My NEC LCD2690WUXi review

[Zetherin]

Depends on if you mean from a PC or from a Blu-ray directly. From a PC, sure, no problem. You won't actually play the 1080p video in 1920x1080, the monitor will be getting a 1920x1200 signal from the computer, and the computer will just be letterboxing the video. What he means is that some monitors don't do well with an actual 1080 input. The BenQ FP241W I used to have was apparently notorious for that. Over certain connections, it stretched 1080 improperly.

My sympathies on the new monitor buying, always stressful when you have to buy blind. I went through the same thing not long ago. I wish I could be more definitive and tell you the One True Display, but I'd just be lying to you.

Haha, now with a determined hand on my mouse, I rushed to newegg only to find the DS out of stock! buy.com, amazon same thing! lmao.

Thanks for your help and everyone else's here. I'm going to just go with the DS, and return it if it's really that shitty. As for the 1080p playback, I would only be using it from the PC...so I wouldn't even be experiencing what you guys are speaking of.

Thanks once again, and I'll update you guys on my opinion of the panel (if it ever comes back in stock!)

 

[Snowdog]

This one has a green that is close to on, but man, the blue falls way short of where it should be.

This shows, as I said, just because a monitor isn't wide gamut, doesn't mean it has good mapping to the sRGB space. Unless you've spent time researching which one you get and then testing it to make sure yours matches the specs, you've no idea if the colour primaries you are getting are close to sRGB.

You know it becomes farcical when your worse case examples of standard panels are like the above are off by a few percent, but you think it is perfect fine to feed sRGB signals into wide gamut panels where the errors will be an order of magnitude greater from a mismatch like this.

Objectively you don't have a leg to stand on. Subjectively you may like it. I don't.

If someone likes the saturation enhancement gained by mis-mapping sRGB directly into wide gamut without conversion, that is their subjective opinion.

No need to attempt to rationalize that this makes any objective sense. It doesn't.

Not liking over saturated, mis-mapped colors may be my subjective opinion, but it also makes some objective sense.

 

[rx8]

I just had an interesting chat with NEC's tech support. They have had a few comments lately about the backlight uniformity on the 2690 and 3090. Their engineers' suggestion is to let the monitor run for a week at 100% brightness to break it in. So far with other customers that seems to have worked. I am now staring at two very bright 2690s. Hopefully one will break in properly and I will be RMAing the other.

 

[albovin]

As for the 1080p playback, I would only be using it from the PC...so I wouldn't even be experiencing what you guys are speaking of.

1080p is possible from PC if you have HD PC - Blu-ray drive installed on your PC, appropriate videoadapter, software.
Otherwise no 1080p.

This is little complicated.
I prefer a stand alone Blu-ray player which produce generally better quality result, the whole system becomes more flexible and reliable.

 

[10e]

1080p will work fine from a PC to this monitor Zetherin,

The biggest concern with a lot of monitors is how they handle video signals from video sources such as BluRay players or video consoles. Some have overscan where they cut off the picture on all four sides, and some just have problems with the proper aspect ratio (typically a 16:10 monitor displaying 16:9 content).

With a PC it's not an issue as long as you have the content, you should be able to enjoy it.

Unfortunately with this monitor stock is low because of this forum, so everyone here is snapping them up.

Other than some build quality issues, the DS should be great.

Regards,

10e

Haha, now with a determined hand on my mouse, I rushed to newegg only to find the DS out of stock! buy.com, amazon same thing! lmao.

Thanks for your help and everyone else's here. I'm going to just go with the DS, and return it if it's really that shitty. As for the 1080p playback, I would only be using it from the PC...so I wouldn't even be experiencing what you guys are speaking of.

Thanks once again, and I'll update you guys on my opinion of the panel (if it ever comes back in stock!)

 

[Zetherin]

1080p is possible from PC if you have HD PC - Blu-ray drive installed on your PC, appropriate videoadapter, software.
Otherwise no 1080p.

This is little complicated.
I prefer a stand alone Blu-ray player which produce generally better quality result, the whole system becomes more flexible and reliable.

I was planning to have all of that. I'd prefer not to have a standalone player, just one in my PC.

 

[Zetherin]

1080p will work fine from a PC to this monitor Zetherin,

The biggest concern with a lot of monitors is how they handle video signals from video sources such as BluRay players or video consoles. Some have overscan where they cut off the picture on all four sides, and some just have problems with the proper aspect ratio (typically a 16:10 monitor displaying 16:9 content).

