New 28(ish) inch screen

[arthurking83]

On the topic of calibration, definitely agree that on a cheap (TN type) screen calibration is important if you want to view your images even roughly close to what many other's see them.
For me it's not so much about seeing what others see(that is I don't really care if others use cheap screens) .. just that I want to set an image in a particular way and see it that (correct) way.

My current cheapie when not calibrated has a huge error margin in terms of colour .. measured in Delta E(ΔE).
Anything at about 1 or less is very good.
0.5 or less is excellent.

My screen uncalibrated shows 4-6 on the review software.
When calibrated it shows an average of 1.(something tiny) .. mostly 0.5ish except on one colour plane. That colour plane depends on which way I set it.
So either blue is out to about 2 or 3 or 4 or black is out by about the same margin or whatever.
I can get those specific colours back into the less than 1ΔE range, but at the expense of another colour somewhere else .. that's why the average is higher than the real average.
So I'll get 9 out of 10 colours all under 1ΔE and then one colour spikes to something like 4(which ruins the average colour accuracy rating).

Like Tony said .. usually a calibration point that is good enough(ΔE between 1 and 2) is good enough for all of us to use.

I remember reading about some specific screens(maybe Dell and or Samsung) that required the use of a specific X-Rite calibrator .. but only for use with the manufacturers software if the need was to calibrate the internal LUT of the screen.
That is, you could use whatever calibrator you liked/had and calibrate the screen to the graphics card, but if you did want hardware calibration on the screen, then it needed to be used with the manufacturer's software using their specified calibrator model.

I checked the Samsung and the use of their specific calibration software(Natural Colour Expert) and they list a few calibrators for use. Problem is they list the Spyder 5(specifically .. and not Spyder's!) and I have a Spyder3.
So I can only hope that NCE recognises the Spyder 3 too.
If not I'll end up getting a i1 Pro myself too one day. No rush tho, I can still calibrate it or check calibration of it using my Spyder 3 and Basicolor software anyhow.

And the graphics card problem annoyed the hell out of me too.
Could have got a cheaper card too .. but been there done it before.
Before you know it you have the wrong device and it can't do what you had planned.
My plan is to run two screens, the 4K Samsung and the current cheapie(1080).
Whilst many cards say they can do 4K .. and I have no doubt they can do that, they don't always specify at what refresh rate they do so .. and if they can also drive another screen at a decent resolution, or if you have to lower the one screen to compensate for another screen.
Also can it drive two 4K screens at the same time .. AND at a proper refresh rate!
60Hz is the minimum refresh rate I want to see. Anything less is not going to cut it.
I prefer to use a lower resolution at a higher refresh rate rather than the higher res at a lower refresh rate.

I'm the first to admit that spending money on stuff I don't fully use is something I hate.
So much so that the onboard graphics card is plenty enough to run my current cheapie HD screen at HD resolution and 60Hz refresh rate.
But! .. I had to use a HDMI cable to do so. I have a ton of DVI cables all over the house. No idea why, but I have about 7 of them.
MY current screen wouldn't do HD res at 60Hz ... only 30. I've never needed a HDMI cable, so didn't have one.
When I finally cottoned on as to why the screen wouldn't use 60Hz(grey out), I had to find a HDMI cable, fitted and bingo!. 60Hz brilliance!
Also unlocked a few extra settings on the OSD menu for the screen too.

My original graphics card(had to use it on another system) wouldn't run the two screens I had back then.
That was this current screen and another old crappy 1280x1024 screen as well. It had all the required ports, just could run them concurrently.
I wanted both to run off the same graphics card, but had to eventually settle on the new(current) screen on the graphics card and the old crappy HP screen (I salvaged) on the graphics chip on the M/board.
This was all back on '09 after I built the PC. I eventually stopped using two screens, simply because my sisters PC graphics card died and I 'loaned' her my graphics card for her to get by(she's runs a small business). That was some 6 years ago! .. so the second screen was ditched(necessity) and I've been running a crappy screen via an onboard graphics chip since then with the view to update/upgrade ever since.
So I don't necessarily need an uber high end graphics card as such< and in fact I don't want one. I want a lower end fanless card that makes no noise and uses as little power as possible.

The need for a high end graphics card makes sense for specific situations tho.
eg. 5K screens .. they use a lot of graphics bandwidth.
I really can't understand tho, why a card that can run 2 separate 4K screens at 60Hz .. can't run a single 5K screen(which is less bandwidth) tho.
That pissed me off.

