Color Accuracy
Imaging professionals definitely like to have accurate colors, and the best way of assuring that your display shows the proper colors is to use a colorimeter and calibration software. However, not everyone has access to such tools and many users are unwilling to spend over $200, so we test before and after calibration. (Put more accurately, we calibrate the monitors and then tweak the created profile back to an uncalibrated state so that we can evaluate the performance of the display in its default state.) For calibration, we target a white level of 250 nits -- anything more than that is too bright in our opinion. We also do a second calibration targeting a white level of 100 nits, which would be useful when working on material that will end up in print form. Before we get the results, here are the display settings we used on the test LCDs. We let the LCDs stabilized for at least one hour before performing measurements.
| LCD Brightness and Contrast Settings | ||
| Standard Calibrated (~250 nits) | Calibrated for Print (~100 nits) | |
| ASUS MK241H | 45 Brightness, 80 Contrast 100-100-100 RGB |
50 Brightness, 80 Contrast 54-51-73 RGB |
| Dell 2408WFP | 50 Brightness, 50 Contrast 80-80-80 RGB |
48 Brightness, 50 Contrast 55-55-55 RGB |
| Gateway FHD2400 | 70 Brightness, 70 Contrast 76-77-92 RGB |
50 Brightness, 50 Contrast 57-57-70 RGB |
| LaCie 324 | 35 Brightness, 0 Contrast 128-128-128 RGB 2.2 Gamma, 6500K |
7 Brightness, 0 Contrast 128-128-128 RGB 2.2 Gamma, 6500K |
| Samsung 2493HM | 60 Brightness, 75 Contrast 100-100-100 RGB |
28 Brightness, 75 Contrast 46-37-65 RGB |
Starting with the uncalibrated results, it's pretty easy to see why we feel calibration tools are necessary for most users. This is not to say that you can't be happy with inaccurate colors -- your eyes will compensate, and some people prefer warmer (redder) or cooler (bluer) tones. However, if you're doing work with images or video as an example, it is important that what you see on your display matches as much as possible what others will see on their displays. Of the tested LCDs, only four are able to achieve an average Delta E of less than 3.0 without calibration -- three of which happen are part of this roundup. That's encouraging, as it indicates LCD manufacturers may be spending a bit of extra time to ensure that at least one of the settings will provide neutral, accurate colors. The real shocker however is the Dell 2408WFP. Its uncalibrated Delta E reaches an exceptional 1.7 -- a score that's better than several of the LCDs after calibration!
With calibration, all the scores improve substantially, but anyone serious about color accuracy is probably going to want an average Delta E of around 1.0 or less after calibration. Of the tested monitors, the 24" Dell displays (all three models that we've tested), the LaCie 324, and the two 30" LCDs all manage to accomplish this, along with the Dell 2707WFP and Samsung 245T. Switching to appropriate "printing" settings puts the three largest LCDs at the top of the charts, along with the Dell 2408WFP (and the old 2405FPW) and LaCie 324.
Most of the LCDs in this roundup place in the middle or upper portion of the above graphs, with one exception. The Gateway FHD2400 comes in last or in second to last in all three tests. We actually really like the Gateway display for many of its features, but in terms of color accuracy it is definitely lacking. We spent a substantial amount of time trying to tweak the settings in order to achieve better results, all to no avail. There's more to LCDs than color accuracy, of course, and the price and appearance might be enough to help you overlook the relatively poor performance here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
Dainas - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
Well, it would not be as much fun as if they had done it 3 months ago. All the sub-$500 'jewels' have been dissapearing from the market. Just as well though, might as well review something that will still be easy to buy +6 months down the road.JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that the cheapest LCDs often have much lower quality. That being the case, most of the manufacturers of cheap LCDs are unwilling to send us review units. Hence, we end up with 24" roundups (and some upcoming 27 and 30" units as well).That said, I think more people should bite the bullet and splurge on a really nice display. I couldn't imagine running an SLI or CrossFire system without at least a 24" monitor, and having upgraded to a 30" LCD 18 months back I've never regretted the decision. I hope to continue to use my 30" LCD for at least another 5 years; try saying that about the rest of a PC. $500 sounds like a lot, but a good display can last through several PC upgrades.
Basilisk - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
I have to agree with the original poster on this sub-thread. There's nothing about these four units that command my interest yet. If you're not shipped the units, I still find it surprising that you don't know folks who've bought the cheaper units -- I do -- or a store manager who might loan them. Whatever, you have your criteria, even if they edge your review towards irrelevance for me."That said, I think more people should bite the bullet and splurge on a really nice display." Well... that's been my strategy in life, but I've now retired and the economic picture has changed; others haven't the coins to spare or a need that justifies the extra bucks. I game, but nothing requiring high speed LCDs; I work with pictures, but nothing that justifies full color gamut monitors. So... what is there beyond elitism to recommend spending an extra $200-$400 for something I won't use? Some might call that an immature purchase decision, not splurging. I'd have loved to see the OfficeMax Soyo 24" monitor -- recurringly sold at $275 -- included so I'd know why NOT to buy it, or to.
Well, I'll probably skip the 24" size and make a 28" my next purchase anyway: at my age, size matters. :) The old orbs are becoming challenged using my 21" CRT and 22" WS LCD on detailed web pages.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
For our lab we have bought a few of the Westinghouse 24" monitors Newegg sells for ~350 (After rebate) and for the price I'd assume they use a TN panel, but it has very good viewing angles.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/strikeback0...">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/strikeback0...
Have not had a chance to try color calibration. Seems it's biggest problems are 1) no DVI, and over HDMI it goes to blue screen instead of sleep when the signal is cut; and 2) the controls for the OSD are awful, they are on the side of the monitor so you have to try and look at their tiny labels and look around at the screen to do anything.
Dainas - Thursday, May 1, 2008 - link
Well its partly bullshit, there is a lolair MVA (different take on PVA) that has zero input lag and is lighting fast even among TNs.I can assure you of one thing, the lag in the PVA 2408WFP and LaCie is however definitely not due to the panel. Just as the 3008WFP IPS is as slow as mud next to the 3007WFP IPS due to its built in scalar. But Dell panels were never fast and I'm sure a PVA could be made as fast as the fastest MVAs, which are as fast as TNs as any sane gamer could be concerned.
Dainas - Thursday, May 1, 2008 - link
No edit function, ugh.JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
I'm not at all sure that PVA can be made as fast as TN. If it can, then why do the Gateway LCDs behave so differently? The interface is practically the same and they both use Faroudja video processors. Why would Gateway use one scaler on their S-PVA and a different one on the TN - particularly if the TN scaler appears better?I don't doubt that they can reduce the lag, but you'll notice out of nine LCDs five have lag of 18ms or more and four have virtually no lag; the four without lag are TN and the five with lag are S-PVA. The circumstantial evidence is pretty significant.
Pirks - Thursday, May 1, 2008 - link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...Dying to see this reviewed!
Puhleeeasseee with sugar on top
Okay? :D
timmiser - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
This is my monitor I've been using for the past 6 months and I absolutely love it. I bought mine at Costco.com for the same price that most of those 24" were selling for at the time. One thing about is the fact that is has the same resolution as the 24" screens so everything is a bit larger but to me, that is a good thing. I had one 19" Hanns-G monitor prior to this and can agree on the cheapness but this one I feel is of very high quality and no complaints yet.Googer - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
I have read multiple HANS-G monitor reviews from other hardware sites in the past and the consensus is that HANS-G monitors are cheaply made to match the cheap price tag, typically resulting in a poor review.