G
Guest
Guest
LG OLED C11, fingers crossed.
G
Guest
Guest
Looks like TV logic has an interesting LUT box. IS Mini X and the IS mini 4K. Both are relatively affordable, and they offer HDMI 2.0 so they can be paired with just about any monitor or TV, should you have to travel light. I am already slipping down the slope of spending money on gear another professional likely has already. But figured I'd mention it.
Looks like it used to have a Fujifilm branding. maybe TV logic bought it off them.
Flanders has an I/O box for around the same price, but is SDI only, it seems. Will have to double check that.
Looks like it used to have a Fujifilm branding. maybe TV logic bought it off them.
Flanders has an I/O box for around the same price, but is SDI only, it seems. Will have to double check that.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Last week BH did the refund, so I am about to get the Eizo, but Eizo is now doing a good job of upselling me on the CG2420.
CG2420 over the CS2420:
- 3 minutes to color stability. the CS takes 30minutes
- better contrast 1500:1 vs 1000:1
- better screen surface and matte texture
- better off axis colour consistency using a retardation film, or something.
- HDR input simulator (CS doesn't have this)
...and the $300 worth of add-ons I don't need....
- comes with the $190 hood (was going to build my own, but if everything else is better, I might as well...)
- comes with a built in probe (I don't need this but can see it come in handy, if I didn't have a probe already, than this would actually be appealing)
- thinner bezel
- better resale value??? should something happen.
That said, every hundred dollars I spend on an Eizo is taking away from a good production monitor, so I have been looking at options for a monitor that could be used in my home stdio when building LUTs and then having a cheaper GUI monitor. Been looking at TV logic and Flanders Scientific. May have to go visit the TV logic people after some of this lock down lifts up. going to look at options and then purchase hopefully next week. That return process took a month, and I am no longer in a rush now.
CG2420 over the CS2420:
- 3 minutes to color stability. the CS takes 30minutes
- better contrast 1500:1 vs 1000:1
- better screen surface and matte texture
- better off axis colour consistency using a retardation film, or something.
- HDR input simulator (CS doesn't have this)
...and the $300 worth of add-ons I don't need....
- comes with the $190 hood (was going to build my own, but if everything else is better, I might as well...)
- comes with a built in probe (I don't need this but can see it come in handy, if I didn't have a probe already, than this would actually be appealing)
- thinner bezel
- better resale value??? should something happen.
That said, every hundred dollars I spend on an Eizo is taking away from a good production monitor, so I have been looking at options for a monitor that could be used in my home stdio when building LUTs and then having a cheaper GUI monitor. Been looking at TV logic and Flanders Scientific. May have to go visit the TV logic people after some of this lock down lifts up. going to look at options and then purchase hopefully next week. That return process took a month, and I am no longer in a rush now.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Well, the whole BH return taking so long, by the time I got the refund, I was already thinking more about adapting my production package to Covid safety protocols. So, was distracted from the post workflow stuff for a bit.
Earlier this week I was about to pull the trigger on a CS2420, but the sales guy was kind enough to patch me through to an Eizo rep, and..... yeah, they made it seem like I'd like the CG better. Though, they conceded that because I already owned an Xrite i1 Pro probe, that they understood the savings, as a CS is nearly half the price of a CG.
Contrast is the one they mention the most, and while I am not convinced it is necessary for rec709, I know how much I love plasma and OLED screens.
To put the contrast ratios into perspective. A 2019 Apple iMac has a real world contrast ration of 1000:1 roughly. The EIZO's apply a screen uniformity application called DUE, and it lowers their contrast slightly, but not as much as other brands. Some brands may lose half their contrast ratio to screen uniformity.
Contrast ratios
2019 iMac 1000:1 (reviewed as an accurate number, by more than one reviewer)
CG240 with DUE turned on 1300:1 to 1400:1
CS2420 with DUE turned on 800:1 (some say 900:1, so potentially only marginally different from the 2019 iMac)
You can turn off DUE and get the 1000:1 contrast ratio on the CS models, putting the apparent contrast in the realm of the iMac.
