Very interesting results but why do I need 300:1 if the final output is
a print? What's the contrast ratio of a print? Can't be very much.
Chuck Norcutt
C.H.Ling wrote:
> I recommend the EIZO, IMO they are better then many others for photo editing
> since they design with different polarization (?) the contrast shift in
> vertical is less than horizontal while most others behave the other way
> round. I have an old non-pro version (L568) and I like it better than the
> Samsung 205BW.
>
> At the mean time I just purchased a Spyder2PRO and tested some of the
> monitors that I have, the results look interesting:
>
> Samsung 205BW, claimed 700:1
> Test result: Black Luminance: 0.44, White Luminance: 102.8
> Calculated contrast: 233.6
>
> EIZO L568, 1000:1
> Test result: BL: 0.29, WL: 154.5
> Calculated contrast: 532.7
>
> Sony VAIO 15.4" notebook
> Test result: BL: 0.3, WL100.2
> Calculated contrast: 334
>
> Topcon 19" Amigo-19W, 850:1
> Test result: BL0.71, WL115
> Calculated contrast: 161.9
>
> IMO for photo editing you will need at least 300:1 true contrast ratio.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|