NEC (PA241W vs PA271W) vs Eizo CG243W NEW

T

Techo

n00b
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
24
Hello everyone :)

It's finally time for me to migrate from the professional series CRT I've been using. I've been spoiled but the ole tube is starting to fail. For me the choice is between those two NEC models vs the Eizo. NEC (PA241W vs PA271W) vs Eizo CG243W.

I see the purchase as a long term one. The Eizo has a faster response time (5ms vs NEC's 241w's 8ms) and I do see myself working with video. Black levels are very important as well.

Is the price difference between the Eizo($800-$1000 higher price) and the NEC warranted?

Has anyone had a chance to personally compare or use both the NEC and Eizo screens?

Now say deciding to go with NEC...

The Spectraview Colorimeter will be purchased separately.
I'll also use the monitor heavily for text. To be quite honest I personally find the extra space on the sides of the wide 27" rather annoying. I base this on using a friend's wide 32" display. I don't sit more than 2-3 feet away from my current display so 24" is just the right size. But from reading various sources , the dot pitch on the NEC 27" is in fact smaller than on the 24" model. The 24" does offer slightly more AdobeRGB coverage and has a higher brightness mode(which I might be turning down anyway).

Thanks very much in advance for your thoughts and tips.
 
Thanks. I've read both of the reviews but still on the fence. Not sure about the extra $800-$1000 cost for the increase in response time? Having the screen evenly backlit and have good enough(for an LCD) viewing angles, both of the models are good at that.

Other than an IPS panel what would be a recommendation? My main use of the display would be for photography, video editing and software programming.

The PRAD and FlatPanelsHD review sites are the only sites I know of that have reviewed both models. A side by side review would've been awesome.

Tnx again!
 
Last edited:
Techo said:
Thanks. I've read both of the reviews but still on the fence. Not sure about the extra $800-$1000 cost for the increase in response time? Having the screen evenly backlit and have good enough(for an LCD) viewing angles, both of the models are good at that.

Other than an IPS panel what would be a recommendation? My main use of the display would be for photography, video editing and software programming.

The PRAD and FlatPanelsHD review sites are the only sites I know of that have reviewed both models. A side by side review would've been awesome.

Tnx again!
Click to expand...

Generally NEC vs Eizo means a better monitor for the same price or the same monitor for less money.
Response time is nothing. No one measured it and no one will notice a difference between these two.

Other than an IPS panel what would be a recommendation?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
 
Well if it were me and I had the $$ I would get the Eizo, however I would be purchasing a colorimeter as well with something this high end.

The PA241W is out of the question if you want even slightly decent blacks, the PA271W is good but has a bit of ghosting.

There really isn't a perfect solution, if you got the right calibration software you could get an HP DreamColor or LG W2420R. These IPS panels have very good blacks, of course they have their own issues.

I don't really know the pros/cons of all of these, just what is out there. I guess you could get 2xVA panels like the 900$ Eizo SX2262 (PRAD German Review) or the Foris FX2431, PRAD has reviews of both if VA gamma shift doesn't bother you.

If you don't mind getting 2 monitors you could get 2x NEC PA231W. They have a fast response time and good black level.
 
Thanks again for the suggestions.

The HP DreamColor and LG W2420R... The cost here in the states is very close to the Eizo. So the Eizo wins there I think. A 10bit panel is quite important to me so it helps narrow down the choices. If I can get the cg243w and not look back for a few years, I'd be a happy camper. Is the PA241W that bad? I'll do some more searching and get back with any thoughts.
 
Techo said:
Thanks again for the suggestions.

The HP DreamColor and LG W2420R... The cost here in the states is very close to the Eizo. So the Eizo wins there I think. A 10bit panel is quite important to me so it helps narrow down the choices. If I can get the cg243w and not look back for a few years, I'd be a happy camper. Is the PA241W that bad? I'll do some more searching and get back with any thoughts.
Click to expand...

DreamColor is an overpriced unsuccessful model with bad reviews. LG is out of the question.
As was said, PA241w is not any worse than cg243w.
You'll need PA241w+SV (with custom set calibration bundle).
I am looking for a good deal right now.
 
