I could use some thoughts on the NEC PA271Q

Home Forums General Discussion I could use some thoughts on the NEC PA271Q

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29387

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

     

    Does anyone know how well the NEC PA271Q preforms in real life conditions?

    Spectraview II uncorrected issues related to caibration. Missing proper EDR. Chain applying a matrix correction on top of wrong EDR from mva.pl polish forum.
    That means that compared to Eizo CN you cannot hack the EDR to support WLED PFS backlight. It’s asoftware issue, maybe there are some IP issues to apply the proper EDR. Using a licensed version of Calman accurte HW calibration by user may be performed, check compability with PA NECs. Eizo CGs support it , at least CG-X verison.

    NEC PA271Q is factory calibrated in a much more precise way than can be achived with SpectraView II and i1Display Pro (even with custom .edr). As a result the display is more accurate than a calibrator in this case, and doesn’t need external sensor – all you have to do is to use free NEC MultiProfiler software to calibrate and profile the display do a desired target. It also doesn’t need further recalibrations, as SpectraView engine processor + internal RGB and temperature sensors recalibrate the display every couple of seconds, so it is perfectly stable during whole lifespan.

    Same could be applied to CS, CG, CG-X and you can calibrate them if you want (but WLED-PFS is unsupported too for i1DisplayPro so user will need to replace EDR or replace EDR data).

    Same could be applied to former PA242W and PA272W and they offered user HW calibration and internal calibration data update, so that is not an excuse.
    NEC has FAILED to provide a device with the same functionality as its older PA series and they have to be blamed for that unless they solve that issue.

    i1Display Pro on Amazon  
    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

    #29389

    Marcin Czornyj Kaluza
    Participant
    • Offline

    PAx72W was not as stable enough and needed a recalibration from time to time, so it’s not the same . I totally agree NEC should put a proper .edr to SVII like they did in the past, but still it wouldn’t make any sense to make HW calibration of PA271Q with something noticeably less accurate than the factory calibration.

    #29390

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    It that were true then SDK for partners (Basiccolor, Lightillusion and maybe Portrait displays) is a scam. It’s more likely that the one being cheated (offered LESS that it should) is the PA271Q/PA311D owner.

    PA HW is good but current suppport is unacceptable and it has been years since first issues. A no go IMHO.
    Even a popup for a custom manual entry 3×3 for advanced users (like Calman) would be enough. It’s easy to compute it from CCSS and your own i1d3 unit with ArgyllCMS in debug mode without using an spectrophotometer.
    (same for Eizo)

    #29391

    Marcin Czornyj Kaluza
    Participant
    • Offline

    I have PA311D for over a year, after 5623h of use it doesn’t show a slightest trace of change. The only one of my sensors that is capable of measruing it’s chromatic coordinates correctly is high-res spectrometer. Right now I also have 9 pcs of i1Pro rev. E, 2 pcs of i1Pro rev. D, 1 ColorMunki Photo, 4 i1D3 and a Spyder X – thery’re all less accurate than the PA311D.

    NEC doesn’t even officialy admit that it’s absolutely pointless to touch PA with external sensor, it’s just my personal observation and well educated guess. It is calibrated with high-end Konica-Minolta Sensing analyzers CS-2000, CA-310, CA-2500 worth >100,000$ to absolute perfection, and the SpectraView Engine processor is stabilizing it every few seconds,  so it’s no wonder there’s no chance to improve it with cheap, toy-colorimeters, and there’s nothing really to improve.

    #29393

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    As said before someone is being cheated, PA monitor owners or the companies that pay/partner/call-it-x for SDK access because two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time: you can/should calibrate at office/home or (exclusive) device is ok and stable all is projected life span.

    1st one is more likely to be true.

    #29394

    Marcin Czornyj Kaluza
    Participant
    • Offline

    None of companies didn’t ever provide a scientific proof that they can improve accuracy of latest PA series display, nor that there’s something wrong about it, or there are some stability issues. The statements they make are general and meaningless 🙂

    #29395

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    So you say NEC is cheating them… There needs to be at least 1 fool in this game.

