I bought an HP 2335L flatscreen (at Macworld’s recommendation) about a year ago.
The first one I got had some stuck pixels. Second one had major pink and blue cast (varying across the monitor). Third one was good but died after 3 days. Fourth one was pink on one side and blue on the other. Fifth one had a bunch more dead & stuck pixels. The last one (number 6) is not too bad, but it has some color cast around the edges and the illumination isn’t all that even.
If I can ever get my money back, I’m thinking of an Eizo Coloredge CE240W. But I’m wondering if it’s worth all the fuss. Maybe it’s just not possible to get a really good 23" flatscreen. I’d hate to switch only to find I have to go through the same hoops with Eizo.
The sales guy at Chromix/Colorgear (who’d probably be selling me the Eizo) said the Apple had plenty of problems. He didn’t know the HP. He claimed the Eizo was a whole lot better than the competition – but then he’s a sales guy.
Should I just give up and live with my pretty decent but not perfect HP, or really go after a refund and get an Eizo? Or just give up on 23" and get something smaller?
I do web design & development, and serious amateur/occasional pro photography (including a lot of black & white work). Big is good for coding purposes, but accurate is important for photography.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
The folks at Chromix are a lot more than "just sales guys". They really know their stuff and not only do they actually use what they sell, they can generally tell you why one product might be better for your applications than another.
I know a serious photog friend who just replaced his calibrated crts with that monitor and he loves it. maybe you have your monitors near some strong magnetic source or something and thats screwing you up. find it hard to believe you had that many lemons.
I generally have not had good results with HP hardware (used on the Dark Side of my clients) and would not choose HP displays for even low end color work.
Every 23" Apple CD I have seen has looked very good to me and I hopefully will be buying a couple in the next few weeks.
A coworker had a 24" Eizo. There was a noticeable colour shift from one side to the other. They would not replace it and considered that acceptable. He now had an Apple 23" Cinema Display, and he loves it. We’re all getting them within 6 months. Goodbye CRT!
Apple good, Apple bad HP good, HP bad Eizo good, Eizo bad
My initial choice of the HP was based first on a Macworld review, followed by a good amount of research on my own. Everything pointed to it being a good monitor.
I’m not near a major magnetic field, and anyway it’s an LCD, so magnetism shouldn’t be nearly the issue that it is with a CRT.
The plot thickens though – following my prod to PC Mall, I got a call from a product guy at HP who said they did have a lot of problems with the 2335, esp. with color casts and illumination consistency. So he is sending me their new 2465 (24"), which he claims has had no issues.
So it looks like the issue will be on life support for a bit longer…
Not necessarily smaller, just not wide aspect ratio 21-inch LaCie 321 is a high quality display you might want to consider. It’s actually larger on vertical axis than 23-inch wide-screen 1600×1200 resolution.
I just retired my last CRT (GDM-F520, Sony’s top dog prior to Artisan) and got 23-inch Apple Cinema Very nice monitor but I haven’t used it long enough to form an educated opinion.
I’ve used LaCie 321 since Nov 2005 and quality of this monitor continues to amaze me Beautiful display, even illumination, native color temperature (6500K) only dropped to 6400K, very solid performer AFAIC.
Wide aspect ratio (1920×1200) is nice though especially if this is going to be your only monitor. 1920×1200 plus 1600×1200 is even better but we can go on there no such thing as too much real estate (on the screen).
I just got the Apple 30" Cinema. I do professional web development and amateur photography. I absolutely love it! I am retiring my Apple 22" Cinema Display from 6 years ago, but it still hold up great compared to a lot of the other displays on the market today… It’s just not as bright and the resolution isn’t as good as the new Apple displays.. But I am still expecting to get good money for it!
Update on this thread – I complained to PC Mall’s customer support, and cc’d my sales person there, and the next day got a phone call from Mitch Callihan, HP product specialist. He decided to send me HP’s new LP2465 24" monitor (same pixels – 1920 x 1200) as a last ditch effort to avoid refunding my money.