PA241 has one of the worst black levels out of all the IPS panels next to the U2410.

Look at TFT centrals calibration report. 0.14cdm/2 @120cdm2 is a good value and will appear black while the NEC produces grey. The advantage of the HP dream color is the A-TW polarizer and deep blacks. There are no bad reviews.......

2X NEC PA231s might be a good choice, they aren't super costly even with the calibration software and have fast response times and good blacks.
 
. A 10bit panel is quite important to me so it helps narrow down the choices
Click to expand...
If you want a real 10bit panel you'll have to choose one of the RGB-LED models (the two mentioned or the Quato IP240ex LED). All three also have the A-TW polarisator film. But the difference between a 10bit panel and a 8bit panel is more than just hard to see as all displays with extensive electronic implement a dithering stage to avoid a loss of tonal values after high bit processing of the signal (even the 10bit versions) - most of them also allow a processing of 10bit signals.

Best regards

Denis
 
Techo,
When you'll be working with video - would this also mean videos of different frame rates than 60 Hz? If so, and you find this very important, you should know that very few displays allow other refresh rates than 60 Hz without performing some sort of pull-down algorithm first.

The color space you use for videos, wouldn't this exclusively be sRGB? The photo editing you'll perform are on photos not already in the sRGB color space or ? (i.e. 9 out of 10 consumer and pro-sumer cameras can only produce JPEGs)

IMO, the build quality of Eizos is generally better than that of NECs, but the latter is still excellent - so you could say that Eizo is pushing the bar in this regard. The NECs are assembled in China, while Eizos are assembled in Japan (a little difference i wages). Some of the difference in price may also be due to the reputation and popularity of Eizo CRT monitors.
 
albovin said:
.
Click to expand...

TFT Central said:
All other monitor and graphics card settings were left at default with no ICC profile or calibration active
Click to expand...

Try again. The 0.13cdm/2 value is usesless, the PA241W has bad color presets. The point of this monitor is to be calibrated and use the Color Comp feature. The OP needs color accuracy. The only way decent blacks can be achieved on this monitor is by throwing color accuracy and screen uniformity away.

Please read more carefully.

HP Dream Color has dithering yes, but it is not a major malfunction.

LG IPS panel QC is garbage, this is well known by now. Fortunately NEC/Eizo/HP all offer excellent customer service.

Techo said:
.
Click to expand...

It is probably best to skip the HP. If I read the PRAD review corectly the Eizo's color presets aren't the greatest either (almost perfect but the color temperature is out by 500k), are you prepared to pay its asking price+getting a colorimeter? The black levels are nothing to rave about either.
 
Last edited:
yeah in the PA241W review they only reached a max of 0.17 cd/m2 black (in high bright mode) once calibrated, so not near the 0.13...in fact i cant see any mention of 0.13 black depth in that review. as NCX says, it needs to be a black depth relevant to a calibrated state or it's not really a representation of the true performance
 
It is probably best to skip the HP. If I read the PRAD review corectly the Eizo's color presets aren't the greatest either (almost perfect but the color temperature is out by 500k),
Click to expand...
The Eizo was the last high-end WCG-CCFL screen measured with the DTP94. During that time we had wrongly thought that the characteristic of its filter solution would reach the aim better. That introduces an absolute error although the measurements of this device are consistent regarding the wrong whitepoint which means that you can rely on gamut comparison etc.

Best regards

Denis
 
Drags said:
yeah in the PA241W review they only reached a max of 0.17 cd/m2 black (in high bright mode) once calibrated, so not near the 0.13...in fact i cant see any mention of 0.13 black depth in that review. as ... says, it needs to be a black depth relevant to a calibrated state or it's not really a representation of the true performance
Click to expand...

For general knowledge.
As was expalined already, 0.13cd/m2 indicates how this monitor has progressed as far as black level is concerned.
This is a very good rezult. It says that one can expect a better black levels here than it was on older IPS panels.
Calibration of monitors of the PA241w level is not what gamers understand under calibration. PA241w with SV can perform multiple calibration tasks that are simply impossible for other monitors (and of course CRTs). "A calibrated state" that you get on a PA monitor may or may not be what others can get or need.
Anyway 0.17 for a "calibrated state" :) is still very good.

