It's not all
DreamColor laptops for HP at SIGGRAPH today -- the company's line of performance desktop monitors got a little bigger as well. The new 24-inch LP2475w (pictured) puts 102 percent of the NTSC color gamut across 1920 x 1200 pixels, while the 22-inch LP2275w lights up 92 percent across 1680 x 1050 pixels, and both sport 1000:1 contrast ratios, extra-bright panels and adjustable stands. The LP2275w is out now and the LP247w will follow next month -- HP says pricing will be between $459 and $649 at retail. There's also a new calibration kit for owners of the
DreamColor LP2480zx, which is available now if you're a Window user with a critical eye and an extra $349; a Mac version will be out next month.
posted Aug 11th 2008 3:13PM
why post a relevant comment when you can be a troll?
102%...?
"you are the best of the best...gentlemen...welcome, to Top Gun"
Due to the infinite number of colors possible (I think it's infinite; if someone can prove otherwise, be my guest) and the very limited number of colors defined in the NTSC color gamut, it is possible to cover more than the full NTSC color gamut. Perhaps we should create a new standard.
"...102 percent of the NTSC color gamut..."
But, if the NTSC color gamut IS defined as a certain selection of colors, then it can only display 100%. And then 2% of some other color gamut. So, it's not really 102% of the NTSC color gamut.
The word "gamut" has lost all meaning to me now.
The NTSC color gamut has a defined number of colors, for simplicity's sake we'll say the NTSC color gamut only defines 100 colors. This display can produce 102 colors, so it has 102% of the number of colors. The extra 2% of colors could be any other colors since the NTSC color gamut does not recognize them, but I think the percent is just meant to illustrate the number of colors the display can produce and not which colors. But the first 100% of colors probably are the actual colors defined by the NTSC color gamut.
"But, if the NTSC color gamut IS defined as a certain selection of colors, then it can only display 100%. And then 2% of some other color gamut. So, it's not really 102% of the NTSC color gamut."
You're thinking about it wrong.
Every device has it's own gamut. Thus, every device displays 100% of it's own gamut. Every device's gamut is slightly different. Some are very large, like CRT monitors, and even LCD's though we criticize them. Some are very small, like inkjet pritners.
Then there are industry defined standard gamuts, like sRGB, Adobe RGB, NTSC, L*A*B*, and SWOP which exist purely as a go between different devices and their varying gamuts (for varying reasons, SWOP is for offset, L*A*B* is for research, NTSC is for television, Adobe RGB is for design). For example, you don't want to design a file in a device's color space, because when you convert it weird things will happen like loss of detail at the edge of a smaller devices gamut, or not taking advantage of a larger devices gamut.
So you see, this monitor displays it's gamut, and only it's gamut, but it's gamut just so happens to be 102% of the NTSC gamut. I'm not sure how that's calculated, though. It may be lacking in yellows, but make up for it in reds and blues, for example. But then again, maybe it's not.
NTSC is a gamut originally defined for television, and I'm not really sure how it compares to Adobe RGB and other design and print oriented color spaces. You'd think that if HP were really targeting designers here, they'd use a more relevant color space. I do believe NTSC is fairly large, though, and it's quite rare to see a non LED backlit display over 100%. Especially one in this price range.
Well actually, colour gamuts have a certain limit of reproduction of all the colours in the world. 102% just means it can reproduce more colours than the gamut specification of NTSC.
I learned something today.
@msalivar
The NTSC cs is very similar to the Adobe 1998, that is if you're just looking at a table. In practice it's different since we all know what NTSC stands for (never twice the same color).
I have an NEC LCD2690WUXI-SV that displays slightly less than 100% of either gamut and costs $1,400. I wonder if HP is just giving everyone a bunch of BS since the real version in this series is over $3,500. Maybe the the backlighting evenness is not very good.
Yeah, I don't know. Lenovo is offering the L220x which is said to have 92% coverage for right about $400. Apparently it has pretty good backlighting, too. Probably not as good as our NEC's, though (I have a 2490WUXi), and I'm sure it doesn't have the big LUT's of the Eizo's or general attention to detail in backlight consistency (it doesn't need to be readily visible for it to affect color)
I imagine at the very least it will be a nice monitor for amateurs and small time freelancers. It wouldn't surprise me, that's exactly what the L2065 is, and it sounds like they're trying to take a step up.
What kind of LCD technology do they use? (i.e. TN, S-IPS...)
Found my own answer: PVA.
All you have to do is look at the price for the answer...in this case it's TNish.
I found the spec sheet:
http://www.hp.com/canada/products/landing/workstations/downloads/LP2475w_data_sheet_CDN.pdf
$459 for a 22" TN panel... doubtful since other HP 22" panels with similar specs run $250
@Joe: Actually it is S-IPS. I could tell because the response time was pretty good on the spec sheet.
This page backs me up though:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-444767-444767-3648442.html
Also, on that second link I posted, the LP2475w is going for £476, which is roughly $900 USD.
According the specs on the UK site, the LP2275w is an S-PVA, the 2475w is an S-IPS. (The US site doesn't say, which is quite irritating.)
Did they take a screen cap of the XMB background a slap an HP logo over it?
That's been HP's styling for some time now, but there is a huge similarity.
Not that I'm complaining, I really love the XMB 'waves' one of the prettiest GUI's I've seen in awhile...especially for gaming systems.
Thanks for the clear-up!
