Ezio Monitor or Mac Monitor for Printing

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,692
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
For printing purposes, would it be better to have a Ezio monitor with all the color calibration bells and whistles or can you get similar printing results using a 2014 mac monitor ..................and for all the smart Alex's out there yes we have a printer on the way (Epson P807) to do the actual printing
smile.png
 
Whatever monitor you get you need to calibrate it, iMac or not iMac. I personally use to have an iMac but changed to a Eizo Foris Monitor connected to a Mac Mini with a data colour Spyder calibrator. There is many more people that will be able to help you more on this topic specially @Pookeyhead always gives good answers regarding these types of questions :)
 
ndwgolf said:
For printing purposes, would it be better to have a Ezio monitor with all the color calibration bells and whistles or can you get similar printing results using a 2014 mac monitor ..................and for all the smart Alex's out there yes we have a printer on the way (Epson P807) to do the actual printing
smile.png
Click to expand...

Depends what Eizo screen you are referring to. Not everything with Eizo written on it is good. They make some quite ordinary monitors too.

What Mac monitor you referring to? An iMac?

If it's calibrated well (using a decent calibrator) then both will give accurate prints. A very high end monitor is better for colour critical stuff, especially when it comes to fine graduated detail and shadow detail, but if all you want is accurate colours for your prints, then any decent calibrated screen can do that.
 
Davi
Pookeyhead said:
Depends what Eizo screen you are referring to. Not everything with Eizo written on it is good. They make some quite ordinary monitors too.

What Mac monitor you referring to? An iMac?

If it's calibrated well (using a decent calibrator) then both will give accurate prints. A very high end monitor is better for colour critical stuff, especially when it comes to fine graduated detail and shadow detail, but if all you want is accurate colours for your prints, then any decent calibrated screen can do that.
Click to expand...
David
I use a Mac 27" monitor along with a Mac Pro..........when you say calibrating what do you mean by that, I have never done any calibrating that I know of with my monitor or computer just switched it on and played ?
I was looking at the CG277 27 Ezio
 
You need a calibrating device... I recommend the X-Rite i1 Display Pro

It comes with it's own software, and will display a series of colour swatches and grey scales on the screen of a known value. The colorimeter will then measure the actual colours your display is providing, and the software will make adjustments to bring what's being displayed in line with what the values of the swatches should be. It then writes these differences into a monitor or .ICM profile that your Mac will load into your video card's LUT (look up table) each time your Mac boots. This way, what is displayed will always be accurate.

Certain high end screens will allow "Hardware profiling" which is essentially the same, but the .ICM profile is loaded into the screen's LUT instead, which usually operates at a higher bit depth for greater accuracy and tonal gradation. Your Mac monitor can only be software profiled, but don't worry too much about that.

If your Mac Pro has a Quadro or Fire card, there will be no advantage to hardware profiling however, as these cards have a 10bit LUT.

If your Mac screen is not too old, it should still calibrate well, and seeing as it was bought in 2014, this should be the case.

If and when you get a calibrator, PM me and I can advise further.

[edit]

As you are doing your own printing, there may be a case for your getting the X-Rite Color Munki Photo, as this can also calibrate your printer ink and media. Having a calibrated screen is no guarantee of print accuracy alone, and will only guarantee that what you see on your screen is accurately displayed, so despite the i1 Display Pro being superb, in actuality, if you want to be completely independent of third party printing, the Color Munki Photo may be an ideal one stop solution to calibrate your entire workflow.

[edit]

Any of the Eizo ColorEdge (CG) series will be utterly superb. I use a CG303W here and it's utterly brilliant... but it was also £2300. As you drive a Cayenne however, I suspect you can afford it :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
You need a calibrating device... I recommend the X-Rite i1 Display Pro

It comes with it's own software, and will display a series of colour swatches and grey scales on the screen of a known value. The colorimeter will then measure the actual colours your display is providing, and the software will make adjustments to bring what's being displayed in line with what the values of the swatches should be. It then writes these differences into a monitor or .ICM profile that your Mac will load into your video card's LUT (look up table) each time your Mac boots. This way, what is displayed will always be accurate.

Certain high end screens will allow "Hardware profiling" which is essentially the same, but the .ICM profile is loaded into the screen's LUT instead, which usually operates at a higher bit depth for greater accuracy and tonal gradation. Your Mac monitor can only be software profiled, but don't worry too much about that.

If your Mac Pro has a Quadro or Fire card, there will be no advantage to hardware profiling however, as these cards have a 10bit LUT.

If your Mac screen is not too old, it should still calibrate well, and seeing as it was bought in 2014, this should be the case.

If and when you get a calibrator, PM me and I can advise further.

