Desktop Monitors (LCD)

[DougDolde]

My five year old Eizo CG21 is still running strong and appears have as good of an image as it did when new. I can't imagine using anything but an Eizo.

 

[dfarkas]

Tim,
I can appreciate what you are saying and your experiences from you work demands. I guess I am having a bit harder time appreciating just how different these two monitors, from the same company, really are. I am sure the HW calibration and LUT is better in the CG, but if one is running a decent video card already, doing frequent if not daily calibrations, and working in a rather light controlled environment, are the differences really THAT much? I would imagine they are using the same LCD panels, though there might be differences in the QC levels, just as is the case with NEC and Apple.

Please do not think I am being obstinate here. I am really trying to understand just how much difference there is. I appreciate subtle color differences and stuff now, so I agree with what you are describing. Still trying to understand what one is really getting for that premium price. Not adverse to paying it if it truly that much better. Given that most monitors need to be scrapped after 3-4 years of hard use anyway, are the CGs that much of an exception?

LJ

LJ,

First off, the Eizo ColorEdge monitors come with a 5 year warranty. They are designed to last longer than standard LCD monitors. A "good" video card is really a moot issue with 2D images. I run an Eizo with a $90 video card. I'm not doing HD video editing or rendering so a higher-end card will make no IQ difference for my photo work. The difference between an 8-bit LUT and a 12-bit LUT is pretty notable. Hardware calibration really works much better - ask around for real life experience on this.

Regarding the panels, you will notice that the specs are different regarding illumination and contrast ratio. So, either they are using the same panels with better CCFL backlighitng or the panels used are different as well. I know that all the LCD panels used in the CG line (except some models like the CG211) use S-PVA. I believe that the SX series uses PVA panels.

If you are looking for a cost-conscious, hardware calibrated Eizo, take a look at the new 22" CG222W for $1,400. The only drawback with this monitor is the screen resolution of 1680x1050. Or go to the 24" CE240W for $1,675. You'll get 1920x1200 res with a trade-off of 10-bit LUT vs. 12-bit LUT in the CG. For the price of the new 30", you could just get two CG241W monitors with no trade-offs. Or, start with one and add a second later if and when you need it.

David

 

[LJL]

But when trying to match a client's Corporate color on offset press? Another story. They (clients) are very critical. The price difference I paid for my Eizo-peace-of-mind has more than paid for the Tylenol I would have had to purchase otherwise.

Tim,
That part I completely understand and agree with you. That is why I burn lots more in storage to keep all the client print files, just so I can go back and deliver something to them that is exactly what they got on their first order.

I am pressing this issue a bit harder, and not directed at you or anyone else, because like many, I am facing that next round of upgrades and replacements of things in many areas....computer, monitor(s), cameras, storage, etc., etc., and the price tags start creating a different kind of headache to manage :bugeyes: That is my personal concern, but I would imagine there are others facing the same thing. So, paying $2+K less for an excellent big monitor may be a worthwhile trade-off. (I even think the NEC 30" monitor is quite good, and better than Apple's offering.) However, if the gap between it and the top of line model is really big in the performance and output area, it may be worth spending more there, and figuring other budgets differently. The hardest part is actually getting to see some of these units in side by side comparisons anywhere. Reading spec sheets only gets one so far, as we all know

LJ

 

[LJL]

LJ,

First off, the Eizo ColorEdge monitors come with a 5 year warranty. They are designed to last longer than standard LCD monitors. A "good" video card is really a moot issue with 2D images. I run an Eizo with a $90 video card. I'm not doing HD video editing or rendering so a higher-end card will make no IQ difference for my photo work. The difference between an 8-bit LUT and a 12-bit LUT is pretty notable. Hardware calibration really works much better - ask around for real life experience on this.

Regarding the panels, you will notice that the specs are different regarding illumination and contrast ratio. So, either they are using the same panels with better CCFL backlighitng or the panels used are different as well. I know that all the LCD panels used in the CG line (except some models like the CG211) use S-PVA. I believe that the SX series uses PVA panels.

If you are looking for a cost-conscious, hardware calibrated Eizo, take a look at the new 22" CG222W for $1,400. The only drawback with this monitor is the screen resolution of 1680x1050. Or go to the 24" CE240W for $1,675. You'll get 1920x1200 res with a trade-off of 10-bit LUT vs. 12-bit LUT in the CG. For the price of the new 30", you could just get two CG241W monitors with no trade-offs. Or, start with one and add a second later if and when you need it.

David

Thanks, David. This is the part that I understand a lot more. (I read the warranty footnote from EIZO in the 30" CG, and it may be 5 years, but they only cover the panel for 3 years or 30,000 hours....bit odd marketing.)

I presently run with two 24" monitors now, and honestly, though very nice for some things, I am really wanting to go to a single 30" instead, hence my questions. The screen real estate and ability to lay things out for working on a single screen makes the 30" more attractive and practical than two 24" screens, even though they provide more area. Just a personal preference.

Sorry if I took this thread a bit into the weeds, and I do appreciate the comments and input from folks. I am not averse to the EIzos at all, having used them a lot in the past. I am just trying to justify their premiums now that things are coming from my account I really need to find someplace that has these units up, running, and on display for comparisons, including some of the other contenders, like the new NEC models, since some of their new tech is looking quite interesting also.

LJ

 

[ChrisDauer]

Chris,

The CG line comes with Eizo ColorNavigator software and allows you to perform direct hardware calibration using an i1. The SX line isn't hardware calibrated. Essentially, you are limited to 8-bit LUTs in your video card vs. 12-bit in the monitor's ASIC. Also, the CG comes with a nice monitor hood.

