Help With Calibrating an Eizo CS2420

Report · Sep 11, 2020

First, let me say that I know how to calibrate! I successfully calibrated my 10-year-old NEC for years, and won numerous awards locally including a best of show that had over 600 entries. I am using a PC.

I purchased this Eizo CS2420 on March 13, 2019, and received it on March 15, 2015. This unit came with Eizo’s version of the Spyder 5. (I used a Spyder 3 on my NEC.) This Eizo is being used on a PC, Windows 10.

I cannot get this unit calibrated to get acceptable prints! My biggest fault was not returning it…shame on me!!! Eizo kept insisting that there was nothing wrong with the monitor, calibration device, and software.

If anyone out there has a miracle cure for me and this Eizo monitor, don’t be afraid to contact me: Julius Titak.

Note: I have tried just about everything out there in an effort to resolve this issue! What I’ve learned is that every monitor is different. Some people say that Contrast Ratio is the key…maybe for some monitors, but not all. Once Contrast Ratio is really understood, you would know what I am talking about! Right now, my Contrast Ratio is (861:1). I have over $200 in test prints proving what Contrast Ratio does for printing with this Eizo.

I made approximately 10 phone calls to Eizo USA, and came to the conclusion that their support team doesn’t understand calibration or computers. I have 42 emails to Eizo which includes responses from Eizo, and still cannot calibrate this monitor. I even had an Eizo support team member yell at me on the phone telling me I need to learn how to calibrate! I cannot prove this, but as God as my witness, it happened! I also have emails to 5 Eizo ambassadors hoping they would have some insight. I did get settings used by these photographers, but nothing worked. I even contacted Datacolor, and I still cannot get this unit calibrated. I’ve tried 6 reputable printing companies here in the US, and cannot get acceptable prints.

I contacted the local company which built my computer, and they got a bit upset with me that I even brought up my issue. I guess they figure they can do no wrong, and wouldn’t even look at my computer. (They are a very reputable company which has been around for a long time.) So much for that! I contacted another local company and had a good talk with the owner, and she had one of their technicians remotely access my computer, but could find no issues. (At least their technician admitted that he had no real knowledge about photography, but they tried!)

After that I contacted Eizo in the UK. They were more than willing to help, but I gave up on them also. I also contacted an independent group in Australia which was recommended by an Eizo Ambassador, and I was directed to their Eizo expert. She gave me lots of information which was worth reading through, but still could not get acceptable prints. She also got me in touch with a professional photographer who also sets up lighting at the major museums, etc. in Australia. He’s a very busy man, and he has a lot of information on his website that is worth going through, but still no acceptable prints. She contacted Eizo Corporate, and I was directed back to Eizo US. All that did was waste my time, and put me over the 1-year return time table.

I contacted Nvidia twice, and got no help from them, but the interesting thing will be noted below if you read on!

At this point I started looking for another monitor. I contacted BenQ with some questions about their monitors, and they directed me to one of their advisors who is also a professional photographer in Los Angeles. He has many YouTube videos on various subjects regarding photography. Most importantly, he is a BenQ advisor and user of BenQ monitors, and he is trying his best to help me with an Eizo monitor. As he said, “I’d hate to see you purchase another monitor if I can help you figure this out.” (Note: I’m not a professional photographer that makes a ton of money. If I did, I would have just bought another monitor.) This man accessed my computer remotely, and found a problem within my Nvidia Video card! I had no idea there are settings in the video card. (I can figure out a lot of issues with computers, but never gave this any thought; especially since the 2 people I talked to at Nvidia had no clue! So much for contacting Nvidia support.) It’s been about 2 months now and he is still trying to help me; but unfortunately, I think it’s hopeless.

What I’ve learned from all this is that there is a lot of people out there who have jobs in computer related industries that are not qualified to do their jobs!

I brought up the potential issue (before talking with BenQ) about an issue within the video card and computer, and was told that Eizo had no responsibility beyond basic use of their monitors and their software. My thought is that someone or a group of people with Eizo designed this monitor and has a complete understanding of computers, and might have been able to help; but again, my thoughts apparently weren’t even considered. The sale had been made!

