So is it actually 8-bit? I’m a bit confused
And also, found this on Asus pages:
I suppose my own calibration is still critical for good results, right?
These are the results for my secondary monitor (old Iiyama 21" 1920×1080 60Hz TN). Is this any better suited for photo editing?
It doesn’t look great…
Is it possible to quickly compare the settings before and after calibration? I’d like to see how much it changed and don’t know which settings to use
I think you are going a bit into the wrong direction. I propose to think in a more reverse engineering fashion:
- who is your target audience?
- what is the product / final outcome going to be?
- what do you want to achieve?
Once you can answer these questions you can further decide if you need a super-duper monitor with daily calibration or not. I am using a pretty cheap monitor (with little color accuracy, little total brightness, poor black point) but the results from printing and putting my pictures on my website are in line with my expectations. The important thing about calibration is to give you a good AVERAGE starting point to work with (as long as you do not create critical client work that print your pictures on glossy big magazines). Calibration should give you that good starting point. As a result your images will look at least decent on almost all screens which are not totally weirdly configured.
2 Likes
When I am considering the Asus ProArt 24" with occasional calibration, does it count? (Like if I’m aiming too high)
Or should I rather try to set my Iiyama as good as I can? Nevermind, TN screens are not good for editing. I’ll keep it as a VS Code workhorse monitor then.
The thing is, besides me, the only audience is (occasionally) my family and this forum, so the requirements aren’t really high.
I just got a 27" 2K ProArt to replace my aging Dell Ultrasharp 2413 and I’m really liking it so far. The 24" 1080P looks pretty affordable for the features.
Yeah, 27" is too much for me as it’s not going to be far from me, so 24" is enough and the size drops the price from 270€ to 190€.
Snap. I have one of them too. Nice monitor
1 Like
So after I calibrated my screen, when I take a screenshot, the picture looks more saturated than what I captured. Is that normal? The screenshot does not have embedded color profile, so it seems like it is applied twice. If I set XNview MP to always use my display profile, it corrects the image. But idk what is right.
The colors of this image illustrate my problem pretty well (DT UI is different, image is pretty much the same)
I recently found Benq SW242Q - looks like a perfect upgrade from my current EIZO CS230 
Also quite not expensive, comparing to EIZO lineup.
XNView MP is color managed and should display colors “correctly”. DT should do the same if you specified ‘system display profile’ in Display Profile (right click on e.g. softproofing) if your screen profile has been correctly installed on your system.
As for the screenshot, it depends which image viewer you used to display your image. Some are not correctly color managed, for example FastStone and colors may show differently.
Yes, exactly. A lot of 300–400 EUR (24-27") IPS “office” monitors these days work fine as for enthusiast-level photo editing out of the box (ie, w/o calibration) as long as they have almost-sRGB coverage at around 250 nits. Specialist applications (exact color matching, HDR) would need a calibrated monitor, but the hobbyist user on this forum should be fine.
What I would purposefully avoid at this point (given the WIP nature of Wayland color management) is fancy OLED wide-gamut monitors (eg DCI-P3). Unless you import a color profile, you get a crazy dark oversaturated look.
3 Likes
It’s 6-bit, pretending to be 8. For your needs, that’s not an issue.
If you don’t have the tools to do your own calibration, then factory calibrated is a decent substitute. And it’s a good indicator that the monitor isn’t crap. But since color rendering can change with brightness level as well as drift over time, it’s not a good idea to rely on it for perfect results, only good enough.
6 Likes
I mean isn’t that going be a problem for calibration? (I read something that it basically flashes two different colors to make it look like 8-bit).
Like my laptop has also 6-bit colors, so isn’t native 8-bit just better? I don’t know if those are as affordable though.
That’s pretty good!
2 Likes
Asus claims 100% sRGB coverage, so it should be possible to improve it, since currently the profile is only at 97%. But I’m not sure you’ll notice the difference.
1 Like
Tbh, for what I do, I think it’s as good as I need it to be.
What are your monitor settings? I got mine in Rec 709 preset mode and gamma 2.4 (gamma is default, and sRGB mode looked bland) and after calibration I feel like the greyscale gradient is not exactly linear. A certain region of dark greys seems to be brighter than I’d expect.