Gateway FPD2485W: 24" LCD Beauty or Beast?
by Jarred Walton on February 22, 2007 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Color Accuracy
Something far more important than contrast ratio or brightness is the accuracy of the colors that are produced. A bright display with a high contrast ratio could still have terrible color reproduction, and it's not always possible to correct this. Most people will simply "eyeball" the display output to try and determine what looks best, and there are various color charts available online that can help. Outside of image professionals, that is often sufficient, and most users will find that their eyes adapt to whatever display they use and it is only when doing side-by-side comparisons that differences become apparent.
Monaco Optix XR Pro was used to generate reports of color accuracy. 24 color patches are sent to the display with the colorimeter measuring the resulting values. The difference between what is requested and what the LCD actually shows is known as Delta E, with lower values being better. Any score less than one is basically "perfect" - the naked eye is not going to be able to tell the difference - and scores less than 2.0 are very good. Ideally, you would want all of the tested colors to have a Delta E of less than 1.0, but few people are likely to have problems with anything scoring below 2.0. From 2.0 to 4.0, most people will be able to detect a slight inaccuracy in the color palette when comparing displays side by side, but it's not too irritating. Anything above 4.0 begins to represent a more significant deviance, and numerous scores above 4.0 will almost certainly be noticeable by just about anyone using the display.
The Gateway FPD2485W includes EZTune software to help users calibrate their displays, although this will at best provide moderately accurate results. We started out with the EZTune software, checked the results, and then proceeded to use the Monaco Optix software to calibrate the display. Unless you have a colorimeter and the necessary software, you can expect your results to be closer to the EZTune values, but outside of image/video editing that is often sufficient.
Both displays perform very well when calibrated by Monaco Optix, but not surprisingly the out of box experience from the Gateway isn't nearly as accurate. Uncalibrated results for the 2405FPW were not recorded because it is only intended as a baseline measurement and is not being reviewed. The Dell 2405FPW is about two years old now, but it still performs about the same as the newer 2407WFP and the Gateway FPD2485W when it comes to reproducing accurate colors. We will be taking a closer look at the 2407WFP in the near future, but outside of the most demanding users any of these three displays will work very well. That's not too surprising, considering all three of them are based off of PVA panels.
The second aspect of color accuracy that we need to address is the color depth. The FPD2485W can produce a resulting color pretty close to the requested value, but how does it do in terms of gradient scales? This was something we neglected initially, and after further investigation there is definitely a lot of banding when viewing gradient scales, to the point that we would almost question whether or not this is a true 8-bit panel or if it's really a 6-bit panel. Attempts to capture the results of the banding with a camera have been unsuccessful so far, but needless to say the Dell 2405FPW shows less banding while the 2407WFP doesn't show any noticeable banding. In normal use, the banding usually isn't a serious problem, but graphics editors are likely to notice the effect. Any gradients created in Photoshop or other similar programs have definite problems in regards to producing a smooth color scale on the FPD2485W, and for some people that is a big enough concern that they will want to look elsewhere.
Note: Our review sample is from the first run of these LCDs and was manufactured in November 2006. Later models have apparently improved on some aspects of the display, but unfortunately we can't say whether the color gradients have gotten any better. Again, if colors are important to you, try to check out a display in person and bring up some gradient images to see whether or not you notice any issues.
Update: Additional information on viewing angles and color calibration for print work with these displays is available in our Acer AL2216W review.
Something far more important than contrast ratio or brightness is the accuracy of the colors that are produced. A bright display with a high contrast ratio could still have terrible color reproduction, and it's not always possible to correct this. Most people will simply "eyeball" the display output to try and determine what looks best, and there are various color charts available online that can help. Outside of image professionals, that is often sufficient, and most users will find that their eyes adapt to whatever display they use and it is only when doing side-by-side comparisons that differences become apparent.
Monaco Optix XR Pro was used to generate reports of color accuracy. 24 color patches are sent to the display with the colorimeter measuring the resulting values. The difference between what is requested and what the LCD actually shows is known as Delta E, with lower values being better. Any score less than one is basically "perfect" - the naked eye is not going to be able to tell the difference - and scores less than 2.0 are very good. Ideally, you would want all of the tested colors to have a Delta E of less than 1.0, but few people are likely to have problems with anything scoring below 2.0. From 2.0 to 4.0, most people will be able to detect a slight inaccuracy in the color palette when comparing displays side by side, but it's not too irritating. Anything above 4.0 begins to represent a more significant deviance, and numerous scores above 4.0 will almost certainly be noticeable by just about anyone using the display.
The Gateway FPD2485W includes EZTune software to help users calibrate their displays, although this will at best provide moderately accurate results. We started out with the EZTune software, checked the results, and then proceeded to use the Monaco Optix software to calibrate the display. Unless you have a colorimeter and the necessary software, you can expect your results to be closer to the EZTune values, but outside of image/video editing that is often sufficient.
Both displays perform very well when calibrated by Monaco Optix, but not surprisingly the out of box experience from the Gateway isn't nearly as accurate. Uncalibrated results for the 2405FPW were not recorded because it is only intended as a baseline measurement and is not being reviewed. The Dell 2405FPW is about two years old now, but it still performs about the same as the newer 2407WFP and the Gateway FPD2485W when it comes to reproducing accurate colors. We will be taking a closer look at the 2407WFP in the near future, but outside of the most demanding users any of these three displays will work very well. That's not too surprising, considering all three of them are based off of PVA panels.
