The New Display

[say_doyster]

James0b57 -

Have you seen/considered this? In the stills arena, many Dell monitors surprise and punch well above their cost - the claim is this is "true" HDR10. Curious your take?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._27_4k.html/qa

Thanks!! B

[Guest]

James0b57 -

Have you seen/considered this? In the stills arena, many Dell monitors surprise and punch well above their cost - the claim is this is "true" HDR10. Curious your take?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._27_4k.html/qa

Thanks!! B

In general, I started this thread to share real first hand experience, since buying a monitor on line is buying blind. Dell's tend to be good, but they have occasionally had QC issues. So, I don't really want to start speculating about monitors in general.

My assumption with anything that steeply discounted on BH, it has some issue. Might just have been a poorly marketed product that they made too many of, but can also end up being a model that has a higher percentage of lemons. So, just be aware of the possibility to need to return and swap out a new one.

Eizo just released some 27" 4K and QHD models in the CS line. Those would be the "safer" bet.

The DELL you linked has a lot of good reviews, but also a couple interesting bad reviews. Someone mentioned they had bought 120 of them for a business and that 10% had failed. Eizo has a 5 year warranty. your choice.


The other thing I didn't want to get into with this thread is "bang for buck". I think this mentality is a big issue. The idea should be to get the best tool, not the cheapest tool with the best specs. If something is poorly made, who cares what the specs and price are? I was simply looking for what the lowest cost quality monitor there was. Some people online pointed to the BenQ's and that was not the case. BenQ's are quintessential bang-for-buck mentality. Something like an Eizo CS24020 or an FSI AM210 are the cheapest best monitors you can get, they aren't bang for buck, as they have reduced specs or features to reflect their lower cost, but they are good in the important ways.

All of these monitors can be calibrated and give you some sort of confidence. So, if price is the main concern, there really are so many options. Just pick one, I believe. Had my return at BH gone quicker, I'd be enjoying a CS2420 right now. But instead I ran into an issue of pooring a lot of money into my shooting kit to make it more Covid work environment friendly. So, I didn't really intend for this thread to be an infinite debate of choices. Really, any monitor is better than no monitor (within reason).


If $1200 is your budget, maybe consider an LG 48" OLED like Dermot mentioned. Or maybe the 27" QHD from Eizo, the CS2731?


But again, I don't think the choices are all that difficult anymore. I have had way too much time to read and research this, and the only thing left is to try them in person.

With the way monitor tech is transitioning to HDR, you could be forgiven for choosing a monitor that has a few bad reviews, because you may be upgrading in two years from now anyway.

[Dermot]

i'm digging into rumors that if the contrast is set at 80 or below then ABL does not kick in when targeting 100 nit / SDR with the LG CX OLED

more digging needed, but it's a hopeful thought

[Guest]

i'm digging into rumors that if the contrast is set at 80 or below then ABL does not kick in when targeting 100 nit / SDR with the LG CX OLED

more digging needed, but it's a hopeful thought

Exciting!

[Guest]

Alright, got the Eizo ColorEdge CS2420 in today, and I can say it is better than the BenQ SW270C.


First Impressions


Contrast and black level:
The CS2420 has better contrast than the BenQ. While they are spec'd similarly, the entry level ColorEdge is slightly better in contrast. It reminds me of the Apple iMac screen in color and contrast. As it got darker outside, I did notice that the black levels are those characteristic "LCD" black levels. So, I'd imagine if I were grading in the dark, I'd much prefer the CG2420 or an OLED over the CS2420. But considering where I edit there is always some ambient light, I may be well served with the CS and not need the double price of the CG for better black level performance. That said, the CS2420 is no slouch in contrast for an LCD. After hearing users talk about contrast levels, I was worried, but it is fine. I don't think I've seen any LCD monitor look any better in that regard. The iMacs may have a bit more contrast, but at the expense of uniformity?
It was difficult to say if the BenQ had better or worse contrast, but the corners glowed enough that it felt like the contrast was lower. That said, my initial feel of the BenQ was that it looked nice. The contrast and colours had a lot of potential.

