![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
There have been a few posts here and a couple of private messages asking how the new NEC monitor does for photo-editing. The answer, in short, is that it seems wonderful. I've only had the monitor for a couple of days now. I've never used an Eizo, which is the monitor to which the NEC is often compared, so I can't comment on how it stacks up. Also, I haven't done any formal testing of the monitor, except the response / persistence tests which I posted earlier on the huge 2690 thread. With that in mind, then...
The colors are true, and spectacular. The larger than usual gamut (93% of Adobe RGB) seems to really be visible - I see colors that I've never seen on a monitor before. Once calibrated, the display corresponds very nicely with the prints from my HP B9180.
I don't have SpectraVision II calibration software. I have an Eye1 Display-2, with the Match software. It works, but it doesn't write to the NEC's internal LUT, only to the video card's. The monitor has several internal color presets. It comes set to "native", which is what I'm still using. The other presets are for very weird color temperatures, and look mostly unusable. Perhaps they're not intended to be used, and are meant to be overwritten with reasonable presets by the user? As for the "native" setting, there's no documentation as to what it is, but it's the default, it looks good, and it allowed the calibration to succeed nicely. If you don't have a calibrator, the monitor looks as good as any I've seen straight out of the box, so you could certainly work without it. Still, I have a feeling that I'll get more out of the monitor with SV, and I expect that I'll buy it once I can swallow the steep price.
The monitor, as shipped, is VERY bright. I think one of the uses for this display is in public, info display kind of applications, and it would probably be great for that. For photography, though, it's overwhelming, bordering on painful. Using my calibrator, I turned it down to 120 (I forget the units), which is often recommended for photo-editing. To get it to that brightness involved turning the brightness down from the default 100% to about 2%. I don't know what the brightness percentage means exactly, but 0% is still quite bright, and I see no way to turn it down any further. Also, I experimented with the automatic brightness control, but it kept making the monitor brighter than I wanted, so I turned it back off. It may be that the SpectraView software would help to tame this. The moral of the story, though, is that the monitor can be turned down to a reasonable brightess - just don't be timid about backing it nearly all the way down.
I love the size of the monitor. At 1900x1200, the dot pitch is a bit bigger than 24" monitors with the same resolution, which means that my 50+ yr. old eyes can do most of my work in comfort, and without glasses. This is my first wide-screen monitor, and it makes working sooo much easier. I can see the whole photo at a nice size, and still have pallettes and such off to the sides. Both Photoshop, and especially Lightroom, look GREAT on this monitor!
The documentation is very weak on the info that I'd like to have had. What is the "native" color preset? Does it make sense, for my use, to use the "AmbiBright" setting which adjusts brightness according to ambient light? What do the brightness percentages in the menus correspond to? What would SpectraView really do for me? Sadly, no answers in the manual. All it has is a very long list of menu settings with minial detail about what each setting does. For instance, on the "overdrive" setting, it tells me that it turns overdrive on / off. Well, OK, but what is overdrive, anyway? Why would / wouldn't I want it? Might it reduce color fidelity, or shorten the life of the monitor? Sorry - no answers.
Another objection is that I really think that the SpectraView calibration software should be free, or at least cheap, especially considering the brightness issue discussed above. The monitor is probably not overpriced, but it's sure not cheap, and I think it verges on gouging for NEC to ask another $169 for the software to calibrate it.
In summary, this is a great monitor for photo work. Better / worse than Eizo? I have no idea. But I'm very, very happy with it, and definitely recommend it.
The colors are true, and spectacular. The larger than usual gamut (93% of Adobe RGB) seems to really be visible - I see colors that I've never seen on a monitor before. Once calibrated, the display corresponds very nicely with the prints from my HP B9180.
I don't have SpectraVision II calibration software. I have an Eye1 Display-2, with the Match software. It works, but it doesn't write to the NEC's internal LUT, only to the video card's. The monitor has several internal color presets. It comes set to "native", which is what I'm still using. The other presets are for very weird color temperatures, and look mostly unusable. Perhaps they're not intended to be used, and are meant to be overwritten with reasonable presets by the user? As for the "native" setting, there's no documentation as to what it is, but it's the default, it looks good, and it allowed the calibration to succeed nicely. If you don't have a calibrator, the monitor looks as good as any I've seen straight out of the box, so you could certainly work without it. Still, I have a feeling that I'll get more out of the monitor with SV, and I expect that I'll buy it once I can swallow the steep price.
The monitor, as shipped, is VERY bright. I think one of the uses for this display is in public, info display kind of applications, and it would probably be great for that. For photography, though, it's overwhelming, bordering on painful. Using my calibrator, I turned it down to 120 (I forget the units), which is often recommended for photo-editing. To get it to that brightness involved turning the brightness down from the default 100% to about 2%. I don't know what the brightness percentage means exactly, but 0% is still quite bright, and I see no way to turn it down any further. Also, I experimented with the automatic brightness control, but it kept making the monitor brighter than I wanted, so I turned it back off. It may be that the SpectraView software would help to tame this. The moral of the story, though, is that the monitor can be turned down to a reasonable brightess - just don't be timid about backing it nearly all the way down.
I love the size of the monitor. At 1900x1200, the dot pitch is a bit bigger than 24" monitors with the same resolution, which means that my 50+ yr. old eyes can do most of my work in comfort, and without glasses. This is my first wide-screen monitor, and it makes working sooo much easier. I can see the whole photo at a nice size, and still have pallettes and such off to the sides. Both Photoshop, and especially Lightroom, look GREAT on this monitor!
The documentation is very weak on the info that I'd like to have had. What is the "native" color preset? Does it make sense, for my use, to use the "AmbiBright" setting which adjusts brightness according to ambient light? What do the brightness percentages in the menus correspond to? What would SpectraView really do for me? Sadly, no answers in the manual. All it has is a very long list of menu settings with minial detail about what each setting does. For instance, on the "overdrive" setting, it tells me that it turns overdrive on / off. Well, OK, but what is overdrive, anyway? Why would / wouldn't I want it? Might it reduce color fidelity, or shorten the life of the monitor? Sorry - no answers.
Another objection is that I really think that the SpectraView calibration software should be free, or at least cheap, especially considering the brightness issue discussed above. The monitor is probably not overpriced, but it's sure not cheap, and I think it verges on gouging for NEC to ask another $169 for the software to calibrate it.
In summary, this is a great monitor for photo work. Better / worse than Eizo? I have no idea. But I'm very, very happy with it, and definitely recommend it.