With the Benq sw270C, there was a weird haze. The screen was very lovely contrast, but there were some odd grayed zones, that I am assuming were from aggressive attempts to make the screen more uniform? Maybe it was just the IPS was messed up. The one corner was pretty annoying. But the inherent contrast of that monitor looked close to an iMac, just less finesse. Right not I am looking at a laptop screen that has similar grayed out areas.
Part of the reason EIZO screens lose less contrast when their screen uniformity application is applied, is because they. tend to have better screens to begin with and they require less averaging to correct for uniformity.
At this point, even though I am pretty sold on wanting the CG, I am just curious to see if the CS is a noticeable improvement from the Benq. Part of me wants to just get both Eizo's now. Will call tomorrow and make the move.
@say_doyster, did you end up buying a monitor yet? Sorry I got so derailed with this process, wish I had been of more timely help.
Earlier this week I was about to pull the trigger on a CS2420, but the sales guy was kind enough to patch me through to an Eizo rep, and..... yeah, they made it seem like I'd like the CG better. Though, they conceded that because I already owned an Xrite i1 Pro probe, that they understood the savings, as a CS is nearly half the price of a CG.
Contrast is the one they mention the most, and while I am not convinced it is necessary for rec709, I know how much I love plasma and OLED screens.
To put the contrast ratios into perspective. A 2019 Apple iMac has a real world contrast ration of 1000:1 roughly. The EIZO's apply a screen uniformity application called DUE, and it lowers their contrast slightly, but not as much as other brands. Some brands may lose half their contrast ratio to screen uniformity.
Contrast ratios
2019 iMac 1000:1 (reviewed as an accurate number, by more than one reviewer)
CG240 with DUE turned on 1300:1 to 1400:1
CS2420 with DUE turned on 800:1 (some say 900:1, so potentially only marginally different from the 2019 iMac)
You can turn off DUE and get the 1000:1 contrast ratio on the CS models, putting the apparent contrast in the realm of the iMac.
With the Benq sw270C, there was a weird haze. The screen was very lovely contrast, but there were some odd grayed zones, that I am assuming were from aggressive attempts to make the screen more uniform? Maybe it was just the IPS was messed up. The one corner was pretty annoying. But the inherent contrast of that monitor looked close to an iMac, just less finesse. Right not I am looking at a laptop screen that has similar grayed out areas.
Part of the reason EIZO screens lose less contrast when their screen uniformity application is applied, is because they. tend to have better screens to begin with and they require less averaging to correct for uniformity.
At this point, even though I am pretty sold on wanting the CG, I am just curious to see if the CS is a noticeable improvement from the Benq. Part of me wants to just get both Eizo's now. Will call tomorrow and make the move.
@say_doyster, did you end up buying a monitor yet? Sorry I got so derailed with this process, wish I had been of more timely help.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
The thing not mentioned, is that for Apple OS users, the CG2420 can do DCI-P3 better possibly.
So, options:
Primarily field use:
FSI AM210 for field use primarily and then used as a rec709 reference at home. Has HD-SDI BNC and a plethora of monitor tools and scopes built in.
~$2000
The all rounder:
CG2420 for above average accuracy and contrast. Occasional DIT, perhaps in a studio situation? Provides a nice small footprint, and a one and done sort of peace of mind, till HDR becomes more accessible.
~$1500
Ultra low Budget "Colorist" setup:
CS2420 for getting by with accurate rec709, and then getting a 48" LG OLED when they go on sale.
~$850 to start, and then an additional ~$1,200 later.
So, options:
Primarily field use:
FSI AM210 for field use primarily and then used as a rec709 reference at home. Has HD-SDI BNC and a plethora of monitor tools and scopes built in.
~$2000
The all rounder:
CG2420 for above average accuracy and contrast. Occasional DIT, perhaps in a studio situation? Provides a nice small footprint, and a one and done sort of peace of mind, till HDR becomes more accessible.
