# Monitor recommendations, monitor calibration and ColorChecker Passport



## sandcarver (Oct 23, 2009)

Hello everyone. My first post, with a few inter-related questions.

My work computer is an aging Dell and the original CRT monitor that shipped with it. I purchased an x-rite EyeOne Display 2 but have been unable to generate an ICC profile for my monitor after numerous attempts. X-rite tells me that, due to the age of the monitor, it's probably too faded to calibrate. 

The research I've done regarding a replacement monitor indicates that, in order to get accurate color, I should look for a monitor with what's called an IPS (in-plane switching) panel. These are relatively rare and expensive, and unless a manufacturer specifically states that a particular monitor uses an IPS panel, it probably doesn't. The consensus seems to be that the "affordable" IPS panel monitor is one particular 24-inch model from Dell, for $599. Do folks here concur with what my research is telling me?

My immediate need is to prepare product photos (in Lightroom) for my fledgling business's web site, and since every visitor's monitor will see color a little differently, I need to generate a color balance that is pretty close to what most will see (which I presume is what a caibrated monitor will give me). Until I can buy a calibratable monitor, I wonder if there isn't a work-around. 

I recently purchased x-rite's new ColorChecker Passport. If I use it to set the white balance in LR, and then make no other changes to the color hue, will the resulting photos be properly color-balanced? regardless how they look on my present, non-calibrated monitor?


----------



## Amberlith (Oct 24, 2009)

I've done a bit of looking around over the past year and "EIZO" seems to be a hands down professional favorite in the color accuracy department. It is, however, an expensive solution. I may be off here, but, a 2' inch screen is around $11'' USD. Best check their website for exact cost. I will confess to never having heard about "IPS's" before, but there are plenty of less engineering-oriented blogs that will mention the "EIZO" and one or two others as well.

Use of "Color Checker" for white balance still leaves you with an uncalibrated monitor. Of course, corrected white balance will be read by other monitors as would any other aspect of the image. However, the point to calibrating your monitor is "wysiwyg". That means that you want to SEE what others (with calibrated monitors) actually see not to mention to be able to print what you see. Since, "i1" has had good reviews, and you are systematically controlling white balance with the "Color Checker" (I use "NIK" software, LR and PS but that's just a personal preference), the "EIZO" would round out your kit nicely.  Besides, it's only money, right!?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 28, 2009)

It depends on how exact you need the calibration to be. I haven't seen that particular Dell model, so I can't vouch for it, but I do know that some of the Dell monitors are popular for good calibration. If you want something else to compare against, yes EIZO are very good, as are the NEC Spectraview range.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Oct 29, 2009)

Your research is right. This 24" 6''$ Dell is among the cheapest IPS and worth considering.


----------



## sandcarver (Nov 1, 2009)

Thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful responses. They are greatly appreciated.

Since my proximate concern is to color correct photos for use on the web--and with a monitor on my desktop computer that is non-calibratable--I reasoned that if I used the x-rite colorchecker passport to set the white balance, I could thereby "correct" the color balance of the actual photos regardless how they appear on my monitor or how my graphics card is rendering them. This is what I've been doing, and when I view them on my laptop, for which my eye-one display 2 can generate an ICC profile, they appear fine. So I trust that they should look acceptable on the web. 

One thing I've learned from my reading, however, is that apparently the panels used in all laptop displays--including the high-end Macs--are TN panels (as are nearly all of the lower-priced desktop displays) and they render color in only 6 bits per channel, interporable to 8 bits. None of them, in other words, are capable of displaying even a true sRGB color space, but only an approximation thereof. The aforementioned Dell montor that uses an IPS panel has 12 bits per channel and comes out of the box with factory presets for sRGB or Adobe RGB color modes. Some of the EIZO and La Cie monitors use an S-PVA panel capable of 16 bit color depth. Some consider the S-PVA panels to be a step down from the IPS panels, but they do offer a little faster response time and greater contrast. It's difficult, however, to determine what kind of a panel a monitor uses unless the manufacturer stipulates. A lot of manufacturers (even Eizo) state that they use "active matrix TFT" panels, but apparently this encompasses all LCD panels.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 1, 2009)

Sounds like you've been doing some good research there. But yes, if it's just for the web, the current plan sounds just fine. The web's always an unknown anyway, unless you plan on going and calibrating everyone's monitors for them, and installing colour managed browsers!


----------

