ASUS MK241H Evaluation
One aspect of any display that can be relatively important is the on-screen display (OSD), which controls functions such as brightness, contrast, aspect ratio, color correction, and other options. The MK241H includes five preset "modes" that tweak the various settings. We generally prefer sticking with the unbiased "standard" preset, as most of the other modes are too bright, too warm, too cool, etc. Still, tastes will vary, so if you're not doing professional image editing you may find that one of the other presets is to your liking. ASUS includes functions in the OSD for all the major areas, though their menu system is not as extensive as for example the Samsung 245T. Then again, sometimes less is more -- we rarely tweak most of the settings that are available and ASUS provides us with everything we need.
You can see the various options available in the menu system in the above gallery. We do have to mention that the OSD buttons are super "clicky" (i.e. they're loud and require more pressure to activate). This is almost the opposite end of the spectrum from the Samsung 2493HM, but we'll take the ASUS style over the "floaty" buttons on the Samsung. Noteworthy items include the "trace free" function that is supposed to improve pixel response time and the options for aspect ratio control. In the case of the former, response time didn't seem to be any better or worse than other LCDs that we've used -- but then we haven't had a problem with gaming on LCDs for the last three years; your mileage may vary.
For aspect ratio control, ASUS provides three options: Full, 4:3, and 1:1. "Full" theoretically stretches whatever resolution you're running to fill the whole screen. "4:3" is for standard aspect ratio resolutions and will leave you with black bars on the left and right sides (even if you happen to be running a widescreen resolution). "1:1" is a direct-mapped mode without any stretching, leaving black bars on all sides (depending on what resolution you're running). Notice how we said "theoretically"? Not all of the normal resolutions work properly with the aspect ratio control, depending on what input you're using. Here's a summary of our resolution testing:
| ASUS MK241H Resolution and Input Notes | |||
| DVI | HDMI | VGA | |
| 800x600 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1024x768 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1152x864 | Yes | Yes | - |
| 1176x664 | - | Underscanned 720P | - |
| 1280x720 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x768 | - | Wrong AR (1280x960) | Sets 1280x800 and clips top and bottom |
| 1280x800 | Wrong AR (1280x960) | Wrong AR (1280x960) | Yes |
| 1280x960 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x1024 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1400x1050 | - | Wrong AR (1680x1050) | - |
| 1440x900 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1600x1200 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1680x1050 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1768x992 | - | Underscanned 1080P | - |
| 1920x1080 | Interference/Static Present | Yes | Clips output to 1680x1050 |
| 1920x1200 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The built-in scaler works well on VGA, but the scaling artifacts on digital inputs are horrific. If you have an NVIDIA GPU, you should use the NVIDIA Scaling to avoid this. 1:1 scaling also works for most resolutions/inputs if you don't mind black borders. Otherwise, you'll want to stick to the native resolution when using DVI or HDMI inputs. There were also several resolutions that would not display with the correct aspect ratio (AR) when using HDMI and one resolution had problems with the DVI connection. Out of the five LCDs tested here, the OSD and firmware appears to need the most work on this LCD. Only the VGA input generally works properly and scales well on most resolutions.
Ideally, you always want to run at the native LCD resolution, but sometimes that's not possible -- i.e. for performance reasons you may want to run a game at a lower resolution. Again, if you're using a digital connection -- and we generally recommend the use of a digital connection with LCDs -- the MK241H has severe scaling artifacts when you stretch lower resolutions to fill the screen. You can see what we mean with the following shot of the LCD running at 1440x900.
 |
We're not quite sure why, but the built-in scaler seems to be doing a "nearest neighbor" interpolation on digital signals. This does not occur on VGA connections, where you get a more appropriate bilinear or bipolar scaling. The drawback is that overall VGA connections do not have the clarity of digital connections, and if you switch resolutions frequently, you will have to deal with the "auto calibration" delay at times.
We'll compare Delta E and color gamut scores to all of the other LCDs later in this article, but we wanted to give a quick preview of the color accuracy to make things more manageable. The following chart shows the calibrated and uncalibrated color accuracy using Monaco Optix XR Pro and ColorEyes Display Pro with a DTP94 colorimeter. Below that is a 3D color gamut volume compared to the Adobe RGB 1998 standard, which was generated using Gamutvision, a utility developed by Imatest LLC.
Overall color accuracy is reasonably good, with a few colors that always seem to end up with a much higher Delta E. The average after calibration scores right around 2.0 (~5.5 prior to calibration), and the vast majority of users will have no problems with the MK241H -- or pretty much any other LCD for that matter. Imaging professionals on the other hand may want to look elsewhere. We can also see that in regards to color gamut, the ASUS panel scores very well but it doesn't come anywhere near 130% when compared to the Adobe RGB 1998 standard. So they lied, right? Well, not really... the color gamut also happens to be 140% of the sRGB standard most computers use. The Adobe RGB 1998 standard is for imaging professionals, and applications like Adobe Photoshop make use of it in order to offer better color reproduction.