This is the first time I've seen it used by HP, I stand corrected.
fugly
It would be fine if it weren't for the silver base, but it's definitely better than some of their consumer models. I'm sure it's VESA mountable, though, which fixes the base issue.
@DooM
u suk
-1
No panel info yet but this site is always accurate:
http://lcd24-7.info/Monitor/Hewlett-Packard/LP2475w/Default.aspx
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06a/382087-382087-64283-444767-444767-3648442.html
It says s-ips on HP's site.
To ignore the obvious troll and answer what's actually a good question underneath it all...
Because no two devices are alike, and no device holds it's calibration.
That is, even two LCD panels that come off the line right next to each other will vary enough to need separate calibrations. Outside of Eizo on their really high end stuff (and maybe some NEC and Barco), I don't know of anyone who factory calibrates each and every device individually. They just load a common calibration that fits the average of their devices.
Second, because over hours to days to months, every device changes. CRT's are well known for dimming over their lives, as do LCD backlights. Even printers and scanners change over a life time. Depending on the quality of the display and the threshold for accuracy, they could need to be calibrated every week, every month, or every few hours. A lot of shops will calibrate their big production laser printers before every run, many more every morning. Design shops can usually get away with calibrating their monitors weekly if it's a good display.
A monitor with built-in calibration would be nice, if expensive.
What I am wondering is why I only paid $100 for a sweet external calibrator and the add on for this costs over $300. Can someone explain this to me?
For one thing, because a lot of those little $100 spectrophotometers and colorimeters aren't very good. The Huey and first gen Spyder are absolute junk. The second gen Spyder is a lot better, but even then, for $100 you get very limited software. To get decently powerful software with it, you end up paying a few hundred more. Then there are devices and software from X-Rite (that includes Monaco and Gretag MacBeth for the last few years) that just blow these away as far as your final results go, but cost into the $1000 range.
You can easily spend far more, like the Gretag Spectrolino and Profile Maker software, you're looking at $4000+ I think, maybe more.
At Graph Expo last year I spent some time at the Ihara booth, and they were boasting hardware in the $7000+ range. And I think a lot of their stuff is focused at spot colors, but it's been awhile and I might not be remembering correctly.
I will probably end up getting one of these. Its nice to see an S-IPS monitor again, and at a better price than Dell's PVA 24" joke. I'll NEVER buy a non s-ips monitor, they just look so freakin good compared to the other crappy panels.
*VA can be very good in it's own right. The problem is the tech is used in a wide range of monitors, from consumer to pro. There's no debating that a good Eizo monitor using an S-PVA panel is breathtaking. On the other hand, a cheap MVA or PVA panel using crappy backlighting and logic is never going to compare. It's still better than TN, though
If S-IPS were pushed off as a high end consumer panel, they could do just as much damage to it's image (no pun intended) as to *VA.
My theory is proven time and time again:
June: http://i34.tinypic.com/2j13e2s.jpg
July: http://i35.tinypic.com/xp351j.jpg
August: http://i34.tinypic.com/2ytsi9c.jpg
check my history for explainiation
I don't care how good the display is for this monitor. I would never buy it based on its ugly ass looks.
@Video Master 2
You idiots seem to care more about how a monitor looks when turned off then whant it's turned on and on is what really matters. I'll sell you a monitor that looks pretty when unplugged, but only works in black and white... happy?
APPLE has the best displays, computers and phones no doubt. This is a POS.
Apple uses the same technology in their monitors. Perhaps it doesn't look as pretty as the Cinema Display, but I'd gladly pay 250-400 bucks less for a monitor that works just as well.
@Video Master 2
You idiots seem to care more about how a monitor looks when turned off then whant it's turned on and on is what really matters. I'll sell you a monitor that looks pretty when unplugged, but only works in black and white... happy?
just an FYI... the only 24" DreamColor listed on HP's website is
HP DreamColor LP2480zx Professional Display for a whopping $3,299!!
uhm... 24" for $3,299... pass...
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/382087-382087-64283-72270-444767.html
The DreamColor series is supposed to be the top of the line model. Not sure how this new monitor will compare between the two considering they're both IPS panels, but hopefully it will be comparable.
I don't think you fanboys quite get it yet.... at those specs at $ 649 .... fucking sweet. I haven't seen price plumet this low for a good monitor since i bought my Dell 2405 FPW a few years ago .....
[quote]But the incredible thing is that you get all of this for an unbelievably low price of just $649! The LP2475w seems like a definite winner![/quote]
Source: http://www.displayblog.com/2008/08/11/hp-dreamcolor-lp2475w-high-color-gamut-24-lcd-monitor/
HP are saying it's S-IPS and with those specs, it's probably the new WU4 panel.
I don't think you fanboys quite get it yet.... at those specs at $ 649 .... fucking sweet. I haven't seen price plumet this low for a good monitor since i bought my Dell 2405 FPW a few years ago .....
[quote]But the incredible thing is that you get all of this for an unbelievably low price of just $649! The LP2475w seems like a definite winner![/quote]
Source: http://www.displayblog.com/2008/08/11/hp-dreamcolor-lp2475w-high-color-gamut-24-lcd-monitor/
HP are saying it's S-IPS and with those specs, it's probably the new WU4 panel.
Whatever happened to those LCD monitors made by IBM with gobsmacking resolutions and color quality, but were 10 inches thick and required 2 or 4 DVI plugs? $350 for a color kit? Doesn't nVidia have a free one?