Dynatran AT-A105T; copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

I was looking for an inexpensive carbon fiber tripod as a replacement for a light duty Velbon Chaser EFL-4. After some research I came across the Dynatran AT-A105T at Amvona (no longer in business).

The total price, including shipping, for a carbon fiber tripod that could support up to 22 pounds was $114 (Amvona daily deal). I was a little skeptical though I decided to take the risk and order one after reading this review that was posted back in 2007. (Unfortunately one needs to be registered at the forum where the review appears in order to view the author’s image attachments though it’s worth the effort as the photo comparisons of the breakdown of the three tripods are eye-opening.)

The author of the review provided a comparison of the features of the Dynatran to the Benro and Gitzo tripods as shown below:

I received the Dynatran on February 8th and so far I couldn’t be more pleased. The Dynatran offers far more stability, height and load capacity than my older Velbon and does so with only a little over a pound in increased weight.

Top plate; copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

I would have preferred that the top mounting plate was made of aluminum instead of plastic as shown above though when tightened down to the column (constructed of aluminum, not carbon fiber), it seemed to provide a solid base.The three set screws in the plate used to further secure the head are made of a low quality metal. One was easily damaged (I stripped the allen socket in the screw) as it was difficult to turn. (I ended up replacing the three set screws with M6-1, 10mm metric ones and purchasing a metric allen wrench as well.) I may find someone to machine an aluminum base plate in the future as the plastic one is easily removed.

Aluminum column plate (top); copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

Aluminum column plate (bottom); copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

I found that someone and for the price of one of my prints, I am now a proud owner of a beautifully machined aluminum top plate for my tripod column. At 2 and 3/4 inches in diameter, it is slightly larger than the original and eliminates the separate original plastic column collar by incorporating the collar into its design. If you have an interest in the creator’s other handiwork in machining, you can view his beautifully handcrafted LED flashlights at his web site.

Unlike the author in the review article, I found the locking mechanism for the column to be adequate. There can be a bit of column rotation if the lock isn’t tightened sufficiently due to the channel in the column though I didn’t find this to be a major problem. I believe Dynatran changed their design since 2007 as the compression sleeve is now longer and almost an exact copy of the Benro design.

The bubble level was a nice feature along with the hook at the end of the column where added weight can be attached if more stability is needed in windy conditions. The small compass mounted on the same surface as the bubble level will probably end up being a hood ornament.

Leg locks; copyright © 2010, Richard Lovison

I found that the G-lock mechanisms on the legs needed to be tightened down firmly to reduce any wobble in the legs, especially at the smallest leg diameter extensions. Again, I didn’t find this to be a problem though they probably don’t operate as precisely or with the same amount of twist as those found on the Gitzo or Benro.

Tripod carrying case; copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

The included carrying case was an added bonus. It is well constructed with ample padding. Some reviewers indicated that the bag had an odor though mine was perfectly fine. However, there was a slight odor coming from the tripod upon removing it from its plastic bag… a bit of an oil smell that seemed to be emanating from the rubber on the leg locks. This dissipated after a day or so.

I wish there was a bit more room in the bag as it seemed to be designed to hold the tripod and a ball head and not the 3-way pan head that I currently have mounted. This might not be a problem in the future as I may replace the pan head with a quality ball head that will support more weight.

Dynatran with Velbon 3-way pan head; copyright © reserved 2010, Richard Lovison

Overall, I feel the Dyntran AT-A105T is a great value at $114. I have never handled the Benro or Gitzo models though I can probably safely assume they are machined to more precise specs and the locking mechanisms most likely have a nicer feel to them though I could put the difference in price to far better use. Even though I can appreciate the craftsmanship of finely made hardware, my tripod just needs to be stable and able to endure medium level usage. The Dynatran appears to be well made and I don‘t foresee any problems down the road.

I hope I’m not confusing my readers due to the three articles that preceded this one that focused on the calibration of the Dell 2209WA. Quality information on monitor calibration, print viewing conditions and color management isn’t all that easy to find on the web and very few good books are written on the subject. What little I’ve found is often dated and usually brings up more questions than answers. In any case, I take the knowledge I gather and experiment on my own. Hopefully my documented journey of discovery with its mistakes and triumphs will help others in their explorations.