The 2465 is a bit nicer looking than the 2335. Narrower bezel, slightly cooler looking base. It’s also a lot brighter. But, when I started scrolling text web pages I noticed a pronounced pink (or green) ghosting or haloing around the dark text. I mean, it was obnoxious. Throwing up my hands for the hundredth time I called Mitch back and learned that A) I needed to talk to support to exchange for a new monitor (this would be, let’s see, number eight?) – but – B) both the 2335 AND the 2465 were mine to keep. In other words, I got a free monitor.
I did the exchange and am looking at the new 2465 right now and it’s pretty darn ok. There’s still a little bit of pinkish/greenish ghosting when you scroll or drag a window onscreen, but much much better than the first unit. And fine for still images.
It’s not what you’d call perfectly uniform in terms of brightness, but it’s pretty close, and there appears to be little or no color cast from side to side – it’s significantly better than the 2335.
I calibrated both (Monaco Optix XR), thinking I’d get them looking the same, but it appears to be impossible.
First of all, the Monaco software, in its second step, has me reduce the contrast when I’m calibrating the 2335. On the 2465 however this step does not happen – the software just skips over it to the brightness setting. Weird.
Second, while it looks like both monitors have had their color casts neutralized well and the blacks on both look good (.38 on one, .37 on the other), the 2465 is dramatically brighter (white luminance of 369) than the 2335 (white luminance of 147). It doesn’t seem possible to manually dial the 2465 down to the dimness of the 2335, nor do I seem to be able to boost the 2335 very much.
This leaves me wondering which one is more "right". The software never complained about not being able to get either monitor within spec. I certainly love the brightness of the 2465 but hate to think that it’d result in me turning out overly dark images because it’s too optimistic.
Absent further info I’d probably choose to use the bright 2465 as my "accurate" monitor, and use the 2335 for coding, palettes, email, etc. But I’m curious what others think.
There’s still a little bit of pinkish/greenish ghosting when you scroll or drag a window onscreen, but much much better than the first unit. And fine for still images.
It’s not what you’d call perfectly uniform in terms of brightness, but it’s pretty close, and there appears to be little or no color cast from side to side.
Have you taken a good look at the monitor cables? A poor quality cable or an extension can cause ghosting. However, given my experience with HP computer stuff (as distinct from technical, scientific and medical measuring instruments) I would not hold my breath.
Buko – any lack of brightness uniformity is virtually unnoticeable. The only way I noticed it was to create a white image in photoshop, switch to full-screen mode, then gradually darken it using Levels. At mid to low levels the left and right edges of the screen are a little bit brighter than the center. I don’t think it’s going to affect my work. There is no discernible color cast. I would say it’s not "perfect", but I doubt any monitor is. The ghosting is the only area I would call mediocre.
As to cost, the first monitor (2335) I got for around $950. The second was free.
Ramón – the cables seem decent (they’re DV cables – supplied with the monitor(s)). No extensions. I’ve swapped cables and it made no difference.
I’m more interested in what kind of white luminance numbers I should be getting when I calibrate, and if one or the other of these is failing to be pulled into "spec" (whatever that is).
My husband had to go into hospital for spare parts (twice) so we have been away from home for most of the past two months, staying in a house which is free of stairs (ours is NOT!), while he recuperated,
I am glad to report that all is now well and that he is pretty much "road-worthy" again thanks to some fairly amazing surgeons and the latest computer technology.
Re. the outbackphoto.com link – glad to hear he likes the Monaco Optix XR anyway (as that’s what I’m using).
I have presently managed to rope my two displays into at least partial agreement.
First I used my calibrator to set custom white points for both. Interestingly, the default RGB levels on the 2335 are 50 each (out of 100) while the default levels on the 2465 are 100 each. If all other factors were the same (which they aren’t of course) this would make the 2465 twice as bright out of the box. Also interesting that I had to reduce each of the levels to around 75 or 80 before the calibrator detected a difference in intensity. I decided to pull them all down to 50 to start with, at which point any nudge up or down at least had some effect.
Then I made a guess that the Monaco Optix software, instead of working off some absolute ideal of white luminance, is working off the measured maximum and minimum coming from the monitor (else either the 2335 would fail as being too dim, or the 2465 would fail as being too bright). So if I follow the software’s instructions and first feed it 100% contrast 0% brightness, then increase the brightness to 100% for the next measurement, the software’s net recommended "in between" level for brightness is going to end up much higher than if I just increase the "maximum" brightness to, say, 40% (fooling it into thinking I have a dimmer monitor than I really have). So I did that and ended up with a final measured white luminance of 215 on the 2465 (down from 370 if I use 100 as my maximum setting), and around 195 on the 2335.
