Post by Romy Ocon on Jun 26, 2009 11:09:35 GMT
As chronicled in this thread, I finally found an IPS 24" LCD display that I can afford without having to sell my remaining kidney. It's the Philips 240PW9EB that shares the same IPS panel as the more popular (and higher priced) HP LP2475W.
Link to Philips product catalog.
Reviews of the HP LP2475W (same panel as the Philips 240PW9EB, not much technical review available online for the Philips yet):
www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-hp-lp2475w.html#Introduction
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hp_lp2475w.htm
I bought mine from Singapore, through the kindness of my brother-in-law who together with my younger sister and their son are residents of that wonderful city-state.
Link to where I bought it:
www.noble.sg/store/philips-24-lcd-240pw9eb.html
Also available in these SG stores:
www.ascendmedia.com.sg/info2.asp?id=68
www.fuwell.com.sg/uploads/misc/Fuwell1906.pdf
Here's the total costing:
1. Pricing delivered to my sister's house at SG = SGD 744.00
2. UPS air freight, with insurance (1-2 days delivery) = SGD 164.00
Total landed cost = SGD 908.00 @ PHP 33.20/SGD
= PHP 30,145.60
Add taxes and duties = PHP 8,811.00
Total cost = almost PHP 39,000.00
This is far cheaper than the PHP 80K ++ that the HP 24" was quoted by a local dealer, and a bit less than the PHP 46K (2 months delivery) quoted by my importer. If one is travelling to SG anyway and checks in the item, SGD 739.00 (ex-store) is less than PHP 25K, assuming that one has the charm to get a free ride through customs.
The panel was delivered to my house by UPS earlier today, taking about 36 hours from the time they picked up the item from my sister's house to the time they reached my place, customs clearing included.
Here's a snapshot of the panel just after I calibrated it. This was taken at approximately 45 degrees off perpendicular, with a hand held 20D + Sigma 24 1.8 DG (AWB). It shows the wide viewing angle of IPS panels, which is not possible with the cheaper TN panels widely available locally. The small display on the right is a cheapo 17" Samsung 740N, and I use it to park my PS tools and my browsers.
This is not intended as an in-depth technical review (I don't have the equipment nor my eyes the color-recognition), hence I'll just present my user impressions.
Pros
1. Cheapest IPS panel I've heard of.
2. Ready availability in the region compared to the HP LP2475W.
3. Wide viewing angle of 178 degrees H/V @ 10:1 contrast ratio, compared to the 176 degrees of my Viewsonic VX2025wm (VA panel, 20", 1680x1050) and about 160 degrees of most TN panels.
4. Simple and ergonomic controls/buttons, as well as easy set up. I just loaded the driver and it was ready for calibration. It has a DVI and VGA connection (I used the DVI), as well as individually adjustable RGB values, contrast/brightness, gamma, etc.
5. It easily calibrated using my Monaco Optix XR. I'm running XP on a Q6600 (4 GB RAM, 512 MB vcard). As delivered, its factory settings are way too bright (circa 350++ cd/m2).
Some of my calibration numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 120.4 cd/m2
Black point = 0.18
Contrast Ratio = 669:1
RGB settings = 62%, 64%, 68%
Brightness = 51%
Contrast = 80%
Target color temp. = 6500
Actual color temp. = 6486
Gamma = 2.2
By lucky coincidence, we just finished making 12"x15" prints for the National Museum exhibit, and these files are convenient references. As expected, the prints were very close if not perfect matches to the on-screen versions after calibrating the Philips 24".
One of my color consultants and I also visually examined the panel after calibration, and compared it to the test images in this site, and the Philips 24" passed with flying colors.
www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
Cons
I only have one nit with the panel - it has a very, very slight bluish tinge on the right edge (almost unnoticeable by my two "color consultants," only seen if I fill the whole screen with a white frame). It appears that this nit is common among user reports on the HP LP2475W which uses the same panel. My color consultants don't notice the slight tinge on real photos though. The central portion of the panel (at least 80% panel area) is very neutral, without any hints of color cast or tinge, thus this nit is not a deal-breaker.
