Hi Matthew, I know for a fact that if you went ahead and bought a LaCie 19 Electron, you'd sit there with a big grin on your face. They are really good. Expect to get over 100cd out of a new one. If you are only hitting 65cd/m2 then your images are unfortunately going to be rather flat and lifeless. There used to be a way of upping the sub contrast on older Sonys by diving inside them and upping the pot on the flyback transformer, from memory I can't remember whether the 20sfII will let you. Also its quite a hazardous task fiddling round with 30,000 volts ready to bite you! If you have to stick with your Sony, set contrast to full, brightness to as little as possible and as you point out set it to say 1024 by 768 or even 800 x 600 if you can live with it. At 65cd it certainly can't be used for colour critical work but its still ok for positionals. If you display a greyscale chart on screen, you'll see that your black level is ok but as the scale gets lighter it never achieves white and stops at light grey. This also is going to apply to display colours. At best you could get it reasonably accurate up to certain level but its never going to match a proof unless its been printed on toilet paper.
Regards, Pete > So... just wondered if you continue calibrating with Optical anyway > despite not hitting the required luminance, whether this will still > result in accurate calibration and profiling. I'd like to know how > important luminance is in this loop - is it simply a matter that while > what I'm viewing on screen is accurate, it's not actually very bright?? > > Is it time for a new monitor???? Am just starting out as an editorial > photographer so don't have a great deal of money to shell out and would > rather not have to buy if possible. Have considered a Lacie Electron > Blue 19 (around �270) - is this a decent monitor does anyone know? > =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