.. and it seems I ranted a bit there too .. so </rant off>


I'm thinking my next big purchase will be a good quality printer too. I don't particularly get excited about prints/printing personally, so it's a waaayyyy off possibility. Something Epson R4900-ish maybe.
So if I do print on such an expensive machine to print with, at least I can set myself up so that if I do print something, I haven't printed it massively out of whack. (ie. wasted all that expensive ink on a rubbish print) .. etc.

[Lance B]

I have a Dell P2715Q Ultra HD IPS screen, 3840 x 2160. Love it. The resolution is fantastic as are the colours. I callibrate it with an i1 Display by X-Rite, no issues. I run a Nividia G Force Graphics card to run it to take full advantage of the Hi res Screen

[arthurking83]

Finally got the time to get the new Samsung screen up and running.
Had it for a couple of weeks sitting in the back hallway taking up a ton of room .. just no time to fit it and do some other stuff.

Anyhow, it's big, but not WOW factor huuge. screen area is impressive(32") but the screen isn't that much bigger overall than my old 24" LG. The bezel is half the size, and creates a bit of an illusion.

In typical homebrew crapola software tradition .. the useless Samsung Natural Color Expert software was a wasted few megaytes of disk disruption!

Colours are nice-ish .. I think.
Compared to my old LG, there is a difference, but not as big as I thought it'd be considering my old LG is about as cheap and crappy TN tech as it comes.
I have to say tho, according to BasicColor calibration software, it calibrated well on many colour channels except blue. And the Samsung screen is a lot colder in colour rendering than the much warmer looking old LG.

BasicColor's validation tool says that the Samsung calibrated very accurately with no spikes in colour channels.
But the new graphics card(Geforce) also helped the old LG calibrate a little better than the onboard graphics chip.

As is commonly commented by folks that switch to 4K screens(and I think many folks will back this comment up) .. detail and crispness of image clarity is a massive bonus, over 1080 screens!
What I like is the ability to see more stuff on a given screen, eg. pull A4 page lengths of a PDF or whatever .. large spreadsheets .. etc. The higher pixel density allows more stuff on the screen(why I wanted 32" over 28 or 27") to see more stuff at the same time.
(I'm a habitual multitasker for some reason).

I also got a Adtec single post twin arm monitor stand too, to declutter my desktop. So now one thin post holds up both screens and I can easily move screens fore/aft for better viewing comfort.
Only downside of the Samsung is the massive weight. 10+ kgs .. I think 12, but have to confirm. Whatever it is, it's past the Adtec's ability to hold the weight.
Chap at Scorptec made a point to leave a note as I collected the bits .. "warning, weight of screen exceeds the specs of the stand!"
The Samsung stand is nice, and it definitely one of the nicest I've seen in a long time. Smooth and very silky in the way it operates. But the footprint of the base is proportionate to the screens' weight .. massive(by comparison to what I'm used too) .. hence the single post twin arm stand.

I just flicked the Samsung's setting to the aRGB mode in the OSD and validated this setting with the BasicColor software and it came up very nicely accurate from startup. Basically no need to calibrate it.
But it was wayyy to bright to what I thought should be right. Checked against my dedicated print for brightness/tone/colour and it looked ok. But about twice as bright as my old screen which also looked good against the print.
(I think this could be an illusion due to the whiter colour of the Samsung tho).
Anyhow, validated the LG again(going from an onbaoard Radeon chip of jurassic technology - to a higher end nividia card now) and of course it was massively out of whack(by comparison),
Did a quick express calibration on the LG and set it to do it's thing, now the LG looked completely crap .. so had to tweak it a bit to look 'nice'.

Looking at the screens side by side tho .. (remember the LG is a cheapo crappy TN screen, barely capable of sRGB let alone aRGB!!) .. and I think the difference between aRGB screens and sRGB screens is a little overrated by many.
Maybe, if I was impossibly pedantic and needed to set all my jpg images to aRGB, I may see a difference between them, but I'm doubting that it's going to end up a deal breaking feature.

My main priority was in 4K(detail/resolution) and size(as big as, without being an 80"TV!! or costing the earth).
So I'd recommend the Samsung on both those fronts: big, colourful, a little better colour clarity etc, etc ... but I'm thinking that if one is expecting to see more exact colours than their current well calibrated screen .. the WOW factor may not be as significant.