~$1500
Ultra low Budget "Colorist" setup:
CS2420 for getting by with accurate rec709, and then getting a 48" LG OLED when they go on sale.
~$850 to start, and then an additional ~$1,200 later.
Last edited:
say_doyster
Active member
Hey James0b57,
Am on the fence at the moment as I don't have an immediate pressing need. You have essentially found what I found in autumn last year (did not know about the CG Eizo's and was leaning towards the BenQ) but when my need lapsed (had to buy an iMac cause the main computer was getting so old and was no longer able to run FCPX properly) and that ate the budget for a new separate monitor. I fear we are caught in a wasteland of old tech in the pro/prosumer arena waiting to be overtaken by all the bell and whistle advances on the consumer side at a price way less than what top end pro gear costs. I don't think any of the consumer tv/monitors are quite there yet, but my 3 year old 65" Samsung (pre HDR10) does look great even if it is not all that color and contrast accurate. Big believer in trying to buy the right tool for the job, so that often is higher (usually much higher) cost than entry the level product. And really good - even "perfection" requires truly deep pockets. And my customers likely would not be able to tell the difference.
Am on the fence at the moment as I don't have an immediate pressing need. You have essentially found what I found in autumn last year (did not know about the CG Eizo's and was leaning towards the BenQ) but when my need lapsed (had to buy an iMac cause the main computer was getting so old and was no longer able to run FCPX properly) and that ate the budget for a new separate monitor. I fear we are caught in a wasteland of old tech in the pro/prosumer arena waiting to be overtaken by all the bell and whistle advances on the consumer side at a price way less than what top end pro gear costs. I don't think any of the consumer tv/monitors are quite there yet, but my 3 year old 65" Samsung (pre HDR10) does look great even if it is not all that color and contrast accurate. Big believer in trying to buy the right tool for the job, so that often is higher (usually much higher) cost than entry the level product. And really good - even "perfection" requires truly deep pockets. And my customers likely would not be able to tell the difference.
G
Guest
Guest
Ok, that makes sense. An iMac is what a lot of budget users use. To be honest, I didn't feel confident with the Benq SW270C, because even after calibrating, it just didn't feel right. So, I'd be hard pressed to go that route again.
G
Guest
Guest
I'll say in the last two decades of trying to research and find the best gear at the best prices..... two things have always been true.
1. The tool that everyone says is the best? Yeah, it's the best. You're not going to easily get around that.
Yeah, technology like the DVX100 comes along and it changes things. But there are always those that hope some other camera is better that saves them some money, or makes them feel unique. That isn't to say that more expensive gear is important, but if you want something, like an accurate colour grading monitor... you really aren't going to get that unless you get an accurate monitor. Or if you want the highlights and skin tone of film... not going to be able to fake it with a GH4. So, if you have to choose that one thing, get that one thing. Because obviously it is not possible to get the best of everything. You need a natural sounding microphone? Get a Schoeps. You need a microphone that can isolate get a Sunken CS3e. Need a bullet proof mic, get an MKH. But if you just need a mic, you are one of the lucky ones, because AT, Rhode, and AKG all have cheap options that get the job done. And lord help you if you need all of those options. The monitor world is proving to be exactly the same. There is no DVX100, 5Dmk2, or Komodo for the accurate colour grading world right now. Nothing that is sweeping across the post world that is upsetting the colouring world. So, if you want a budget monitor for grading, it is still the Eizo and NEC is the entry level to anything professional grade. There is 't some best kept secret alternative. One can waste a lot of time looking for answers, when the obvious answer is already the correct one. And you have to get the tool to get the job done in an efficient manner.
2. The best tools are the ones you have. At some point you have to find a way to trust the gear you have, and making that work. It would be nice to buy the best one thing all the time. And yeah, you have to buy the tool, and even the cheap ones are expensive added up. But you can do without a lot. You can get by with a lot less then you think. It would be nice to have every tool and socket wrench, but if you are just getting by, it is amazing what a few simple tools can do with ingenuity and understanding, vs a whole garage of tools and fear.
