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 calibrate and test the various LCDs. We didn't perform a thorough evaluation of color accuracy on the FP241VW, so we will limit our Delta E comparison to calibrated performance where we target a white level of ~200 nits - anything more than that is too bright in our opinion. The FP241VW actually ended up at 270 nits, but that won't substantially affect any of the scores. Before we get to the results, here are the display settings we used on the BenQ LCDs. We let the LCDs stabilize for at least one hour before performing measurements. We will compare results with the Dell 2408WFP, which so far has achieved the best overall color accuracy of any LCD we have tested, as well as the previous two BenQ LCDs.
| LCD Brightness and Contrast Settings | ||
| Standard Calibrated (~200 nits) | Calibrated for Print (~100 nits) | |
| BenQ E2200HD | 65 Brightness, 50 Contrast "Normal" (95-95-95 RGB) |
20 Brightness, 50 Contrast "Normal" (95-95-95 RGB) |
| BenQ E2400HD | 73 Brightness, 50 Contrast "Normal" (94-94-91 RGB) |
30 Brightness, 50 Contrast "Normal" (94-94-91 RGB) |
| BenQ FP241VW | 35 Brightness, 50 Contrast (270 nits) "Normal/sRGB" (47-48-45 RGB) |
N/A |
After calibration, the FP241VW still fails to come anywhere close to the Dell 2408WFP - and in fact it doesn't even match the accuracy of the less expensive E2400HD. That said, it's interesting to note that the color accuracy curves for all three BenQ LCDs are extremely similar, to the point where I now have to wonder if backlighting has a far greater impact on color accuracy than I previously thought. It makes sense that better backlighting would allow the panels to achieve better color accuracy, but I don't have any evidence for this assertion other than the above chart. Anyone serious about color accuracy is probably going to want an average Delta E of around 1.0 or less post-calibration. So far, only S-PVA and S-IPS panels achieve that goal, although it's possible a better backlight would allow the A-MVA display to match the other displays. Note also how the bottom half of the above chart is dominated by LCDs that use TN panels.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
praeses - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
After using this particular monitor as my primary display at home for well over a year I have fairly decent experience with it. Nearly all of my concerns are reflected in this review. Having said that there are a few aspects I would like to point out:The input lag varies significantly from inputs and resolution. Using DVI at 1920x1200 yields the lowest while analogue at any other resolution is significantly higher. Using any of the different lighting modes adds lag as well. For my purposes I have them turned off.
VGA also seems to be quite washed out. It has troubles with certain timings as well including XBOX360 where it cannot compensate for the overscan. The composite inputs are reasonable although when scaled any signal distortion is amplified significantly.
Of course, the fluorescent backlight is annoying. As a previous commenter has implied that using LCDs do not result in headaches, that is far from the truth. Once manufacturers move towards LED backlighting hopefully some of that will be alleviated. To date I have been unsuccessful at tracking down a suitable LED panel to swap into this monitor. The non-adjustable backlighting is also significantly annoying in low light conditions with some bleeding, although fairly consistent throughout the panel appearing gray.
The headphone connection only working for audio over HDMI just seems silly. They should have included an analogue pass-through.
Prior to purchasing this monitor I was aware of most of these issues and they are consistent between screens. Some people have buyer's pride and dismiss it or do not see them to begin with. Despite this, I am quite happy with this monitor and have not found a better replacement for my uses where viewing angles, input lag (over DVI), and composite inputs are paramount.
Spacecomber - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I think the reason that the trend with LCDs is simply to make them cheaper and not better has a lot to do with there being no meaningful specifications that the consumer can use to compare one monitor to another. In many cases, you can't even tell what kind of panel is being used. (Imagine buying a CRT monitor and not being able to easily tell whether it was a shadow-mask or an aperture grill tube.)With no meaningful information about the monitor in its technical specifications, the only thing the consumer can easily determine is relative price differences.
At this point, it is pretty clear that the industry manufacturing LCDs has no motivation to redress this on their own. I don't know who might be in the best position try to change this, but outside pressure (if not outright regulation) needs to be applied, if there is any hope of making manufacturers compete on a level playing field, when it comes to what a particular monitor really is capable of.
I suspect that respected professional computer hardware review publications, such as Anandtech, could wield some clout in pursuit of this end, and I hope that they pick up the banner.
darklight0tr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I agree. The panel type should be disclosed in the specifications for all LCDs so the consumer knows what they are getting. Right now you have trudge through the bowels of the Internet just to find what panel is being used for a particular display, since most of the time it isn't disclosed.The technical specifications are also suspect because the "tests" used aren't standardized or controlled in any meaningful fashion. That's how you can have 2ms LCDs that really are 10ms or higher. Same thing with contrast ratios, especially dynamic ones. I'm just waiting for the LCD that has Infinity:1 contrast ratio. That's the one for me!
tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Companies will never do this for one big reason. Profit. They profit from the lack of real specifications on lcds that allows them to make even low end lcds seem to be good. And most people don't care at all. We're the few that actually try to give good advice on avoiding crap lcds, but we can't fight against the huge tide of mindless consumers.JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
Don't forget the other reason a lot of companies don't like to disclose the type of LCD panel they use: they don't want to be "locked in" to a specific LCD panel. If they were to advertise that the display uses, for example, an S-PVA panel, they wouldn't be able to switch to less expensive TN down the road -- or perhaps IPS or MVA. High quality displays generally don't change panels midway through the production run, but the same can't be said of less expensive models.tomoyo - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
No kidding. I remember all that panel lottery madness with those Samsung TN-films such as the 226BW. It was ridiculous when there were 4 possible panels you could receive from one monitor model. Same thing with the Dell IPS/S-PVA lottery from long ago. It's dishonest how little they care about the quality of the product that we get.I'm glad my friend got a Benq FP241W with a similar MVA panel to the one you just reviewed a couple years ago for around $600. Probably the best pickup for a 24" at the time. (and he was lucky not to experience problems like some have).
alexdi - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
The lag numbers for the Dell 2408WFP are incorrect as of revision A01, which replaced A00 four months ago. A01 lag is significantly reduced and identical to the 2407WFP A04. I have had all three screens at once to verify this.fmyhr - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...">http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surve...If you would like to be able to buy a ThinkPad or other business-class notebook with a premium screen, please take the survey at the above url when you can spare a couple of minutes.
Survey results are here:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.i...">http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/mess...al_Inter...
Thanks for your help!
GTaudiophile - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I spent a few months doing research, trying to find a 24" replacement for my really old DELL 2001FP.It more or less came down to the DELL 2408WFP and the HP LP2475w. But I just read too many negative reviews, calibration issues, etc. to feel that either was a safe bet of my $550.00 USD.
What am I looking for? 24". 1920x1200. 1080P. 16:9. Something "approved" by photographers for photo editing / color accuracy. But something that can also be a decent gaming monitor when needed. Something that will allow me to be on the net for hours without causing too much eye fatigue. And finally costs around $500 or less.
In the end, I quit my search for now, unsatisfied with current market offerings. If the "Stickied LCD" thread in the Video Cards & Graphics forum is any indication, I am not the only frustrated person out there.
haplo602 - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link
I want to buy the HP screen you mentioned. What negatives did you find about it ? I did only find favorable reviews.