I will start seriously looking for another monitor, and BenQ will be at the top of the list!

Again, if anyone out there has a miracle cure for me and this Eizo monitor, don’t be afraid to contact me: Julius Titak.

In addition, I am open to suggestions on what make, model, calibration device, and printing company you use that gives you excellent prints.

Report · Sep 13, 2020

KISS: don't waste your money and time. Keep the ambient conditions AS LOW AS POSSIBLE as outlined by Karl Lang. You don't have to worry about a LUX meter.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Report · Sep 14, 2020

All I can say is that all information is good if one is willing to learn!

Report · Sep 16, 2020

If you use basICColor display calibration software https://www.colourmanagement.net/products/basiccolor/basiccolor-display-software/

(which plays well with most Eizo hardware) then it measures Lux using the i1display pro I believe. It certainly does that with a Discus colorimeter.

try it with the demo version?

30 Lux is pretty dark, imagine the ideal room light for watching a movie on a traditional CRT screen (not a superbright LED).

- as per: ISO 3664 & ISO 12646

ambient:

"In order to be able to judge colors accurately on a monitor, you need a controlled environment as described in ISO 3664 and ISO 12646.

These standards demand for a dimmed surrounding with not more than 32 lux and a color temperature close to D50. "

I hope this helps 
thanks
neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer
[please do not use the reply button on a message within the thread, only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

Report · Sep 13, 2020

With all of the information provided and making lots of assumptions along the way, it does sound like the calibration device or software is not working properly. (Given the assumption that the monitor is not defective) Seems to be a situation where you must try all of the variables to see which helps.

I use an i1Pro2 and X-rite Profilemaker software and have had very good results with that. I have also used X-rite's ColorMunki and software with similar very good results. I've used Basic Color solutions as well that have also done an excellent job.

My CD/m2 monitor luminance recommendations are guidelines based on the ISO standard which is currently at 100 cd/m2 I don't agree with them I just use them as a guide. They were set low so all monitors could play within that standard, not for any other good reason. As I said the proper monitor luminance is set based on the ambient light. So for a brighter environment, you can even get to 600nits and still have a calibrated system.

ICC programmer and developer, Photographer, artist and color management expert, Print standards and process expert.

Report · Sep 16, 2020

One last thing before I order the i1Display Pro! When I start my computer, or more often when my computer comes out of hibernation the screen will go black up to 7 times before normalizing; is this an indication of a computer problem, or a problem with the Eizo software?

Report · Sep 16, 2020

The Eizo Colornavigator software seems to run through its hardware calibration settings (loading each) at times (e.g. when quit) - but I've not seen my Eizo go black repeatedly on awaking from sleep.

"Hibernation" seems to be a Windows term, mine's on a mac so that might be the difference.

Amyhow - I think that's a question for Eizo tech support.

I hope this helps 
thanks
neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer
[please do not use the reply button on a message within the thread, only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

Report · Sep 30, 2020

I also have EISO, but CX240. These monitors have a wide color gamut (99% AdobeRGB) and increased color bit depth (in some modes), as a result, they are almost impossible to accurately adjust using a colorimeter. You need a spectrophotometer like x-rite i1photo pro 2. I had exactly the same problem (with the difference that I could not set up my monitor with spyder 4), but as soon as I got x-rite i1 pro all problems were solved in 10 minutes.

Perhaps a cheaper option is to buy a simpler monitor with coverage in the sRGB region - your spyder can handle it just fine.

Report · Sep 30, 2020

You apparently had a defective colorimeter. Colorimeters work just fine with any of these monitors and it's what most people use. I have a CX 240 and a CG246 on one machine, and a CG2730 on another. I use the i1 Display Pro, which is a colorimeter, on all of them (with ColorNavigator 7).

I've tested the i1 extensively against the built-in sensor in the CG246, which is supposed to be extremely accurate. I can't distinguish them. But purely for consistency I use the i1 D3 on all the units. I've also tried/used a couple of Spyder colorimeters, all of which worked fine.