Some other downsides to consider(not Samsung's fault here tho!).
Some software is just stupidly made:
Nikon's god damn awful idiotic Capture NX-D is one that I've recently discovered.
It's all well and good to have as much screen real estate as possible .. not having to scroll toolbars and so forth, but these people bring the term incompetent to new levels!
A microscope is required to see what any text is supposed to say.
Almost all the tools are now in the viewable area(due to the 4K setting) but the scaling hasn't remained constant. I can't see any setting to up the font size and or scaling.
Almost all other software I've tried so far has scaled well.
eg. Firefox, Excel, Thunderbird, and whatever other(I just can't think of them now!) .. have all scaled the text font size well .. this way you can still see what it is you're trying to read/click/etc.
Not Nikon! .. the text size is about 1/4 of what it used to be!
What's more annoying is that the old ViewnX2(and Capture NX2) both scale well.
So it's a matter of those idiots that coded CaptureNX-D that are to blame here(in this case it's the universally derided Silkypix folks!) .. and Nikon who got them to write the Nikon version of this ridiculous software!
The point isn't to blast Silkypix or Nikon for using this garbage .. again (even tho I enjoy doing this as regularly as I can manage) .. the point is that with a 4K screen, to be wary of any potential software issues like this.
I suspect that reasonably good software will be properly written to eliminate such issues.
One thing that surprised me tho is the switching of a program from the one screen to the other and maintaining the scaling proportions well(ie. sending a program from the 4K to the HD screen and vice versa)
The switch from one resolution to the other and back is seamless(except for Nikon's CaptureNX-D)

Summary:
Samsung's U32D970(is one of the model names) is great if you want a big high quality and accurately calibrated screen .... and big fonts .... and lots of screen real estate to go with your order(sorry no fries tho!)
If you want to see the same excellence in the above, mirrored in some miraculously amazing colour accuracy display of uberness .. I think the result will be less impressive(taking into account the current calibration setting of the screen tho).

[arthurking83]

BORING ALERT!

a bit of an update.
I played with calibration again last night.

Samsung's Natural Color Expert did finally work(to a degree) in that I figured out why it opened(and immediately had to be closed) with a 'no compatible monitor' message on start up.
Had to install a driver for the screen to be recognised for what it is, rather than a generic monitor.
I installed a few of the Samsung supplied apps off the supplied CD. You'd think that if you were installing apps from the manufacturer, somewhere in the routine the manufacturer would see fit to install a required driver of some kind!
Windows(10) only recognised the screen as generic(not Windows's fault as the screen is more recent than the OS .. it won't have built in drivers for a device that didn't exist when it was created!
Bad Samsung.
Anyhow, driver located and loaded, now the screen is recognised by Windows as the U32D970Q .. and badly coded Natural Color Expert see it
Problem: NCE doesn't work with the Spyder3! .. here we go again.
But(more on the Spyder) ... I may think this is for a reason.
Even tho I got the Spyder 3 and have been using it for some time .. I don't think it's a great calibrator. While it does work, I'm dubious and doubtful that it's actually an excellent calibrator.
That is it's good, but not great or excellent .... basically it's better than nothing.
But it's giving me weird results.
Pre proper calibration, I did a validation(should'a taken a screen shot of that validation).
All delta E's were in the low range(under 1).
So I calibrated the screens.
I initially used the Samsung's pre cooked calibration.
That is, via the on screen menu(OSD) I set the Samsung to aRGB. Just did a validation via BasicColor and it had a good calibration setting.
Prior to that, the Samsung screens colour rendering was more on the cool side to what I'm used too, and confirmed when comparing to my years old LG.
So I calibrated it using the advanced menu, set my preferred options(basically the Photography preset option in BasicColor) and it set the colour temp to D50 .. much warmer now.
I've used that setting on the LG for years .. so used to it.
Now the Samsung is much more warmer in overall tone .. which I think I prefer .. but until I do more confirmation checking .. I'm not 100% sure.
What the issue is now, is that the old LG screen(which looked warmer before) now looks cooler(using the same Photography, and hence D50 settings).
So the calibration of the Samsung has changed dramatically.
I can't get the same luminance and blackpoint settings, as the range is much more limited on the LG(older/worserer tech), but the colour settings is what I was chasing here.
Manually brightening the LG only exaggerates the temperature differences, and actually makes the LG look slightly worse(text fonts and clarity).

