switch to the calibrated monitor profile when you switched modes. The above test is to help you visualize what has been wrong when viewing the blacktest in color unmanaged apps and wide gamut space.
Last edited:
Well I kind of feel your pain. My first LCD was a Dell 2405. This was back during the "Brightness wars" where it seems like manufacturers were competing for the title of brightest monitor.
The dell was rated at an insane 500 cd/m2. I didn't have a calibrator back then, but considering all the monitors I have looked at since. I would guess at zero it was still running close to 200 cd/m2.
I killed my eyes just looking at it, and I could feel the heat radiating from the front of the panel... I got rid of it after a couple of days for a number of reasons...
damn a couple of days ago I thought this was the best monitor I could get at 1920x1200 for color quality, viewing angles and contrast ratio, but after reading all this issues I really doubt if it's worth spending so much money.
Dell should create a new version of this monitor and add dynamic contrast ratio to "multimedia mode";
Add LED backlit to correct the light bleeding;
Fix the problems with green to pink tinting;
Also add a 120Hz for multimedia mode;
anything else? I think that we should have a great monitor with this added characteristics to the U2410.
Dell should create a new version of this monitor and add dynamic contrast ratio to "multimedia mode";
Add LED backlit to correct the light bleeding;
Fix the problems with green to pink tinting;
Also add a 120Hz for multimedia mode;
anything else? I think that we should have a great monitor with this added characteristics to the U2410.
And the should sell it for $99, and they should go back in time and sell me one so I can save about $1100.
Pointless unrealistic wishlist FTW?
overclocky
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12
Ok.. now I'm really confused. So what should I do now? Should I wait even more and hope, that there will appear some IPS panel based monitor without wide gamut? Or in spite of this, buy U2410? And I must say, I am color sensitive.
With full management enabled it should assume sRGB.. Read here, amongst other places
http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/color-correction/
v4 ICC support would be nice, and I'm sure it's going to be added in the not too distant future.
Precisely my point.. Since when is the average end user a magazine publisher? I never said standards don't exist for good reasons, nor is there not plenty of scenarios where it makes sense to follow them. It's also desirable that the end user sees something as close to the original intent as possible. However, what matters most to end users is the quality of what their eyeballs see and, again, I'd say (in its current form) they're making many more visual compromises than they should have to by using sRGB mode on the U2410.
Boost whatever you want, they're completely lost under sRGB mode. Besides which, the main issue that's easily noticed is that you'll have grainy images due to the dither in sRGB mode, and that's highly visible if you look at darker images carefully. So you've got dark grainy images with orange reds and no hope of ever seeing anything below RGB 6 regardless of your monitors brightness. At this point I'd suggest, if you wanted accurate sRGB so much, perhaps it's better to buy an sRGB screen rather than cripple a 110% gamut device?
Then I suggest you buy one, not the U2410, or seek out a panel that's at least a true 10 bit native one to avoid the issues apparently presented by displaying sRGB on 8 bit panels.
No, and my posts were never about that, nor anything remotely related to it.
Then perhaps there was a different "special offer" price, or I simply miscalculated by 10% in the translation. Either way it doesn't matter. The point is these screens are very cheap in Hong Kong, and cost half the price that they do in the UK.
Power cable only.
They'll probably all be wide gamut from now on. What you're looking for is better processing of the sRGB mode, perhaps higher than 8 bit native panels (the Dell claims 10 bit, but thats via dithering, just like TN 6 bit panels aren't 8 bit) and (better still) apps like Windows to be fully colour managed, so that you can enjoy the wider gamut without shades of red burning your eyes out etc.
overclocky
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12
Hmm. But still, if wide gamut is future proof, what do you say when will they implement some chips, to use sRGB mode? And somehow, in the next few years this should be corrected with new OS, because it will become industry standard, so if I buy this monitor now, I should just get over it?
Sailor_Moon
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 611
Would be a very hard search. Even (most) High-End CEPS screens are using a FRC implementation at the very end. If well implemented this is absolutely no problem and you preserve the range of tonal values without producing visible artifacts. One good example is the color space emulation Eizo is using with their CG line.
A "non WCG display" often has minor "under coverages" comparing to sRGB. A WCG display which covers sRGB completely will allow a CMM to transform to acurate values (assumed is a correct display profile). I could never notice a significant loss concerning the range of tonal values (a CMM should at least also offer the option of dithering while performing conversions) in real world material. If you want to work reasonably in a smaller than your current display color space in unmanaged environments you should have a look at the already mentioned color space emulation of the Eizo CG.
Best regards
Denis
sRGB isn't going to stop working at some point in the future. Unless you are creating your own content the world is very close to 100% sRGB. In 5 years it will still likely be 95%+ sRGB.
Any monitor you buy today will be worn out before there is significant content beyond sRGB.
Even if you keep your monitor for 10 years and content reaches 50/50, your sRGB monitor would still function perfectly.
There is just about zero reason to go with wide gamut unless you have a professional application. It is just a pile of grief for nothing.