Report · Nov 23, 2020

I tried the i1Display Pro 2, and that gave me better results, but the darker areas of my pictures are still way too dark. I completely removed the ColorNavigator 7 software, and have downloaded the i1 Profiler software. I will be sending in test prints using the i1 Profiler software asap.

If these don't turn out, or at least, put me on the right path to where I know I can get good prints, I will be looking at another monitor.

It's a shame that calibrating seems to become so frustrating. With my previous NEC, I had it calibrated after 3 sets of test prints! First set I really noticed the difference. Second set was really close. Third set, I was happy. Ironically, I really didn't totally understand what was going on then, but I got it calibrated. (Match the print to screen, then edit the pictures again. [97-100% screen to print match]).

Report · Nov 23, 2020

Julius, up until now you haven't really told us exactly what your problem is, except that it's "wrong".

Now you say, "darker areas of my pictures are still way too dark.". So what I'd like to know is, what black point did you set in ColorNavigator? Out of the box, any monitor will give you much deeper blacks than you can ever get in a print. That in itself is usually a very obvious mismatch, and one that has a big impact on the whole tonality of the image.

A good print on high-grade glossy paper has a contrast range of maximum 300:1. For matte paper, or offset print, that ratio can drop to below 100:1.

That means that if your white point is 120 cd/m², the black point should be somewhere between 0.4 and 1.2 cd/m², to get a good screen to print match.

One more thing: There is a setting/checkbox in ColorNavigator called "match black level in tone curve". That sounds like it should be on, but in fact it should always be off. It's there for the benefit of applications that don't do black point compensation. But Photoshop (and most other applications) do that. If this box is checked, you get severe black clipping.

And to cover all the most likely causes for problems, there is also profile policies. Colornavigator by default will make version 4 and table-based (LUT) profiles. This should normally work well in Photoshop, but in some cases these profiles aren't handled correctly. The safe option is always to make version 2 and matrix-based profiles. Spectraview, for instance, does that by default, so that could account for the difference.

All in all, the chances of an Eizo Coloredge monitor being defective, are very slim. These units are thoroughly tested before shipping. As an Eizo user for many years, with several units in daily use, I have barely even heard about it. Not to say it can't happen, but look at your settings in Colornavigator first. It is pretty complex software with a lot of options.

Report · Nov 24, 2020

Hi juliust9149185 - Making prints to test display calibration

Your issue is that blacks are way darker on screen than in print dark areas are too dark, am I right that you mean you are losing detail in dark printed areas, the "shadow detail" is being clipped and printing as what looks lioke solid black?

you wrote:

I tried the i1Display Pro 2, and that gave me better results, but the darker areas of my pictures are still way too dark. I completely removed the ColorNavigator 7 software, and have downloaded the i1 Profiler software. I will be sending in test prints using the i1 Profiler software asap.

If these don't turn out, or at least, put me on the right path to where I know I can get good prints, I will be looking at another monitor.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to reprint to "test" a display calibration.

The display profile (and changes between display profiles) do not alter your image in any way.

BUT a change to calibration MAY encourage you to EDIT an image - then the image will be changed.

SO, unless you alter your images after recalibration theres no need to re-print.

I hope that make sense.

The process of setting up the screen to better match prints involves a good print and guided by that appearance - [if the print is accurate reprinting is not needed] a process of *iteration of calibration targets is followed until a match is reached. Please do read my note on illumination as regards this process.

[ *iteration = trying various targets ]

Also - are you using Photoshop's softproof capability?

With a good printer profile that should help too.

Also, be aware that when viewing a screen or a print, the ideal luminance level for each is paramount

AND those illumination levels are not the same

There is some advice from the ISO on this in ISO 3664 & ISO 12646

The ISO standard for monitor screen viewing demands

"a dimmed surrounding with not more than 32 lux"

think of the light level in a cinema or a little dimmer, to low a level to comfortably read a newspaper

BUT the print or proof needs to be viewed at a much higher light level:

ISO 12646.

