Brightness and Contrast Ratio
For the brightness (luminance), contrast, and color accuracy tests, we depend on a hardware colorimeter and software to help calibrate the displays. We use a Monaco Optix XR (DTP-94) colorimeter and Monaco Optix XR Pro software, and we also test with ColorEyes Display Pro. Results in nearly every case have been better with Monaco Optix XR Pro, so we only report the ColorEyes Display Pro results on the monitor evaluation pages. We'll start with a look at the range of brightness and contrast at the default LCD settings while changing just the brightness level. (In some cases, it will be necessary to reduce the color levels if you want to achieve a more reasonable brightness setting of 100 or 120 nits.)
Nearly all of the LCDs have a maximum brightness level of around 400 nits, which is more than sufficient and is actually brighter than what most users prefer to use in an office environment. Minimum brightness without adjusting other settings is often above 100 nits, so it will be necessary to go in and adjust color levels as mentioned already. The Gateway FPD2485W is the prime example of this, where the default settings have a minimum brightness of 356 nits. Black levels are also reasonably consistent among the LCDs, with maximum and minimum black levels corresponding to the maximum and minimum white levels.
More important than the luminosity is the contrast ratio that is achievable at the various brightness settings. Here we begin to see some differences, with many of the LCDs following in the 800:1 ~ 900:1 range. The Dell 2408WFP and Samsung 245T stand out as having some of the highest contrast ratios, with the Dell taking the lead as it maintains the high contrast ratio even at low brightness settings. However, we should also mention that in practice the difference between 500:1 and 750:1 really isn't very significant for most users. It's only when you fall below 500:1 that colors really start to look washed out.
Color Gamut
We've already discussed color gamut of individual LCD evaluations, but it's a new addition to our LCD testing. This is something we wanted to add previously, but we lacked a good utility for generating the appropriate charts and data. We recently found out about Gamutvision, a utility developed by Imatest LLC. They were kind enough to provide us with a copy of their software, and it does exactly what we need. We compared the color profiles of all previously tested LCDs to the Adobe RGB 1998 color profile. Graphs of the individual gamut volumes are available on the evaluation pages. Below is a chart showing the percentage of the Adobe RGB 1998 gamut from the various displays.
We basically end up with two tiers of quality in terms of color gamut. Filling the bottom tier are mostly older displays that have 82% NTSC color gamut backlighting. These may seem drastically inferior to the newer LCDs, but keep in mind that if you are just using the standard sRGB profile these LCDs look fine. It's only when you work in applications like Adobe Photoshop with its improved color space that you begin to notice a difference between the displays. Most of the newer displays now have ~95% Adobe RGB color gamuts, and the Dell 2408WFP actually surpasses the Adobe RGB 1998 color space. The only display in this round up that doesn't make it into the upper tier is the Samsung 2493HM.
Power Requirements
Another new test we decided to add with this roundup is a quick look at power requirements. Like the above tests, power requirements are checked at default LCD settings while varying the brightness setting. Also note that minimum power requirements are going to depend largely on how dim the backlight is at the minimum setting, so looking at the above charts it shouldn't be difficult to figure out that the Samsung 2493HM will require less power than the others when it's only putting out 16 lumens.
We've only begun collecting this data with this batch of LCDs, so we don't have any clear patterns established yet. However, it's interesting to note that the two S-PVA panels to seem to draw slightly more power than the three TN panels. At equivalent brightness settings, the differences in power draw are very small.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, May 16, 2008 - link
I agree with Jarred on both accounts: you can't go wrong with the LP3065 or 3007WFP-HC, and input lag is far less than the lag time you experienced on the tablet. But if you're really sensitive to it, I'd avoid the Dell 2708, Dell 3008, Samsung 244T, and Samsung 245T, as those seem to have the worst lag of all.For unbeatable 24" color accuracy, the choice is obvious: NEC LCD2490WUXi (U.S.) or Hazro HZ24W (U.K.). I think they have mid-range lag (35ms?), which you probably wouldn't notice. The LP3065, 3007, and DoubleSight 26" are high quality IPS screens with very little lag, and for professional animation work, why not go bigger than 24"?
AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, May 11, 2008 - link
Jarred, I'm glad to see input lag drawing so much attention. You seem well aware of this, but I wanted to point out that the LP3065 was a poor choice for a reference monitor. It likely performs the same as the 3007-HC, which has measurements that bounce from 0-20ms; 3 increments on your scale (maybe 2 considering refresh rate). Some LCDs out there consistently measure close to 0ms.The editor's comments are completely out of context! ("They're huge, heavy, and require more power, and the best ones were made over five years ago. Sorry - LCDs are where everything is heading.") A heavy, power hungry, old, and obsolete 15" CRT would still be an ideal reference.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - link
It would probably be a faster reference, but I'm not going to try to dig one up. Sorry. My place is crowded enough without keeping around an obsolete CRT. I sold off a couple 19" CRTs two years ago, and that was the last time I had one around for testing. I had to junk my old 21" CRT (from 1997) because I couldn't even give it away. 85 pounds now at the junk pile.As it stands, I will continue to use the LP3065 as a reference LCD. If I test an LCD that scores better than the LP3065, that's not a problem: it will have a negative "relative input lag" score. A CRT might very well score 20ms faster; my problem isn't with 0ms vs. 20ms (assuming CRTs can score 0ms); it's with 0ms vs. 60ms and perhaps 0ms vs. 40ms.