Uniformity and off axis look:
THe CS2420 is near perfect. The best I have ever seen in a sub $1K monitor. Is it perfect? No. With some effort, and a full white screen, I can see some verrrry subtle dips in brightness, but at first I didn't notice. And there is an ever so slight light yellow in the far left lower edge (not even the whole corner, just along the edge). Whereas with the BenQ, the Orange and Green hue shift was apparent immediately and quite annoying. light yellow is less annoying than light orange and green. I don't want to overflow it though. And in normal viewing you won't notice... yet it is there.
On Axis, the Eizo is very good. Only get that "IPS glow" in the bottom two corners because I am too close to the monitor and the viewing angle is just a bit too steep.I slight shift of my head or stepping back, and it is near perfect. Whereas the BenQ had a big issue with IPS glow in one of the corners and I had to be looking up at that monitor from the left side to make it go away in that one corner, but then the rest of the screen is glowed out. Something to do with the alignment of the crystals, I suppose. They were shooting light out at the wrong angle. Was annoying.

Accuracy?:
I can't really say yet, but it does have a more comfortable feel. Like the gamma curve feels accurate (not that I could eyeball accurately). The colours have a nice look. Not overly saturated out of the box, but still plenty colourful.

Buttons and design:
The touch sensitive buttons on the Eizo are so much nicer than the BenQ's clunky clicker style buttons. The Eizo is lighter weight, but is 24" as opposed to the BenQ which was 27" and had a hood. But even the base is lighter weight. I much prefer Eizo's responsive buttons over that hot-key puck that BenQ has. Because the puck was so light weight if I didn't reach for it just right, I end up flipping up and it comes down back on the desk surface with a "click". That said, a hot-key puck is so good if you sit farther from the screen.
Resolution on the BenQ was higher, and the screen wider. As a GUI monitor, the BenQ is very nice. For my purposes, the extra resolution may have been wasted. I like the smaller lighter weight Eizo for my desk setup, and it makes room for the occasion I might have a broadcast monitor on the desk as well. I may rent an FSI, or maybe I'll have a Panasonic and need to run LUTs through the Teradek before a shoot to make sure things are relatively accurate? IDK. I am liking how light weight the CS2420 is and it may make a good set monitor for some things. If I ever upgrade, I can repurpose the CS2420. The BenQ was just a bit too wide, although it seemed once it came off the base it would be fairly light weight. The thin bezel edge made holding it feel fragile though, had some slight twist and flex feel when pulling it from the HUGE box. The Eizo CS2420 feels solid, but lightweight.
Also, the Eizo does 10bit into HDMI and Display Port, I believe, and the BenQ only does 10bit in on Display port.





Both monitors are nice, and if you happen to get a good one of the BenQ, they might even be similar, but even then I'd assume the Eizo will be better.

So, for ~$850, if image quality is the main thing, the Eizo CS2420 beats the BenQ SW270C. However, the BenQ has a shade and a hot-key puck and is 27" and QHD. The Eizo is just the 1920x1200 monitor, HDMI and Display Port cable. Very simple. So, all of the money you spend is going into the image and warranty.

I have to spend more time with the Eizo, but things are looking good. I am seeing why many would choose the CG2420 for the darker black levels, as a colourist is often grading in a dark environment, but that is true of any LCD I've used or seen. So, for low budget grading as a profession, the CG2420 seems to make more sense, as well as an OLED, or maybe one of the other LCD brands that has accuracy and better black levels. ---- There are obviously some things that the CS2420 doesn't do, and one of those is compete with an OLED, and another is it doesn't do 4K. So, depending on one's requirements, it may be easy to rule out the CS2420. And in that case, a DELL, Asus, BenQ, NEC, or something else makes more sense given a $1K budget. In that regard, an LG 55" Oled is hard to beat. They are frequently on sale for around $1100, and the new CX 48" is already dropped 100 to $1400.