There really aren't many monitors that are good for colour grading and field use. Kind of defeats the purpose. One ends up being viewed in all sorts of weird lighting situations. The other in a controlled environment.
I can help but think how I would love to have a Flanders Scientific AM210, since it could double as a field monitor, but it is triple the cost of a Eizo CS2420, while delivering similar image quality. The FSI monitor does get professionally calibrated, and the Eizo would have to rely on my limited skills and tools for calibration. So, there is that.
Monitors for a camera person include:
the "7inch" on camera monitor
the 17-24" field monitor
the 24-32" studio post monitor
All of them are around $1000 and up for a good one. And just not in the budget to have them all, or have them all be good.
The one camera high bright is essential to a camera person. Feels weird to spend $2000 on a Red Monitor or SmallHD, and only consider spending $900 for a monitor for post.
The field monitor is totally rentable. However, when I start getting into the $1500 range with the EIZO CG2420, I begin thinking, why not spend a little more and get an accurate field monitor that will stay at home mostly, but I can rent out and offset the cost when going into the field with it. Directors and producers always opt to pay for the monitor. It is for them, so the price always sounds cheap.
The post monitor rabbit hole as to eventually stop. real easy to see how spending a little more gets a little more. But I am a field person in my. paid work, and I still have things I have to by for field work, especially now that Covid jobs are asking me to be more self sufficient in little ways, like idk, I went out and bough a little Mixpre3 so I could do interviews with the RED. But that little Mixpre3ii was about the same price as a Eizo CS2420! Amazing how much I just don't think about dropping $2500 on a Teradek and monitor either. So, there is $3K already that I could have put into an amazing colouring monitor. But the studio/post monitor I can't charge for. It is just the thing that makes me a better shooter, and that is all less direct of a correlation to making money. But consider all my gigs are falling through lately, I am kind of wishing I just go the monitor, haha. Not getting to really look at the footage these last couple months has been liberating AND maddening. The whole idea of capturing images is to be able to see and appreciate them! ha! So, a whole lot of irony going on. And I just have to work with what I have.
1. The tool that everyone says is the best? Yeah, it's the best. You're not going to easily get around that.
Yeah, technology like the DVX100 comes along and it changes things. But there are always those that hope some other camera is better that saves them some money, or makes them feel unique. That isn't to say that more expensive gear is important, but if you want something, like an accurate colour grading monitor... you really aren't going to get that unless you get an accurate monitor. Or if you want the highlights and skin tone of film... not going to be able to fake it with a GH4. So, if you have to choose that one thing, get that one thing. Because obviously it is not possible to get the best of everything. You need a natural sounding microphone? Get a Schoeps. You need a microphone that can isolate get a Sunken CS3e. Need a bullet proof mic, get an MKH. But if you just need a mic, you are one of the lucky ones, because AT, Rhode, and AKG all have cheap options that get the job done. And lord help you if you need all of those options. The monitor world is proving to be exactly the same. There is no DVX100, 5Dmk2, or Komodo for the accurate colour grading world right now. Nothing that is sweeping across the post world that is upsetting the colouring world. So, if you want a budget monitor for grading, it is still the Eizo and NEC is the entry level to anything professional grade. There is 't some best kept secret alternative. One can waste a lot of time looking for answers, when the obvious answer is already the correct one. And you have to get the tool to get the job done in an efficient manner.
2. The best tools are the ones you have. At some point you have to find a way to trust the gear you have, and making that work. It would be nice to buy the best one thing all the time. And yeah, you have to buy the tool, and even the cheap ones are expensive added up. But you can do without a lot. You can get by with a lot less then you think. It would be nice to have every tool and socket wrench, but if you are just getting by, it is amazing what a few simple tools can do with ingenuity and understanding, vs a whole garage of tools and fear.
There really aren't many monitors that are good for colour grading and field use. Kind of defeats the purpose. One ends up being viewed in all sorts of weird lighting situations. The other in a controlled environment.