Up until now, I have used an Ott-Lite TrueColor task lamp for viewing prints made on an Epson R1900 using icc printer profiles from Epson and Red River for the different paper surfaces that I use. There was a good match between the print viewed under this light source and the image viewed on the Dell 2209WA calibrated at 6500K though there were many times when the print just didn’t seem right or looked slightly more cyan than the monitor. From what I know now this was probably due to the color temperature of the Ott-Lite being around 5500K and the fact that it was a fluorescent light source, a source noted for having spikes in its spectrum.

I recently came across an article on the web offering advice on setting up a working space for digital color imaging and discovered that a D50 (5000K) light source was recommended for proofing. The D50 standard was chosen as it appears color neutral to the human eye and is close to the color temperature of most homes and offices that are illuminated with a combination of sunlight and tungsten or fluorescent. A SoLux lamp with a halogen 4700K bulb meets this requirement. So I did a search and bought a SoLux task lamp from a seller on eBay at a great price of $55 — the seller no longer stocks them and they are getting more difficult to find on eBay. Tailored Lighting sells two different clamp-on fixtures that are reasonably priced. If you purchase one, don’t bother with the diffuser.

SoLux Task Lamp Model 19103

It’s extremely well made and came with a 50 watt, 36 degree, 4700K SoLux halogen bulb.

SoLux MR-16 Halogen

The SoLux bulbs are highly recommended by many professional photographers as the light of choice for viewing prints in a digital imaging environment. This is due to the spectrum of the lamp being a close match to daylight as shown in the image below.

Spectral Power Distribution Curves

You may find a less expensive alternative by finding a lamp at a local lamp or office supply store that will take a MR-16 type bulb as the SoLux halogen bulbs can be purchased separately.

When I first viewed a print under the SoLux lamp it appeared warmer than the monitor image. A tech at Tailored Lighting suggested I remove the diffused glass element in front of the halogen bulb that came with the lamp. This brought the match closer though the print still appeared slightly warmer. Then I read that some photographers felt the monitor needed to be slightly warmer than the standard of 6500K to get a good print match with a D50 viewing lamp… somewhere closer to 6000K.

From previous experiments I discovered that the native color temperature of the 2209WA with its default settings (RGB settings at 100%) is warmer than 6500K. So I set the Spyder2Pro initial calibration settings to native 2.2 and chose a measured luminance and aimed for a 140cd/m² white point. To achieve this I ended up having my contrast at 73% (this was needed to flatten the gamma curve produced in Colorimetre HCFR) and my brightness at 17%.

Note: Please don’t assume you can use my calibration settings or even my profile if I provided it and hope to achieve the same results. My settings are only provided here as a reference. You need to calibrate your own system with a colorimeter and produce your own profile based on your particular 2209WA and your video card.

After checking my results in Colorimetre HCFR, my color temperature was shown to be slightly higher than 6000K. The gamma and luminance curves looked fine. The match between the image on the monitor and the print viewed under the SoLux bulb was outstanding. The SoLux bulb was a big improvement over the Ott-Lite.

At this point you might be wondering why a match occurs between a print viewed under a D50 light source and an image on a monitor calibrated at 6000K when the color temperatures of the two sources differ. As I understand it, the brain “sees” an image on a monitor (emitted light) differently than it “sees” a print viewed with reflected light. A slightly bluer or colder light from the monitor makes up for this difference and thus one can then get a good color match. And I’ll bet the color temperature difference needed is probably not the same for everyone. Others may require a warmer color temperature for the monitor than I have to get a match while others may require a cooler temperature. There doesn’t seem to be a solution that works for everyone. And this is probably because not everyone perceives color in exactly the same way.

I currently don’t have ideal conditions in my “digital darkroom”… the walls and counter space are not neutral grays and the ambient light is not consistent during the day though the SoLux bulb provides the only ambient light at night. This setup works for me at the moment though I know it can be improved upon. One person wrote that the degree of color match between print and monitor is directly related to how much money you are willing to spend. So far that bit of info in my search for knowledge on color management holds the most truth.