"For a comparison of a proof and a soft proof, the viewing booth should have an illuminance value of 500 ± 125 lux and a color temperature of D50."

think of bright daylight - not direct sun of course

You'll understand from the above that a print cannot be held up next to a screen to be viewed in the ambient room light.

IF the room light is dim enough for correct screen viewing - then the print will appear way dark.

IF the room light is bright enough for print viewing then its way too bright for viewing the screen correctly.

Could that be influencing the issues you describe with near blacks being too dark in print so that shadow detail is lost??

Of course, if you are only making prints intended to be viewed in lighting that differs significantly from that in the ISO standard above (e.g. average household illumination, or the lighting in a particular gallery) then it's not unusual to make some adaptations to calibration with that in mind.

[but my clients generally adapt for such a situation by leaving black calibration target at min and making a standardised Photoshop "output levels" adjustment to a "print only" copy of the master file for every print, to some extent because any near black detail below about L15, whilst measurable by the profile making spectrophotometer, is likely invisible to any human eye on a print].

D. Fosses tip of adjusting Colornavigator's (or i1Profiler's) black target level would also help you to adapt for that.

By the way - a note on you dumping the ColorNavigator software.

One advantage a Coloredge screen has over a "normal" display is because of its hardware calibration - it's downloadable LUT.

AFAIK the i1Profiler software cannot address the hardware LUT of your Eizo Coloredge display. Someone please tell me if I am mistaken about that.

If you want to try a replacement for the ColorNavigator software then basICColor display 6 (free 14 day demo) can help with that as it is able to address the Coloredge LUT - also some prefer its calibration results, finding it more accurate than either ColorNavigator or i1Profiler. Here's some info about that https://www.colourmanagement.net/products/basiccolor/basiccolor-display-software/

I'd definitely try a ColorNavigator calibration - and either an output levels image adjustment (to a "print only" copy of your master file) or D. Fosse's tips on increasing the black calibration target first, before considering purchasing additional software though.

I hope this helps 
neil barstow, colourmanagement . net :: adobe forum volunteer

Report · Sep 30, 2020

Jazz-y,

I've purchased the i1 Display Pro, but I am trying to do some things with the lighting in my computer room at the moment. I'm hoping this resolves my issue, but I thank you for your input. That is an expensive unit and it out of my budget. If the i1Display Pro doesn't resolve my issue, I will be looking at a cheaper monitor. In addition, life has been complicated by my wife's 93 year old mother who is on her death bed. Needless to say, things are on hold as priorities have taken hold. I will give an update after I get a set of test prints back.

Thanks again to all who have given their input in an effort to resolve my calibration issue.

Report · Oct 01, 2020

Sorry to hear about your family issues.

I think we can save you some outlay and worry here.

I think you may simply have a Spyder issue.

You do NOT have to use a spectrophotometer to calibrate an Eizo screen. Eizo ship plenty of high end coloredge screens with a built in colorimeter and those are used in MANY professional imaging environments.

An X-Rite i1display pro should do the job fine.

[And even better if it was used with basICColor display 6 software, I can help you with that].

The idea that a spectrophotometer is essential to calibrate a wide gamut screen is just plain wrong.

Actually, in onscvreen deep blacks, it's general expert opinion that a spectrophotometer can sometimes be less accurate than a good colorimeter.

I hope this helps 
thanks
neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer
[please do not use the reply button on a message within the thread, only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

Report · Oct 01, 2020

Yes, in many ways you are right. The problem here is that spiders are not good colorimeters 🙂
Spectrophotometers do have large errors in deep blacks, but they rarely exceed standard values.

Report · Feb 19, 2021

Well, I am finally calibrated after over 1.5 years of frustration with Eizo, and their ColorNavigator7 software!

Some people here are going to argue what I have to say, but I have the prints through McKenna to prove it!

There are a few things to add before getting into the details. First, I found a Lux Meter which was better than guessing at the brightness for viewing my prints. This meter was calibrated at the factory, and can be sent in for recalibration. The experts at X-Rite gave me the Lux reading I should be viewing my pictures at.

