What's new

FSI vs EIZO - value for money

So which one?

  • FSI DM241

  • EIZO 247X

Results are only viewable after voting.
Boris Smotlak

Boris Smotlak

Hey guys, I would need help to resolve traditional dilemma - what display for color grading.

I narrowed down my choices to FSI DM241 or Eizo CG247X.

First I was considering Eizo CG 279X but skipped it because of the 1440p scaling issues.

I know that most of you would recommend FSI as industry standard but I'm looking for best value for money.

Both can display pixel to pixel 1080p with accurate colour representation. I like the 1500:1 contrast ratio of CG 247X and I'm little bit worried about 1000:1 contrast ratio of FSI. I know about all broadcast features of FSI like sdi, scopes, audio metering etc. None of this is important for me. I'm looking for 24" 1080p colour accurate and good contrast option. I would connect Eizo via HDMI out of Ultra studio and use 3D LUT.

What do you say? Am I missing something?

Thanks a lot!
 
Hi Boris,

Am I wrong or the Eizo CG247X is a pretty old model... ? I can't find it on the web to compare the price but I assume it is more like a 1500$ monitor whereas the FSI is around 4000$... so it is hard to compare both.

Be aware that if you go for Eizo you need to calibrate yourself the monitor so you'll need a decent probe and a software like ColourSpace or Calman. That will add to the initial cost. If you want 24" 1080p, and can do the calibration yourself, I'll say go for Eizo (maybe a newer one). But at the end, to me, it depends on what you can expect as a return on investment and what you really need. I have a DM250 and I am still happy with it after 4+ years, mostly because of the monitor quality but also because if I need to calibrate it I can send it to FSI and they will do it for free.

But if I had to invest in a new monitor today for SDR grading, I'll probably go for the LG 32EP950 (+probe and soft)... just to add another option to your dilemma :))
 
Hey Alex,

you're right it is an older model. Yes I plan to use external calibration not the built-in probe. DM250 is a whole different story as it is an OLED display. :)

About their free calibration - do you use this service? When would someone need to send them the display for calibration? My current Eizo warn me every 200 hours of usage to recalibrate. I don't think anybody sends their FSI to recalibrate every month. So my question is does the display need recalibration other then when you see that something is wrong?
 
Not every month but they advise to recalibrate the monitor every 18months or so I think (at least for the DM250). I've send it once (after 2years) and the panel is so stable that there was almost no drift. I don't know if it is the same for the DM241 but you feel more confident when you know that your panel is right. You only pay for the delivery back and forth so it is not that expensive and you'll get the monitor calibrated with a CR 300 or a similar probe - which I can't afford :) .

But yeah, the DM241 is also a pretty expensive panel.

May I ask why you are targeting 24" and 1080p ?
 
Alex, 24" is ideal in my setup to see the whole picture without moving my head. 27" is just too big. I learned that it's better to look at and feel the image while grading as a whole. Moving head means you perceive the image in portions.
I chose 1080p because aj want pixel to pixel view of my timeline. 4K would be an option because the scaling is x4 but that's just too expensive when talking reference displays.
 
Hi Boris,

I am by no means an authority or expert on this matter but something to consider, the DM241 from FSI has an autocal feature that doesn’t even require a computer to operate. You just need a supported probe and if you buy an i1D3 which is supported but it has to be brought from FSI (a relatively inexpensive probe) they can generate an internal matrix for the DM241 using a CR300 a reference grade spectroradiometer. Maybe Bram Desmet from FSI(he post on these forums) can give you some more information on this and correct any thing I was wrong about.

Thanks and good luck with your decision.

Aaron.
 
Boris Smotlak said:
Alex, 24" is ideal in my setup to see the whole picture without moving my head. 27" is just too big. I learned that it's better to look at and feel the image while grading as a whole. Moving head means you perceive the image in portions.
Click to expand...
Hi Boris,
Indeed, if your are very close to the monitor 24" is a nice size (and for that size there is no real advantage to use a 4K monitor because I am not sure you can see the difference). I have no idea what your setup is but one could argue also that 24" is a bit small to judge the texture of the picture (grain/noise/sharpness etc...). But I am not a monitor expert ;)

Good luck :)

Cheers,
Alex
 
Either the FSI DM241 or Eizo CC319X would my personal choice for SDR HD grading, at a good price, right now. The 319 is more preferable since the 241 is a lesser lower contrast panel (it's 1100:1 not 1000:1 but still not 1500:1) than the 240, otherwise it would be FSI all the way - the 241 would still get the job done without QC fail though. Both I have worked with (240/CC319X) very often in UK facilities, whilst onlining and grading for UK Broadcast, for whom it doesn't justify 4K proper and 30K sterling investment, in mid level suites, normally, yet.

Whatever you do don't be tempted by any Atomos or SmallHD panels, for reference grading. I know you weren't.
 
