Monitor problems!

I don't have the PA231W, but have the PA241W with Spectraview. These sure are excellent color critical monitors.

The closest replacement to yours is probably the PA243W with spectraview, which sells for $1169 US at B&H ($925 without the calibrator). It's weird that the white version is so much cheaper (only $799 without the calibrator). I doubt quality-wise that it's noticeably different than your 231, so hopefully you can find an inexpensive fix instead of replacing it.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19380459
For critical color, I tend to use Eizo or NEC. For slightly less critical, my favorite is the older Dell U2413 - 10-bit output, good enough that I can print and match almost exactly, easy to find spare parts, cheap to acquire used, and easy to find used units. Once calibrated (I just use an i1Pro and DispCalGUI), it's almost dead on to my Eizos - and matches my prints of the wide format printers. I'm actually running 6x U2413 on my main "desktop" in 2 rows of 3. I have the Eizos in the studio for the capture box. I'm a commercial shooter, so color critical work is the norm. When a client brings in fabric or other items, the shots have to match dead-on.

Gaming monitors suck - horrible color and accuracy. High frame rates don't do a thing for real usage. They're also designed like other gamer crap - cool at first, but designed to fail as they know that gamers will just go out and buy the next latest-greatest in a few months.

Yes, I would prefer to buy NEC or Eizo, although I’m leaning to Eizo now as I never liked what NEC does with their Spectraview monitors. You can, or could 10 years ago, buy them with the calibration software (those had ‘Spectraview’ in the name and they were expensive) or without (no ‘Spectraview’ in the name and less expensive) but they were the same exact monitor. In the US you could buy the less expensive version without the Spectraview software and buy that separately afterwards. At the time I could only get the PA231 without the software here but in they didn’t sell the Spectraview software separately in Europe. I emailed them and they flat out refused to sell it to me. I still have the emails. I did get it in the end but not from NEC. So that was not a good experience and I have not forgotten that. And I don’t want to land in the same situation again.

I am looking at the Eizo ColorEdge CS2731 now. I know the CG series is their very top but if I’m going to pay that kind of money I might just as well get the new Apple Cinema Display. It would actually be a few hundred euro cheaper.

Of course these are serious monitors, not cheap monitors to tie me over…

And those “electrolytic caps“ you guys are talking about, I have no idea what they are and wouldn’t know what they look like if my life depended on it!

Bob_A wrote in post #19380524
I don't have the PA231W, but have the PA241W with Spectraview. These sure are excellent color critical monitors.

The closest replacement to yours is probably the PA243W with spectraview, which sells for $1169 US at B&H ($925 without the calibrator). It's weird that the white version is so much cheaper (only $799 without the calibrator). I doubt quality-wise that it's noticeably different than your 231, so hopefully you can find an inexpensive fix instead of replacing it.

They are great monitors indeed.

Funny you mentioned the less expensive white version. That was exactly the same 10 years ago with my PA231. I got the white version and it was like 300 euro less expensive. I remember contacting the shop about it, asking if there was something wrong with the white version. And there wasn’t. So that’s what I bought. It’s just weird.

Take a look at the Benq SW Photography series monitors.
These are switchable between sRGB, Adobe RGB and B/W.
I replaced an NEC monitor with one of these and wouldn't go back.

They're also cheaper than Eizo and if you have patience show up on ebay (at least in the US) now and then for $4-600 for the 27" and $2-300 for the 24".

*Scruffy* wrote in post #19382320
Take a look at the Benq SW Photography series monitors.
These are switchable between sRGB, Adobe RGB and B/W.
I replaced an NEC monitor with one of these and wouldn't go back.

They're also cheaper than Eizo and if you have patience show up on ebay (at least in the US) now and then for $4-600 for the 27" and $2-300 for the 24".

I’ve been looking at BenQ. In the end I don’t think brand matters that much anymore as all colour accurate monotors with true 10-bit colour depth and LUTs that enable hardware calibration are pretty much in the same price range: 4K monitors between 1500-2000 euro, 2K monitors between 700-1100 euro. So then it comes down to other things, like panel uniformity and how easy the panel is on the eyes. Power consumption is important for me too.

BenQ has some great videos on hardware calibration. I like that.

I’m not decided on 2K vs 4K. Coming from a 23” 1080p screen, Quad HD seems plenty and would save me money.

I remember 11 years ago it was very hard deciding on a new monitor and it has not gotten any easier…

Wish you the best on the repair of your NEC. I have a pair of P221W's in use that I'm glad I picked up many years ago. The main one has 26310 hours where my second one is at 4415 hours of uptime. My buddy says when it is time his suggestion is the Eizo though that cost is ouch!

Capacitors are inexpensive relative to bringing back a quality piece of gear to keep it going. Took less that $4 in capacitors for the car ECU to be fixed. That was well worth it.

Image hosted by forum (1160377) © ra40 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

yeah BenQ has their own calibration software, at least for the SW series, which can be used with X-Rite or Spyder hardware.

For me the button on the front for changing colour modes is unbelievably convenient if you are producing work for both AdobeRGB and sRGB colourspaces, or B/W for that matter.

anyway, good luck with your choosings.

ra40 wrote in post #19382581
Wish you the best on the repair of your NEC. I have a pair of P221W's in use that I'm glad I picked up many years ago. The main one has 26310 hours where my second one is at 4415 hours of uptime. My buddy says when it is time his suggestion is the Eizo though that cost is ouch!