I am now using the X-Rite i1Display Pro & i1Profiler software. I tried using the i1Display Pro with the ColorNavigator7 software, and that didn't work.

On the 3rd try with the i1Display Pro & i1Profiler software I am calibrated. (Note: with my older NEC, I was calibrated on my 3rd try with a Spyder 3 Elite.) What is unusual is that my brightness is at 45 cd/m2. The Contrast Ratio is set to Native.

I tried 3 different printing companies while using X-Rite's products: McKenna, Bay Photo, and Simply Color Lab. Yes, I softproofed when using Bay Photo and Simply Color Lab. McKenna says there is no need to softproof, and the owner's explanation sounded logical. I sent softproofed and unsoftproofed files to both Bay Photo and Simply Color Lab to see if there was a big difference...the difference was hard to detect. I am not saying one should not softproof, maybe it was the files I sent in, and different files may need to be softproofed more than others. Again, argue...I have the prints here to look at!

* Bay Photo printed a bit darker than McKenna, but it was noticeable. These prints could have been acceptable to some people.

* Simply Color Lab printed noticeably brighter which I would not have considered acceptable at all.

* For these 2 companies I'd have to calibrate at a different target to get acceptable prints.

There are several things here that I learned through this process.

1) All monitors are different when it comes to calibration as there is no set target. (I've talked to many people who own different makes of monitors. Some used X-Rite products, and some use Data Color products.)

2) There are different types of backlights being used on different makes of monitors according to X-Rite. I know this because one of X-Rite's support agents walked me through the calibration process, and he had to look up what type of backlight was being used on my Eizo CS2420 monitor to continue with the calibration process.

In the end, I still believe that there is something wrong with this Eizo monitor, and/or the ColorNavigator7 software. I cannot prove that there could be something wrong within my Windows 10 desktop computer, but after talking with a person associated with BenQ, I don't think that is an issue. He accessed my computer remotely and made some changes to my Nvidia video card which did make a difference...it was very obvious!

For those here, and at Eizo who say that there could be nothing wrong with this Eizo...they are foolish! There was no sign of damage to the box through delivery, but that doesn't mean anything. To say that electronic devices (computer monitor, etc.) are manufactured 100% without the possibility without defect is living in a fantasy world.

Argue anything I've presented here if you wish, but give me a logical and an emperical reason why I have to calibrate at 45 cd/m2. You can't because you don't have the computer, monitor, calibration hardware and software I am using in front of you! I have the emperical evidence in front of me! (Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.) I did contact Franz at basICColor display 6 to consult him with what was happening, and he was happy to give advice. When I told him that I was calibrated at 45 cd/m2 he couldn't believe it. His exact words were, "That is definitely quite odd. If I lived next door I would come over and take a look myself. I have no idea at this point but would just be happy that everything seems to work."

Cheers, Franz

I do thank everyone who gave me their thoughts in the process of trying to help me resolve my issue.

Julius Titak

Report · Feb 20, 2021

Julius

you're right that a calibration target of 45 cd/m2 seems crazy.

If a correct looking screen [matching accurate prints] read that low on cd/m2, I would suspect the measuring device or possibly the software [the colorimeter], not the screen hardware - all the screen hadware is doing is providing the requested luminance.

As my friend and colleague Franz at basICColor told you, if it seems right visually and matches prints then you're OK I guess. The actual cd/m2 number is unimportant.

And you're right there are no calibration targets which are right for everyone.

I hope this helps
neil barstow, colourmanagement net :: adobe forum volunteer
google me "neil barstow colourmanagement" for lots of free articles on colour management
[please only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

Optimising calibration target settings - eventually matching to a correctly illuminated certified proof, used as an unequivocal reference, is my approach.

I use this http://www.colourmanagement.net/products/icc-profile-verification-kit

Did you ever try the 14 day demo of the basICCColor display software? It would allow access to the Eizo's onboard LUT whereas I believe the Xrite SW is simply building a video card LUT.