Dell 2209WAf

After a little less than two years of using a TN type panel LCD (Samsung 226BW) for photo editing, I finally made the switch to an IPS type panel. For all of you who are unfamiliar with the difference, an IPS type panel provides much wider viewing angles and is a true 8 bit panel as opposed to 6 bit. Thus, colors are more accurate and both color and brightness will remain uniform from the top of the screen to the bottom, even when slightly shifting your viewing angle by moving around in your chair. These were qualities inherent in the CRT that are now luxuries and difficult to find qualities in a reasonably priced LCD. Unfortunately, these are features that are a must have for a digital photographer or graphic artist.

So it seems after missing out on the deal of the century back in January of 2009 when Dell was selling the 2209WA for just over $200, I stumbled across one on eBay for $299. I’ve received conflicting reports from Dell… one indicating that this model has been discontinued and one indicating they are behind in stock and will replenish some time in September, 2009. I decided not to wait until September to see if Dell would re-stock the 2209WA and purchased one of the few appearing on eBay.

Setup

The 2209WA was a breeze to set up. The stand that is heavily constructed and allows the monitor to be raised, lowered, tilted, swiveled and rotated 90 degrees to portrait mode, needs to be attached. This was accomplished both easily and securely.

The monitor allows for both DVI and VGA hook up (both cables provided). This is a great feature as I run two computers and I can easily switch between the two by pushing the input source button. Four USB ports are part of the monitor enclosure (one can always use extras) though they are powered off when the monitor is powered down.

Once the monitor was connected to my main computer I booted and installed the driver from the included cdrom. I then set the resolution to 1680×1050 at 32 bit color from the WinXP display properties window.

All the control functions of the monitor are accessed at the lower right corner of the screen.

Dell 2209WAf control buttons

1 – Brightness and Contrast

2 – Auto Adjust

3 – Input Source

4 – Menu

5 – Power

All the options in the menu are self explanatory and well laid out. One added plus is that when the menu is activated, it appears in the lower right hand corner of the screen, far away from any calibration sensors instead of directly in the middle of the screen. It makes calibrating with the Spyder less of a problem as the menu doesn’t get hidden behind the colorimeter.

Calibration

The 2209WA has received very high reviews on the internet including this one at PRAD. After using their recommended contrast and brightness settings of 75% and 10% respectfully, I proceeded with a Spyder 2 calibration.

After running through the LCD tests found here, all I can say is wow! For $299, this inexpensive eIPS panel is a gem. I was able to distinguish all 32 bands in each of the different colors in the contrast test, left the sharpness at 50 even though the tests indicated 40 was the better choice, the black level and white saturation tests were superb, the viewing angle test was excellent with the lettering blending in with the background across the entire screen (except for a very, very slight discrepancy in the upper left corner) and the color uniformity was very good with the purplish screen showing only slight variations.

After my calibrations, I checked my results in more detail using the freely available software, Colorimetre HCFR, along with my Spyder 2.

Note: A very good tutorial written in English on Colorimetre HCFR can be found here. The article’s primary focus is on calibrating home theater type displays though the information can be applied to computer monitors as well.

HCFR Test Results 1

With my brightness set at 10%, contrast at 75% and RGB values of 94, 98 and 99 respectfully, I achieved an illumination of 139.62 cd/m² and a contrast ratio of 324:1. The CIE chart above shows the 2209WA color space outlined in white with the sRGB color space outlined in black for comparison.

Note as of 1/1/2010: I now use an Eye One Display 2 for monitor profiling and set my white point to 5800K. With RGB values of 100, 98 and 92 respectfully, brightness at 9 and contrast at 75 I get a white luminance of 120 cd/m², black luminance of 0.2 cd/m² and a contrast ration of 600:1. It seems not all colorimeters are created equal.

HCFR Test Results - Gamma

The gamma was shown to be quite accurate (yellow line) compared to the reference line

HCFR Test Results - Color Temperature

HCFR Test Results - Luminance Curve

while the color temperature and luminance curves were darn near perfect as well.

I’ve only owned the 2209WA for a couple of days and I’m not aware of long term usage issues though if you are looking for an inexpensive 22″ wide screen IPS type panel LCD with excellent performance, this is the one. With a three year warranty from Dell, I don’t believe you can go wrong.