HP2480 not only dithers. It's helpless without it's special calibration solution (which is a separate problem of HP - read special publications on that, not ads). It's just a WG monitor with distinctive features like IPS panel and A-TW Pol. (on early units). Its third major feature - RGB LED BL provides for some lower black level but introduces specific problems of RGB LED.
The HP does not come even close to convenience the NEC offers (hardware calibration, unlimited scaling, colorcomp, multiple frequencies support..). For PixPerAn players it means little, but it means much for those who understands.
Why do we have to repeat this well known info??
All that has been known for a long time (long before prad test), and since the first review by ToastyX no one here ever seriously considered HP as a practical alternative to the NEC.
 
Last edited:
albovin, my point was only that the 0.13 black point you mentioned from the TFTC PA241W review was incorrect, it isnt listed anywhere in that review? I agree 0.17 is still pretty good though :)
 
It's just a WG monitor with distinctive features like IPS panel and A-TW Pol. (on early units)
Click to expand...
All LM240WU5 implementations currently feature the A-TW polarisation film. That affects LG W2420R, HP2480zx and Quato IP240ex LED (a Jan 2011 model is at the moment here for testing purposes).

RGB LED BL provides for some lower black level
Click to expand...
We should add that the contrast range on these models is comparable to miscellaneous CCFL screens with current IPS panel. Only the mentioned Quato screen implements a good homogeneity function like Eizo and NEC - impact on contrast through decreasing white-level is in the same range which is also true for maximum black level in this case.

The HP does not come even close to convenience the NEC offers (hardware calibration, unlimited scaling, colorcomp, multiple frequencies support..)
Click to expand...
The HP offers judderfree playback of signals from 48-60Hz. 24Hz were processed but we noticed some judder which indicates that the signal was internally converted to 60Hz. Still very common for a computer display.

Best regards

Denis
 
Last edited:
Drags said:
albovin, my point was only that the 0.13 black point you mentioned from the TFTC PA241W review was incorrect, it isnt listed anywhere in that review? I agree 0.17 is still pretty good though :)
Click to expand...

It was correct (the fact that I mentioned it). Please look at their table of measurements - a thing that any accurate reviewer MUST begin with.
They did a good job here.
However their mistake was that they decided to review hardware calibratable monitor without hardware calibration. That is unacceptable. Not as bad as what prad did in their 3090 review though.
Not a tragedy. Just skip all "calibration results". Top NECs and Eizos technology in some areas went far beyond what reviewes are able to "measure". So we can just take it as a fact that "calibration results" of top NECs/Eizos will be as they should be.
 
Top NECs and Eizos technology in some areas went far beyond what reviewes are able to "measure". So we can just take it as a fact that "calibration results" of top NECs/Eizos will be as they should be.
Click to expand...
I have waited for this side blow: The technology is certainly not beyond abilities of measurement (however this should manifest). Saying that I know that is still a common method to misuse a profile validation for test purposes. If this is carried out I'm full with you. That has limited expresiveness and is misinterpreted often. Our colorimetrical workflow is well-grounded and based on our own software solution. Apart from that we always offer a cycle of the UDACT which is more than just an extensive profile validation).

So we can just take it as a fact that "calibration results" of top NECs/Eizos will be as they should be.
Click to expand...
They are just like presented and represent the display state sufficient enough. This is of course true for the color space emulation too. If implemented with care you will experience no negative side effects as long as it is operated correctly by the user (=> think of chromatic adaptation if necessary and right gradation). Poor implemenations can for example lead to strong nonlinearities. But that isn't the case for current implementaions of Eizo and NEC. NEC even provides gamut mapping through their color space emulation.

Best regards

Denis
 
Last edited:
All LM240WU5 implementations currently feature the A-TW polarisation film.
Click to expand...
Good to hear. Thanks. This is the opposite to what some reports say.

The HP offers judderfree playback of signals from 48-60Hz. 24Hz were processed but we noticed some judder which indicates that the signal was internally converted to 60Hz. Still very common for a computer display
Click to expand...

