Sorry for the late reply, I've had a very busy week.
I'm not inclined to take your word for on this subject. There is more to a monitor than the fact it uses S-PVA or S-IPS panel types. I think you are simplifying the whole thing bringing the professional quality factor to one specific issue. The use of an S-IPS panel in a monitor doesn't seem to garantee its level of performance, otherwise the Eizo CE210W would never be a better monitor than the ACD (someone pointed out that it uses a S-PVA panel).
S-IPS panels have better color reproduction,
but if
BOTH the S-PVA and S-IPS panels have true 8-bit subpixels then the difference is a bit smaller (if you read my first post, you'll see that that's
exactly what I said right off the bat). It's still measurable though.
However, Dell made an idiotic move to 6-bit panels to save money and improve the response time of their displays (by having less steps per pixel, 6-bit = 64 positions per crystal, 8-bit = 256 positions per crystal). Again, refer to the first post to read in-depth about the difference between 6- and 8-bits.
The difference now is that Dell's updated 24" display has 262,144 colors (18-bit) natively, while Apple's ACD has true 24-bit, 16,777,216 colors. And that is
all the thread was originally about. That Dell's new 2407FPW is
useless for photo editing due to it resorting to dithering to fake the other 16.2 million colors. If you don't know what dithering is, Google it.
Another reason for S-IPS panels being the more professional choice is... Viewing angles! When you need several displays side by side, you are hard pressed to use S-PVA panels because they rapidly start to distort at slight angles, meaning that you can't trust the colors of either of your side-by-side displays! S-IPS panels on the other hand are very stable and start to shift at a much wider angle. Again, this is due to the physical differences in the panel layouts between S-IPS and S-PVA, the same differences that give S-IPS more accurate colors, and S-PVA better contrast and brightness.
Check this review:
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/software_computers/1006ezio/
ACDs don't get even close to this level of calibration possibility.
Indeed, you cannot compare the calibration options between Apple's ACD's and Eizo. Apple provides brightness, and the other options have to go through the graphics card, such as setting up an ICC color profile. But Eizo wins out, totally. The test results I linked to pointed out that the actual color
output of the two reviewed displays (one Eizo, one ACD) in question were nearly identical, and that's a huge feat for Apple's display. Again,
of course you can't configure Apple's display as much as an Eizo display. But then again, Eizo displays cost a
lot more, and what other display can you find that's SWOP-certified in the same price range as Apple? Certainly not the Dell, it's a consumer display with little regard for color accuracy. I read a funny thing on these boards a while ago, it's not to be taken seriously and has little to do with this discussion, but it was funny: "The Dell has a lot more
connections, but it also has a lot more
ugly." [sic].
I also contacted some experts, and here is what one of them had to say:
"First of all, the entire LCD screen manufacture's primary market is for TV display, and all other specialized models for multimedia, home/office computer and pro graphics are ancillary derivative adaptations. Essentially the panel design variations relate to when they were developed as well as size. The different types of panel technology are produced in slight variation by all of the prime manufacturers, but with slightly different name descriptions, and the same panel types are used in everything from high to low TV models, to consumer computer displays to high-end displays for professional graphics.
What distinguishes these models is what is behind the screen panel. Although all use cold cathode tube backlights that must conform to ANSI standards, there are better versions that can be adjusted for brightness and produce cleaner more consistent light color temperature. But more significant are the components that control the panel and handle the signal received from either a TV tuner, multimedia device, or computer. This is what makes the difference in performance and whether it supports editing photographic images in Photoshop, supports precise calibration and adjustment for accurate profiling, that in some cases triples the price of the LCD."
Do you realize what you are quoting him on? It doesn't look like it since what you highlighted in bold is him talking about calibration possibilities. He's saying that what really defines a display is how much you can adjust (calibrate) the panel. He's just saying that the more calibration options, the better the panel. (Doh) And that S-PVA vs S-IPS doesn't matter as much as calibration options (of course not!). This is nothing new in the discussion, so I don't know why you brought it up. (And neither the Apple nor the Dell display can be calibrated beyond an ICC profile so the argument of calibration doesn't apply to these monitors in the first place).
As for the S-PVA discussion, Eizo is actually making more and more S-PVA panels after having developed highly advanced processors that compensate for and improve on the S-PVA characteristics. So the S-PVA inferiority doesn't apply to them, since coupled with their technology it works extremely well
and has the benefits of higher contrast and brightness. Yet another reason that their S-PVA panels actually work well is that all their displays work at a much finer precision than what we are comparing here. Eizo displays are in a league of their own and commonly use 14-bit processing while we are looking at one 6-bit (250 thousand colors, Dell) and one 8-bit display (16.7 million colors, Apple) here. That said however, their S-IPS panels are still their top-end and cost hundreds of dollars more at the moment but I expect them to be phazed out due to their huge progress with S-PVA. I hope this explains why we can't use Eizo's S-PVA displays as a testimony to S-PVA in
this particular discussion. Only with technology comparable to what Eizo offers will the S-PVA panels become great, and that kind of technology costs more money than either of these Apple or Dell displays. For the money, Apple's 23" Cinema HD Display is extremely good.
Judging the quality of a monitor based on the fact it uses a S-IPS panel alone might be a mistake as big as judging it based on its brightness and contrast specifications.
You may be right when the comparison is made between Dell and Apple. But I guess not all S-PVA panels are treated the same way, as you've said, there's more than meets the eye when it comes to monitors... (specially professional level ones)......
I
am right in the comparison between Dell 2407FPW and Apple Cinema HD Display 23". As I said at the start, the article was
only applicable to the Dell 2407FPW and Apple 23" ACD since any other models use different panels. For instance, both Dell and Apple 30" displays use the same LCD panel (LG-Philip's 30") so the difference there is nil, and in favor of the Dell since it provides more extensive on-screen configurability at a lower price, though with "a bit more
ugly (
)". But don't think about using
either 30" display professionally, as ATD pointed out they both have rapid falloff in color accuracy towards the edges, and you are better off with two 23" ACDs instead.
Like I said in the original post this is solely about the current Dell 24" vs Apple 23". The difference between the
old Dell 24" (2405FPW, S-PVA 8-bit) and the 23" Apple ACD (S-IPS 8-bit) was smaller, but now that Dell has crippled their display by removing 16.5 million colors and faking (dithering) them instead, it just
can't in any way, shape or form, be used for photo editing. It can't be used for any color-critical applications.
And
that is why I made this post, because people on this board kept saying that the Dell is better for photo professionals because it has higher contrast and brightness, and that misconception had to stop. Which incidentally is why I mentioned S-PVA vs S-IPS (to explain WHY it has higher brightness and contrast, that it's a panel trait whereas S-IPS with its lower contrast and brightness has more accurate colors and less shifting instead).
Feel free to get back to me if you have any questions, but I hope this is enough.
Best Regards
