New Display Vs. old one?

[typo]

I am using a NEC 2090UXI. I am looking at the Dell U2413. This is for color work. The thing is the NEC is a more robust display but the Dell is much newer and is 99% Adobe. Would you guy's consider the Dell an Upgrade in any other area rather than simply better color output? The NEC currently sells for about $350 well used and the Dell $350 new. If that says anything. What would I need to spend to get a serious quality graphics monitor without going all the way to Eizo?

Thank you

[Spopepro]

Web or print?  And if print what medium?  Is your NEC one of theirs that comes with it's own calibration tool? (Which will factor into the price of you need to purchase a new one).

[tp4tissue]

If it's web,  then it doesn't matter.. and you can get cheapos..  even those 27" korean ips are a good choice.


If it's for Print,  doesn't matter what monitor you get, but you HAVE TO use the color probe, but I'd assume if you're in that line of work, the office would certainly have um..




If you're just playing around in photoshop non-professionally,   You don't need a new monitor, at least not for COLOR..  You may get one for size.

Even calibration by eye is more than adequate..  rgb gamma, brightness, contrast

[typo]

Thanks guys. It is just web. This was a $1,100 monitor with it's calibration tool. It is only 7 years old and works fine. I just saw the new one was 99% Adobe. I thought that was a big deal but I guess it does not matter. Honestly I doubt a $350 monitor is any good as they have $3,000 monitors with the same specs.  I code Html,Java,C#,VB etc.

I will tell you one thing maybe they do not build them like they used to. The old Topre is not going anywhere. It is glued to the desk because it always moved so I cannot provide the model NO. lol. It is the full height keys though and i love it.

[tp4tissue]

Thanks guys. It is just web. This was a $1,100 monitor with it's calibration tool. It is only 7 years old and works fine. I just saw the new one was 99% Adobe. I thought that was a big deal but I guess it does not matter. Honestly I doubt a $350 monitor is any good as they have $3,000 monitors with the same specs.  I code Html,Java,C#,VB etc.

I will tell you one thing maybe they do not build them like they used to. The old Topre is not going anywhere. It is glued to the desk because it always moved so I cannot provide the model NO. lol. It is the full height keys though and i love it.

/headscratch


the $350 monitors are the same panels as the $1200 ones..

But they're pixel perfect, and have higher contrast and brightness uniformity.


the contrast and brightness uniformity is ultimately what you're paying for.

The more expensive panel might also come with more expensive Graphics processor chips that support higher color gamut input / other features (dithering, ulmb, etc)..

Whereas the cheaper panel would only have basic processor.



When they make a panel, it's like mining for diamonds,  NOT all rocks come out the same..

Some are flawless, some are flawed..


All the Flawed ones are sold to the Budget builders @ $350-500 USD

All the Flawless ones are sold to the Premium builders @ $1000-1500 USD

[typo]

So you know what I was really thinking, right? My NEC even though it is not 99% Adobe probably has a better panel? It still had a 14 bit LUt but can only display 16.7 million colors at a time out of 1.07 Billion. Of course I actually read full gamut is not good for web design because the web is not full gamut and you can mess up your colors. Like I said I guess you get what you pay for. You just confirmed that. Thank you I suppose if I want a real full gamut monitor to replace this NEC it will be over a grand. I had a lovely Eizo you might remember but it died. I am guessing a full gamut $350 monitor has a panel that is the pits. Literally lol. It is amazing how cheap they can build things now. It is just that though, cheap. That is what I wished to confirm here. A $50 DVD player is not a Pioneer Elite for instance. They do the same job but not nearly as well. So I guess that monitor is not great. Oh well upping my budget to $1500. However the fact remains full gamut may not be right for web design.

[tp4tissue]

So you know what I was really thinking, right? My NEC even though it is not 99% Adobe probably has a better panel? It still had a 14 bit LUt but can only display 16.7 million colors at a time out of 1.07 Billion. Of course I actually read full gamut is not good for web design because the web is not full gamut and you can mess up your colors. Like I said I guess you get what you pay for. You just confirmed that. Thank you I suppose if I want a real full gamut monitor to replace this NEC it will be over a grand. I had a lovely Eizo you might remember but it died. I am guessing a full gamut $350 monitor has a panel that is the pits. Literally lol. It is amazing how cheap they can build things now. It is just that though, cheap. That is what I wished to confirm here. A $50 DVD player is not a Pioneer Elite for instance. They do the same job but not nearly as well. So I guess that monitor is not great. Oh well upping my budget to $1500. However the fact remains full gamut may not be right for web design.