So now my dissapointment has extended to the Spyder3 calibrator.
I stopped using the annoying Spyder software years ago, when it randomly ceased to load the calibration settings and just did what it thought was the appropriate thing on any given day .. basically pot luck as to what you got.
Purchased BasicColor years ago and haven't looked back(using the Spyder 3 as the calibrator).
The calibrator works, but how well is anyone's guess(more on that in a sec!) .. I'm thinking ... 'randomly' ok on that front too tho.

It just won't work with Samung's software. Why this is important is for the purpose of possibly loading the calibration to an internal LUT on the screen.
I have to look into this, and I think BasicColor has done this, but cant' confirm this(yet).
There is no confirmation of any type, other than it allows you to use that as an option, but not exclusively. The option to load the calibration to the screen has to be done together with the graphics card LUT too.

** For those not quite sure what this means(and more boredom here) .. idealy what you want is screen hardware LUT setting. that is get the calibration onto the screen, not onto your computer(irrespective of OS).
IN a nutshel, and the main benefit is that the screen is now set to a calibrated point .. move the screen to a new PC, or another pc and it's still calibrated. What you've done with that type of calibration is calibrated the screen.
If the screen doesn't support monitor based hardware calibration, the calibration will go into the graphics card's LUT.
So the calibration setting will only work once your OS has loaded.
You should see this at some point during boot up(if not, you probably have an issue)! This is why I got rid of Spyder's software .. it sometimes worked, sometimes not .. there was no rhyme or reason for it.
And .. once I demoed BasicColors free period, have calibrated with Spyder's software and validated with BasicColor, BasicColor said it was way off in terms of accuracy.

Stangely tho .. I can't confirm if the calibration has yet been set to the Samsung. It does allow me to use many calibration points on the OSD now, and many of them are weird! Just some strange calibrations that specific users may want.
But it's changed the built in aRGB setting.
If it was a truly hardware LUT this shouldn't have happened. I haven't touched the aRGB calibration on the screen.
I'm thinking that what this OSD ability does, is simply load a calibration point off the PC.
My Calibration settings comes under menu item Calibration 1(there are 3 user settable calibration options to choose from plus the 10 or so other built in settings .. stuff like sRGB, aRGB, BT.709, Dicom, etc).

I'm currently suspecting that the calibrator is an issue here:
Reason is simple.
I validated, got an excellent result, and then proceeded to calibrate.
Validation now points to a good(down from excellent!) result.
That in itself isn't a problem tho.
What's concerned me is that after validation, I calibrated the LG screen and went back to compare with the Sammy again. Not a problem. Validation on that is 'acceptable' not as low as the Samsung(and at 20x the price .. you'd damned well expect the Sammy to be much better )
What's a bit worriesome is that after a validation only on the Sammy again, it was different to the last validation. That is with nothing else done on the Samsung screen after a validation, I did a validation again.
The two are slightly different. Common sense would dictate that that they really should be no different .. even taking into account the change in position of the calibrator on the screen. I'm 99.9% sure that isn't the cause .. the Spyder probably is.

I'll post the validation reports if anyone is interested(or still awake )

LG_W2442PA.jpg
LG screen: it doesn't say it, but the calibration is set to D50 as in the Sammy's settings.

Samsung_U32D970Q_01.JPG
Sammy validation immediately after calibration.

Samsung_U32D970Q_#2_01.JPG
Sammy validation #2. Validated again after the LG screen was calibrated and validated. The only two operations done on the PC after validation #1.
There should be less than 0.1 delta difference if you were to take the movement of the calibrator off the screen and back onto it again.

I'll probably head out to get an X-rite calibrator today.

[Hamster]

These kind of hassles, and things like LanceB's link posted on 1/6/16 are the reason I'm buying a 24" Eizo tomorrow. I have far more faith in getting a successful (& low stress) outcome from buying one from my local (excellent) source. For this I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of size to keep the cost down, since it'll be parked next to a 27".
Thanks for your info..
Of course if I have lots of trouble still; I'll be keeping quiet

[Lance B]

These kind of hassles, and things like LanceB's link posted on 1/6/16 are the reason I'm buying a 24" Eizo tomorrow. I have far more faith in getting a successful (& low stress) outcome from buying one from my local (excellent) source. For this I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of size to keep the cost down, since it'll be parked next to a 27".
Thanks for your info..
Of course if I have lots of trouble still; I'll be keeping quiet

How was the link that I posted taken as a hassle? No issues whatsoever with calibrating the DELL I purchased. You will still need to calibrate the Eizo as well.