Anyway, these are all just thoughts and first impressions. I'll follow up later. But yeah, I thought it would be harder to tell if the Eizo was better than the BenQ, but it is better. I'm not saying it is night and day, but it is definitely a step up in image quality. I'm kind of relieved.

[aram]

Thank you for your review, James.

I do not know the exact model, but I was watching Ollie Kechington's colour grading course on Mzed and he uses an Eizo as a reference, which to me is also a good sign.

[Guest]

Thank you for your review, James.

I do not know the exact model, but I was watching Ollie Kechington's colour grading course on Mzed and he uses an Eizo as a reference, which to me is also a good sign.

Thanks! Yeah, Eizo's are great, I'm just surprised that their entry level ColorEdge is also good.

Hope this all helps. I think buying a monitor on a budget is rather frustrating during this Covid time. Difficult to get a demo of the products before buying, and return process with shipping can be a long ordeal.

All the past monitors that I have used were always those "bang-for-buck" type, and always disappointing. Great reviews; horrible performance. I began to just assume nothing was was going to be good, and that perhaps my expectations were unrealistic. So many monitors get good reviews but are just slightly above the average desktop monitor... which isn't saying much. Few have that last 10% in quality. So, my expectations for a sub $1K monitor were pretty low. The only reason I returned the BenQ is because the sample I got was actually annoyingly bad in the corners, though, I might have accepted the colour shift from green to orange/magenta, as annoying as that can be. So the fact that the Eizo is looking to be modestly good, is exceeding my expectations already. If they incorporated a $100 waveform and vectorscope upgrade, they would have a venerable addition to field monitoring? ok, I am dreaming now. This definitely feels like the MixpreII of professional display world. But I should probably spend more time with it before commenting too much further.

For a moment, I thought you might be AramK the guy that does Davinci Resolve tutorials.

[AndreeOnline]

I also think that going OLED is one of the most cost effective ways to get started. I’ve been using this setup for about a year or so:




Had a 65” in my living room and picked up a used 55” for a good price. Using a dirt cheap BMD MiniMonitor that sends UHD HDR over HDMI.

It is really interesting to see how one’s perception of the quality of the footage changes with display size.

[Guest]

I was so distracted by the fact that there was minimal hue shift and very little IPS glow that I didn't notice the luminance inconsistancies. It is still ok, but there are two dips in brightness on the upper half of the screen, and a bit of a brighter stretch along the right side. Deal breaker? Not really. I am not expecting perfection. This is only visible when the entire screen is white, but the BenQ did better on Luminance dips in the all white test. That said, the luminance dips are not as noticeable as the colour shift and IPS glow of the BenQ. The BenQ sample I got was unfit for colour grading. This Eizo is usable. Which is what I'd expect from a hobbyist monitor. I think a Hobbyist monitor should be this good. The Eizo is doing well in that regard. The BenQ was kind of laughable for the performance to target audience. Where the BenQ failed hard was the glow coming from the edges, so while it did well on the white screen test in luminance, the more obvious borders between orange and green shifts and the glowing low contrast edges on dark back grounds was ultimately more distracting. And on the one edge, the BenQ was fairly. obviously greenish, not like some damaged monitor, but just in a "variance" or subtle way, as it still registers as white, or whitish. I'll post screen shots I took with the phone. The one issue with the phone is that is will exaggerate luminance variation because of the liquid crystals maybe not all shooting light in the same direction, so the angle of the camera can make some regions appear darker than they appear in real life.


The weird thing about the luminance issue on the Eizo, is that it is partially a viewing angle thing, and partially a backlight thing. I have no idea yet if DUE is engaged not. Anyway, just thought I'd through that one caveat out there, since my first impressions were so positive.