With a PC it's not an issue as long as you have the content, you should be able to enjoy it.

Unfortunately with this monitor stock is low because of this forum, so everyone here is snapping them up.

Other than some build quality issues, the DS should be great.

Regards,

10e

Aye, I appreciate your help.

It says it will restock on 5/14 at the egg...I'm wondering how accurate this, though. I'd buy it from somewhere else but noone else has it either, haha.

Just when I was about to buy too

 

[Sycraft]

Zetherin: If you are playing everything from a PC then you don't need to worry. PCs are quite adept at video scaling, so the monitor doesn't have to do it. Like when you play a DVD movie, your computer doesn't change resolution, it just scales the output up. Well, same sort of thing with HD content as well. No problems to worry about there, it just becomes a concern when you are dealing with things like an Xbox 360 or Blu-ray player that think they are talking to a TV. HDTVs have a few, fixed resoltuoins they have to support and they aren't the same as most computers monitors. Your graphics card, however, will just ask the monitor what modes it likes.

Snowdog: Sigh. I'm going to not bother further after this post because it is clear you aren't really listening and I'm sure it is just confusing, not helping Zetherin. So, as a final thing I'll point you to the CIELUV 1976 diagram. Notice it is the same shape, but a rather different distribution of colour. That's because while the 1931 diagram isn't accurate as to how we actually perceive colour difference. Gives way too much weight to the greens and severely shortchanges the blues. Thus, you see that what looks like a much smaller change on the CIEXYZ space for blue is really a bigger perceptual change. Regardless, buy the monitor you like, I've never told anyone otherwise, just please stop trying to pretend your opinion is the correct one.

 

[Zetherin]

Zetherin: If you are playing everything from a PC then you don't need to worry. PCs are quite adept at video scaling, so the monitor doesn't have to do it. Like when you play a DVD movie, your computer doesn't change resolution, it just scales the output up. Well, same sort of thing with HD content as well. No problems to worry about there, it just becomes a concern when you are dealing with things like an Xbox 360 or Blu-ray player that think they are talking to a TV. HDTVs have a few, fixed resoltuoins they have to support and they aren't the same as most computers monitors. Your graphics card, however, will just ask the monitor what modes it likes.

Snowdog: Sigh. I'm going to not bother further after this post because it is clear you aren't really listening and I'm sure it is just confusing, not helping Zetherin. So, as a final thing I'll point you to the CIELUV 1976 diagram. Notice it is the same shape, but a rather different distribution of colour. That's because while the 1931 diagram isn't accurate as to how we actually perceive colour difference. Gives way too much weight to the greens and severely shortchanges the blues. Thus, you see that what looks like a much smaller change on the CIEXYZ space for blue is really a bigger perceptual change. Regardless, buy the monitor you like, I've never told anyone otherwise, just please stop trying to pretend your opinion is the correct one.

While it is confusing me, I'm surprised this matter isn't brought up more frequently. This seems like something that should definitely be discussed, and people should be aware of. I wish I could participate and help clear up the matter, but I'm just not versed technically in all of this. I can, however, offer a subjective point of view once I receive my display. Perhaps then I'll get a better understanding of what you've both been writing about.

In an effort to be well informed with the products I'm buying, I venture into [H]. Otherwise, I would have bought a shitty TN thinking it was the best on the market with no conception of panel types or resolutions, let alone this gamut business.

So, while I don't understand everything that's being said here, I'm definitely thankful it's being discussed.

 

[Snowdog]

Snowdog: Sigh. I'm going to not bother further after this post because it is clear you aren't really listening and I'm sure ..... .... just please stop trying to pretend your opinion is the correct one.

Quite the class act to the end, finishing off with another condescending "sigh".

Yeah I don't know what possessed me to think it might be correct to display content in the same color space that it was designed for. Or that you will introduce significant color errors by putting content from once color space into another without a proper conversion. Radical crazy ideas I have there.

Bottom line you like the extra saturation the color space mismatch is producing and you insult me for pointing out that this is essentially an artifact from fairly sizable color errors. Quoting a random assortment of color info, half supporting what I said, the other half inaccurate. In a seeming attempt to duck the fairly obvious and simple issue:

The mismatch produces color errors that you like and I don't.

 

[Zetherin]

Quite the class act to the end, finishing off with another condescending "sigh".