    #29396

    Marcin Czornyj Kaluza
    Participant
    • Offline

    All I say is that:
    1) I Have PA311D and a small collection of display measuring devices
    2) After >5k hours of use I still didn’t find any trace of empiric proof that it needs recalibration, or that such calibration could improve anything (or at least not make things worse) 😉

    #29398

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    All I say is that:
    1) I Have PA311D and a small collection of display measuring devices
    2) After >5k hours of use I still didn’t find any trace of empiric proof that it needs recalibration, or that such calibration could improve anything (or at least not make things worse) 😉

    But there is an SDK for partners no available to general public, so… there is at least a fool in this game: users, 3rd party paying for it, both.

    You say users are not, so the only alternative if your statement is true is… that you say (in an implicit way) that NEC SDK updated for newer PAs is a scam. NEC is fooling somebody, at least 1 group.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by Vincent.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by Vincent.
    #29403

    Darkmatter
    Participant
    • Offline

    Sorry, I only skimmed everything because the Eizo is already on its way, but I don’t think I saw anything about the NEC’s default screen uniformity vs an Eizo’s. If I missed it, my apologies.  🙂

    Either way, NEC was DOA to me the minute I learned of their pixel/sub-pixel defect policy. It’s, quite frankly, pathetic. No offense intended. I can tell you like NEC Marcin, but that policy just screams to me, “for product problems compared to industry standards, we do not have your back!”

    Either way, I have no doubt that I’ll love the Eizo, and use it until either OLED comes to monitors with burn in problems solved through some sort of “tech” or mini-LEDs take over and drop in price. Maybe I’ll get a good OLED secondary display once they come down in size/price. I have no need for a 40+ inch “thing” (current TVs) on my computer desk. lol 🙂

    Thanks for your input though. I’m glad you got a great monitor and are happy with it. Those are the 2 things that matter most.

    DM

    #29404

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Sorry, I only skimmed everything because the Eizo is already on its way, but I don’t think I saw anything about the NEC’s default screen uniformity vs an Eizo’s.

    Prad.de test are tricky here. NEC PA has 5 levels of “sacrifice contrast for better uniformity”, prad.de test best and worst but maybe 2nd level is good enough and keep very high contrast. Anyway out of the box and max contrast color tints (delta C) are better in CS/CG than in PAs for prad.de units but PA was good.
    Chiphell (china) has a lot of test akin to prad.de unifomfity test (split test in  color tints and brightness uniformity), PA was good too and they tested more color comp levels than prad.de
    Color tints are the ones you want to avoid at all cost.

    Either way, NEC was DOA to me the minute I learned of their pixel/sub-pixel defect policy.

    AFAIK both are ISO 13406-2 Class II : limited dead pixels warranty. That includes Eizo. Eizo (and I assume NEC too) has 0 bright pixels policy within 6 months after purchase… but it is ISO 13406-2 Class II regarding dead pixels.
    Depending on consumer laws in your country the only warranty againts dead pixels is return for refund on online purchases.

    #29405

    Darkmatter
    Participant
    • Offline

    Most companies for higher end monitors allow up to 4 dark sub-pixels. NEC allows 8. :/

    For me, Eizo = peace of mind. That simple.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by Darkmatter.
    #29407

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Most companies for higher end monitors allow up to 4 dark sub-pixels. NEC allows 8. :/

    For me, Eizo = peace of mind. That simple.

    Wow :/
    Where is that info? ISO 13406-2 Class II is about defects per megapixel. UHD monitors can have more defects than QHD

    #29408

    Darkmatter
    Participant
    • Offline

    So, I went on NEC’s chat before ordering the Eizo, and it took their rep 40 minutes to find a single document or mention of their policy!

    I don’t even have a link! I have the file that she found. lol

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7kwts4812fo38ec/pixel%20defect%20policy0.pdf?dl=0

    BTW, I know, it only goes up to 1080p. I don’t know if that means that anything over 1080p is equiv to 1080 or what… And the rep didn’t know……….

    #29409

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    So, I went on NEC’s chat before ordering the Eizo, and it took their rep 40 minutes to find a single document or mention of their policy!

    I don’t even have a link! I have the file that she found. lol

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7kwts4812fo38ec/pixel%20defect%20policy0.pdf?dl=0

    BTW, I know, it only goes up to 1080p. I don’t know if that means that anything over 1080p is equiv to 1080 or what… And the rep didn’t know……….

    WTF

    Enjoy your CS and don’t look back.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log in or Register

Display Calibration and Characterization powered by ArgyllCMS