Eizo Foris FG2421: 120hz VA Panel

I just tested with that image. I get a hint of what you are talking about, but if I move my head to the right laterally, most of it goes away. So that appears mainly to be a gamma shift issue. VA panels will have some gamma shift unfortunately. Small price to pay IMO when everything else is so good.
 
That's interesting, gamma shift definitely makes it Much more apparent for me (shifting my head makes it less obvious, but most definitely still there so it's not just gamma shift)

I got no doubt that the screen I got has a fairly serious flaw in it compared to what it's potential is now, thanks for the info. You still haven't answered what brightness levels you've been working with though ;)

And otherwise great job on the review.
 
alike said:
So, do we have to calibrate our monitors to 2.4 target gamma? I've always used 2.2 till now and tried sRGB (with basicColor) a few times, but it turned out too bright/ grayish.
Click to expand...
you 'have' to calibrate to sRGB if you want to have properly calibrated monitor for web

it looks bad you say?
now how this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/SRGB_gamma.svg/250px-SRGB_gamma.svg.png[img] cold look good? :eek:

sRGB standard is obviously skewed and whole 2.2 gamma thing is also gimmick because it is this flat black line on image above that is very different from sRGB standard and hence out of any standard :o

I am not saying you have to calibrate to 2.4, I am saying you don't have be restrained to some skewed standards (sRGB) or imaginary ones (2.2 gamma) and instead should experiment with various gamma values and see for yourself which looks better

besides what gamma should be used depends on gamut and ultimately human skin color. If one have monitor with too much red and don't use CMS then lower gamma may be actually beneficial...

I use 2.4 on my W2420R and to me it is perfect :D
 
A question to those of you who own this monitor; at what refresh rates can you enable the Turbo 240-mode?

One of the reviews stated it was available at 60Hz but didn't work as well, so was curious if it works and if it works well at other refresh rates. This could make it more viable when 120fps is not possible.
 
RaidSoft said:
As I said, it doesn't show up on pure black... The gray color that the friends list on steam uses for example is quite a lot brighter nearer the edges then in the center. Also this image shows it for me quite clearly on the right side when I display it in fullscreen https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56180/strippy2.png
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be a good example. Or just make a background in paint that is 4/4/4 RGB in color or higher. I see almost a greenish-looking glow on the right-hand edge of mine that comes out about 1/4" or so. Gets kind of annoying in Skyrim. I'll try and play with brightness and see if that helps.
 
phillyboy said:
Yeah, that would be a good example. Or just make a background in paint that is 4/4/4 RGB in color or higher. I see almost a greenish-looking glow on the right-hand edge of mine that comes out about 1/4" or so. Gets kind of annoying in Skyrim. I'll try and play with brightness and see if that helps.
Click to expand...

I found that going for very low brightness helps a lot (my glow is also green-ish)

My current settings: User1, Brightness 10, Contrast 50, Black level 50, R G B 100, gamma 2.6, turbo on..

This mostly gets rid of that for me but these settings has it's drawbacks as well of course..
 
Very thorough review Vega, thanks for sharing.

I'm stuck with a gorgeous but slow semi-glossy BenQ VA monitor, and I can't fathom being able to keep the image quality but get flawless 120hz motion on top.

I wonder if they can (and intend to?) fix the cross-hatching in future factory runs, and if other companies will start making similar monitors with the Sharp panel at more competitive prices.
 
The blacks are perfect on my FG2421 as well. With brightness set to 60% and the screen F11ing a black photo it doesn't even look like the monitor is on!
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/57/Black_1080p.png

The more I play with this monitor, the more blown away I am. It gives the FW900 a serious run for its money! So far VA tech is my favorite tech for slim flat panels. IPS kills my eyes and TN....well we all know about TN's drawbacks.

My Settings:
FPS1
Brightness 60
Black Level 50
Contrast 50
Temperature 8000k
Gama 2.2

Contrast Enhancer = Enhanced
Turbo 240 = on
 
Last edited:
Awesome breakdown Vega.

Honestly: This has to be a major deathblow to TN.
 