Yeah I don't know what possessed me to think it might be correct to display content in the same color space that it was designed for. Or that you will introduce significant color errors by putting content from once color space into another without a proper conversion. Radical crazy ideas I have there.

Bottom line you like the extra saturation the color space mismatch is producing and you insult me for pointing out that this is essentially an artifact from fairly sizable color errors. Quoting a random assortment of color info, half supporting what I said, the other half inaccurate. In a seeming attempt to duck the fairly obvious and simple issue:

The mismatch produces color errors that you like and I don't.

I think the thing is he isn't perceiving the differences as 'errors', and you are.

 

[Sycraft]

So, while I don't understand everything that's being said here, I'm definitely thankful it's being discussed.

Ok, well I'll try and help you understand where my point of view comes from then. So I'll draw an analogy to the audio world, since I do a lot of sound work:

I like bass. There is just no two ways about it, I am a bass head. I've always been drawn to systems with good, clean, powerful bass. As such even though I have some massive stereo speakers on my computer, I bought an even more massive subwoofer. The subwoofer extends my bass response lower, my speakers kinda peter out after 40Hz, the sub goes strong down to 13Hz (really, I've measured it in room) before it starts to roll.

It also lets me turn the low bass up, which I do. My sub is set higher than a reference setting would dictate. I have all the hardware and software necessary to calibrate it, and it is pretty easy to see on a frequency graph that the low frequencies are boosted in relation to the rest. The reason is simply that I turned the gain on my sub up.

Now this is not an accurate setup. This means that my bass is more powerful than a program might expect. This goes double for games since they are generally targeted to PC sound systems, which have subs that cut out at frequencies higher than I even bother sending to mine.

Indeed, when I'm doing audio production, I don't use my sub. I switch over to a different sound mode which disengages bass management, and all other audio processing, and just outputs to my speakers, which are pretty linear. However when I'm gaming or watching movies or whatever, the sub is on and kicking loud.

Basically, I subscribe to the Duke Ellington school of though on music: "If it sounds good, it IS good." When I listen for pleasure the only thing I care about is that I like the sound. Accuracy of any kind isn't an issue. In general I find that many things that make sound more accurate I like, for example lower distortion equipment, but my concern is what sounds good to me, not what is accurate to any given standard.


Well, the point of all that, as you may have guessed, is I take the same view of displays. If it looks good, it is good. Goes double for me for displays actually, since I don't do colour critical work. With audio there are times when accuracy does matter for me, with video (at least at home) it never does. So all I care about is what looks good to me.

That's why I like wide gamut displays. To me, they look better. World of Warcraft just looks stunning. The forests in particular just look much better to me. Movies look great too. The HD version of Terminator 2 (the DVD version has a DVD with HD WMV files on it) just looks great.

So, that's where I'm coming from. I seek what I believe looks (and sounds) the best, what gives the most pleasurable viewing (and listening) experience. Accuracy isn't an issue.

Same deal when I calibrate my display. I have the SpectraView version of the NEC (if you are going to spend the money for the NEC over the DS, I recommend it). I'm not doing it because I am trying to hit a colour target, I do it because to me it makes things look better. For example I calibrate my display to the L* gamma curve, despite not working on L*ab images. Normally, monitors are a simple power gamma. In the case of an uncalibrated CRT it's around 2.4-2.5. That's normally what you calibrate to.

Well, the L* curve is more complex. It was designed to be perceptually uniform, meaning that every digital level change looks equal to your eyes. For that it requires a more linear gamma at the low end, and less power at the high end. On this page you can see it plotted against other curves and as you can see it is similar to, but not the same as, a 2.2 gamma curve (which is the most used calibration target).

So it isn't what games are expecting, chances are extremely high that they weren't designed and tested on monitors calibrated for L*. However I don't care. What I find is that it looks really good. I find it makes dark detail look much clearer in games. Thus, it's what I use.

That's the position I'm always coming from with things like this: What I feel gives the best experience. I'll also always say if you find your experiences is different, you like something else, then great, go for it. Don't let anyone tell you that you are wrong for liking something that makes you happy. If a $100 car subwoofer with boomy, muddy bass sound better to you then a $3000 reference sub with perfectly clean bass, don't let anyone tell you that it is wrong. What matters is what makes you happy, not what is "best".

Now that all changes if you are concerned with production for distribution of some sort, but it sound like you aren't. Thus, your concerns should be similar to mine in that you should care about what looks good to YOU.


