Eizo Foris FG2421: 120hz VA Panel

spacediver said:

Are these figures based on your own measurements on the Eizo with both the Spyder and a spectro?




This doesn't really follow.

A less accurate instrument can still report perfect adherence to a given standard (i.e. Rec 709), it's just that you can't trust the result.

Click to expand...

It is not reading RGB accurately. Period. My friend had exactly the same behavior on his ST60 plasma. Spyder 3 was showing that his reds were orange before a professional calibration and afterwards, while a JETI or a Klein was reading accurate reds, which also looked red and not orange. ST60 has an accurate colorspace from factory, but does need some adjustments to bring down those factory dE 3s and 2s to 1s and 0.5s. Spyder 3 is a horrible device. The black level on this monitor @ 100 cd/m^2 white point is between 0.3 and 0.2 cd/m^2 - almost every review stated that. I can bet you that if you were to re-measure black level with ColorMunki Display alone or profiled with i1Pro, then you'd get a far more accurate colorspace measurement result for this monitor even before calibrating grayscale.

As far as 90% goes, its just an approximation made from my experience. I profiled several i1D3s and ColorMunki's with i1Pro and in each case, either R or B (never G) was off by about 8-10% (dE 4-5). I compared my i1Pro against 2 rented ColorMunki Photo spectros and all readings on all 3 displays were almost identical. That doesn't make i1Pro a reference device like a JETI spectro, but in each case, calibrations with profiled colorimeters eliminated whichever minor (yet visible upon examination) tint there was after calibrations performed only with non-profiled i1D3s and ColorMunki's.

Just a side note (to those who do not know) about why you should always get a colorimeter and profile it with a spectro if you want a truly immersive image on any display you have, especially one like the Eizo:

It is important to understand that while dE 3 is an acceptable error, to achieve that error with an excellent i1D3 + i1Pro combo, you need a dE of 1 or close to it, because in reality that combo's dE 1 is close to dE 2-4. I never got that 3D image effect and realism in movies until I got a truly neutral grayscale without any minor tints, which happened only after I bought an i1Pro. Its the oldest one, revision A, very slow, has the oldest firmware, needs to be held at only one angle, needs re-adjustment every 10 minutes, very clunky and hard to use on displays devices, but it sure is accurate! All revision are equally accurate, but some are faster than others. I will trust my i1Pro over i1Display Pro/i1D3 any day for readings above 20% gray level. Below that spectros do not read accurately, which is why you also get a colorimeter and profile it. That way you get accuracy across the entire grayscale and colorimeter speed! I am sure many people know all this, so I hope I haven't offended anyone by providing that information.

MonarchX said:

It is not reading RGB accurately. Period. My friend had exactly the same behavior on his ST60 plasma. Spyder 3 was showing that his reds were orange before a professional calibration and afterwards, while a JETI or a Klein was reading accurate reds, which also looked red and not orange. ST60 has an accurate colorspace from factory, but does need some adjustments to bring down those factory dE 3s and 2s to 1s and 0.5s. Spyder 3 is a horrible device. The black level on this monitor @ 100 cd/m^2 white point is between 0.3 and 0.2 cd/m^2 - almost every review stated that. I can bet you that if you were to re-measure black level with ColorMunki Display alone or profiled with i1Pro, then you'd get a far more accurate colorspace measurement result for this monitor even before calibrating grayscale.

Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the spyder's lack of accuracy.

What I'm saying is that you can't make the claim that a display is more accurate (relative to a given standard, such as Rec 709) than reported when measured against an unreliable device. Without any "ground truth" knowledge about the profile of a display, any measurements from an unreliable instrument are simply that: unreliable.

What I'm trying to say here is that the display could equally be less accurate (relative to a given standard) than the spyder reported it to be.

MonarchX said:

As far as 90% goes, its just an approximation made from my experience. I profiled several i1D3s and ColorMunki's with i1Pro and in each case, either R or B (never G) was off by about 8-10% (dE 4-5). I compared my i1Pro against 2 rented ColorMunki Photo spectros and all readings on all 3 displays were almost identical. That doesn't make i1Pro a reference device like a JETI spectro, but in each case, calibrations with profiled colorimeters eliminated whichever minor (yet visible upon examination) tint there was after calibrations performed only with non-profiled i1D3s and ColorMunki's.

Click to expand...

While I would also never trust a spyder 3 (unless it had been profiled against a spectro for the display in question), you can't generalize the degree of inaccuracy from one display to another. The reason that (cheaper) colorimeters are unreliable is because of the way their filters interact with the particular spectral signatures of a given display's primaries. If the Colormunki Display (colorimeter) has factory calibration offsets written into its EEPROM that are based on spectral signatures that are very close to those found in any given user's display, then the tristimulus readings on that display may well be more accurate than an i1 pro spectroradiometer.

Or, if a given display's spectral signature does not exploit the shortcoming's of the colorimeter, it will not have a problem getting accurate readings.

In order to make the quantitative claims you made, you would have had to compare measurements on a wide variety of display types. And if you were talking specifically about the Eizo Foris FG2421, you would have had to compare measurements on that particular display. If you were indeed talking about the Eizo, and are basing your figures off those measurements, then that's fine.

