Eizo Raises the Bar with the New 4K 31 Inch Monitor Covering 99% of AdobeRGB

Eizo monitors are known by many as being among the top of the line monitors, that come with a premium price tag. With the announcement of the ColorEdge CG318-4K, Eizo is hoping to raise the bar even further, pushing out 4K resolutions in a 31.1" screen with built in self color calibration systems, and perhaps most importantly, 99% coverage of the AdobeRGB color spectrum.

The new ColorEdge CG318-4K boasts DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) resolution, in a 31.1" screen, with some impressive color statistics. The wide-gamut behemoth is able to reproduce nearly the entire DCI-P3 color standard used in digital cinema (98%), all while covering 100% of Rec. 709, EBU, and SMPTE-C standards used in video. As a nod to the professional photographer, the ColorEdge CG318-4K also sports 100% of sRGB and 99% of AdobeRGB color-spaces.

The ColorEdge CG318-4K also contains SelfCalibration software and hardware built into the system, allowing you to color calibrate the monitor without the use of a Datacolor or X-Rite system. With the use of their native ColorNavigator system, Eizo promises full brightness and color calibration in 30 seconds or less - with uniformity in color and brightness from corner to corner.

Using 10-bit image display, the ColorEdge CG318-4K is able to produce an astounding one billion colors simultaneously, which is 64 times as many colors as you'd get from a traditional 8-bit display. Worth noting though, to take advantage of this higher bit format, you must also be equipped with a graphics board allowing for 10-bit support, as well as 10-bit supported software. Pairing that with a 1,500:1 contrast ratio and 149 ppi, this monitor is looking to be the absolute best when it comes to accuracy and quality.


The ColorEdge CG318-4K also comes with a carrying handle built in, cause the amount of money you'd spend on this monitor will ensure that you never want to leave it from your sights. The ColorEdge CG318-4K is expected to be available for purchase sometime in April 2015 for around US $4,600.


[via Eizo Monitors]

Zach Sutton's picture

Zach Sutton is an award-winning and internationally published commercial and headshot photographer based out of Los Angeles, CA. His work highlights environmental portraiture, blending landscapes and scenes with portrait photography. Zach writes for various publications on the topic of photography and retouching.

Log in or register to post comments

Seems niche, no? A bit out of reach for the wedding photographer and not at the same level as a pro monitor youd find in an editing house. Makes sense with how things are moving i suppose.

You'll find that those monitors they use in editing houses are more often than not, Eizo monitors. Eizo monitors are known as being the best monitors in the business...

Eizo and NEC are the best of them all ..... ... pro monitors in editing house ;-)

Indeed - the Eizo CG-series are among the best monitors available. NEC SpectraView is also pretty damn good.

Did they all give up on $20k Sonys?

As I read this on my uncalibrated Acer 21.5" budget monitor..

Pricy! Would be curious to see one in person, thanks for the post.

I know this is probably going to sound crazy to most of you here, but you shouldn't be working in AdobeRGB colorspace. It is an artificial space that doesn't exist anywhere in the "real world" of web, print, and archival, gallery-quality multi-ink printers or Lambda/Lightjet photographic printers. So many times I have to deal with clients that freak out when the retouching I do (shot by other people) in AdobeRGB space goes to shìt when it's converted to their ultimate destinations, sRGB or CMYK. This is especially problematic when the client is at the shoot and sees their products(s) on the monitor looking so pretty in AdobeRGB, and sign-off on what they see.

So do yourselves a favor. Set your cameras to sRGB and shoot and retouch in it. If you're shooting a product for print and the client is at the shoot, convert the file to CMYK space RIGHT THERE and let them see what it's ultimately going to look like. You'll thank me for it.

The only real advantage I see this monitor is it's 10-bit luminosity range. THAT is useful, but calibrate the monitor to sRGB. Really.

It's not delivering the files in AdobeRGB that is the purpose of this monitor, the purpose lies in it being able to identify the AdobeRGB colorspace, which contains significantly more colors than sRGB. When you're printing, that is a big deal...