[edit]

As you are doing your own printing, there may be a case for your getting the X-Rite Color Munki Photo, as this can also calibrate your printer ink and media. Having a calibrated screen is no guarantee of print accuracy alone so despite the i! Display Pro being superb, in actuality, if you want to be completely independent of third party printing, the Color Munki Photo may be an ideal one stop solution to calibrate your entire workflow.
Click to expand...
Cheers David will do..... I just arrived back at work in Nigeria so will be another 24 1/2 days before I get home (yes I am counting) but I will have time to preorder the calibrator so that it is waiting for me when I get home
Thanks again
 
ndwgolf said:
Cheers David will do..... I just arrived back at work in Nigeria so will be another 24 1/2 days before I get home (yes I am counting) but I will have time to preorder the calibrator so that it is waiting for me when I get home
Thanks again
Click to expand...

Color Munki Photo would be my choice for you as you'll be printing your own work.

Once your workflow is calibrated, there are some rules to printing you'll need to adhere to. You're about to embark on a potentially frustrating journey if you don't know what you're doing. :) I'll help all I can. PM me if necessary.
 
@ndwgolf

BTW.. if you DO get the CG277, and are not bothered about calibrating your printer, the CG277 has a built in calibrator, so if it's just the monitor you want to calibrate and you're not using your Mac screen, you will not need to buy one. Just thought I'd mention that in case that's what you intend to do. You'll only need one if you're not using your existing Mac Monitor, or wish to calibrate your printer as well... in which case the Color Munki Photo is still the best choice.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Color Munki Photo would be my choice for you as you'll be printing your own work.
Click to expand...

Neil, I can vouch for the ColorMunki Photo as suggested by David. I use one to calibrate my Eizo CG241W and it works very well. It's also compatible with Eizo's ColorNavigator (link) so you have the choice of which software to use - Eizo's or X-Rite's. Don't install both though or they'll probably start arguing with each other!

NB Not all calibration devices are compatible with ColorNavigator - there's a list of those that are in the link above (scroll down).
 
Denyerec said:
Yeah, that irked the hell out of me as I hate 16:9, however the 2K res of the new 27" model eases that pain somewhat.

They also have a 1:1 square model which is 1920x1920 - I'm incredibly tempted!
Click to expand...

You'd better buy both then (the 27" and the 1920x1920) :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
@ndwgolf

BTW.. if you DO get the CG277, and are not bothered about calibrating your printer, the CG277 has a built in calibrator, so if it's just the monitor you want to calibrate and you're not using your Mac screen, you will not need to buy one. Just thought I'd mention that in case that's what you intend to do. You'll only need one if you're not using your existing Mac Monitor, or wish to calibrate your printer as well... in which case the Color Munki Photo is still the best choice.
Click to expand...
David I have decided to buy the Eizo CG277 27 so will not bother with the monkey thingy :)
 
Ozei said:
Neil, I can vouch for the ColorMunki Photo as suggested by David. I use one to calibrate my Eizo CG241W and it works very well. It's also compatible with Eizo's ColorNavigator (link) so you have the choice of which software to use
Click to expand...

The CG277 that Neil is considering has it's own built in colorimeter, and comes with color navigator, and automatically calibrates itself on a schedule. He'll still need the color munki photo to calibrate his print media though.

ndwgolf said:
David I have decided to buy the Eizo CG277 27 so will not bother with the monkey thingy :)
Click to expand...


No problem.. but you may therefore have to so some manual adjustment with the print output to get it reliable.
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
Shame they switched all new models to 16:9 though :( (the CG241 and CG303 are both 16:10)
Click to expand...

I know. When my CG303 dies.... it's a 30" NEC Sprectraview Reference screen for me. I hate 16:9
 
Ozei said:
So do I.

I think Eizo will lose a lot of loyal customers because of their decision to ditch 16:10.
Click to expand...

Already lost me.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I hate 16:9
Click to expand...

OK, several folk have said the same, so there must be something in it, but I can't for the life of me think what major difference a little less in the pixel count on the long edge does. I don't think I've ever used a 16:10 monitor though, so could you perhaps explain for the uninitiated? Thanks
 
ChrisR said:
.... I don't think I've ever used a 16:10 monitor though, so could you perhaps explain for the uninitiated? Thanks
Click to expand...

If you see a 16:10 monitor and a 16:9 monitor side by side (both with 2560x native resolution and both showing the same image) you'll soon notice the advantage of 16:10. The 16:9 needs a lot more scrolling when the width of the image is resized to match the native 2560. Ditto for a 1920x comparison. 16:10 just looks more 'right' for stills. 16:12 would be even better though!

Eizo's CG277 would be fantastic in 16:10 - but not quite as good as David's CG303!
 
Last edited:
OK I'll take your word for it! Small chance of my seeing even one of these exotic beasts, let alone two side by side. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top