I don't. He's looking at two 8-bit+FRC panels; recommending a 6-bit when one of his main purposes is extremely precise picture editing (slides are very high detail) is just bad. The price obviously isn't much of a concern, so saving $100 isn't pointful.NovusBogus wrote:I recommend the PA248Q over the PA246Q. (...) The extra $100 would be wasted in your case because the difference in color quality (the main selling point of the PA246Q) is very very minor and only a concern for professional graphic artists...
auxy wrote:I'd get the U2413. It has GB-LED backlighting instead of the PA246Q's old CCFL technology, enabling a wider color gamut, and also making the monitor lighter, thinner, and cooler-running (as well as less power-thirsty.) I realize those are all ancillary benefits, but you don't really lose anything in output quality. It also has better blacks and USB3; in general it's just the better display.
Since GB-LED provides very nearly the same color performance with a bunch of ancillary benefits, wouldn't you say that CCFLs *are* significantly inferior overall?cynan wrote:While GB-LED backlighting definitely enables superior color reproduction over white-only LED backlighting, I'm not so sure it's going to be significantly superior to CCFL backlighting as a rule. For instance, according to this site, the color reproduction capabilities are very similar between the Dell u3011 with the CCFL (102% NTSC; 98% Adobe RGB coverage) and the u3014 with GB-LED (103% NTSC, 99% Adobe RGB). Yes, you do get the power saving benefit, and the monitor might be a bit thinner, but just because CCFL is old tech, doesn't mean it's significantly inferior performance-wise.
auxy wrote:Since GB-LED provides very nearly the same color performance with a bunch of ancillary benefits, wouldn't you say that CCFLs *are* significantly inferior overall?
Users browsing this forum: MSN NewsBlogs, Rand and 3 guests