(Note - to those who are not familiar with me, I'm acutely color-blind. However, I still need a good LCD display so my color consultants can help me competently when we're setting the WB during RAW conversion. ;D)
Conclusion
The Philips 240PW9EB is highly recommended for the budget conscious, who need a decent 24" display (1920x1200) that uses an IPS or VA panel. It's affordable, can be easily calibrated and readily available from nearby SG. It's not perfect, as it has the nit mentioned above. But if one requires a substantially better panel, I guess one has to pony up to the real pro displays, such as Eizo, Lacie, NEC and the like.
UPDATE - June 27, 2009, 10 am
After resting my and Pogito's eyes the whole night, I switched on the new monitor first thing in the morning to warm it up. Then after at least an hour warm up, I and Pogito rechecked the calibration and the visual tests ( www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ) and print comparisons.
We deemed that the initial calibration last night is yielding too saturated colors. So I redid the calibration, this time lowering the contrast adjustment from last night's 80% to 65%. To compensate and arrive at the same white point luminance target of 120 cd/m2, I increased the value of each individual RGB.
Latest calibration numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 120.41 cd/m2
Black point = 0.16
Contrast Ratio = 753:1
RGB settings = 75%, 75%, 85%
Brightness = 45%
Contrast = 65%
Target color temp. = 6500
Actual color temp. = 6459
Gamma = 2.2
I'm now getting an even better contrast ratio of 753:1 and an amazing black point of 0.16, plus my saturation is now a match to my prints!
The slight bluish tinge at the right edge is even reduced, though perhaps this latter one is more psychological in nature.
UPDATE - June 28, 2009, 10 am
Just noting here an interesting observation - the Philips 240PW9EB is a wide gamut display and as such, photos viewed in non-color managed applications appear to be more saturated than they really are. Inside PS (and perhaps in color managed browsers like Mozzila Firefox), the color saturation appears spot on.
___________________________________
All four cores fire up as my Q6600 grunts and groans in processing close to 60,000 frames of a 33+ minute HD movie of forest birds. The organizing committee of the forthcoming National Museum exhibit will evaluate the movie for possible inclusion in the exhibit. The fine 0.270 mm pixel pitch of the Philips 240PW9EB allows a very detailed display of photos up close, with amazing colors...... a pixel-peeper's dream. I'm now considering shifting to aRGB or even ProPhoto RGB working space to take advantage of the monitor's wide color gamut. Previously, I processed all my prints and web photos in sRGB.
20D + Sigma 24 1.8 DG, 1/30 sec, f/5, ISO 400, hand held, click WB
_______________________________________
FINAL UPDATE - June 29, 2009, 11:30 am
This is probably my final update on calibrating this monitor with a Monaco Optix XR (Xrite DTP 94 on Windows XP OS). Also, this update currently represents my best understanding of the proper approach to calibrate and profile the said system.
There are apparently two schools of thought on calibrating LCD monitors:
1. Establish the color temperature by adjusting the individual RGB values . I've been using this method since I got the DTP94 over two years ago, and it served me well particularly print matching with my Viewsonic VX2025wm display (VA panel, 176 degrees viewing angle).
Such approach (RGB adjustment) is also implied in these links to reviews of the HP LP 2475:
www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-hp-lp2475w-part11.html
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hp_lp2475w.htm
My last calibration of the Philips 240PW9EB using this approach went very well, in both print comparisons and tests using the images in the following link: www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
2. Use the native color temperature and gamma of the LCD, and adjust just the brightness (and perhaps the contrast) to arrive at a luminance target (typically 120 cd/m2). I've seen this approach recommended by many photographers I respect. Here's a couple of links where this approach is discussed.
(Note posts and comments of Royce Howland and EJ Peiker)
www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=135554
www.marcelpatek.com/monitor.html#argb
This morning, I calibrated my new monitor using both approaches, then re-did the print matching and images tests. To my and Pogito's eyes, both approaches yielded very similar results, virtually undistinguishable from each other by eyeballing. With this, I decided to adopt the second approach with the hope that using the monitor's native white point and gamma (factory default) will result into a more stable system (less calibration drift).
When reset to factory default, the monitor has the following parameters:
RGB values - 100% each
Brightness - 100%
Contrast - 50%
Gamma - 2.2
White point - 6500
I calibrated (and of course profiled) with the Optix XR using the default settings, and only adjusted the brightness to arrive at my target 120 cd/m2 luminance. Following are my latest numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 123.31 cd/m2
Black point = 0.16
Contrast Ratio = 771:1
Brightness = 51
Contrast = 50
Color temp = default native 6500, at gamma 2.2
Smart Contrast - off
Link to Philips product catalog.
