Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Any opinions or reviews on the new Dell S2417DG?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any opinions or reviews on the new Dell S2417DG? - Page 153

post #1521 of 1553
I just purchased this monitor last week. The firs thing I did was download the ICC profile provided by MistaSparkul, as well as set my display brightness and contrast to his recommended settings. Doing those things got me closer to the desired 2.2 gamma according to the Lagom website.

However, after reading various posts from KGPrime, as well as looking at the color gradients he has posted, I noticed banding in all of them. Some worse than others. I took his advice and removed the ICC profile and did a factory reset on the monitor. Banding is totally gone. I think I'm content just rocking stock settings for this thing.
KOKAYNE DAWKiNS
(16 items)
 
  
Reply
KOKAYNE DAWKiNS
(16 items)
 
  
Reply
post #1522 of 1553
I reformatted Windows, reset the monitor to defaults, didn't touch any settings and the colors still look awful. Everything looks washed out and I see pixelation and banding in almost everything. If I go above 30 brightness, it's even worse.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k, 4.2ghz @ stock voltage asus gene-z evga 1060 sc gskill 2x4gb ddr3 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
samsung ssd 830 256gb w10 pro x64 dell s2417dg g-sync @ 165hz pok3r mx silent 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
zowie fk1 @ 400 dpi, 1000hz zowie ps-r, zowie camade fulla 2 dac, akg k7xx sony a5000, 20.1mp 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k, 4.2ghz @ stock voltage asus gene-z evga 1060 sc gskill 2x4gb ddr3 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
samsung ssd 830 256gb w10 pro x64 dell s2417dg g-sync @ 165hz pok3r mx silent 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
zowie fk1 @ 400 dpi, 1000hz zowie ps-r, zowie camade fulla 2 dac, akg k7xx sony a5000, 20.1mp 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1523 of 1553
Hi there. The thing that boders me the most, is the yellowinhs grays, tried many profiles.Any tips, how too remove the "nicotine" stain on the grays?
post #1524 of 1553
I explaine how to get this monitor looking great even if you do not own a calibrator on the previous page.

Do not use any one else profile, no matter what anyone says as it is virtually impossible it will not screw up more than it will fix. Every panel is different to some extent and when they put a sensor ( calibrator) on their screen, it is not going to be the same as putting it n yours. Therefore it is more likely to screw up your LUt than fix it. The best you could hope for is a better gamma curve. If you want that, you can make your own gamma curve without a "COLOR Profile" - Two different things really. You can do that without screwing up everything else in the process like you likely will attempting to use someone else "COLOR Profile".

To do this use Quick Gamma https://quickgamma.de/indexen.html a respected program to calibrate your monitor by eye that has been on the net for at least over a decade. Lagom themselves us the same gamma test pattern created by the same person that is used in Quick Gamma.

The point is IT'S THE GAMMA. And quite honestly you probably aren't going to get 2.2 by eye without starting to screw other things up. You can get it to about 2.1 and then use vertical viewing angle to your advantage. Looking at the screen from slightly lower and up you will see around 2.2 gamma.

Banding or obvious artifacts in Wallpapers or compressed images is NOT the monitors fault per se. It is the source material you are looking at. The compressed jpegs or youtube videos ect. You can actually make ANY monitor show these deficiencies that exist in the source material. You can only MASK it with a higher "darker" gamma setting. 2.2-2.3. Therefore sometimes the person making digital art or wallpapers, whatever, never even notice this compression artifacting it themselves if they made it with 2.2 gamma.

I brought my gamma to roughly 2.1. Which is in accordance with Adam of PC monitors.info findings that if you attempt to alter it too greatly towards 2.2 or 2.3, you will start getting errors in your gradients. And it therefore be making it, WORSE than even out of the box.
But with some work you can get it to look much less washed out than out of the box, and your gradients should be nearly perfect.

It is a great monitor, but, this is it's limitation. I wish it would hit 2.2-2.3 without errors as well. But overall, the COLOR ( again separate from gamma ) is really good and it can be dialed in to be pretty damn good for the money and having gsync 165hz 1440p ect certainly acceptable until something better for the price comes along.
Edited by KGPrime - 10/16/17 at 7:31pm
post #1525 of 1553
Quote:
Originally Posted by KGPrime View Post

I explaine how to get this monitor looking great even if you do not own a calibrator on the previous page.