Personally, I'm certainly fine with the LP3065 - it is in use on my own gaming system and I've never been bothered with any discernible input lag. Image tearing caused by turning off VSYNC is a much bigger concern -- and that's one area where I'd like to see LCDs improve; a 120Hz refresh rate would help a lot. But then we'd need all new graphics cards and connectors to manage the data rates for 120Hz at 2560x1600.
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, May 16, 2008 - link
I hear ya on CRTs being too big to keep around :)I thought your measurements would have more variation, like by 40ms, since in many lag tests I've seen, measurements varied by 20ms. But your variations were 20ms, including both the reference and the one tested. I'd have to agree that a CRT isn't necessary, since the variations are under control (but I'll still add 11ms to the final numbers, as you've talked about). I'm surprised your 245T results weren't higher.
I have a 3007-HC and agree about the excessive tearing. And of course if the framerate can't stay above 60, I have to disable vsync and live with it. You gotta admit, it's quite nice that the 8800-series cards came out within a year of the 30"ers, and that those two separate technologies complement each other.
I wonder why the DoubleSight is going EOL, if it's such a great monitor and hot seller! Does that indicate customer return problems?
ShocWave - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
Actually, I have a 2493HM.AV mode will display 720p and 1080p at the correct aspect ratio with overscan. What it basically does is fill the screen and crops out the sides.
It's not 1:1, but better then nothing.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
I just don't understand why anyone would *want* overscan. AV Mode takes 720p stretched to fill the whole screen and then overscans it, right? Or are you saying it only crops the left and right sides? (I suppose I could check if I dig the LCD back out.)I'm not a stickler on aspect ratios, especially 16:9 stretched to fit 16:10 - the information is merely listed for those who really do care. I still think the Gateway has a better approach and overall better design. The Samsung however offers better color accuracy and a non-glossy panel for the same price. It's a close second in the TN panel contest (out of tested LCDs).
10e - Saturday, May 10, 2008 - link
Yes, that's exactly what it does. Takes the 720p/1080p image and "zooms" it so that it fills the screen vertically, but gets cut off at the sides. So you have a 16:10 "window" looking at a 16:9 screen that is missing some of the image left and right (about 5%)I use an image from the "TigerDave" site that shows exactly the amount of 720p and 1080p overscan a display will suffer. It does actually cut off a very small part of the image top and bottom as well.
I don't know what Samsung had in mind here. The newer revisions of the 245T and 275TPlus have a built in image setting for 16:9 now that supposedly works, so why they couldn't fix this in a technically newer design (2493HM) is confusing.
BattleRattle - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
Do input lag against a CRT... Its the analog of the CRT that mattersviperboy2025 - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
How does this compare to other reputable LCD monitors, I can't help but think anandtech is commercializing Dell displays. I mean how about the profesional serious from viewsonic, VP2650wb. They don't have a 24" oddly, but they do have a 26", VP2650wb, at a similar price as the dell 24", costing $615 at onsale.com with free shipping at the moment.The specs of this monitor seem to be better at everything than the dell, as it has 26" (compare to 24"), same resolution, 3ms response time, same 110% color gamut, 4000:1 contrast ration (compare to 3000:1), only difference I see are the inputs, since the professional serious doesn't carry TV inputs. But viewsonic does has a line of the X serious, all of which have hdmi, component, composite, and s video components, which i even doubt most people would use anyways since they would be attaching this to a computer not using it as a TV.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
Drop contrast ratio and response time from that list, as they are meaningless figures. Color accuracy with "dynamic contrast" is horrible on all the displays I've tested - you can see the screen get darker/brighter as you watch, and I find it extremely distracting. So what you end up with is a 26" display at a good price. Is it better or worse than the Dell? In color accuracy, I'd bet a lot of money that it's worse without calibration.For the record, Dell displays are already "commercialized". The only thing wrong with the 2408WFP that I can see is input lag. I made this quite clear. If you're looking for a good 24" LCD for professional work, I'd recommend it without reservation. If you want a gaming LCD, probably look around more.
I can't review every LCD out there, in part because most companies don't send us samples. Viewsonic is one of those companies (I've emailed them at least six times in the past year without a single response). They can call something a "professional display" if they want, but that doesn't make it any more true than the "get rich quick" schemes you see floating around. It may or may not be a great LCD; I'd love to get one sent here for review. Note also that all it took was one email to LaCie and they jumped at the opportunity for this review. If you're looking for a true professional display and you want great support, I'd recommend them in a heartbeat. $300 more is a tough pill to swallow for casual use, but for professionals that should be a non-issue.