Hope this is the info you're looking for.

David

Hi David,

Yes, it's very much what I'm looking for but here is my confusion:

http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/SX3031W/index.asp
12-Bit Gamma, 16-Bit Internal Processing
The FlexScan SX3031W comes equipped with EIZO’s latest integrated circuit which has a 12-bit look-up table with a color palette of 68 billion colors from which the most appropriate 16.7 million (8-bits) are displayed. It also features 16-bit internal processing for smooth display of grayscale tones, especially in dark areas of an image which typically are difficult for LCD monitors to display without banding.

So, both the SX and the CG have the 12-bit LUT. So it sounds like it's a really really nice $2k monitor hood.
Sarcasm aside, I'm assuming the internals are better in some way but as an Enginerd, I'd like to see some numbers. Something beyond, it's really really good. Right now, it sounds like the CG will hold the color profiling better than the SX. But I've got the i1, so I can just profile more often, right? Here is where I'm a little confused.

Thanks,

-C

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I can't comment exactly on this issue between the CG and SX lines, but I can say that I have a CG-210 -- I got it just when they were transferring to the new model, so I got a bit of a deal. It is SO much better than the Apple monitors I have used. Not only does it display everything with more nuance, greater evenness, better color and sharper detail, it is better ergonomically too. The hood is superb, it rotates to portrait, it has more inputs, and it raises, lowers and tilts more extensively. The hardware calibration is truly worth it. Now prints come out looking like they do on screen, and that alone is worth the money -- seeing your images as they are meant to be is the whole point, isn't it?

 

[LJL]

Stuart,
I agree with what you are saying about seeing your images correctly, and not arguing that the CG is NOT a great monitor, but as Chris is asking also (again), based on what Eizo is saying, how different are the CG and SX models? I run an i1 calibration on my present monitors frequently, so having that "automated" would not be all that much. The hood is great, but one can fashion something similar with some black matte board, or even buy a readymade. As for tilt and movement, even the much cheaper Dells offer this on their stands now, including vertical rotation. None of that has much to do with the image, and hardly worth the $2+K difference in price, I would think. Even the warranty, as I mentioned on the CG is NOT a complete 5 year as advertised, but the panel is 3 year and the lighting is only 2 years (guess that sums to 5, but not what most folks would interpret).

Again, not taking this out on you or anybody else, and I do appreciate your enthusiasm for these monitors, but from a practical perspective, it would really be nice to know just how different they are, given the huge gap in pricing on them. Like Chris, this has me wondering.....maybe not confused yet, but sure wondering what the real differences are among some of these monitors.

LJ

 

[dfarkas]

Chris,

Even though both monitors have a 12-bit LUT, the CG can actually make use of this through direct hardware calibration. The SX is still 8-bit limited by software calibration/video card. Calibrating more often won't change this.

Regarding the warranty... I'm pretty sure it is 5 years or 30,000 hours, whichever comes first. I was told by the Eizo product manager to always turn off the monitors at the end of the day to get the full warranty period. If you leave it on 24/7 your warranty will indeed run out after 3 years. So, only run it 12 hours a day and 30,000 hours will come in 6 years.

David

 

[LJL]

David,
It would really be nice to have more of this kind of information posted in the tech specs and stuff for these monitors. Your adds and explanations are helpful.

With respect to the warranty on the 30" CG, here is what is posted on the Eizo spec sheet for that monitor:

1 The usage time is limited to 30,000 hours and the warranty period is limited to three years for the LCD panel from the date of purchase. The warranty period of the backlight is warranted only if the monitor is used within the recommended brightness of up to and including 120 cd/m2 with a color temperature between 5,000 K – 6,500 K and limited to three years from the date of purchase subject to the usage time being less than or equal to 10,000 hours.

So, the explanation for turning things off at the end of a 12 hour day fits to some degree, but the limits as explained here are still 3 years, not 5 as they advertise. It is the backlight that usually is the problem with all LCD monitors.....it loses its lighting ability much faster than the LCD panel loses the ability to project the correct color.

LJ

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Let's straighten this out a bit... All ATI and nVidia cards used by Apple in modern days have 10-bit DACs and hence 10-bit LUTs. However, DVI is an 8-bit interface, so 2 bits are lost between the video card and the display; unless of course you use component cables. The upcoming replacement for DVI, DisplayPort, fixes this and we can finally get the digital equivalent of component. HDMI too can pass more than 8 bits, but only for YCrCb, not RGB. Like DVI, it's limited to 8 bits for RGB. The new HP Dreamcolor display uses DisplayPort. This is one bandwagon Apple should get on IMO.

Second, ALL displays have a LUT in firmware to make them look a certain way out of the box on a PC. Specifically, the standard consumer display is set up for high midtone contrast and crushed ('deep') blacks, because that makes it stand out in a store line-up. However, if you sell both display and the computers they attach to, you can set up the display LUT close to linear using factory calibration, and then mangle it in the driver by installing a default LUT that makes it look like everything else in the store. When calibrated and linearized, this LUT is then replaced with something closer to linear. Because the calibrated driver LUT actually does very little, 8 bits can be perfectly adequate.

Guess what - DVI is 8 bits even with an Eizo.

 

[ChrisDauer]

Guess what - DVI is 8 bits even with an Eizo.

So you're saying I should wait until Eizo comes out w/ a display port; if I'm going to go down this road?