[Hamster]

I read that article of a whole list of reasons why various monitors cannot be properly calibrated.
This is my summary of what I read.

First paragraph about LG, Benq Samsung.
"Hence, their software won’t get accurate readings, which in turn leads to inaccurate calibration."

So lets talk about Dell then
"and below are their issues"

"This is the sad tale of affordable wide gamut monitors"
"when looking at its competitors in this price range, the sad tale becomes a tragedy"

But that doesn't mean there's no hope, if you can find one of these old Dell models..and you're aware of the limitations, then that should be OK.
"This is the point of this article, to learn, evaluate, and if possible fix their flaws"

So in summary, things look pretty poor, this bunch are no good at all, most of the Dells are no good. But there's a few Dells that can be made to work, flawed though they are.

So let's look at the software to calibrate...
Forget the first version, that's crap.
Use this preferred version, unless you notice bugs, otherwise shift to this version which "should" work
"should behave in a similar way unless bugs or Apple hardware limitations or incompatibilities are found. Ask Apple support team if DUCCS does not work for you…you are on your own since it seems that there is no official support of Dell monitors with Apple proprietary hardware configurations.

"may need a firmware update (at your own risk)."

"If this screen does not display and you see the usual i1Profiler calibration target with white point, luminance and contrast, then your monitor is not recognized by DUCCS as a GB-LED Dell with hardware calibration. Unfortunately, it is a common issue for 2013 Dells under OSX."

"If this screen does not show up, you are not able to hardware-calibrate your Dell because of some software or hardware issue. If an error shows with information about “no USB cable plugged from monitor to computer”, check it, but maybe monitor’s USB hub drivers are not properly installed, or maybe it’s just another DUCCS bug. Sadly, if this happens, you are on your own."

"You can report this problem to Dell, but it’s very doubtful that the folks from support will be able to help you."

"since all other application options are useless: uniformity, validation…not reliable, not accurate, not to be trusted."


To me that whole article sounds to me like it can be a right PITA to properly calibrate these screens for high end use. I'm not wanting to get things about right, I'm wanting them to be properly right so I can have accurate professionally produced prints.

I have also heard that Dell screens can have quality issues (so can anyone though to be fair) and if you are unlucky enough to need any kind of customer support from Dell, then be prepared for frustration.

I have hard much more consistent good news about Eizo and NEC and have done a training course that involved Eizo calibration, plus talked to various Eizo reps who have bent over backwards to help me (and I haven't even bought one of their screens yet!).


So my comments were not in any way a criticism of your posting of the article, they were just my interpretation of what the article told me about these types of screen.

[Lance B]

I'm afraid that the issue is mostly with the Dell calibration manager, not he X-Rite software that you use to calibrate the Dell screens. I think you are reading way, way too much into the article, especially about issues that are only affecting a few screens many of which are old versions, like a few of the 2013 models which are irrelevant now. You have also cherry picked the not so good comments and again these issues only affect a very few of the models. My Dell screen is well calibrated and very easy to do. Just put on the X-Rite calibration tool do a few readings and all is done. What's more, prints look exactly the same as the screen version.

For the price the charge for those Eizo screens, they'd want to be bending over backwards for you - I'd want them to come to my house every month and calibrate it for me. LOL.

[arthurking83]

For me, I never see issues such as these as hassles.
More so that they can be helpful(if resolvable) in that they highlight what the differences are in this that and the other(thing/stuff/doodad) .. which leads to the point that you're changing something for a reason, and has this change helped?

So I've been mucking about with this for a coupl'a days now, on and off .. it hasn't really bugged me.