Last edited:
Boris Smotlak said:
Hey guys, I would need help to resolve traditional dilemma - what display for color grading.

I narrowed down my choices to FSI DM241 or Eizo CG247X.

First I was considering Eizo CG 279X but skipped it because of the 1440p scaling issues.

I know that most of you would recommend FSI as industry standard but I'm looking for best value for money.

Both can display pixel to pixel 1080p with accurate colour representation. I like the 1500:1 contrast ratio of CG 247X and I'm little bit worried about 1000:1 contrast ratio of FSI. I know about all broadcast features of FSI like sdi, scopes, audio metering etc. None of this is important for me. I'm looking for 24" 1080p colour accurate and good contrast option. I would connect Eizo via HDMI out of Ultra studio and use 3D LUT.

What do you say? Am I missing something?

Thanks a lot! Kinda funny how this FSI vs Eizo debate reminds me of gambling decisions lol. Like, you can go “safe bet” or chase that premium feeling like you’re sitting at a high-stakes blackjack table. Eizo feels like playing solid poker - consistent, reliable, you know what you’re getting without risking your whole stack. FSI is more like going all-in on a big roulette spin, where you’re paying extra for that confidence and pro-level vibe, even if the actual gains aren’t always obvious for everyone. Speaking of that whole risk/reward thing, I recently stumbled across https://belgeenligne.casino/ and it kinda gave me the same vibe - like you can go casual with slots or push for a bigger jackpot if you’re feeling bold. Anyway, back to monitors, I feel like unless you’re deep into serious grading work, Eizo just makes more sense financially. FSI is great, but yeah… definitely not the “value” pick most of the time.
Click to expand...
Honestly this debate never really goes away

If you strip it down to value for money (and ignore SDI / scopes / “proper reference monitor” stuff like you said), Eizo usually makes more sense for most people. You’re basically getting very solid color accuracy, built-in calibration and long-term consistency without jumping into full broadcast pricing territory. That’s kind of their whole niche.
 
both FSI and Eizos CG series have internal 3D LUT storage and can therefore be very accurately calibrated.
as a side note, best way w/ any of these is to use an external LUT box as u avoid potential side effects (of internal LUT processing) and get 33^3, best cal possible.

here's a recent cal result of a CG2700S cal'ed w/ DCM and 17^3 LUT uploaded directly into the display, hence no external LUT box used.
just gonna post the dedicated skin tones val profile here:

look at the avg xy diff and Y% diff - close to perfect color
dst.jpg

visual eval via color swatches - every swatch has (2) colors: ref + result

swatch.jpg
 
Boris Smotlak said:
Hey guys, I would need help to resolve traditional dilemma - what display for color grading.

I narrowed down my choices to FSI DM241 or Eizo CG247X.

First I was considering Eizo CG 279X but skipped it because of the 1440p scaling issues.

I know that most of you would recommend FSI as industry standard but I'm looking for best value for money.

Both can display pixel to pixel 1080p with accurate colour representation. I like the 1500:1 contrast ratio of CG 247X and I'm little bit worried about 1000:1 contrast ratio of FSI. I know about all broadcast features of FSI like sdi, scopes, audio metering etc. None of this is important for me. I'm looking for 24" 1080p colour accurate and good contrast option. I would connect Eizo via HDMI out of Ultra studio and use 3D LUT.

What do you say? Am I missing something?

Thanks a lot! Honestly, this FSI vs Eizo debate is like choosing between a high-stakes blackjack table and a solid poker game. You know? With Eizo, you're playing the long game – it's the reliable bet where you get consistent, accurate color without emptying your wallet, much like a skilled player counting cards. FSI? That's the roulette spin, the big gamble for that premium, pro-level vibe. It feels great when you win, but you're paying a premium for the thrill. Speaking of calculated risks and knowing where to place your chips, I’ve been digging into the new wave of online platforms, and it’s the same principle. You really need to do your homework. For anyone curious about where to find the best value and the most exciting new games without getting burned, check out the resources over at https://nl.casinonlinenieuwe.com/ - they break it down so you know exactly what you're getting into, just like comparing these monitor specs.
Click to expand...
That contrast ratio difference is something to think about though. 1500:1 vs 1000:1 on the FSI is noticeable, especially if you're grading darker stuff. But then again, the FSI panels are usually super stable and hold their calibration forever, which is a big plus.
 
Last edited:
I used FSI monitors for over a decade. They are fantastic and the customer service is second to none. I recently moved to an Eizo 2700x for 4K and the price/performance is very good. 3D lut calibration can be tricky, but it works well. I pretty quickly switched to using the internal calibration and probe as it is super easy. I do a probe match every 4-6 months and have not had any surprises. I monitor in SDR. much of my work goes through a final DI in post for HDR, but it all looks as it should based on choices made with the Eizo. I did a bunch of tests when I bought the monitor which you can find in the calibration threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top