Do not use any one else profile, no matter what anyone says as it is virtually impossible it will not screw up more than it will fix. Every panel is different to some extent and when they put a sensor ( calibrator) on their screen, it is not going to be the same as putting it n yours. Therefore it is more likely to screw up your LUt than fix it. The best you could hope for is a better gamma curve. If you want that, you can make your own gamma curve without a "COLOR Profile" - Two different things really. You can do that without screwing up everything else in the process like you likely will attempting to use someone else "COLOR Profile".

To do this use Quick Gamma https://quickgamma.de/indexen.html a respected program to calibrate your monitor by eye that has been on the net for at least over a decade. Lagom themselves us the same gamma test pattern created by the same person that is used in Quick Gamma.

The point is IT'S THE GAMMA. And quite honestly you probably aren't going to get 2.2 by eye without starting to screw other things up. You can get it to about 2.1 and then use vertical viewing angle to your advantage. Looking at the screen from slightly lower and up you will see around 2.2 gamma.

Banding or obvious artifacts in Wallpapers or compressed images is NOT the monitors fault per se. It is the source material you are looking at. The compressed jpegs or youtube videos ect. You can actually make ANY monitor show these deficiencies that exist in the source material. You can only MASK it with a higher "darker" gamma setting. 2.2-2.3. Therefore sometimes the person making digital art or wallpapers, whatever, never even notice this compression artifacting it themselves if they made it with 2.2 gamma.

I brought my gamma to roughly 2.1. Which is in accordance with Adam of PC monitors.info findings that if you attempt to alter it too greatly towards 2.2 or 2.3, you will start getting errors in your gradients. And it therefore be making it, WORSE than even out of the box.
But with some work you can get it to look much less washed out than out of the box, and your gradients should be nearly perfect.

It is a great monitor, but, this is it's limitation. I wish it would hit 2.2-2.3 without errors as well. But overall, the COLOR ( again separate from gamma ) is really good and it can be dialed in to be pretty damn good for the money and having gsync 165hz 1440p ect certainly acceptable until something better for the price comes along.

I don't get it. All that tool lets you do is adjust the gamma? Why would I download that when I can do the exact same thing in the Windows display calibration tool?

And the image I linked looks fine on a cheap $50 tablet and an iPad, so it's not compression.

Edit: Just tried the tool and it looks even worse. I get better results using the built-in tool in Windows to adjust the gamma, but still get weird looking pixel distortion/banding on the image linked regardless.
Edited by gene-z - 10/17/17 at 12:12pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k, 4.2ghz @ stock voltage asus gene-z evga 1060 sc gskill 2x4gb ddr3 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
samsung ssd 830 256gb w10 pro x64 dell s2417dg g-sync @ 165hz pok3r mx silent 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
zowie fk1 @ 400 dpi, 1000hz zowie ps-r, zowie camade fulla 2 dac, akg k7xx sony a5000, 20.1mp 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k, 4.2ghz @ stock voltage asus gene-z evga 1060 sc gskill 2x4gb ddr3 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
samsung ssd 830 256gb w10 pro x64 dell s2417dg g-sync @ 165hz pok3r mx silent 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
zowie fk1 @ 400 dpi, 1000hz zowie ps-r, zowie camade fulla 2 dac, akg k7xx sony a5000, 20.1mp 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1526 of 1553
Quote:
Originally Posted by gene-z View Post

I don't get it. All that tool lets you do is adjust the gamma? Why would I download that when I can do the exact same thing in the Windows display calibration tool?

And the image I linked looks fine on a cheap $50 tablet and an iPad, so it's not compression.

Edit: Just tried the tool and it looks even worse. I get better results using the built-in tool in Windows to adjust the gamma, but still get weird looking pixel distortion/banding on the image linked regardless.

Windows calibration tool has terrible images to adjust the gamma with. Quick gamma is much better and it works excellent once you figure out how to use it.

Again as i already laid out previously, and thoroughly, Ideally you should use the larger downloadable only non sRGB embedded gamma image from Lagom. The one that looks the same one used in Quick Gamma, because it is just bigger and easier to read. The more you use it eventually you will start to get the idea and feel for it.