Reviews of the HP LP2475W (same panel as the Philips 240PW9EB, not much technical review available online for the Philips yet):
www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-hp-lp2475w.html#Introduction
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hp_lp2475w.htm
I bought mine from Singapore, through the kindness of my brother-in-law who together with my younger sister and their son are residents of that wonderful city-state.
Link to where I bought it:
www.noble.sg/store/philips-24-lcd-240pw9eb.html
Also available in these SG stores:
www.ascendmedia.com.sg/info2.asp?id=68
www.fuwell.com.sg/uploads/misc/Fuwell1906.pdf
Here's the total costing:
1. Pricing delivered to my sister's house at SG = SGD 744.00
2. UPS air freight, with insurance (1-2 days delivery) = SGD 164.00
Total landed cost = SGD 908.00 @ PHP 33.20/SGD
= PHP 30,145.60
Add taxes and duties = PHP 8,811.00
Total cost = almost PHP 39,000.00
This is far cheaper than the PHP 80K ++ that the HP 24" was quoted by a local dealer, and a bit less than the PHP 46K (2 months delivery) quoted by my importer. If one is travelling to SG anyway and checks in the item, SGD 739.00 (ex-store) is less than PHP 25K, assuming that one has the charm to get a free ride through customs.
The panel was delivered to my house by UPS earlier today, taking about 36 hours from the time they picked up the item from my sister's house to the time they reached my place, customs clearing included.
Here's a snapshot of the panel just after I calibrated it. This was taken at approximately 45 degrees off perpendicular, with a hand held 20D + Sigma 24 1.8 DG (AWB). It shows the wide viewing angle of IPS panels, which is not possible with the cheaper TN panels widely available locally. The small display on the right is a cheapo 17" Samsung 740N, and I use it to park my PS tools and my browsers.
This is not intended as an in-depth technical review (I don't have the equipment nor my eyes the color-recognition), hence I'll just present my user impressions.
Pros
1. Cheapest IPS panel I've heard of.
2. Ready availability in the region compared to the HP LP2475W.
3. Wide viewing angle of 178 degrees H/V @ 10:1 contrast ratio, compared to the 176 degrees of my Viewsonic VX2025wm (VA panel, 20", 1680x1050) and about 160 degrees of most TN panels.
4. Simple and ergonomic controls/buttons, as well as easy set up. I just loaded the driver and it was ready for calibration. It has a DVI and VGA connection (I used the DVI), as well as individually adjustable RGB values, contrast/brightness, gamma, etc.
5. It easily calibrated using my Monaco Optix XR. I'm running XP on a Q6600 (4 GB RAM, 512 MB vcard). As delivered, its factory settings are way too bright (circa 350++ cd/m2).
Some of my calibration numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 120.4 cd/m2
Black point = 0.18
Contrast Ratio = 669:1
RGB settings = 62%, 64%, 68%
Brightness = 51%
Contrast = 80%
Target color temp. = 6500
Actual color temp. = 6486
Gamma = 2.2
By lucky coincidence, we just finished making 12"x15" prints for the National Museum exhibit, and these files are convenient references. As expected, the prints were very close if not perfect matches to the on-screen versions after calibrating the Philips 24".
One of my color consultants and I also visually examined the panel after calibration, and compared it to the test images in this site, and the Philips 24" passed with flying colors.
www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
Cons
I only have one nit with the panel - it has a very, very slight bluish tinge on the right edge (almost unnoticeable by my two "color consultants," only seen if I fill the whole screen with a white frame). It appears that this nit is common among user reports on the HP LP2475W which uses the same panel. My color consultants don't notice the slight tinge on real photos though. The central portion of the panel (at least 80% panel area) is very neutral, without any hints of color cast or tinge, thus this nit is not a deal-breaker.
(Note - to those who are not familiar with me, I'm acutely color-blind. However, I still need a good LCD display so my color consultants can help me competently when we're setting the WB during RAW conversion. ;D)
Conclusion
The Philips 240PW9EB is highly recommended for the budget conscious, who need a decent 24" display (1920x1200) that uses an IPS or VA panel. It's affordable, can be easily calibrated and readily available from nearby SG. It's not perfect, as it has the nit mentioned above. But if one requires a substantially better panel, I guess one has to pony up to the real pro displays, such as Eizo, Lacie, NEC and the like.