Most commercial clients with an ad agency in place will specifically request AdobeRGB, as they have monitors like this one that can accurately identify the colors. High quality printing can capture AdobeRGB, so if you're shooting in sRGB, you're potentially missing out on those colors. Telling people to shoot in sRGB is like telling people to shoot a gun using only buckshot. Sure, it'll do the job....but it'll also tear the shit out of what you're shooting at.

There is nothing wrong with precision.

High quality printing CANNOT capture AdobeRGB, not by any stretch of the imagination. Yes I know clients will request files in AdobeRGB colorspace, but it means jack when their final destination is web or print. I've dealt with this issue for years, clients bitching why the image that looks so wonderful on their calibrated AdobeRGB monitors look like shìt on the web or the press proof returns. You'll be surprise how many of them will insist nonetheless on making the product shots match the color on their precious calibrated AdobeRGB monitors. They hem and haw until reality finally bites them hard.

It's a frustrating, time-consuming and unnecessary situation. Not all clients are like that, fortunately. Some have been around long enough to know better. Others, not.

AdobeRGB is an artificial colorspace. It doesn't exist anywhere in the real world we deal with. The only place it exists is on your calibrated monitor.

Well I was curious of this myself so I compared the colorspace of my calibrated NEC PA2721 to that of a custom profile for Ilford Smooth Pearl printed on a Canon Pro-1. Parts of the colorspace taken from the printer exceed even the limit of what my professional grade monitor can reproduce so I fail to see your argument.

Any colorspace will have areas that go outside the space, even SWOP. The point is that you should be working in the colorspace of your target destination. If you're primarily printing to to your Canon printer, you should be using your printer's colorspace profile to do your color corrections and retouching, not AdobeRGB..

I have several issues with Spy's comment, but I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on color gamuts. The biggest issue is that shooting in sRGB or AdobeRGB only applies if you're shooting in JPEG.

Not at all, any file, JPEG, TIFF, PSD,can have any colorspace applied. I work in one studio where the CMYK files use a GraLAB profile instead of SWOP. So I don't get the point of your comment.

You said "set your cameras to sRGB" . . . if you're shooting in RAW the colorspace isn't part of the file so that doesn't make any sense. The only time the colorspace settings in the camera apply is when you capture in JPEG. Otherwise you choose the color space in RAW conversion.

The reason I said that is because it will default to that colorspace setting when importing in your raw processor (unless you've set it to force to a given colorspace), so when you export you will already be set to sRGB by default.

Actually, while they can't reproduce the entire colorspace, even the most basic ink jet printers can print some colors outside the sRGB color space. By using sRGB files you're losing some of those saturated colors that the printer could have displayed.

Absolutely! Sure, the printers can't deliver the whole AdobeRGB spectrum, but they sure can deliver more than sRGB.
I'm editing everything in ProPhoto RGB. Using the best color space for future proofing the files.

My point is that you should be working in the colorspace of your target destination. For most professional work, that will be SWOP or sRGB. If you have a particular printer you print to exclusively, you should be working in that printer's colorspace, which you can obtain in various ways. Working and retouching in AdobeRGB and then dumping to SWOP or sRGB for the web is an exercise in frustration.

Remember you can assign any profile any time to any image file. Ideally you should have (for instance) two separate files created from your raw data if your target destinations are web and print. Either that or assign priority to one. In one studio I work in, that priority is SWOP, and sRGB falls where it may. But in web exclusive production, what's the point in retouching and color-correcting in AdobeRGB? That's just asking for trouble.

"But in web exclusive production, what's the point in retouching and color-correcting in AdobeRGB?"

Simple Answer: you can convert to any output device profile now or IN THE FUTURE, that will possibly have a larger print gamut/color space than printers or the average monitors of today.

Long Answer: just because you know the jargon, does not mean you actually understand what you're talking about. For example: yes... you can "assign a profile" at any time to a picture = you just mucked up your calibrated work-flow. Congratulations. You "can" also convert from one device specific profile to another. Again=congratulations, you just converted from one "lowest common denominator" space to the next.