Well, here's the thing..

The only people who TRULY need good color,  are the Print people, the Archival People, and Video production..



The wide gamut thing is going to be more important Soon-ish, because the New UHD blurays will support approximately what is now the Adobe RGB gamut, though they don't call it that.


mmm.... So Which panel would you get in this case..   Depends on if motion clarity is important to you.

All technology be it OLED or LCD of current all function identically well for Still images,  but as soon as you put frames into motion,  They BLUR..


ULMB is the future, but it has yet to be fully implemented for the mainstream....


After you've seen ULMB in action though,  You'd never want to buy any monitors without it.. So beware..

[typo]

I could wait. See, I just saw 99% adobe for $350 got me. Most likely my current display is better. I do not do much flash or anything and even that is low res. I do not play games or watch movies on it. Just static web design. I suppose I will just sit tight. Just because that monitor does 99% Adobe, at $350 that does not mean it is any good i suppose. I doubt it wow's me like the current Eizo. Plus you say something is coming that will blow that away. I will just wait. Unfortunately though 8 months ago I bought a OLED TV. I mean unfortunately just because better is coming but it always does.

So the bottom line is I doubt that $350 monitor is very good. Specs do not tell the whole story.

[Spopepro]

I'd stick with what you have. I personally don't agree with some what TP is saying... yes there are fewer panel manufacturers than monitor brands/models but it's slightly more involved than binned parts and a processor. One thing that is a fact is that wide gamut is definitely less important if your workflow doesn't involve print. Color accuracy in the sRGB space is, and you have a known accurate panel. I personally wouldn't see it as an upgrade.

One odd thing about new monitors, and TP touched on it, is that they are capable of amazing contrast. Way too much contrast actually, well, at least for print. I don't use a pro display at home (it is a nice monitor, and I regularly calibrate), but the computer hooked up to the Epson 11880 at the lab has a fancy eizo that is output matched with a spectrophotometer and the only thing I have to do to get a match is crank the contrast ratio way down in the software (around 250:1). Which frankly is awful for web production, and I don't leave it set there for everyday use.

[tp4tissue]

I could wait. See, I just saw 99% adobe for $350 got me. Most likely my current display is better. I do not do much flash or anything and even that is low res. I do not play games or watch movies on it. Just static web design. I suppose I will just sit tight. Just because that monitor does 99% Adobe, at $350 that does not mean it is any good i suppose. I doubt it wow's me like the current Eizo. Plus you say something is coming that will blow that away. I will just wait. Unfortunately though 8 months ago I bought a OLED TV. I mean unfortunately just because better is coming but it always does.

So the bottom line is I doubt that $350 monitor is very good. Specs do not tell the whole story.

If you have an oled TV now,

ur set for the next 5 years..

I doubt we're gonna see ULMB hit the big screen space for quite a while,   even most gamers don't understand its immense advantage..

[typo]

Thank you, Guys. You just saved me some money which quite frankly is short right now.

The only thing I will say is, nonetheless that $350 monitor is obviously not an Eizo. So I am passing.

I appreciate the help.

[tp4tissue]

Thank you, Guys. You just saved me some money which quite frankly is short right now.

The only thing I will say is, nonetheless that $350 monitor is obviously not an Eizo. So I am passing.

I appreciate the help.

the $350 monitors arn't bad displays, remember they come from the same samsung lg factories that make the $1500 panels..

They're just --blemished..


The draw back to your eizo right now is size more than anything else..

You may however consider getting a budget 4:4:4 signal capable tv @ the ~$350 price range for desktop use..

I'd say ~40 inch is the largest for most desks,  If you have your own space,  Get the largest that will fit in your cone of vision..

Distance relaxes the eye.

[typo]

This is my own home and actually it is large. It just happens that right here 24" is like the max or I would have to remodel. Not construction, just new furniture etc.

I would honestly rather just get a good 24" Eizo or NEC. I figured well, that is a great deal. It is not for me. I do not want a 2nd quality panel. I will just wait a bit. Meanwhile this display is fine i just figured I would be better off with 99% Adobe but it was explained it does not matter for my usage.