As a final note, one thing you can try is ordering from Amazon.com. They carry the DS (though I think it is out of stock right now) and for everything I've ever tried, their return policy is top notch. I bought a trackball from them that I ended up hating and they let me return it for refund, no problems. They didn't refund shipping, which makes sense since it wasn't a mistake, just something I didn't like, but they fully refunded the purchase price and I needed no justification other than "I don't like the product" (I think that's literally the menu option I picked for RMA reason).

That way if you end up hating it, you can probably return it and only be out like $50.

 

[10e]

I think a lot of this is subjective,

There are times when I'm cursing the saturated color of the NEC, and there are times when I view it in total awe. It varies. Playing Gears of War on PC or 360, I love the colors because they really make the game pop. Viewing some other games I go back and forth between native and other presets and play with the different values in the OSD.

I was able to use the SVII software with my ColorSpyder2 colorimeter last night (as it is supported) so I calibrated to the sRGB color curve. I found this successfully muted some of the super saturated colors to a small extent and gave me a much truer set of colors in comparison to the sRGB preset, which I'm not a huge fan of on this screen.

The extra saturation is there, but dialed down a bit. This is sort of a happy medium for me.

It wasn't very different from my G2400W (after calibration was run on that display too) so I believe that it is probably pretty good. I am sure the X-Rite colorimeter would have given me slightly better results but I ran it with the Spyder2 to test compatibility.

So far I am still quite happy with the huge number of adjustments this monitor gives me that allows me to really customize it.

I mean if I really want sRGB accuracy I can always load up the old Dell 2005FPW and use the ICM profile I have for it, but right now I'm at that in-between stage and am fairly satisfied with it.

Additionally I am happy that my monitor has very little sparkle effect from anti-glare and a basically perfect panel from the aspects of dead pixels and BLB. I am also going to try the NaviSet software with it and see how well that works.

You are right about one thing especially, Sycraft: This is a huge upgrade from the BenQ FP241. That is a nice monitor for the price, but the NEC is just that much better in pretty much all aspects except connectivity options, but the fact that I have an HDMI switch allows me to extend connectivity for consoles, as it does work just fine with the NEC.

Regards,

10e

 

[Snowdog]

I think a lot of this is subjective,

There are times when I'm cursing the saturated color of the NEC, and there are times when I view it in total awe. It varies. Playing Gears of War on PC or 360, I love the colors because they really make the game pop. Viewing some other games I go back and forth between native and other presets and play with the different values in the OSD.

I was able to use the SVII software with my ColorSpyder2 colorimeter last night (as it is supported) so I calibrated to the sRGB color curve. I found this successfully muted some of the super saturated colors to a small extent and gave me a much truer set of colors in comparison to the sRGB preset, which I'm not a huge fan of on this screen.

When I first brought up the Gamut issue it was in context of something that the NEC would have an advantage with that was trivialized. With NEC you have so many more options of getting this to your liking in the panel.

I can't stress this enough. If you are forced to go to the PC to make these adjustments, it gets ugly quickly. I am quite sure that I wouldn't be having the trouble I am having if I had the NEC. PC color management sucks, you really don't want to go there if you can avoid it. The NEC has the Cadillac of color management built into the screen so when you get some setup you like it will be consistent everywhere, games, apps, movies, or you can quickly flip the monitor configuration for different uses.

For me it would be no contest. I would pay the extra to get all the extra quality/controls that are in the NEC.

 

[Biges]

I just had an interesting chat with NEC's tech support. They have had a few comments lately about the backlight uniformity on the 2690 and 3090. Their engineers' suggestion is to let the monitor run for a week at 100% brightness to break it in. So far with other customers that seems to have worked. I am now staring at two very bright 2690s. Hopefully one will break in properly and I will be RMAing the other.

Definitely let us know the result.

 

[Zetherin]

Sycraft, I appreciate the post.

When I meant I didn't understand, it wasn't concerning your mindset of buy what you think is best, it was concerning the technical aspects such as 'L*curve' and 'sRGB'. I'm picking up on it slowly, though.

I've decided I'm just going to go with the DS from a reputable dealer and then return it if I truly hate it as you noted. The part that had me worried was when SnowDog mentioned people looking like they were sunburnt in a movie (I guess implying there were way too many reds mixed into to natural pigment). If the colors are THAT off, I probably wouldn't have a good experience. I mean, if I open up [H] and the logo is fucking pink, we're gonna have problems.