Simple Answer Expanded: if you edit, retouch, and always save your MASTER files with a large gamut profile like AdobeRGB or ProPhoto, you will always be ready to print to say a 10, 12, or 16 ink system OR Ultra HD device, with the full color space at your disposal to make the very best "separation" i.e. conversion.

Note: you are correct that AFTER a color profile CONVERSION, you should soft-proof and make any adjustments necessary to the converted files to print similar to AKA "visual matching" of AdobeRGB. This often times means correcting for red, green, and blue over saturation values that simply don't ever convert well to sRGB, let alone CMYK.... without tweaks or a professional printer/paper device profile.

Note 2: if you consistently make the same exact changes to converted profiles, look into refining your conversion profile with a) pro calibration profiles; or b) eyeballing custom transfer curves, GCR, UCR, and total ink limits by creating a "Custom CMYK conversion"*** based on your preferred conversion profile.

*** Google it or check out the help file from Adobe.

I don't know about you, but the vast majority of work I do goes to print or to the web, and that's it. Other than web or print, it never gets re-purposed back into some other medium.

Yes, I know your color will go off when you reassign a color profile, but if you need to you can do it. Yes, you'll have to re-process the data, but your colorspace will be the space you need for the target medium. Guess what? You'll be doing the same exact thing if you do all your retouching and color-correction in AdobeRGB or the even more imaginary ProPhoto colorspace. It's a two-way street, you just never thought about it. You can synthesize color any time, it's luminosity you need to preserve.

And yes, I do "know the jargon" and I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've been in pre-press for over 30 years, how 'bout you?

The bottom line is if your going to do work for a given medium, you need to retouch and color correct in that medium's colorspace.

"The bottom line is if your going to do work for a given medium, you need to retouch and color correct in that medium's colorspace."

The above statement is both right and wrong and can be interpreted false for many people here, especially when you stated previously that sRGB should be used rather than AdobeRGB.

1) initial color correction and retouching should ALWAYS be done using the highest resolution RAW file you can get, and any wide-gamut profile to retain as much color accuracy and bit-depth as possible through any printing/presentation process now or in the future.

2) device dependent color correction and possible additional retouching SHOULD be made after a color profile change (i.e. separation).

Because you asked. Since 1981: Pre-press lab and typesetting while in college. Working digitally since 1984 with Macs and assorted imagesetters; in the 90's Hell scanners, Quantel Paintbox systems, and Kodak Imaging products; early 00's until today, a consultant specializing in managed streamlined processes and workflows for the packaging industry; expanded to include photographers specializing in fashion, beauty, and food product photography and retouching for packaging and POS materials and kiosks (mostly).

So with that out of the way, what you're proposing is that we should've only retouched based an 36-line screen Flexo printing just a few short years ago. Even though we in recent years have all went to large-formal digital at 1200-2400 dpi. Even though all photos and artwork needed to be reseparated and tweaked, at the very least, all of the major retouching was done at the highest quality available at the time using wide-gamut color profiles, mostly AdobeRGB.

With your many years of experience I'm surprised that you don't take into account the rapid changes we've experienced in the industry many times over in just the last 10 years, yet alone the last 30(?)

Note: I use a screen moniker that was given to me many years ago, because I obsess at the pixel/printed dot level for years and am appreciated and have work because of it. Going so far as to re-paint/mask-in custom screened separations when Cyrel plates were breaking off dots under 6%, as well as rewrite entire PPDs, custom sep profiles and scripts to do the same. I didn't write my reply above and mention custom profiles just because I read a book or help file.

"1) initial color correction and retouching..."
"2) device dependent color correction and possible additional retouching..."

While I understand where you're coming from here, I don't don't know about you, but I've rarely had the luxury to perform "additional retouching" to meet a target colorspace. I'm given a tsunami of work to do, and it has be done yesterday, and it better match the product's dayglo green color even though I'm working in a colorspace the size of a jewelry box. :-) It's just not gonna happen (both for the color, and the additional retouching :-) ).