The second aspect of color accuracy that we need to address is the color depth. The FPD2485W can produce a resulting color pretty close to the requested value, but how does it do in terms of gradient scales? This was something we neglected initially, and after further investigation there is definitely a lot of banding when viewing gradient scales, to the point that we would almost question whether or not this is a true 8-bit panel or if it's really a 6-bit panel. Attempts to capture the results of the banding with a camera have been unsuccessful so far, but needless to say the Dell 2405FPW shows less banding while the 2407WFP doesn't show any noticeable banding. In normal use, the banding usually isn't a serious problem, but graphics editors are likely to notice the effect. Any gradients created in Photoshop or other similar programs have definite problems in regards to producing a smooth color scale on the FPD2485W, and for some people that is a big enough concern that they will want to look elsewhere.
Note: Our review sample is from the first run of these LCDs and was manufactured in November 2006. Later models have apparently improved on some aspects of the display, but unfortunately we can't say whether the color gradients have gotten any better. Again, if colors are important to you, try to check out a display in person and bring up some gradient images to see whether or not you notice any issues.
Update: Additional information on viewing angles and color calibration for print work with these displays is available in our Acer AL2216W review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
Justin Case - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
As you say, the problem isn't so much the LCDs themselves (with reaction times of 10ms and below, they can do 100 fps), it's the DVI interface. Not because it's digital, just because it's (relatively) slow.The "reaction time" of a CRT isn't zero (unlike what some LCD vendors and tons of clueless retailers claim); in fact, a white-to-black transition takes longer on CRTs than it does on most LCDs. So all this obsession with reaction times ends up hurting consumers, that treat that number as a magical definition of a panel's quality, and completely ignore other (far more relevant) aspects, such as the actual number of displayable colors (without dithering or flipping), color variation with viewing angle, luminance uniformity, etc.
To quote an engineer working for a major (high-end) LCD manufacturer: LCDs are still 2-3 years away from catching up with top CRTs in terms of color reproduction. But when 90% of people can't even tell the difference between a 6-bit panel and an 8-bit one, I wonder what incentive the manufacturers have to improve that...
yyrkoon - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
If we're talking about ghosting / screen lag, I use a 8ms 19" widescreen LCD, and see none. The only real problem I have, is when I'm playing a graphics intensive game, at the monitors native resolution, and my video card ( 7600GT) can not keep up.This is not to say, that some 'lag' does not exist, but in my case, it is not percievable.
Justin Case - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
Lag is not the same as ghosting. Lag refers to the fact that the frame you are seeing on screen is not the last frame your graphics card rendered. Some flat panels display the image with a delay of 1 or even 2 frames. This is fine for LCD TV sets (as long as the audio is also delayed, by the same amount), but in interactive applications like games it can be a killer.yyrkoon - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
As I said above, I see none, and seriously, I play Oblivion, F.E.A.R., not to mention a multitude of other games ;)StevenG - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
The game I play doesn't support 1280x960 so I play at 1280x1024. Sure there's some distortion, but it doesn't bother me. And the higher res looks much better than 1024x768 (the next lowest supported resolution in the game).Aquila76 - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
This is by far one of the worst LCD's for color accuracy, IMO. I bought one at Best Buy a couple weeks ago, and no matter what settings I used, gradients did not look fully smooth. It is what is refered to as a 'gradation' not a banding.Check here for more info: http://lcdresource.com/index.php?option=com_conten...">Gradation v. Banding
Check here for a test: http://lcdresource.com/index.php?option=com_conten...">Gradient Downloads
What's really sad is that the HP L1706 I use at work (came bundled with the PC) does the gradients flawlessly. A $150 display outperforms this $650 one. I noticed this in games and movies a lot, especially when in a dark place, looking at the sky, etc. I ended up returning mine and am waiting for the NEC 24WMGX3 to come out. I loved the size/resolution for my desktop workspace, but the rest was too much for me to stand.
demani - Monday, April 16, 2007 - link
I wish I had seen this review and comments before I bought mine- The gradient thing is horrible. I am trying to see if I can return mine it is so bad. I haven't seen a panel have that much of an issue with gradients in years-and it ruins what would otherwise be a great panel.If only the Dell could dimmed to regular brightness...
Bastiches.
JarredWalton - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
Yikes! Glad someone pointed this out. Some things slip through the cracks when you're trying to come up with a good set of display evaluation tools. I had intended to check color gradients but forgot to actually do it. Ummmm... wow. The Gateway FPD2485W is definitely inferior to competing LCDs in this respect. I will try to get a good picture of the result, but have been unable to do so at present. Regardless, there is definitely a lot of banding visible, something that I didn't see at all in a quick test of a Dell 2407WFP. My 2405FPW shows a slight amount of banding, but not as much as the Gateway.To be honest, this isn't something that was really a problem for me during actual use, but that's likely because I don't do a whole lot of gradient work on a day to day basis. I have updated the text accordingly on pages 8 and 9. Thanks, and I will definitely remember to run this sort of test future display reviews!
mcfraggel - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
Input lag is a concern for 24" displays and larger. Some displays have more than 50ms delay. Google for it and you'll find quite a lot about it. Shouldn't this be adressed in this review somewhere?Aquila76 - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
I didn't notice any input lag. I had my old CRT side by side for a bit to test this and didn't perceive any difference. Note my post below for the deal killer, though.