We'll see (actually, I'll see )

 

[10e]

Agreed,

When I mentioned "it's subjective" it was more in the context of people having wide gamut displays but not noticing the highly saturated colors by default. Much of this is dependent on previous monitor experiences. If I didn't have the 2005FPW or the G2400W I don't know if I would perceive the highly saturated panel of the LCD2690Wuxi at default/native settings.

But in that regard, you are correct that the LCD2690's color management capabilities and adjustments cannot be overstated. It truly is one of the most customizable displays at somewhat affordable prices. Even the LED can be tuned for color (blue vs. green) and brightness from the monitor or SpectraView II software. Different calibrations can be stored in files under SpectraView II and loaded quickly with an ensuing lightshow "convulsion" from the monitor as it adjusts

I also have the luxury of sticking an ATI 3850/3870 in there and lowering the color controls via CCC, which is something nVidia does not give the option for, as digital vibrance has no negative adjustments as you've pointed out. The ATI adjustment is similar to the "color" control on a TV which can lower oversaturated colors. I switched back to nVidia because of the FP241VW and some issues caused by ATI, but with the NEC I may go back.

Having now played with calibrations such as color temp., brightness, and color curves, I can say that I am fairly satisfied with the colors in most aspects when I calibrate to an sRGB color curve as opposed to using the below average sRGB preset.

But the PC color management is not a pretty picture as of right now. Calibrating via ICM profile has shown me artifacts like banding, and color tinting in the middle gray scales on other screens, so I am happy to go forward with the NEC and G2400W, as PC color management is definitely not a requirement with them.

Although if I had bought the NEC a few months ago I think I probably would have only kept it, and considered my "monitor quest" to be done for a long while, but having it on the left, and the G2400W on the right gives me even more flexibility.

Regards,

10e

When I first brought up the Gamut issue it was in context of something that the NEC would have an advantage with that was trivialized. With NEC you have so many more options of getting this to your liking in the panel.

I can't stress this enough. If you are forced to go to the PC to make these adjustments, it gets ugly quickly. I am quite sure that I wouldn't be having the trouble I am having if I had the NEC. PC color management sucks, you really don't want to go there if you can avoid it. The NEC has the Cadillac of color management built into the screen so when you get some setup you like it will be consistent everywhere, games, apps, movies, or you can quickly flip the monitor configuration for different uses.

For me it would be no contest. I would pay the extra to get all the extra quality/controls that are in the NEC.

 

[Snowdog]

Agreed,

But the PC color management is not a pretty picture as of right now. Calibrating via ICM profile has shown me artifacts like banding, and color tinting in the middle gray scales on other screens, so I am happy to go forward with the NEC and G2400W, as PC color management is definitely not a requirement with them.

Same thing happened with my 3007-HC, using profiles or changing graphics card settings. When I started with the new panel it had perfect smooth gray gradient. After applying profiles or doing my own changes there was banding and color intrusion.

I didn't even mention this one, but another big issues with calibrating is that you only have 8bit control going to the PC. Once you start calibrating on the PC. You are losing some of those 255 steps to represent shades. The steps then get bigger leading to banding. If you have a wide gamut panel they are even wider.

PC color management is the elephant in the room. Avoid it all cost.

 

[Biges]

So when you calibrate 2690WUXi with SVII it does not produce a profile? Rather it calibrate the monitor internally?

 

[Sycraft]

Well, it does produce a profile, but not one that does corrections. The profile specifies things like the white point, the colour primaries and so on. However it then just specifies a linear lookup table. All corrections are applied to the monitor's internal LUT, which is higher resolutions (12-bit instead of 8-bit) and applies in all cases.

If you want to do video card based correction, you can just get the i1Match 3 software from Xrite. The NEC pucks come with an embedded license for it, so it runs just fine. However there's not really a reason to do that, since the internal calibration feature is one of the reasons to pay for this display. It does, however, mean you can install the i1Match software on another PC and use your puck to calibrate that with software if you like.

 

[Supersnake]

Yep, same panel. In terms of panel quality the only potential differences are:

1) NEC may buy better rated panels. In a given line of panels some come out better than others, the manufacturer (LG in this case) rates them and sells them at different prices. NEC, charging more for their display, could be buying higher grade ones. However, I have no evidence this is actually the case, it is simply a possibility.

2) All NEC monitors have a special polarizer that reduces glow at an angle and thus increases the apparent contrast ratio, especially when viewed from an angle. Apparently some DS displays do, but some do not. Last I checked, there was no way of ensuring you got one.