"Because you asked."
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't trying to spark a pissing contest, I was merely driving a point home.

The problem I've encountered, over and over again, is when a photographer shoots stuff in AdobeRGB, wows the client in the studio with the shot (and, importantly, signs off on it), and then is handed over to me or one of my peers to prepare for press or the web, and the shot goes to crap. The client hems and haws about why it doesn't look right, when it looks perfectly fine on their Mac. It's amazing how many times I've been in this scenario.

I used to do work at an agency that dealt with a famous client who had their catalog covers done by a well-known photographer/designer. While he was a brilliant photographer/designer, he refused flat-out my request to let the client see his end product in CMYK space in his studio, claiming the colorspace didn't meet his artistic criteria. What he was doing was deceitful and, frankly, unscrupulous because he was giving the client a product he knew that he could never have. He was schlepping that problem off on the agency and, ultimately, me. :-) The agency, ever mindful of pleasing the customer, swallowed and went through the whole song and dance of selling the press version of the shot. Every. Single. Time. For years.

I presently freelance at a site that deals with jewelry. Everything's shot in AdobeRGB. Boy, those emeralds, sapphires and rubies look so gorgeous in AdobeRGB, don't they? Although here I deal with an in-house situation with people understanding of what's about to happen, I find ever amusement in the questions like "can't we do this to make the emerald and sapphires look better in print" or "can't we try that so the rubies don't look like someone just crapped all over them in the web shot?".

So these, and many other instances my friend, are the reasons why I've said what I've said here. AdobeRGB is a lovely colorspace, but I work in the real world. :-)

Spy you know the stuff ! The only printing process that gets a better gamma in print is going 6 colours (CMYK+Orange+green) and that covers better the PMS book ... But then try to convince the client to spend + $ for offset plates etc ! In the real world we make an Epsons and get the client to sign off on it after 2,3,4 rounds of retouching. But you are right educated customers knows what's achievable and what only looks good on a screen !

I'll take 2 please.

I was thinking of getting an Asus 24" Pro Art monitor - Can anyone tell me would a 24" Eizo Flexscan be better, The coloredge is out of my budget. The Pro Art monitors get very good reviews and are pre calibrated out of the box.

LOL! that price tag

The one thing I don't understand about these high color gamut monitors is that...Almost everything is printed, calibrated or viewed (on the web) in sRGB or CMYK. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but I've never seen a print lab ask for AdobeRGB. They always make it abundantly clear that their profiles are sRGB. While Adobe RGB would give you a more accurate representation of the colors in your photo, if most media that it will be displayed on can't display Adobe RGB, then what's the point?

I guess that depends on the printing you are doing. I just checked what it says on the company I occasionally send files to in Australia for printing and delivery there and it is this

"When Sending Print Ready Files, Please Ensure That You Have Converted Them To The Corrected Profile. Adobe RGB(1998) For Inkjet Printing & CFLLambdaFlex for High Gloss Photographic Printing"

Just in time for my birthday. I plan to spoil myself. :D

I've been working on NEC monitors for years and love them. I chose NEC monitors over Eizo for the simple fact that I could not see any technical advantage the Eizo had over the NEC. Now this new blinged out certainly seems very impressive, but if NEC doesn't have it's version coming, it will, and I'm positive it will be priced a lot friendlier than $4600.00!. But the real question is if I even need this kind of thing. The sad truth is that 95% of my clients…and I'm talking about major publishing companies, ad agencies and design firms…work on crap monitors and wouldn't notice if turned in out of gamut, off color plonk if it slapped them in the eyeballs! One of my best clients…and I'm talking major…doesn't even bother to calibrate their crap monitors EVER because they use the excuse that they print in multiple plants across the country so it doesn't matter! I try to convince them that "Garbage In, Garbage Out!" means they have to at least TRY to control their imagery, but they really don't care. They apparently don't understand color space and expect their printers to 'fix' any anomalies as they arise...

So I'm sitting here staring at a couple of very expensive monitors showing me beautiful colors, the way I intended, but most of the end-users are laying everything out on iMacs!