It's also much better than Windows calibration tool because you can make a gamma profile and see what's going on in real time right on your desktop or across multiple images, or windows UI, your task bar ect, Things you know what they are supposed to look like. You can use perhaps an abnormally bad compressed image if you want just to see how much it is masking. For example this one. https://i.imgur.com/aARjBza.jpg Even at it's best you should still see some pixelation in this image if you are viewing the image dead straight on ( See bottom of post for Viewing Angle Requirements, and then this image looks nearly perfect ).

When you press "ok" Quick Gamma automatically installs the profile for you, And if it needs a small tweak you can load up the program again and it will retain the RGB "numbers" / settings you have just last used, use a txt file and keep notes. The tool is good. But only as good as the user. The Numbers Don't mean anything. They are not the "Gamma" you are setting, they are offsets to whatever your gamma actually is. So pay not real attention to that, pay attention to the charts and images you will be using. Which SHOULD include all the gradients i posted. If you are not using ALL of this stuff together, you aren't doing it thoroughly and you will never get it a good as it can be.
So that's why Windows Calibration tool is crap.

You can also make a dozen .icc gamma profiles and switch between them all in windows color management and see exactly what it is doing and compare them. Though the effect is subtle. and you really need to know what you are looking at. If you don't understand what you are doing, then you are aimlessly flailing and never getting anything accomplished going in circles.

Also very important. When you do this. DO NOT have any other custom profiles loaded. Have Windows default sRGB profile loaded, which is basically like nothing at all, or else you are just "adding" too the last profile you loaded and then when you press "ok" It installs the new one, unloads the other, and now you are looking at something different.

I already posted all this stuff already in that huge post with step by step instruction, wasting my time. I can only assume you read it already and followed those directions right..lel...

Anyway it takes some time and patience, and if you think you are going to whip it up in Windows Calibration tool perfectly you are kidding yourself. Btw i been using Quick Gamma here and there for like over a decade and it still took me a few nights to get it right. So don't expect to do it in one try, or even multiple times till you get it exactly right.

If you fix the gamma the monitor looks great. and once you get it right you won't see any banding or artifacts unless the source is absolutely terrible. OR, or you didn't get it right.

The final part of it is how you view the monitor. It is basically part of using this monitor. And that is viewing the panel from slightly below. ( if you want the darker 2.2 gamma look)
Like if you game and lean back in your chair, your eye height should about at the bottom third of the panel. About 3 inches up from the bottom of the screen. You want to tweak the angle back ever so slightly maybe 1 degree, and have the height just right, and you will have about 2.2 gamma when you lean/sit back. If you like to sit straight at it, you will have about 2.1 gamma, which is still ok. really. This variance is fine for me. I chill in games and get 2.2 and more saturation and when i work in photoshop or whatever i sit up get 2.1 too see more dark detail.

To help you set your monitor angle you can *should" use the same Lagom gamma chart to help you get your monitor height and angle set to your seating. And it IS the source images that you use, some are worse than others and a low gamma will show this more. Your cheapo tablet and Iphone probably have at least 2.2 gamma if not even higher. Actual color is mostly irrelevant in this scenario. It's not, but it is, because the color is fine on the monitor. Color and Gamma being two different things. When you say the color is bad, what you are seeing as bad is the gamma. Not the value of rgb. Unless your monitor has some very serious issue different than everyone else that is complaining about this very same thing and using other peoples "COLOR" profiles to screw up their color even more.

Why do i say the angle and height is so important?
Because since on this monitor the gamma out of the box is really low, about 1.8. What that does is make the screen seem like it has less of a dark crush at the top than say another TN panel that has actual 2.2 gamma measured at the center. Or has a 2.2 OSD setting. So overall it seems like the panel has less of that contrast shift top to bottom, depending on the colors on your screen. But looks more washed out. On a 2.2 Gamma setting TN panel, if you have a Grey or Dark Browser skin for example. You will see that the address bar for example is crushed if it is dark grey, like mine is. The default gamma makes this hardly noticeable. But, then the bottom like my task bar is more washed out. Which i suspect they might have even done on purpose. As they also like to include those crap FPS settings and Dark Stabilizer ect on gaming monitors so they seem to think that gamers don't want contrast at all.

So what happens when you get closer to 2.2 on this panel then? Right. The top area is more crushed.