Other than that, the panels are the same LG panel, and so have the same general characteristics.


So, what does the extra money get you with the NEC? Few things, which you certainly may feel are not worth the money:

1) Hardware calibration. Most displays, if you wish to calibrate their colour, have to do it in software. You use something like i1Match to modify the graphics card's LUT. That's fine, but you lose accuracy, since the graphics card has only an 8-bit output. Thus you correct colour imperfections, but lose some gradient accuracy. Also, games very frequently modify the videocard LUT to do their own gamma control, which overrides your corrections.

The NEC displays are corrected in the hardware itself, provided you buy their SpectraView product. Rather than modifying the videocard LUT, it modifies the display's own LUT, which is 12-bit. This means that there is no loss of fidelity for the correction, and that the correction is applied all the time, even if something else modifies the videocard LUT.

2) Colour uniformity correction, called colorcomp. One problem faced on any display, but particularly large LCDs is that of panel uniformity. It is just hard to have a perfectly uniform backlight and thus perfectly uniform display. Thus brightness can vary 10-20% (sometimes more) across the screen. The NEC displays can deal with that to a large degree. When colorcomp is turned on, they adjust for it, and generally do a great job. Some reviews have found it to be to within 1-2%. I personally haven't tested it empirically, but the result is very good looking. My display looks extremely uniform.

3) Top notch scaler. Most LCDs include a scaler of some description, but it is often not that great and not that flexible. The NEC scaler is, well, the best I've ever seen. It has settings per resolution and you can not only have it to full, aspect correct, or 1:1, but you can do scaling by arbitrary factors. So for example if you had a 720x480 NTSC input, that is actually supposed to be a 4:3 output, even though it doesn't look like it because the pixels are non-square. The NEC scaler can handle that, as you can set custom ratios for scaling.

4) Excellent controls. Pretty much anything you can think of to adjust, this display will let you adjust. In it's normal menu it has just about everything you'd ever need and everything you'd find on a normal display. In it's advanced menu, it has things you never even though of, like the ability to correct for signal reflections over long runs of cables, or amazingly advanced analogue controls for VGA cables and such.

5) Nice stand. The DS just tilts up and down, like most LCDs. The NEC has a stand that has very smooth tilting, but also moves up and down freely (it's counterbalanced to the display weight) and can also pivot and do portrait mode (which the display supports, including remapping it's OSD controls). You can basically fully adjust the display to whatever level you like.


So, that's more or less what your dollars are buying you with the NEC. However, it is still the same panel, and thus the same fundamental performance (same gamut, same contrast ratio, same response time, etc).

I chose to go with the NEC primarily because I wanted the fully adjustable stand, and the hardware calibration, and I'm not sorry I did. However, those things are important to me, they may not be to you. More or less the NEC is a professional monitor, and comes with a tons of features because of that. However, it has a price tag to match. The DS is a consumer monitor and while it is much lighter on the features, you can literally get two of them for the price of a single NEC.

I can't thank you enough for posting these differences, it gives me the reassurances I was looking for in deciding whether to go with the NEC versus the DS (and let's not forget the convincing AnandTech review of the NEC ). The advantage the NEC has over the DS in scaling capacity was enough of a difference to me. And the bonus of having the SpectraView and the ColorComp will be invaluable to someone like me who is not technically adept.

 

[Biges]

Well, it does produce a profile, but not one that does corrections. The profile specifies things like the white point, the colour primaries and so on. However it then just specifies a linear lookup table. All corrections are applied to the monitor's internal LUT, which is higher resolutions (12-bit instead of 8-bit) and applies in all cases.

If you want to do video card based correction, you can just get the i1Match 3 software from Xrite. The NEC pucks come with an embedded license for it, so it runs just fine. However there's not really a reason to do that, since the internal calibration feature is one of the reasons to pay for this display. It does, however, mean you can install the i1Match software on another PC and use your puck to calibrate that with software if you like.

Thanks. So how can one tell a difference? Looking at the profile or monitor?

 

[Supersnake]

Delete

 

[Peat Moss]

Ok, really having a difficult time deciding between the NEC 2490 and the 2690. I've read through this thread and though I didn't understand all of it, I think I got the gist of the difference between aRGB and sRGB.

What I am wondering is, with a wide gamut monitor are you able to more closley match the colours you see on the monitor with the colours produced from a printer? Is this the main reason why one might prefer a wide gamut monitor? Or is there another reason.