Addendum: This article has been very popular as it seems there are many interested in the qualities of the 2209WA. If anyone requires more information or has questions, you can reach me via the “contact me” option at the top of the page or by using the comments section. I’ll do my best to help out in any way I can.

Introduction:

I purchased the 226BW from Newegg for $278 after rebate as a replacement for an 8 year old Optiquest V95 19 inch CRT. I was reluctant to change to an LCD panel after doing a bit of research as many felt LCDs were inferior to CRTs. Time marches on and whether to change or not wasn’t a realistic option as CRTs are getting quite difficult to find. So I chose a medium priced panel in a wide format based on a recommendation from another user and online reviews.

Samsung 226BW TN panel

Specs:

Monitor Size: 22in.

Viewable Size (inches): 22.0

Horizontal Viewing Angle (degrees): 160

Vertical Viewing Angle (degrees): 160

Maximum Resolution: 1680 x 1050 75Hz

Brightness/Luminance: (cd/m2)300

Contrast Ratio: 3000:1

Response Time: 2ms

Energy Star Compliant

16.7 million display colors

Horizontal Frequency Range: 30kHZ – 81kHZ

Vertical Frequency Range: 56Hz – 75Hz

15-pin mini d-sub VGA connector

DVI-D (DVI Digital) connector

Case Color: Black

Weight (lbs): 10.8

Width (inches): 20.3

Height (inches): 16.6

Depth (inches): 8.6

Power Consumption: 55W

DVI(HDCP)

Contents: Monitor & Simple Stand, Quick Setup Guide, Warranty Card, User’s Guide, Monitor Driver, Power cord, D-sub Cable, DVI Cable

Parts Warranty: 3 years

Labor Warranty: 3 years

Setup:

The 226BW was a breeze to set up. I was happy to discover that my package came with both the DVI and d-sub VGA connectors. I chose the DVI to connect to an ATI graphics card in a PC running Windows XP Pro. I powered the computer down, switched monitors and rebooted. When prompted I loaded the cdrom and installed just the 226BW driver. At the desktop I navigated to the properties window and changed the screen resolution to 1680×1050 pixels, 32 bit. I never installed the included software, Natural Color and Magic Tune, as I felt they wouldn’t be needed in an image processing environment.

Pros:

• The onscreen Menu is easily accessible from buttons located at the bottom of the display.

• The 226BW is easily profiled. I used an inexpensive ColorVision Spyder 2 with the contrast set to 50 and the brightness set to 89. With the Spyder 2 one has to set the contrast and brightness manually and I was confused as to what settings to start with as the default settings of 75 and 100 seemed a bit extreme. The settings I used came as recommendations from the this website. Using the LCD tests found here, I discovered I achieved very good results with those settings.

• Using the Ilford profile for Ilford Galerie Classic Paper I found that my screen image and print have a very close match.

• I liked the quality of the colors and the deepness of the blacks.

• No dead pixels.

• The horizontal viewing angle for image editing is quite acceptable in my opinion.

• The 226BW takes up far less desk space than my 19” CRT while offering the same visual height (11 ¾”) and a wide view with a true width of 18 3/4”.

Cons:

• The height of the monitor cannot be adjusted. One can only tilt it up or down or swivel from right to left. Being tall, I found this to be a small problem at my work desk. I solved it by building a small wooden base 6 inches in height. This places the middle of the screen at eye level while sitting comfortably and keeps the screen face at a 90 degree angle to my line of sight.

• The 226BW is a TN type panel and because of this, the vertical viewing angle is very small, much smaller than advertised in my opinion. I get an area one third the height of the screen in the middle with a gamma of 2.2. The top third is darker and the bottom third brighter. This means if you view an image spanning the full height of the screen you will get a variance in contrast and brightness across the image. Because of this I try to minimize the effect by doing a final check of an image at a reduced scale (around 25% in CS2) before I send it to the printer. I’ve read that S-IPS or S-PVA panels have wider vertical viewing angles though I’ve never compared them to know how big the improvement is. The small vertical viewing angle was the biggest disappointment.

• There is a very small amount of backlight bleed along the edges. I haven’t found this to be much of a problem though some complained about it when viewing DVDs.