While it is smaller the NEC 23" IPS EA231WMi seems to be delivering a lot better experience for less money.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1436160
sucks that it's 16:9 though...looks like the only real (and expensive) option is the NEC LCD2490WUXi in terms of standard gamut
Totally agree. I have a 2490 and I would like another 1200 vertical res monitor to go with it.
In fact I would rather even have 21" 1600x1200 4:3 monitor to match up than a 23" 16:9 1920x1080 one.
But the only 21" 1600x1200 screens tend to be ridiculously expensive pro monitors as well. Even decent 20" 1600x1200 screens are all but gone.
Sorry, no, Firefox does not default to sRGB when image is untagged. I've tried it here, have you?
Different folks, different stokes. I found having incorrect color unacceptable, while I can accept some grainyness in dark images. I don't play games (at least not anymore), so I don't look at dark images much. For example, the dark shades on this website looks fine to me. And even for the Lagom blacktest, one has to blow up the image 300% or look very close to see the grain. Maybe you play a lot of games and found grainy dark images unacceptable. Besides, how important is for the avg user to be able to see past shade 6? I sure think there aren't many.
Over here, I can actually see the blacktest shade down to 1 under sRGB. If you view the image under Fireforx or Photoshop where everything is color managed (sRGB mode + calibrated monitor profile), you'll see it. Viewing it under IE8 or a picture viewer that is not color managed will not get you past shade 6. This is because the U2410 emulated sRGB space is not quite 100% of the sRGB space definition. So some shades are lost without color management. But if you calibrate the U2410 under sRGB and use a color managed app, you'll see all the shades!
There are 3 reasons for a buying a wide gamut LCDs:
1. Panel manufacures are not making non-wide gamut LCD >24" anymore. The only 24" sRGB LCDs out there are the NEC LCD2490WUXi and LCDs used by iMac and the ACD. I'd have bought the ACD in a heart beat if it weren't having a glare screen and without the DVI input option.
2. A non-wide gamut screen usually does not cover sRGB completely. So getting a wide gamut LCD will allow 100% sRGB coverage. Provided the color space downsizing chip and firmware are good enough.
3. It is for future proof. Once the OSes and software catch up to wide gamut LCDs, we won't be having this color issue anymore. It's just a matter of time.
Finally, Dell here does not allow me to return the LCD for a refund, they would only agree to exchange for another reconditioned unit
Overall, this current U2410 I've is not bad, at least it is more uniform in terms of pink/green tint. The only problem is a half dead pixel. I just may have to live with it.
The Eizo should give hope that perhaps Dell can indeed improve their current sRGB/Adobe mode with a firmware update. And you're right about the hard search (not to mention expensive), although, given time, things may filter down into the mainstream..
Cheers
Yes, ..try color management mode 1. Many threads, such as this - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/802028 also have some information about this very topic.
I don't. I can spot it from 12 inches with no increase in size, but perhaps you are in a very bright room.
Not very, although I never argued it was "critical". The apparent drop in contrast and grainy appearance are bigger deals to me, plus living with orange reds isn't a great solution for a wide gamut screen IMO.
If you're at the point of using colour managed apps and calibrated profiles then perhaps you understand why you have a need for sRGB mode, and why you prefer it. In terms of ordinary users, who want to be able to see as much detail as possible whilst avoiding the worst problems wide gamut screens bring, I'd say they'd have a far better experience simply tweaking Custom Mode. If they want greater accuracy than this then, as you already suggest, calibrating the screen to suit your requirements is the way to go.
After all that's been said here, the U2410 still seems to be one of the best 24" monitor available, especially when you consider that fact that it can be acquired for $499 CAD.
The LCD2490WUXi, is just too damn expensive, at least for the average user. The U2410 is a better than average (semi-pro) monitor that is within reach for average users. That's at least the way I see it.
I don't really do any photo work, mostly programing and web work, and game from time to time. The only LCD I've ever used was the 2005FPW and that was an IPS, and absolutely love how great it looks to this day. Of the few people who've upgraded from the 2005FPW to the U2410, they've been blow away, and that's good to hear.
I get a little disheartened when I hear so many negative comments about this monitor, but then I realize that a lot of you are doing pro work... and even then, with a few exceptions of course, the general consensus at the end of the day is that people are still happy with the U2410, despite it's short comings.
The LCD2490WUXi, is just too damn expensive, at least for the average user. The U2410 is a better than average (semi-pro) monitor that is within reach for average users. That's at least the way I see it.
I don't really do any photo work, mostly programing and web work, and game from time to time. The only LCD I've ever used was the 2005FPW and that was an IPS, and absolutely love how great it looks to this day. Of the few people who've upgraded from the 2005FPW to the U2410, they've been blow away, and that's good to hear.
I get a little disheartened when I hear so many negative comments about this monitor, but then I realize that a lot of you are doing pro work... and even then, with a few exceptions of course, the general consensus at the end of the day is that people are still happy with the U2410, despite it's short comings.