Both of these are still brighter than what seems to be the recommended 80 or 90 to 120 or so that I’ve run across in my web explorations, but I don’t know how much dimmer I can or should go on the 2465 (brightness is currently at 20 out of 100, and RGB white point levels are around 50 out of 100, and I’ve read that LCDs don’t necessarily do well accuracy-wise when they’re dimmed down too much).
Any thoughts on forcing an LCD to be dimmer than it really "is"?
Per the above posts (30 & 31) I seem to have reined in both HPs to the point they almost look the same, are uniform, neutral, and aren’t ghosting noticeably (you really have to look for it, and it only happens when dragging or scrolling windows). Blacks are good and dark, with good detail, gamma is good, and they’re only a little too bright.
So I think I’m done. Two 1920 x 1200 monitors, calibrated and behaving well, for less than a grand total. Of course I spent a few hours/days/months sweating over it, but what’s done is done.
Now my only problem is too much monitor – I practically have to pack a lunch when I’m going from one end to the other 🙂
I love my Apple displays. Between work and home I have a 17", a 20", a 22" and two 23"s – they all still work wonderfully (the 22" has lost a bit of its color accuracy but it’s very old – a palette monitor now).
I was at the Apple Store last night and checked out the 23" – not bad. Illumination consistent, no noticeable color cast. It did have some kind of messed up something along the top – looked like a patch of melted pixels or something – but otherwise looks like a good monitor.
Of course that does me no good now. I’m tired of fighting this battle, and I’ve got my HPs dialed in pretty good.
I did write Macworld though, and told them their review was flawed – like the monitor 🙂
This is an issue I deal with almost every other day. Monitor problems of all sorts. I set up and maintain Mac systems for several professional artists. most with dual monitors. Color and monitor performance are always an issue especially between two non-matching monitors. LCD displays being a constant hassle.
In a nutshell… (Ha!)
Over the years I have learned that despite any claims about color accuracy, monitors simply won’t match exactly. Its a big hassle when dealing with dual monitors for fussy people. I’ve really learned that different brands have BIG differences, especially when they are next to each other.
Sometimes everything will look perfect, but the display just CAN’T do a certain color correctly.
I use a calibrated Apple 30" as a standard on my system and then attach my clients monitor as a dual monitor and calibrate. The Apple 30" is the best non-CRT display I have ever used. I then create profiles for specific monitors which I then use and adjust with my clients hardware/software and needs.
NEEDS is key. Some clients need perfect color for still images. Others need a display that can keep up with crazy experimental video or animation without tracking or ghosting, but color and resolution isn’t a big deal. Some need BOTH to be perfect.
Some brands will do better with one thing and worse with others. In the end I just do my best to make the display as good as it can. Hopefully its acceptable if not perfect… if not we find a new monitor thats up to the task.
Also add differences in monitor quality and making dual monitors match can be impossible. Then add performance issues, response times, resolution, cheap cables, graphics card issues and what you get is a real inexact science… more like voo-doo.
My point being that all monitors will have their flaws and in reality they can’t be exact. It just depends on how much you care and want to spend.
A monitor is just a "virtual" representation of data. In a way like a lens through which we look at data. There are cheap plastic lenses for cheap cameras that will take a decent photo, and there are complex and refined lens systems for cameras that cost thousands. Both will take pictures but cant really be compared to each other… and neither recreates an exact physical copy of the photo subject… rather just a photo OF the subject, a "virtual" copy. Bla Bla
When buying a monitor be sure to shop around and check the thing out in person, then buy the thing wherever its cheap. Don’t just buy what’s on sale if you are fussy you’ll probably be disappointed. You get what you pay for in the end.
Start with the best display you can afford, be sure to buy the best shielded cables as you can. Placement can still be an issue where some devices can cause interference, especially if near cables and receiving an analog signal. Many performance issues when upgrading or adding bigger, higher resolution monitors can also be fixed by upgrading the graphics card if needed.