I am gonna have to send mine back. I have noticed more glow on the right side of the panel. Also I mentioned about the lines running down the screen at even spacings before? Well I have decided for £450 I can't live with that. It's going back for a replacement.
 
alike said:
You have uploaded an all black .png file that's less than 10kb. Is this really a photo of the monitor showing black screen or a screenshot?
Click to expand...

Uhh dude I put that picture (and my settings) up for people who think their FG2421s have faulty black light bleeding, to test with. Man alive I thought that was pretty friggin obvious.
 
I've seen a few of the review outlets cited throughout the course of this thread do it but I'd be interested at some point in seeing a comparison between this thing vs an OC'd 27 incher at 120Hz doing its thing.
 
l88bastard said:
Uhh dude I put that picture (and my settings) up for people who think their FG2421s have faulty black light bleeding, to test with. Man alive I thought that was pretty friggin obvious.
Click to expand...
Ok, sorry, but when you said: "it doesn't even look like the monitor is on!" followed by a link, I was expecting to see a photo of the monitor showing an all black image.

PS: It wasn't pretty friggin obvious when someone showed the original stripey picture instead of the monitor showing that picture and almost everyone "wow"-ed. :)
 
Last edited:
l88bastard said:
The blacks are perfect on my FG2421 as well. With brightness set to 60% and the screen F11ing a black photo it doesn't even look like the monitor is on!
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/57/Black_1080p.png

The more I play with this monitor, the more blown away I am. It gives the FW900 a serious run for its money! So far VA tech is my favorite tech for slim flat panels. IPS kills my eyes and TN....well we all know about TN's drawbacks.

My Settings:
FPS1
Brightness 60
Black Level 50
Contrast 50
Temperature 8000k
Gama 2.2

Contrast Enhancer = Enhanced
Turbo 240 = on
Click to expand...

I suspect the GDM-F520/FW900 models' overall crown is still safe. However, this dramatic advance in VA tech should give those fearing or experiencing their CRT's mortality serious solace...
 
alike said:
Ok, sorry, but when you said: "it doesn't even look like the monitor is on!" followed by a link, I was expecting to see a photo of the monitor showing an all black image.

PS: It wasn't pretty friggin obvious when someone showed the original stripey picture instead of the monitor showing that picture and almost everyone "wow"-ed. :)
Click to expand...

I am trying really hard to follow TOS and not insult your intelligence / reading comprehension levels.
 
l88bastard said:
I am trying really hard to follow TOS and not insult your intelligence / reading comprehension levels.
Click to expand...
Really? A few pages ago HonoredShadow posted a picture, which was supposed to be a photo of the monitor showing this stripey picture - http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040339852&postcount=178
He later replaced the picture with a real photo (it was a mistake, I'm not saying he was trying to lie or something like that), but before replacing it with the real photo, there were a few posts explaining how his monior was superb.
I don't know about the others, but I was really expecting to see a photo of the monitor after your sentence: "it doesn't even look like the monitor is on!". I thought that probably you've wanted to show a photo of the monitor, but by mistake you've showed the all black image that you've displayed on your monitor (yeah, I didn't read the link at all), so I guess I'me really stupid then. You, on the other hand look really bright.
 
l88bastard said:
I am trying really hard to follow TOS and not insult your intelligence / reading comprehension levels.
Click to expand...

Pretty uncalled for. Your post certainly leads the reader to expect a picture of the monitor showing its low black levels.
 
Great review Vega. It was a nice complementary analysis to the TFTcentral review.

I have 2 questions.

5y12.jpg



20kx.jpg
Click to expand...

The first is why does the TN panel look a less pixelated than the others even though they have the same resolution?

I can make out certain details on the Benq that gets washed out in the other 2. Maybe it's not pixelation but the whites comes off very poorly.

The second is do you have atleast an estimate on how much lightboost increases input lag on the Benq?

I found the analysis on TFT towards the end really good concerning this issue but the one element missing was how a monitor compared to the Eizo after enabling lightboost.
 