I have performed unit to unit visual test including a 24Hz to 60Hz processing 24" LCD monitor and a reliable screen with "judder free" 24Hz.
A visual part of what a 24" LCD added to judder already included into the video material was zero to nothing.
So 24Hz incoming signal support is important, but the difference between 24 to 60 and "not so 24 to 60" on such a small screen like 24" is more of theoretical interest.
 
So 24Hz incoming signal support is important, but the difference between 24 to 60 and "not so 24 to 60" on such a small screen like 24" is more of theoretical interest.
Click to expand...
Yes it is of course a pure subjective decision and 24fps is not very much of temporal resolution. I can fully understand that this doesn't annoy everyone. But in Europe we have had the PAL speedup for decades which is maybe the cause that many people are quite prone to additional judder. Apart from that judderfree support of 50Hz signals is important here - especially when watching 50Hz content with discrete frames/ fields.

Another aspect is the right setup: It is still quite difficult (one has to rely on solutions like Reclock) to get a smooth playback without resync judder via PC - even if the display supports the desired frequencies judderfree.

Best regards

Denis
 
Last edited:
This is all great info. Thanks everyone. Since LCD monitor technology is still evolving at a very fast pace, perhaps I should try the PA241w(+colorimeter) and see how I like it. With the extra savings I can get a display with newer technology in a year's time or so. Which will hopefully have much improved specs. I also need to get the screen ASAP, by Tuesday. This doesn't leave me with enough time to decide. It's getting harder to find that (NEC) model and I know I will still be able to get the Eizo in couple of weeks if things don't work out. I'll report back soon. Cheers!
 
Numbers and trolling aside, I'm in love with my PA241W. Black levels might not be perfect but colour gradients and panel uniformity are just fantastic. Overall image quality plus great usability including a good scaler with even with PIP (which's been quite useful lately) and ability to switch between 2 PCs (USBs included) make it the best panel I've used. Won't comment on colour accuracy since I haven't bought a new calibration tool yet (planning to get along with a 2nd panel soon) but for what I've read the RGB mode is very good.
 
Hey folks!

Not sure why but after turning the screen off and turning it back on , I have to un then re-plug the video cable for the monitor to show the feed. Unsure if this is a driver issue or not. I've downloaded the monitor drivers from NEC's site. Anyway, the default sRGB settings I've tweaked but not optimally yet. I'll get to AdobeRGB later on. There's still some eyestrain after working for a few hours. Which I had none of before, for such a short period of time of viewing. There's that part about getting used to this higher res and setting up a higher DPI for text viewing and such.
Didn't know the Spectraview II software does not come with the colorimeter. Will order/download that part today.
 
What seems to be most annoying is reading big blocks of black text on a white background. The white is pearlized? like those new types of screen protectors.

I'm guessing the screen's coating is causing this effect? I might be able to checkout the Eizo cg243w in person this weekend. So I hope its coating is different/better.
 
Techo said:
Hey folks!

Not sure why but after turning the screen off and turning it back on , I have to un then re-plug the video cable for the monitor to show the feed. Unsure if this is a driver issue or not. I've downloaded the monitor drivers from NEC's site.
Click to expand...
Hi Techo,

If you can, give our tech support team a call at 800-632-4662. They should be able to help you diagnose this issue.

-- Art
 
NCX said:
Try again. The 0.13cdm/2 value is usesless, the PA241W has bad color presets. The point of this monitor is to be calibrated and use the Color Comp feature. The OP needs color accuracy. The only way decent blacks can be achieved on this monitor is by throwing color accuracy and screen uniformity away.
Click to expand...

I have a 2490WUXi, admittedly not the NEC display being discussed, and I use SV. To retain best blacks, you need to tell SV to calibrate for best contrast and not for grey scale tracking at low values. This will make very dim values (like < 3 in 8-bit RGB) not precisely grey but will restore high contrast ratios. In practice is doesn't make a bit of difference. If viewing MRIs or something, maybe it would. Everything above "very low" values still perfectly matches grey scale.