The bottom line is that the ASUS MK241H is a decent display at a reasonable price. It doesn't top the charts in most areas, and the lack of pivot and height adjustment functionality may be a concern for some users. The scaling problems with digital inputs and lower resolutions is also a pretty serious problem, so without some firmware update to address this we can only recommend the MK241H for people that intend to run only at the native resolution. If you can get past those qualifications and you want an LCD with an integrated webcam, you can find the MK241H online for around $530. There are less expensive 24" LCDs, but if we sound somewhat critical of ASUS trust us: the least expensive 24" LCDs tend to have even more problems. (That's probably why none of the manufacturers want to send them out for review.)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
Rasterman - Friday, May 9, 2008 - link
Yeah the figures reported are meaningless, if they were actually useful we wouldn't even need reviews :) I can't believe that a company as big as Viewsonic doesn't send a review site as big as Anandtech a review model, that is just ridiculous, they should be sending you guys a new model of every new monitor without even asking, maybe you aren't emailing the right person. BTW its awesome to see a reviewer actually answer questions and critics to a review, awesome job Jarred!JarredWalton - Friday, May 9, 2008 - link
I'm sure I'm not getting the right person at Viewsonic (and other companies as well), but that's the trick: *finding* the right person. Without an inside contact, it can be tough to get started.Generic PR Person: "AnandTech? What kind of a name is that? http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail50.html">Baleeted!" I'll try to meet with them next CES or something....
PS - Anyone from Viewsonic read this? If so, email me! :-)
10e - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
Great review. This is what multifunction fans are looking for. I had this issue a year ago trying to find "THE" multifunction.You may want to mention that in terms of 720p and 1080p the Samsung stretches both to 16:10 with A/V mode off. I tested this and found that problem recently, which was unfortunate due to the fact that I liked it as a high quality TN.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
I mentioned this on page 11, but I have highlighted (italicized) the pertinent text. I also clarified by indicating that 16:9 modes will always have the wrong AR. Thanks for reading and commenting!xerces8 - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
A picture says more than 1000 words :http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma...">http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?...2=49&...
(I can't create a link, seems the post javascript is broken, I cant make bold or italics text either, tried FF and IE7)
JarredWalton - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
You mean, http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma...">pictures like this one? I don't see any large blowups of their comparisons available for download, so I have no idea exactly how they're testing. What I do know is that I provided images showing LaCie 324 and Dell 2408WFP clearly displaying a 40ms delay relative to an HP LP3065, and I've also provided a picture of the ASUS MK241H with a relative delay of 0ms relative to the same LCD.I've got nine other sample images from each of the tested monitors showing the evidence for my "input lag" conclusions. That's about as close to full disclosure as you'll get. All I get on that comparison you linked is a chart that apparently "proves" the ASUS MK241H has a 54ms average delay compared to a CRT, but then the same site lists the Dell 2408WFP as 69ms, the 2407WFP as 24ms, the LaCie as 41ms, and the Samsung 245T at 59ms. I got more or less the same result on the Dell 2407WFP and the LaCie 324, but nowhere near the same result on the MK241H, 2408WFP, and the 2493HM.
Again, you've got at least one clear sample of my results for each LCD. Sorry, but I have to question their results without better evidence.
Dashel - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
Hi Jarred,Not sure if this is based on the same test or what but there is this:
http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/712/">http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/712/
Which looks to be the same graph and results. To me your results seem to make the most sense if the 2408 is very similar to the 2407WFP-HC, then the input lag should be close too I would guess. I'm hardly an expert just tryint to be logical.
The thing is I also see anecdotal claims of lag and people who have tested it getting in the 60ms range as well which leads me to wonder if there isnt some sort of defect or difference in some of the panels vrs others.
Example of a test by an owner:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032124531...">http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032124531...
I'd love to hear Dells thoughts on it as well as what and when their revision is due to hit.
JarredWalton - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I'd like to know what software people are using as timers. I tried about 10 different "timers" and discovered that a bunch are limited to the Windows default timing resolution - about 54ms. So they either scored "0ms" or "54ms" on the delay. I know this because I had screen refreshes where the timer was split in half; the top half would show for example 40.067 and the bottom would show 50.121.3DMark03 at least looks to be accurate down to 10ms - there are again pictures where the timer is cut in half, only in such cases I would see 20.23 and 20.24, so I can be sure that the timer is updated in .01s increments rather than in something larger.
Without a lot more details about what software people use and large images showing the results, I must say that I'm very skeptical. I feel "input lag" testing needs several things to be even remotely acceptable:
1) Run at native LCD resolution in clone mode (because built-in scalers could have an impact)
2) Disclosure of the test software that manages better than 54ms accuracy.
3) You need a high-end camera with a fast shutter speed to capture the results. Simply choosing "Auto" mode and snapping a picture doesn't tell the whole story.
4) Provide at least one sample image at a high resolution that clearly shows what the camera captured.
I met all of those criteria I think. In looking around at other reviews, I have not been able to clearly answer any of those questions. Perhaps that's why some of the other results are so different. I also tested at 2560x1600 to verify that I wasn't hurting the HP LP3065 by running at a lower resolution; since the scaling is handled by the GPU rather than the LCD (the LP3065 doesn't have a scaler), there was no penalty.
DangerousQ - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I cant believe this set of reviews is so one sided, why no P-MVA panels, I bought a BenQ FP241W about 3 monyths ago and the 6ms response time plus unbelievable colours make this panel really hard to beat, but you try finding any reviews on it. The one review I did find, a long time ago and have lost it now compared it to the 2407 dell and found it a better panel for less money! I know this cos I was going to buy the dell before I saw the review.JarredWalton - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
Send me an MVA panel - or get one of the manufacturers to send me one - and I will be more than happy to review it. I don't have the means to go out and purchase $500+ test LCDs, so I review what I get sent. Dell, Gateway, Samsung, ASUS, and other major companies are great about working with review sites like ours. Other companies are not. Thus, I take what I can get.