Vega said:
Now for what we all came here for, motion quality! During the MPRT test using Mark Rejhon's (blurbusters.com) at testufo.com, revealed a low to mid 2ms backlight strobe length. This equals quite impressive motion clarity. Unlike traditional Lightboost monitors, the strobe length does not vary with brightness, and also retains virtually 100% of the image quality of the VA panel. Lightboost fails greatly in that regard.
First up is your standard 60 Hz non-strobing monitor, the BenQ on the right:

5tlc.jpg


Eizo:
jxxi.jpg
Click to expand...
So this is what everyone are praising this monitor for?
The ghosting is worse than with a BenQ 60 Hz monitor.
 
Crazy Chuckster said:
Vega if you had to pick for a single gaming monitor setup would it be the Eizo or the Benq 2720?
Click to expand...

Eizo. It's the gaming standard.

mutantmagnet said:
Great review Vega. It was a nice complementary analysis to the TFTcentral review.

I have 2 questions.

The first is why does the TN panel look a less pixelated than the others even though they have the same resolution?

I can make out certain details on the Benq that gets washed out in the other 2. Maybe it's not pixelation but the whites comes off very poorly.

The second is do you have atleast an estimate on how much lightboost increases input lag on the Benq?

I found the analysis on TFT towards the end really good concerning this issue but the one element missing was how a monitor compared to the Eizo after enabling lightboost.
Click to expand...

Remember, photographs cannot replicate real world viewing entirely. Like the center white box on the Eizo looks oversaturated, but in real life it's actually the whitest and most detailed. Regular Lightboost models are thought to be around 8-14ms input lag, so the Eizo is just a hair worse.

Blackbird said:
So this is what everyone are praising this monitor for?
The ghosting is worse than with a BenQ 60 Hz monitor.
Click to expand...

That is a worst case ghosting scenario. Only certain image colors and backgrounds. If you notice in the Eiffel Tower test, it does fantastic. The real benefit does not deal with ghosting, it is motion clarity which is separate. In that it excels.
 
I have fantastic news. It's actually completely trivial to removed the stand and VESA mount the monitor. The limitation is that only two of the four VESA screw holes are available.

It's very easy to do, and doesn't require you to dismantle the case. There's a piece of plastic on the back part of the monitor where the stand connects to the monitor. It flexes and comes off easily. Unscrew the three screws to remove the stand, and the two screw holes on the sides are perfectly spaced for a VESA mount.

Considering you are only using the bottom of the four VESA screws, it's not perfectly stable. However, considering the monitor itself is light and I don't plan on constantly swinging it around all the time, I think it's more than adequate. If I bump the top of the monitor with my hand, it shakes about as much as my properly mounted Acer HN247H. What I mean is I don't think the monitor is going anywhere. I put a piece of paper between the glossy back and the mount just to avoid scratches. Overall I'm very happy. Here's a pic:

EuKsxaZl.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've got a question regarding this:

0qhv.jpg


Which one is correct color for that picture ?
Because there's really huge difference and benq looks to be nicely red but both VAs look like it's red going into orange?
 
There are a lot of variables with the way different camera's resolve a scene they are taking a photo of. Different cameras as well as different camera settings can show different results. The most a camera can really do is show difference amounts, not exacts. The way cameras see color saturation, contrast, brightness varies with room lighting, other nearby objects (especially displays right next to each other), etc. Our eyes and brains also resolve saturation, contrast and brightness very differently in different mixes of lighting/environments. Then you have to factor in the photo compression (jpg as opposed to an uncompressed png or such), and the fact that you are viewing it on your own setup. Your own setup has it's monitor's limitations. For most people their setup likely has variable room lighting conditions too, so even if they calibrated their monitor really well, that calibration's saturation, contrast and brightness settings get thrown out the window (or washed out from the windows!) when the lighting conditions vary in the room. When your room lighting dims or brightens, your eyes see things (brightness, contrast, saturation) differently Direct lighting on monitor surfaces also pollutes the display, even on AG coated monitors.

You would probably be better off taking individual photos of each monitor centered in the same room lighting and then pasting together a collage. Even that would not show you what your eyes are seeing though.
 