CS2420 at top, BenQ SW270C at bottom. White screen, photo taken with iPhone of screen, and then saturation and vibrance boosted to maximum settings to show colour variance artificially:

To the eye, I could barely see the green shift on the upper portion of the Eizo. On the BenQ the colour variance was very obvious to my eye, but could still be ignored by most people. However, the black uniformity was where these two monitors are the most obviously different, and was probably the main reason I returned the BenQ....

Notice the perfect edge to edge black on the Eizo. Although, when the room is dark, you will see that the screen is not perfectly black, but glows like any LCD, however the BenQ had really bad IPS glow. These images make both monitors look more favorable in black levels than in real life. The BenQ is the lower image, and you can clearly see the glow on the upper left corner, but it glowed in all the corners a little.
CS2420 at top, BenQ SW270C at bottom. Photograph of screen taken with iPhone:

(I didn't have any images that were a perfect exposure match, these were the closest. and show the difference in black uniformity. The BenQ is set to 1:1 pixel ratio on a 1080p feed, so it is windowed in. In a sense, the 1080 footage looks sharper and larger on the Eizo, as it is natively a 1920 screen, despite being 24" vs 27")

I prefer the slight luminance shift in the whites than the glowing in the corners, but still wish the Eizo were slightly better in the luminance uniformity when displaying white. Will look into that. It is exaggerated by the photograph, so it is less noticeable by eye, but still there in a very subtle way. I assume any backlit monitor is going to have that to some degree. But the Eizo is near perfect in the black uniformity, whereas the BenQ had glowing edges (see images). Both monitors kind of glowed when the room was dark. An iMac may have slightly better black levels, but not as good uniformity as the Eizo, and the iMac's look a little saturated out of the box. ymmv.

[Guest]

AndreeOnline, that looks like an Awesome setup!

[AndreeOnline]

AndreeOnline, that looks like an Awesome setup!

I think it is, for what it is. So to speak.

Nothing spectacular or expensive in play. Apart from the "so obvious that it's hard to see": the room itself. I've got a small studio room separate from my apartment, which makes it easier.

[Guest]

I think it is, for what it is. So to speak.

Nothing spectacular or expensive in play. Apart from the "so obvious that it's hard to see": the room itself. I've got a small studio room separate from my apartment, which makes it easier.

So true. Also, I like the neutral paint on the walls. I'm about to paint soon, though I am going with a less neutral colour, I am going with a grayish beige. While it may not be as technically correct, I like the way that a near grey beige can look warm or cool depending on the light coming in the windows. Reminds me of Monet observing colors at different times of day. I find that a subtly fleshy tone doesn't bother me, as long as it does not lean into magenta, orange, or green too much. Though if I were to really set up a studio office, I'd go grey. I am considering turning the house/shed in the back yard into a little studio, but that would take more renovating. For now my study will double as the "colouring suite", and right now the walls are too warm to grade anything in, haha

[Guest]

Had a 65” in my living room and picked up a used 55” for a good price. Using a dirt cheap BMD MiniMonitor that sends UHD HDR over HDMI.

BTW, the mini monitor is 4K now? I'll definitely consider that when I get an LG 4K OLED.

[AndreeOnline]

BTW, the mini monitor is 4K now? I'll definitely consider that when I get an LG 4K OLED.

Exactly! Up to 2160p30 and HDR support via HDMI.

$195 retail and I got mine for around $90! Good times =)

While not technically a grading screen, the LG OLED C-series are used in a lot of the largest post houses in LA as client monitors (not in the suite itself). And for what I do, my reasoning is that if it looks good/correct on my 55 C8, it's good enough for me.

[ahalpert]

I think it is, for what it is. So to speak.

Nothing spectacular or expensive in play. Apart from the "so obvious that it's hard to see": the room itself. I've got a small studio room separate from my apartment, which makes it easier.

Nice set-up, Andree. How is it you always seem to be editing beach footage? #jealous