I can help but think how I would love to have a Flanders Scientific AM210, since it could double as a field monitor, but it is triple the cost of a Eizo CS2420, while delivering similar image quality. The FSI monitor does get professionally calibrated, and the Eizo would have to rely on my limited skills and tools for calibration. So, there is that.
Monitors for a camera person include:
the "7inch" on camera monitor
the 17-24" field monitor
the 24-32" studio post monitor
All of them are around $1000 and up for a good one. And just not in the budget to have them all, or have them all be good.
The one camera high bright is essential to a camera person. Feels weird to spend $2000 on a Red Monitor or SmallHD, and only consider spending $900 for a monitor for post.
The field monitor is totally rentable. However, when I start getting into the $1500 range with the EIZO CG2420, I begin thinking, why not spend a little more and get an accurate field monitor that will stay at home mostly, but I can rent out and offset the cost when going into the field with it. Directors and producers always opt to pay for the monitor. It is for them, so the price always sounds cheap.
The post monitor rabbit hole as to eventually stop. real easy to see how spending a little more gets a little more. But I am a field person in my. paid work, and I still have things I have to by for field work, especially now that Covid jobs are asking me to be more self sufficient in little ways, like idk, I went out and bough a little Mixpre3 so I could do interviews with the RED. But that little Mixpre3ii was about the same price as a Eizo CS2420! Amazing how much I just don't think about dropping $2500 on a Teradek and monitor either. So, there is $3K already that I could have put into an amazing colouring monitor. But the studio/post monitor I can't charge for. It is just the thing that makes me a better shooter, and that is all less direct of a correlation to making money. But consider all my gigs are falling through lately, I am kind of wishing I just go the monitor, haha. Not getting to really look at the footage these last couple months has been liberating AND maddening. The whole idea of capturing images is to be able to see and appreciate them! ha! So, a whole lot of irony going on. And I just have to work with what I have.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Current plan is to get a CG2420 and paint the room that I will be coloring in to something very neutral.
I'll try to demo the CS2420, just because I am curious to see if it is better than the Benq SW270c at nearly the same price. Chances are the Benq will eventually go on sale, and become a viable option to many, but this thread is not about the best bang for buck, but about finding the cheapest monitor that is also actually accurate enough to help in analyzing images from the camera.
I'll try to demo the CS2420, just because I am curious to see if it is better than the Benq SW270c at nearly the same price. Chances are the Benq will eventually go on sale, and become a viable option to many, but this thread is not about the best bang for buck, but about finding the cheapest monitor that is also actually accurate enough to help in analyzing images from the camera.
G
Guest
Guest
updated first saved space up top. Just noticed a way to categorize monitors in price range and quality in a way that might better quantify specs and cost differences. Like what is a 1000:1 8bit 1080p FSI almost three times the cost of comparable computer monitors? And why should one choose a CG2420 over a CS2420? Many seem to think that if you don't have a good neutral and low lit room, there is little benefit to the CG2420 of the CS.
I'll admit, when I started this thread, those place holders up top were meant more for being reviews of the CS2420 after I got it. But as you can see, with the BH return process taking a month and a half, and me needing to adapt to post Covid filming procedures, that all went out the window. And this thread has gone on a long meandering thought process instead of being a review.
Updated post:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...isplay&p=1986823590&viewfull=1#post1986823590
I'll admit, when I started this thread, those place holders up top were meant more for being reviews of the CS2420 after I got it. But as you can see, with the BH return process taking a month and a half, and me needing to adapt to post Covid filming procedures, that all went out the window. And this thread has gone on a long meandering thought process instead of being a review.
Updated post:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...isplay&p=1986823590&viewfull=1#post1986823590
Last edited:
say_doyster
Active member
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/product/1345685-REG/dell_up2718q_ultrasharp_27_4k.html/qa
Thanks!! B
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/product/1345685-REG/dell_up2718q_ultrasharp_27_4k.html/qa
Thanks!! B
G
Guest
Guest
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.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Exciting!
G
Guest
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.
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.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
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
Veteran
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.
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.
G
Guest
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.
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.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
AndreeOnline, that looks like an Awesome setup!