So for the NEC 2690, I understand the sRGB mode can not be calibrated. Is the sRGB mode still pretty good?

1). I'm still not sure about the mode terminology: is there a 'preset sRGB' mode AND some other sRGB mode? (standard mode?).

2). How easy/difficult is it to switch back and forth between sRGB and wide gamut? One button? Two? Is anything lost (profiles, calibration) when switching between modes?

3). If I do mostly websurfing and office work, but once and a while do some critical photo editing for printing out from a printer, would the 2690 be advantageous over the 2490? Would the wide gamut be worth it over a standard gamut monitor, or would I NOT notice the difference in the whole print process most of the time to make it worth it. I am fussy about my prints, but I'm wondering if the negative issues with wide gamut would outweigh my occasional use for it.

Thanks for anyone's help with this.

 

[Surly73]

Ok, really having a difficult time deciding between the NEC 2490 and the 2690. I've read through this thread and though I didn't understand all of it, I think I got the gist of the difference between aRGB and sRGB.

What I am wondering is, with a wide gamut monitor are you able to more closley match the colours you see on the monitor with the colours produced from a printer? Is this the main reason why one might prefer a wide gamut monitor? Or is there another reason.

Most decent photo printers have gamuts which are even wider than aRGB. The more colours your display will show, the *closer* you will get to matching prints exactly.

That being said, while limited to 8 bits - the wider gamut your display can show, the larger the increment between shades. Theoretically wider gamuts can cause banding in gradients which are in-gamut. That's not really a major practical concern, though.

3). If I do mostly websurfing and office work, but once and a while do some critical photo editing for printing out from a printer, would the 2690 be advantageous over the 2490? Would the wide gamut be worth it over a standard gamut monitor, or would I NOT notice the difference in the whole print process most of the time to make it worth it. I am fussy about my prints, but I'm wondering if the negative issues with wide gamut would outweigh my occasional use for it.

Thanks for anyone's help with this.

Why do you want the 26 instead of the 24? Just size? Why are you fixated on an increase in size without an increase in resolution? You don't increase resolution, you lower dpi, and you increase inter-pixel spacing by going with the larger display. If you have no need for wide gamut, don't understand the "risks" and have no intention of using the capability, just get the sRGB 2490. (IMO)

 

[Snowdog]

3). If I do mostly websurfing and office work, but once and a while do some critical photo editing for printing out from a printer, would the 2690 be advantageous over the 2490? Would the wide gamut be worth it over a standard gamut monitor, or would I NOT notice the difference in the whole print process most of the time to make it worth it. I am fussy about my prints, but I'm wondering if the negative issues with wide gamut would outweigh my occasional use for it.

If you are working from JPGs then you are using sRGB files as a source and there will be zero benefit with using a wide gamut monitor.

If you start with RAW, you can test it now. Even if you current monitor can't display it, you can change your working color space. Take a RAW photo into photoshop and print it. Once using sRGB, once using Adobe color space.

If there is a difference you will see it in the prints, but chances are the difference will range from unnoticeable to so small it isn't worth the bother. If you see huge differences, you may have introduced a conversion error somewhere.

IMO 99.99% of the population is better off with an sRGB monitor as everything is still pretty much sRGB, though a few programs support wider gamut, they also support sRGB.

Unless you are generating your own wide gamut content (IE shooting RAW photos), there is pretty much nothing to see in wide gamut. Instead you will waste a lot of time trying to get things to display properly again.

 

[10e]

Ok, really having a difficult time deciding between the NEC 2490 and the 2690. I've read through this thread and though I didn't understand all of it, I think I got the gist of the difference between aRGB and sRGB.

What I am wondering is, with a wide gamut monitor are you able to more closley match the colours you see on the monitor with the colours produced from a printer? Is this the main reason why one might prefer a wide gamut monitor? Or is there another reason.

So for the NEC 2690, I understand the sRGB mode can not be calibrated. Is the sRGB mode still pretty good?

1). I'm still not sure about the mode terminology: is there a 'preset sRGB' mode AND some other sRGB mode? (standard mode?).

2). How easy/difficult is it to switch back and forth between sRGB and wide gamut? One button? Two? Is anything lost (profiles, calibration) when switching between modes?

3). If I do mostly websurfing and office work, but once and a while do some critical photo editing for printing out from a printer, would the 2690 be advantageous over the 2490? Would the wide gamut be worth it over a standard gamut monitor, or would I NOT notice the difference in the whole print process most of the time to make it worth it. I am fussy about my prints, but I'm wondering if the negative issues with wide gamut would outweigh my occasional use for it.