They’re expensive, but I gotta say that right out of the box Apple’s monitors (despite their flaws) are the best bet on a Mac system. They take some tweaking if you really want them perfect, but most people will rarely have a problem with color OR performance. I get very few complaints about Mac monitors.
On the other hand, I found HP and Samsung flat panels both to be rather lame. HP mainly for performance and Samsung is about impossible to get good color… but they’re cheap and otherwise I like ’em.
They’re not as snazzy or efficient but a good ‘ol CRT monitor -especially a good one- paired with a good graphics card will still get you better color AND performance than anything flat panel. And often much cheaper.
-Cheers!
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:25:26 -0800, wrote (in article ):
Update on this thread – I complained to PC Mall’s customer support, and cc’d my sales person there, and the next day got a phone call from Mitch Callihan,
HP product specialist. He decided to send me HP’s new LP2465 24" monitor (same pixels – 1920 x 1200) as a last ditch effort to avoid refunding my money.
The 2465 is a bit nicer looking than the 2335. Narrower bezel, slightly cooler looking base. It’s also a lot brighter. But, when I started scrolling text web pages I noticed a pronounced pink (or green) ghosting or haloing around the dark text. I mean, it was obnoxious. Throwing up my hands for the hundredth time I called Mitch back and learned that A) I needed to talk to support to exchange for a new monitor (this would be, let’s see, number eight?) – but – B) both the 2335 AND the 2465 were mine to keep. In other words, I got a free monitor.
I did the exchange and am looking at the new 2465 right now and it’s pretty darn ok. There’s still a little bit of pinkish/greenish ghosting when you scroll or drag a window onscreen, but much much better than the first unit. And fine for still images.
It’s not what you’d call perfectly uniform in terms of brightness, but it’s pretty close, and there appears to be little or no color cast from side to side – it’s significantly better than the 2335.
I calibrated both (Monaco Optix XR), thinking I’d get them looking the same, but it appears to be impossible.
First of all, the Monaco software, in its second step, has me reduce the contrast when I’m calibrating the 2335. On the 2465 however this step does not happen – the software just skips over it to the brightness setting.
Weird.
Second, while it looks like both monitors have had their color casts neutralized well and the blacks on both look good (.38 on one, .37 on the other), the 2465 is dramatically brighter (white luminance of 369) than the 2335 (white luminance of 147). It doesn’t seem possible to manually dial the 2465 down to the dimness of the 2335, nor do I seem to be able to boost the 2335 very much.
This leaves me wondering which one is more "right". The software never complained about not being able to get either monitor within spec. I certainly love the brightness of the 2465 but hate to think that it’d result in me turning out overly dark images because it’s too optimistic. Absent further info I’d probably choose to use the bright 2465 as my "accurate" monitor, and use the 2335 for coding, palettes, email, etc. But I’m curious what others think.
I am really quite cross with him at the moment and am just about to send him to the Salt Mines actually!
Six weeks out of surgery (and told by his surgeon that he shouldn’t carry anything weighing more than 10 lbs and that he didn’t want "any heroics"), what does he do but buy a 50lb bag of road salt and load it into the car himself!!
Luckily he seems to have survived the Salt-heaving episode without damage; and is really almost back to normal and able to resume swimming and driving.
Totally amazing recovery after a major op. on his spine followed, just four weeks later, by a total hip-replacement.
Six weeks out of surgery (and told by his surgeon that he shouldn’t carry anything weighing more than 10 lbs and that he didn’t want "any heroics"), what does he do but buy a 50lb bag of road salt and load it into the car himself!!
Having several relatives (mother, wife, son) who have had major surgery ranging from knee replacements and knee reconstruction (cadaver ligaments) to spinal fusions, I can tell you that every surgeon will offer the most conservative guidance when it comes to post-surgical activity. But the biggest determinant of post-surgical success is the attitude of the patient and how much they will be an advocate for their own rehabilitation. Pushing beyond the conservative limits set by the surgeon have never (in my admittedly anecdotal experience) been a negative factor. In fact, the rehabilitation period has been considerably shortened when the patient has "pushed the envelope" a bit and been diligent about the physical therapy.
Anyway, good luck with the rehab. Life in the 21st century is amazing indeed…
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