Capacitors are inexpensive relative to bringing back a quality piece of gear to keep it going. Took less that $4 in capacitors for the car ECU to be fixed. That was well worth it.

I watched a YouTube video of someone replacing capacitors in a monitor. I don’t think I’ll be doing that anytime soon but I might know somebody who could do that for me. Thanks.

Eizo make the best monitors but they’re expensive and how much are you actually paying for the brand name?

*Scruffy* wrote in post #19382770
yeah BenQ has their own calibration software, at least for the SW series, which can be used with X-Rite or Spyder hardware.

For me the button on the front for changing colour modes is unbelievably convenient if you are producing work for both AdobeRGB and sRGB colourspaces, or B/W for that matter.

anyway, good luck with your choosings.

I have a Spyder that always worked well with the Spectraview software. It’s old though and needs replacing.

I’ll be doing a lot more thinking and reading reviews etc. before making a final decision. But BenQ is on my short list now. Thanks.

Update and question.

I have bought the Eizo ColorEdge CS2731 27" 2k monitor and after some delays it arrived today. I already love it, although it's a beast! I come from a 23" NEC and to go to 27" is well, rather intimidating...

For a while it will have to work with my old 2009 Mac Pro. Now the Mac has one DVI Double Link port and one Mini Displayport on board. The monitor also has a DVI port, so I used the DVI connection and got the monitor working immediately. However, it looks like this:

I was initially confused as you say your monitor is 2K (which is another way of saying 1080P) and computer lists it as 2K. Looking up your monitor, it is actually 2.5k, or 1440P (2560 x 1440). So it could be your old cable only accepting 1080P (or also if it’s an older Mac, its graphics might also only support up to 1080P. I would double check the max screen resolution of your Mac and just go with the latest DisplayPort, and the DVI port has to be dual-link (single goes to 1080P). If your system only supports 1080P, then perhaps there’s a setting on your monitor for aspect ratio (so that it’s fullscreen with 1920x1080 or 1200: depending on whether it’s 16:9 or 16:10).

davesrose wrote in post #19404329
I was initially confused as you say your monitor is 2K (which is another way of saying 1080P) and computer lists it as 2K. Looking up your monitor, it is actually 2.5k, or 1440P (2560 x 1440). So it could be your old cable only accepting 1080P (or also if it’s an older Mac, its graphics might also only support up to 1080P. I would double check the max screen resolution of your Mac and just go with the latest DisplayPort, and the DVI port has to be dual-link (single goes to 1080P). If your system only supports 1080P, then perhaps there’s a setting on your monitor for aspect ratio (so that it’s fullscreen with 1920x1080 or 1200: depending on whether it’s 16:9 or 16:10).

Sorry for the confusion. I thought everybody referred to them as either 2K or as Quad HD.

Yes, my Mac is very old. It's an early 2009 Mac Pro. DVI port is dual-link.
I've tried several settings. If I set the Mac in System Preferences to full res, then the signal information in the monitor's settings says 1280 x 1440. Now I can change the screen of course, but then all I get is that 1280 x 1440 doing really weird things with text. Everything becomes unreadable. So I now have it at 1920x1080. That scales just fine.

So the latest Displayport to Mini Displayport would work?

Back when TVs went up to 1080P, the cinema standard was 2K (aprox 2048px x Y high), and so and so for higher resolutions.

There’s no guarantee a new cable will resolve the issue, but it’s worth a shot (making sure it’s dual-link). It’s a much cheaper trial than upgrading your system

Wait, Mini Displayport to Displayport a dual-link?

Looking up specs with early 2009 MacBook, did it come with Mini DisplayPort to DVI? I think that DVI could be dual-link. So then try a dual-link DVI to DisplayPort adapter. Not sure if your laptop supports 2560 x 1600 with Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort specs (since it was an evolving standard then). It seems the resolution that the display is getting is the link being converted to a 4:3 aspect (with some stretching because MacBook is 16:10).

davesrose wrote in post #19404363
Looking up specs with early 2009 MacBook, did it come with Mini DisplayPort to DVI? I think that DVI could be dual-link. So then try a dual-link DVI to DisplayPort adapter. Not sure if your laptop supports 2560 x 1600 with Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort specs (since it was an evolving standard then).

What laptop? I have a Mac Pro!

Oh, sorry....when you said Mini DisplayPort, I then read 2009 MacBook Pro (since that only had Mini DisplayPort). So your Mac Pro certainly has dual-link DVI port? In which case, a dual-link DVI to HDMI (that states supported resolution) might work (or a whole DVI to HDMI cable to make sure the whole cable run is up to 2560 × 1600 capable).

https://www.amazon.com …to+hdmi%2Caps%2​C75&sr=8-3


Edit: on more research....I see that your monitor says it has a DVI-D port. That does support 2560x1600. I suspect if you are using a DVI cable, it may not be dual link (so try getting a new cable that specifies supported resolution). It makes sense then, that when the Mac is seeing that the signal has a limit of 1080P, it switches to 1280x1440 for QHD.