Michaelius said:
I've got a question regarding this:

0qhv.jpg


Which one is correct color for that picture ?
Because there's really huge difference and benq looks to be nicely red but both VAs look like it's red going into orange?
Click to expand...

The eizo is in fps1-mode in his review, i think, so it's meant to have wrong colors.
The left one looks most correct.
Here is the original (sorry, can't seem to scale images and i have to leave).:
high-resolution-flower-nokia-rose_163454.jpg
 
Vega, great review, thanks for sharing this.

couple quick things:

Vega said:
Remember, these images are only going to capture ghosting, not motion blur. You cannot capture motion blur with a camera, so you will have to pay attention to my notes.
Click to expand...

With a pursuit camera you can.


Vega said:
2. Just a small hint of input lag. All strobing backlight monitors will have some input lag.
Click to expand...

I've only gamed on CRTs, and play quake live at a high level. The only input lag I've experienced was when I experimented with VSYNC. I immediately noticed the lightning gun wasn't as responsive. Do you think I'd notice it with this hint of input lag on the Eizo?
 
It said, that this monitor have probs with red colour, so...
Personally sitting atm at TN lg panel, 'calibrated' on lagom site screen tests I c big diffrence between all images, and pure original one.
But...who cares...I don't do photo editing(my wife works a little with photos took from old panasonic fz-20 only - so it is enough for her, she just put them on her site). Most ppl viewing it use ucalibrated, over saturated or washed out office TN panels, so they wouldn't see any diffrence...
Same goes for most 'gamers' I know...
BTW beautiful picture :)
 
spacediver said:
Vega, great review, thanks for sharing this.

couple quick things:



With a pursuit camera you can.




I've only gamed on CRTs, and play quake live at a high level. The only input lag I've experienced was when I experimented with VSYNC. I immediately noticed the lightning gun wasn't as responsive. Do you think I'd notice it with this hint of input lag on the Eizo?
Click to expand...

I doubt you would notice any input lag on this monitor. It really is not an issue in real life usage.
 
Dcode said:
I doubt you would notice any input lag on this monitor. It really is not an issue in real life usage.
Click to expand...

I have a FW900 and fg2421. I notice the very, very slight input lag on the fg2421 but you get used to it after a minute and it becomes a non-factor.
 
I wonder how input lag resolves between 60hz's max 60 action slices shown per second and 120hz's max 120hz action slices shown per second.

That is, if you have 14ms of input lag with turbo240 frame doubling turned off (as opposed to reported 18ms input lag with it on), and you are using backlight strobing - how does this input lag resolve in the two max hz scenarios ultimately, as far as continual timing goes throughout considering frame times/hz ..

_new game world action/state shown ->opportunity to initiate action+consider targets+human reaction time -> time for action to register and resolve -> time until results are displayed/new game world action/state shown_

How does this actually resolve? By the time you see the new 8.3ms frame, decide whether the target is valid to fire on, initiate action with human reaction time, add input lag of hardware... you will already be past the next frame displayed at +8.3ms later. I know these are small values in ms, and it is a continual flowing animation/scene update stream (so the two scenarios likely rarely have the same "starting line" necessarily), but the values people complain about input lag are often relatively small (with a few exceptions), so it makes me wonder. Obviously seeing more recent action slices throughout and being given more opportunities to initiate actions/reactions is better functionally as well as aesthetically, but I wonder how early~late the actions are resolving in a comparison. For example a 60hz+60fps user with 5ms input lag monitor with half the motion definition, who is "freeze-framed" through every other 8.3ms world/action update and suffering extreme blur "outside of the lines" on the entire viewport, compared to a 120hz+120fps frame of reference user who has twice the scene update+ reaction/action initiation opportunities with 14ms input lag, and zero blur. It's not as simple as adding 8.3ms worth of being behind in the action/reaction+control initiation to their 5ms input lag. It is an overall resolution(not monitor resolution) of both streaming scenarios where it the scene updates and actions resolve out of sync on each and between each other no matter what.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top