Colorcomp also reduces CR, but that's because blocking is used to dim "white" until it's the right colour temperature everywhere on the panel. When set to preserve grey scale at all costs, "black" is brightened so that it is perfectly grey according to the target colour temperature. My CR with ColorComp on but "max contrast" instead of greyscale is in the high 600s I think. With "greyscale" turned on it's more like 300-350 and blacks are pretty grey. The detailed curves display only shows errors in the first couple of values of RGB (like 0-3 or 0-4) and they still look grey to my eyes.

Is this the effect you're talking about when you claim that "color accuracy" must be thrown away to preserve decent blacks? If so, I have to disagree and state that it's a non-issue for 99%+ of the user population (including the professional, colour critical users). It's not a reason not to get the NEC - I think that any LCD calibrated with absolute deference to grey scale will end up with the same result.
 
Last edited:
Drags said:
yeah in the PA241W review they only reached a max of 0.17 cd/m2 black (in high bright mode) once calibrated, so not near the 0.13...in fact i cant see any mention of 0.13 black depth in that review. as NCX says, it needs to be a black depth relevant to a calibrated state or it's not really a representation of the true performance
Click to expand...

Mentioning the black level without the white level is pointless. If the backlight intensity is increased the black level will always rise - this isn't plasma or CRT - but the ratio (CR) is preserved. I'm excluding any effects due to LUT processing (Colorcomp/Uniformity, lowbright mode for example).
 
Surly73 said:
Is this the effect you're talking about when you claim that "color accuracy" must be thrown away to preserve decent blacks? If so, I have to disagree and state that it's a non-issue for 99%+ of the user population (including the professional, colour critical users).
Click to expand...

Don't take it seriously. You are responding to nonsense posted just to troll the board.
 
Just an update. I called up NEC and the issue with the feed disappearing when turning off the monitor and then turning it back on, might be a driver issue. The only way to know for sure is to plug it into another pc. That's the least of my worries though. The monitor is wonderful for photo editing (it's calibrated) but reading text is still a big issue. Eyestrain is becoming an issue when it wasn't before. I'll be working with video once I get the parts for a new pc. I didn't get a chance to view the Eizo yet, but from what I'm reading the AG coating is not much different. Pitty.

I've been using Courier New(regular) at size 14 for text editing and there's some fringing around the text when using that font. Another issue with IPS panels?
 
Last edited:
Techo said:
I've been using Courier New(regular) at size 14 for text editing and there's some fringing around the text when using that font. Another issue with IPS panels?
Click to expand...

You've turned Cleartype off EVERYWHERE, right? There are multiple places it needs to be done if you're running Win7, IE8 and a number of other things. Even then it still gets forced on in some places.
 
I've tried turning it on and off to help with the readability of text. I left it on last I used it.
It gets even harder to read text off the browser with cleartype turned off so I've left it on.
Using IE9 and FireFox4 for web browsing.

Booting from a WinXP drive now...Turning cleartype off does help with the fringe a bit, but it's not the biggest bother. It's a bother turning that on and off so I'm leaning towards just leaving it on, for now.

Oh and a stuck red pixel on the screen just popped up LOL. Or I didn't notice it before. I really want to love this screen but I guess I'm one of those ex-CRT users which are hard to convert ;)
 
Last edited:
Techo said:
I've tried turning it on and off to help with the readability of text. I left it on last I used it.
It gets even harder to read text off the browser with cleartype turned off so I've left it on.
Using IE9 and FireFox4 for web browsing.

Booting from a WinXP drive now...Turning cleartype off does help with the fringe a bit, but it's not the biggest bother. It's a bother turning that on and off so I'm leaning towards just leaving it on, for now.

I really want to love this screen but I guess I'm one of those ex-CRT users which are hard to convert ;)
Click to expand...

Cleartype sucks.
For font rendering, you could try gdipp
Looks much better imo.
 
I can't stand ClearType in general, although my dad has an old Sony 4:3 LCD on which it looks good. On everything else I can see the fringing and it makes it look blurry and out of convergence to me. I try to force it off everywhere.

Fringing is not "another IPS problem" regardless of what you think of ClearType.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top