** Actually what has bugged me is simply that annoyance of a program from Nikon called CaptureNX-D!
Warning, if you have a 4K screen, it's basically unusable. I still can't figure out a way to set it so that it shows at full screen mode on either screen.
It's full screen on the HD screen(old LG) and then 1/4 screen on the new 4K screen, or full screen on the 4K screen which then inflates to the despicably annoying 4x screen sized LG .. scrolling it to find the ends of the page takes forever and a day just to resize it ... anyhow, not an issue with the screens as such, just that there could be gotchas to look out for in unlikely places.
All other software opened so far, have behaved themselves. FSViewer was weird in that the first run it behaved similarly to CaptureNX-D, but then when I opened it a second time it worked fine.

But in looking into this calibration stuff, I discovered the feature that also seemed appealing about this screen, which is the dual/split colour mode ability.
It's very awkward to access, in that about 40 button presses are needed to get to it(whereas the little used multi screen feature has it's own button!) .. anyhow .. you get a split screen where on one side you have your calibrated screen, and on the other side you see one of the built in calibration points.

I wanted to see the difference between the built in aRGB and my BasicColor calibration points, and there are very subtle differences which can be ignored for all intents and purposes!
The I tried the sRGB mode on one split side, and as far as the eye can see(well, my eye at least) .. the differences look massive when split on the screen like that, but less so when compared to the LG screen right next to it on this dual stand.

That is, the sRGB side of the split screen which is the side next to my old LG looked, as far as I could tell identical to the point that they were [identical!
But the line that split the two sides of the Samsung was clear and decisive.
Going out of split screen mode and while I could now differentiate the differences between the aRGB Sammy and the sRGB LG .. a little more clearly, I still can't see the benefit.

I haven't assessed all my images, but I've sifted through a few selected images I remember caused me some issues in the past(basically some posterization on my old LG).

It's definitely better on the new aRGB screen, but I was expecting to see no posterization at all!
The advantage is there, but so far, I'm not see as much of a benefit as I was expecting to see.

ps. it's easy to assume that maybe the images I've reviewed are posterized in some way, but printing them on a crappy quality(well not really crappy, just not super duper uber quality) laser office style printer(mainly for cheap docs) .. they print unposterized. Not fantastically photographically .. but at least not poterized.

So .. the split screen mode thingy is kind'a cool.

Note that this screen has multiple images in the once screen mode too .. as well as a PIP(Picture in Picture) mode.
This multi screen mode is strange in that you connect multiple sources up into it, and you can view all or any combo of them as you wish.

I can't see myself using that personally, and considering the 1/4 size of the screen nature of doing 4 sources at the same time, I can't see it as an advantage of any kind to most folks either.
it's a kind of system as in those surveillance systems where you see multi camera image on the one screen. Why would you use a high end screen in this manner.
But the split screen multi colour mode is a great feature to have access too .. would'a been better if access to it was made easy tho(or a user configureable button of some type).


(for Hamster)
But the reality is that no matter what screen you buy, you can't assume that all things on your computer will work perfectly with it just because it's an Eizo.
There is no assurance that your calibrator will calibrate it and your old still connected screen well!
Samsung's calibrating software (NCE) has no specifics on what devices do and don't work .. this is just guesswork.
As far as I can tell, it seems that the screen is hardware calibrated(that is LUT is on the monitor).
I couldn't see an option on BasicColor just for hardware(monitor only) and I used the hardware/software option.
I'm going to delve into it again, but that could have been because I have the old LG monitor connected up too ... which won't support monitor LUT calibration.

[Hamster]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. Is it i1displaypro only? Dell customer support couldn't tell me either time I phoned to ask (they really did reinforce opinion that Dell customer support needs improving). If so, there is another expense. It just seems like there's always some subtle nuance waiting to trip the unwary.
My local place has a deal on at the moment that comes with an Eizo (X-rite re badged) calibrator, plus I can take my MBP in and they'll set it all up first time. Yes it's more, there may be no issues with a Dell and I could solve problems myself, but I haven't got time for anything but a smooth set up. I'll have enough problems solving colour space and editing issues that the improved screen reveals :-)

[arthurking83]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. .......

I can't think of any situation, or instance where a calibrator won't work with any screen!

I think what you may be confusing with the term 'work' is where there could be a particular screen model that can have an internal hardware LUT calibrated, but requires a specific model of calibrator to achieve this.

For most folks, you buy a calibrator and you generally use the software that came with the calibrator to calibrate the screen. All good, this will almost certainly only calibrate the screen via the operating system only.(for most screens and software that will be true.