Thanks for anyone's help with this.

There is an sRGB mode and a few other modes. One is "programmable" which is the calibrated mode, but it is wide gamut on the 2690. Another is "native" which is aRGB/wide gamut as well, but without calibration. Switching between them is easy. A few presses to get to the "tab" in the monitor's on-screen display. The new 2690WUXI2 has a "mode change key" from what I remember, and apparently an sRGB mode that can be calibrated, though I haven't heard if it works well or not.

The 2690WUXI's sRGB mode can be somewhat calibrated with SpectraView II 1.10 and higher BUT it still sucks. I never use it, because the white point cannot be changed from the factory set up without voiding the warranty, as it is set at the factory. The best alternative I found is to use the programmable mode and calibrate to sRGB gamma, which still does not eliminate wide gamut over saturation, but is fine with color managed apps (only).

I would echo Snowdog's post and say get the 2490WUXI, preferably with SpectaView II to keep the color consistent over the life of the screen, unless you are shooting in RAW, and even then, it's debatable, because you can still print in wide gamut, and most of your shots will still look more than close enough on the 2490WUXI's sRGB gamut panel.

 

[psyside]

@ Peat Moss:

Get the 2490-SV perfect display i would say never saw anything like this monitor in my life amazing unit you can't go wrong.Cristal clear,sharp beautifl image quallity is outstanding! accurate colors clear text in one word amazing.

 

[Peat Moss]

Most decent photo printers have gamuts which are even wider than aRGB. The more colours your display will show, the *closer* you will get to matching prints exactly.

Thanks. Though I've heard conflicting views about whether high end consumer inkjet printers are considered wide gamut or not.

Yes, what I'm after ideally is as close to a true WYSWYG experience as I can get using current prosumer grade technology.

That being said, while limited to 8 bits - the wider gamut your display can show, the larger the increment between shades. Theoretically wider gamuts can cause banding in gradients which are in-gamut. That's not really a major practical concern, though.

So the conversion from 8-bits to 10 or12-bits is not normally visible? That's good to know, thanks.

Why do you want the 26 instead of the 24? Just size? Why are you fixated on an increase in size without an increase in resolution?

Where did I say I wanted a 26 instead of the 24"? What makes you think I am "fixated" on size? The whole point of my post was about trying to decide between the two.

If you start with RAW, you can test it now. Even if you current monitor can't display it, you can change your working color space. Take a RAW photo into photoshop and print it. Once using sRGB, once using Adobe color space.

If there is a difference you will see it in the prints, but chances are the difference will range from unnoticeable to so small it isn't worth the bother. If you see huge differences, you may have introduced a conversion error somewhere.

If there is only a little difference, could this also be partly due to the printer? In other words, if the printer is only capable of sRGB (or slightly higher) output, would any wide gamut image be constrained to whatever the colour space of the printer is?

IMO 99.99% of the population is better off with an sRGB monitor as everything is still pretty much sRGB, though a few programs support wider gamut, they also support sRGB.

In terms of end to end hardware devices, do you happen to know if printers and scanners are still mostly in the sRGB space?

There is an sRGB mode and a few other modes. One is "programmable" which is the calibrated mode, but it is wide gamut on the 2690. Another is "native" which is aRGB/wide gamut as well, but without calibration. Switching between them is easy. A few presses to get to the "tab" in the monitor's on-screen display. The new 2690WUXI2 has a "mode change key" from what I remember, and apparently an sRGB mode that can be calibrated, though I haven't heard if it works well or not.

So switching is relatively easy, though sRGB mode is not really that great? I didn't know that about the possibility of calibrating the sRGB mode in the 2690WUXi2, thanks.

The best alternative I found is to use the programmable mode and calibrate to sRGB gamma, which still does not eliminate wide gamut over saturation, but is fine with color managed apps (only).

Ok, I understand. I was reading somewhere else that another way around it is to change the colour mode in Windows from sRGB to aRGB using a hack.

I would echo Snowdog's post and say get the 2490WUXI, preferably with SpectaView II to keep the color consistent over the life of the screen, unless you are shooting in RAW, and even then, it's debatable, because you can still print in wide gamut, and most of your shots will still look more than close enough on the 2490WUXI's sRGB gamut panel.

Thanks. It sounds more and more like the standard gamut 2490 will be easier and more seamless in general with fewer issues.