And by that is exactly how i know just by looking at it that it is closer to 2.2 gamma as when it's set up right and i lean back like that ( besides the fact the gamma charts proves it ) as that's what a tn panel with 2.2 gamma looks like on my dark skinned browser. My previous TN panel DID have a 2.2 gamma setting in it's OSD.

Willing to help, but i posted how to use it and set it up in that big post or was it 2 posts now, with all the gradients ect.. If you have any questions i didn't already cover exhaustively then ask. But if you didn't read any of it, then it's on you. Buy a calibrator, or new monitor.
Edited by KGPrime - 10/18/17 at 2:34am
post #1527 of 1553
Well, i tried everything.
I have good colors, even good whites after many tries. The real problem is the grays. Grays have a always yellow light tint, even the osd menu is yellowish.
Here is the comparison between a monitor with 8 years and this one.

Is this normal?
IMG_20171017_153928.jpg 3424k .jpg file IMG_20171017_153729.jpg 4935k .jpg file
Edited by BeLish - 10/18/17 at 7:53am
post #1528 of 1553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeLish View Post

Well, i tried everything.
I have good colors, even good whites after many tries. The real problem is the grays. Grays have a always yellow light tint, even the osd menu is yellowish.
Here is the comparison between a monitor with 8 years and this one.

Is this normal?
IMG_20171017_153928.jpg 3424k .jpg file IMG_20171017_153729.jpg 4935k .jpg file

I suspect your camera exaggerates both monitors. But 3ds Max 2015-2017 default dark UI is brownish grey, not blue, so your left monitor appears to be WAY out of whack and much too blue. So you are just used to that. True greys, in the lower mid ranges, may seem to the eye slightly more brown over blue. I mean ever so slightly. You can prefer a cooler white point. But i think no where near as much as on the monitor on the left.

That yellow sheen looks to be normal off angle Tn vignetting, because you took the pic at an angle and perhaps exaggerated by your camera. So unless you have a bad panel with excessive uniformity issues..a head on pic of the Dell would be better to asses it, but camera pics are hard to capture of monitors regardless.

As far as "slight:" yellowing around the edges /sides, this is typical for a tn panel, it's more obvious to see on pure white or lighter greys, or mid light blues if you look for it, or are just not used to a Tn panel. You can push the monitor back so the angle to your eye isn't so severe and it will alleviate it, but may not eliminate it entirely to your eyes. It still shouldn't be horribly bad though.

I'm not saying you don't have some yellowing issue, It's just not a good pic to be able to make an assumption.

Without taking 20 pictures trying to get a perfect image and color on my phone camera.the actual screen looks more uniform/bolder, but this is close. Compare that to your monitor on the left!


3DSMax looks the same as it did on my last Tn panel as well as my Sony Fw900 crts, which were obviously very good. Same with the Netflix background.

Here is a purposely off angle shot to compare against for the yellowing. I will attempt to capture the worst case scenario.

Edited by KGPrime - 10/18/17 at 10:01am
post #1529 of 1553
Around the edges it's fine, dont have any dead pixels and colors are fine. I compared the look between my phone and the two monitors...it is way more dramatic than it looks, it's true.
This is wierd, because if i'm gaming i cant sense anything is out of balance, but if i watch a netflix movie or use bsplayer o vlc, the color seems so strange, even if a check dynamic range to Full on nvidia video color settings.
With your calibration settings, is your osd painel slightly yellow? Or is pure white? Do you use Full: Output dynamic range?
Edited by BeLish - 10/18/17 at 12:19pm
post #1530 of 1553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeLish View Post

Around the edges it's fine, dont have any dead pixels and colors are fine. I compared the look between my phone and the two monitors...it is way more dramatic than it looks, it's true.
This is wierd, because if i'm gaming i cant sense anything is out of balance, but if i watch a netflix movie or use bsplayer o vlc, the color seems so strange, even if a check dynamic range to Full on nvidia video color settings.
With your calibration settings, is your osd painel slightly yellow? Or is pure white? Do you use Full: Output dynamic range?

Full range yes. My osd is white. Again if you are sitting too close to the monitor it will seem yellowish a little. But when you ask me a question like that or i am checking "color" i move my head to look at the object directly to check the actual color because i know this limitation, and it's pure white, or super light grey, well it's partially transparent actually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Any opinions or reviews on the new Dell S2417DG?