Some screens come with their own software, and it's this software that may or may not work with some models of calibrators.
Say for example the the higher end Dells will come with their own software, just like my model of Samsung screen came with it's Natural Color Expert software.
It's this software that can (or can't) calibrate the screens' internal hardware table.

Just coz the screen is an Eizo, and can be internally calibrated, doesn't mean that all calibrators can do this .. there is a 99.9% chance that Eizo's software will require a particular brand/model of calibrator to do this too.

For Samsung's NCE software, so far(via a thirdparty website) I've found 'some information' listing what calibrators do work:

The supported meters are X-Rite’s i1 Pro, i1Display Pro, and ColorMunki; Datacolor’s Spyder 4; and Minolta’s CA-210 spectroradiometer.

Damn! Spyder 4 listed, but not the Spyder 3(that I have!) .. typical


Overall, so far: The Samsung is fantastic
I finally figured out why the old LG displayed my current desktop image with a lot more detail and clarity than the new supposedly super detailed 4K samsung was displaying ... (I forgot that) the image I used was set to 1920x1080 resolution

Uploaded a 3840x2060 version and ... WHOA! ..

The new graphics card I also got calibrates the old LG screen much better(less variance across all colors and lower overall DeltaE values)

So, there is so much that could go wrong(like I had with Spyder's software on my Win7 years ago, and why I switched to BasicColor software) .. there is no one hardware set that will 'just work' just because it's Brand X and Model Y.

If your screen and software supports the idea .. definitely try to get it hardware calibrated.


What I've discovered so far in all this: I'm not seeing the benefits of now having an aRGB(10 billion colour) capable system!
The old LG is still running as a side screen and I don't think it's barely even sRGB capable, where the Samsung is supposedly 100% sRGB capable and 90-something aRGB capable.
I really like this split screen mode on the Samsung, where it can display half the screen aRGb and sRGB, and luckily the sRGB half is on the same side where my old LG is, so directly comparing the sRGB half with the old LG is made a little easier.

There is clearly a defined difference between the two colour spaces, no doubt about that .. what's 'unimpressive' is that the differences are very subtle and minute, and not the lyrically waxed be all and end all that many folks have raved about.

My next project is figuring out if a Colormunki Photo calibrator will work with Natural Color Expert, before I waste my money.

[Hamster]

I think what you may be confusing with the term 'work' is where there could be a particular screen model that can have an internal hardware LUT calibrated, but requires a specific model of calibrator to achieve this.

Yes, sorry, I expected you to read my mind on that one. Yes, I am only interested in screens with hardware calibration capability.

Some screens come with their own software, and it's this software that may or may not work with some models of calibrators.
Say for example the the higher end Dells will come with their own software, just like my model of Samsung screen came with it's Natural Color Expert software.
It's this software that can (or can't) calibrate the screens' internal hardware table.

Yes, and it's for this reason that I believe the Dell screens require the use of an i1displaypro (+$350 on screen costs for me)

Just coz the screen is an Eizo, and can be internally calibrated, doesn't mean that all calibrators can do this .. there is a 99.9% chance that Eizo's software will require a particular brand/model of calibrator to do this too.

Actually it's not too bad. The following calibrators can be used, which looks like a pretty good list.


Supported Sensors Notes
X-Rite
i1 Monitor, i1 Pro, i1 Pro2, i1 Display, i1 Display 2,
i1 Display 3, i1 Display Pro
Ambient light adjustment is not available with the i1
Monitor and i1 Display.
ColorMunki PHOTO, ColorMunki DESIGN
ColorMunki Display and ColorMunki Smile are not supported.
DataColor
Spyder 3, Spyder 4, Spyder 5 Ambient light adjustment and gray balance
EIZO
EX1, EX2, EX3 prioritizing function are not available.
Built-in calibration sensor Ambient light adjustment and paper white measurement are not available and
therefore calibration using such measured values is not available.
basICColor
DISCUS
Klein
K-10 Ambient light adjustment and paper white
measurement are not available.
Konica Minolta
CA-210, CA-310, CS-1000, CS-1000A, CS-2000, CS-
2000A, CS-200
Ambient light adjustment and paper white
measurement are not available.
Driver not included with ColorNavigator 6.
Photo Research
PR-655, PR-680 Ambient light adjustment and paper white measurement are not available.
Colorimetry Research

CR-100, CR-250

What I've discovered so far in all this: I'm not seeing the benefits of now having an aRGB(10 billion colour) capable system!