UPDATE - June 27, 2009, 10 am
After resting my and Pogito's eyes the whole night, I switched on the new monitor first thing in the morning to warm it up. Then after at least an hour warm up, I and Pogito rechecked the calibration and the visual tests ( www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ) and print comparisons.
We deemed that the initial calibration last night is yielding too saturated colors. So I redid the calibration, this time lowering the contrast adjustment from last night's 80% to 65%. To compensate and arrive at the same white point luminance target of 120 cd/m2, I increased the value of each individual RGB.
Latest calibration numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 120.41 cd/m2
Black point = 0.16
Contrast Ratio = 753:1
RGB settings = 75%, 75%, 85%
Brightness = 45%
Contrast = 65%
Target color temp. = 6500
Actual color temp. = 6459
Gamma = 2.2
I'm now getting an even better contrast ratio of 753:1 and an amazing black point of 0.16, plus my saturation is now a match to my prints!
The slight bluish tinge at the right edge is even reduced, though perhaps this latter one is more psychological in nature.
UPDATE - June 28, 2009, 10 am
Just noting here an interesting observation - the Philips 240PW9EB is a wide gamut display and as such, photos viewed in non-color managed applications appear to be more saturated than they really are. Inside PS (and perhaps in color managed browsers like Mozzila Firefox), the color saturation appears spot on.
___________________________________
All four cores fire up as my Q6600 grunts and groans in processing close to 60,000 frames of a 33+ minute HD movie of forest birds. The organizing committee of the forthcoming National Museum exhibit will evaluate the movie for possible inclusion in the exhibit. The fine 0.270 mm pixel pitch of the Philips 240PW9EB allows a very detailed display of photos up close, with amazing colors...... a pixel-peeper's dream. I'm now considering shifting to aRGB or even ProPhoto RGB working space to take advantage of the monitor's wide color gamut. Previously, I processed all my prints and web photos in sRGB.
20D + Sigma 24 1.8 DG, 1/30 sec, f/5, ISO 400, hand held, click WB
_______________________________________
FINAL UPDATE - June 29, 2009, 11:30 am
This is probably my final update on calibrating this monitor with a Monaco Optix XR (Xrite DTP 94 on Windows XP OS). Also, this update currently represents my best understanding of the proper approach to calibrate and profile the said system.
There are apparently two schools of thought on calibrating LCD monitors:
1. Establish the color temperature by adjusting the individual RGB values . I've been using this method since I got the DTP94 over two years ago, and it served me well particularly print matching with my Viewsonic VX2025wm display (VA panel, 176 degrees viewing angle).
Such approach (RGB adjustment) is also implied in these links to reviews of the HP LP 2475:
www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-hp-lp2475w-part11.html
www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hp_lp2475w.htm
My last calibration of the Philips 240PW9EB using this approach went very well, in both print comparisons and tests using the images in the following link: www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
2. Use the native color temperature and gamma of the LCD, and adjust just the brightness (and perhaps the contrast) to arrive at a luminance target (typically 120 cd/m2). I've seen this approach recommended by many photographers I respect. Here's a couple of links where this approach is discussed.
(Note posts and comments of Royce Howland and EJ Peiker)
www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=135554
www.marcelpatek.com/monitor.html#argb
This morning, I calibrated my new monitor using both approaches, then re-did the print matching and images tests. To my and Pogito's eyes, both approaches yielded very similar results, virtually undistinguishable from each other by eyeballing. With this, I decided to adopt the second approach with the hope that using the monitor's native white point and gamma (factory default) will result into a more stable system (less calibration drift).
When reset to factory default, the monitor has the following parameters:
RGB values - 100% each
Brightness - 100%
Contrast - 50%
Gamma - 2.2
White point - 6500
I calibrated (and of course profiled) with the Optix XR using the default settings, and only adjusted the brightness to arrive at my target 120 cd/m2 luminance. Following are my latest numbers:
Target luminance = 120 cd/m2
Actual luminance = 123.31 cd/m2
Black point = 0.16
Contrast Ratio = 771:1
Brightness = 51
Contrast = 50
Color temp = default native 6500, at gamma 2.2
Smart Contrast - off
, AFS 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G , TC 1.4EII, TC 1.7EII, SB-800, Manfrotto 190CXPro3/393(3421), RRS BH-55, Kirk NC300 lens collar