There is clearly a defined difference between the two colour spaces, no doubt about that .. what's 'unimpressive' is that the differences are very subtle and minute, and not the lyrically waxed be all and end all that many folks have raved about.

If you're working in sRGB for display purposes, i.e. showing people on the web then there is no reason to use aRGB. IN fact, given you have no control over the level of calibration/settings of the screens other people view your images on, you could even argue that you don't need to worry too much about calibration. But lets assume everyone on this site at least has a calibrated screen to look at images you post.
If you are never wanting to print then why bother with aRGB. If, however, you want to be able to edit your images in aRGB to get them correct for printing then ......... To see the biggest example of differences you probably need to look at images that have saturated colours outside of sRGB capabilities and then flick between the two. (this link seems to summarise OK https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167 I only had a quick look though) The differences are, however, not always spectacular, but they are there and I, for one, want to know that if I send the image to another output medium that is properly calibrated and able to display the correct colour space, it will display what I intended because my own screen showed me reality.

[Lance B]

Yes guys, I agree that there could be problems with an Eizo, but the instances of this seem lower than I've seen for others. I don't know which model you've got @Lance B but I've read conflicting things re the calibrator that will work. Is it i1displaypro only? Dell customer support couldn't tell me either time I phoned to ask (they really did reinforce opinion that Dell customer support needs improving). If so, there is another expense. It just seems like there's always some subtle nuance waiting to trip the unwary.
My local place has a deal on at the moment that comes with an Eizo (X-rite re badged) calibrator, plus I can take my MBP in and they'll set it all up first time. Yes it's more, there may be no issues with a Dell and I could solve problems myself, but I haven't got time for anything but a smooth set up. I'll have enough problems solving colour space and editing issues that the improved screen reveals :-)

I use the X-Rite i1 Display, worked perfectly with my previous and now my current Dell monitor. No big deal, all simple to work and use.

[arthurking83]

Maybe I should have got an Eizo!

I like their list .. bloody Samsung mongrels! .. basically nothing(by way of detailed info).

Samsung do list a couple of X-rite models their .. and you would assume that some other models may also work, but the colormunki Photo(that I'm looking to get) is an expensive model to take a gamble on(just yet).

So the way I'm reading that list Hamster is that the

ColorMunki PHOTO, ColorMunki DESIGN
ColorMunki Display and ColorMunki Smile are not supported.

so are the Photo and Design models are not supported either, or is it just the Display and Smile models that are not supported ?

The BasicColor software software I'm using allows the option of a software(ie. OS) calibration PLUS a hardware calibration.
It's not allowing a hardware calibration mode only.. I've disconnected the older LG screen and tried again .. still 'hard and soft' option only .. no hardware option only(greyed out).

When I go into the screen's OSD, the calibration seems to have been uploaded to one of the calibration slots.
The samsung has many pre set built in calibrations available, many of which I've never heard of, but stuff like sRGB, aRGB, etc .. then it has 3 custom slots. Without doing anything to the screen(myself manually) Custom slot #1 has been ticked(as in in use) and it seems to be that BasicColor has indeed calibrated the monitors LUT.
Using the split screen comparison mode, there is neglible differences between the built in aRGB calibration, and what BasicColor has created in the Custom 1 slot.

ps. after all these years of cursing the Sypder 3, it's now redeemed itself in that it has calibrated the Samsung pretty much as spot on as I've wanted. All delta E values are below 1(max 0.88 on one grey tone), and averaging 0.20 now
And it's now calibrated the old LG better(due to the new graphics card).

Only reason I want a new calibrator(and the Colormunki Photo at that!) is the ability to calibrate prints .. to balance calibration between PC and printer.
I have plans one day to get myself a half decent printer to finally get into some printing too.

[Hamster]

so are the Photo and Design models are not supported either, or is it just the Display and Smile models that are not supported ?

Just the Display and Smile are not supported. I'm told that generally the calibrators (hardware) have tiny variations, so there is no reason to make a screen only compatible with a top of the range sensor model. It wouldn't surprise me if there is some financial incentive provided by the sensor companies for a screen manufacturer to ensure their software only works with their type of sensor.

Incidentally, the Eizo calibrator I got with the screen is just a re badged Spyder4. I can't use it with other software than the Eizo colour navigator, but I don't care as I've got a colour munki for that.