I used to own a Spyder3 and sold it because it was useless with LED backlights. I bought a Spyder4 and i1Display Pro and compared. Both gave me quite similar results, I kept the Spyder4 because I preferred its software and the design. Basically the Spyder3 was a load of crap but the new models are fine. A spectro is probably better than both but out of my price range.

My Reds were too Orange before I used the settings from that Spyder. Now they look better. I probably have other colors wrong, too but I am just not good at adjusting it--I guess its hard to do or there wouldn't be all this fuss over which colorimeter is better.

spacediver said:

I'm not questioning the spyder's lack of accuracy.

What I'm saying is that you can't make the claim that a display is more accurate (relative to a given standard, such as Rec 709) than reported when measured against an unreliable device. Without any "ground truth" knowledge about the profile of a display, any measurements from an unreliable instrument are simply that: unreliable.

What I'm trying to say here is that the display could equally be less accurate (relative to a given standard) than the spyder reported it to be.




While I would also never trust a spyder 3 (unless it had been profiled against a spectro for the display in question), you can't generalize the degree of inaccuracy from one display to another. The reason that (cheaper) colorimeters are unreliable is because of the way their filters interact with the particular spectral signatures of a given display's primaries. If the Colormunki Display (colorimeter) has factory calibration offsets written into its EEPROM that are based on spectral signatures that are very close to those found in any given user's display, then the tristimulus readings on that display may well be more accurate than an i1 pro spectroradiometer.

Or, if a given display's spectral signature does not exploit the shortcoming's of the colorimeter, it will not have a problem getting accurate readings.

In order to make the quantitative claims you made, you would have had to compare measurements on a wide variety of display types. And if you were talking specifically about the Eizo Foris FG2421, you would have had to compare measurements on that particular display. If you were indeed talking about the Eizo, and are basing your figures off those measurements, then that's fine.

Click to expand...

We can argue about accuracy forever. I know all about colorimeters being based off tables, which were made using reference displays. Reference displays do not perform like most consumer displays, otherwise all those who own i1D3 + i1Pro combo on AVS forums would not say that they will trust i1Pro over i1D3 any day. Different studies show different results. X-Rite and SpectraCal say that under perfect condition (the right angle, temperature, placement), i1Pro/2s are accurate within dE 0.6. They stated that only under such conditions can you truly measure the accuracy. If spectrometer X measures a point just a single pixel away from where spectrometer Y measures the same display - there can be a dE deviation just because of that (uniformity). ChromaPure says on their website that regular i1D3s are off by dE 4-9, but that dE can be cut in half if you purchase their i1D3 pro upgrade for $150. They simply add more tables for more devices, like Sony LED, Samsung LED, LG LED, etc. This shows just how different consumers displays are. Another Hardware Display Capability (or something like that) study showed that i1D3 is off by dE 2.4 on average, while i1Pro is off by dE 4.4 on average. That study is highly disputable because of the lack of proper information and because experience of many shows otherwise. Did they re-measure all i1Pros using the same exact spot, not a pixel off between measurements? There is a ton of questions you could ask them. Who will you trust and why? You can only look at that data and then compare to your own experience.

I never managed to get that awesome neutrality in a picture until I used an i1Pro-profiled i1D3. There was always that slight tint, even after ArgyllCMS LUTs that showed dEs of only 0.5. Even though there was only a 10% difference between i1Pro and i1D3 readings, the calibration from the profiled colorimeter looked obviously better. Believe it or not, but even a slight, barely-noticeable, tint can take away that grand "Wow, this looks good". I think I am more inclined to believe that any given displays is more than likely to perform differently from a reference display, used to create a table for whichever colorimeter. I think that since conditions are not perfect, i1Pro/2s are not within dE 0.5 on every display, but definitely within dE 1-3. i1D3s seem to be off by dE 4-6 in my experience because their unit to unit variation alone is off by dE 2 based on ChromaPure, and I'm inclined to believe them because my, and many AVS forum members' experience supports that. If you're going after the most accurate data/the truth - you will not find it. If you want your dE results to be the actual dEs, you need at least JETI. I don't think they can even be rented, and if they can - its more than likely to cost a lot of money!

I am also not here to sound smart or smarter than someone else. No offense, but you tend to engage and just correct things as if we're playing a game of "Who knows best?". 6500K is not the same as D65 - yes, but it can be easily deduced that D65 was implied when a monitor calibration to 6500K was discussed. The same goes for spectrometer accuracy. If someone would ask you whether they should get i1D3 or i1Pro or whichever one is more accurate, you'd give them lots of information, but the only real conclusion would be "There is no way to know how accurate either of them are on any given display unless you have a reference spectrometer, such as a JETI 1211 or a Klein (K-10?) that cost thousands". This is what repulses people and makes them stay away from calibration. Also, Klein accuracy is under question by many, but JETI 1211 is truly a reference spectrometer. I've seen several reports that JETI 1211 shows a dE 2-3 deviation from i1Pro/2s on whichever displays profiled. That really fits my experience because dE 3 is hard to spot. i1D3 dE 0.5 error is easier to spot than i1Pro dE 2.

BTW, I either had a power surge or pressed the wrong button combination, but I this is my FOURTH attempt at typing and posting this reply, LOL! True meaning of dedication.

MonarchX said:

We can argue about accuracy forever. I know all about colorimeters being based off tables, which were made using reference displays. Reference displays do not perform like most consumer displays, otherwise all those who own i1D3 + i1Pro combo on AVS forums would not say that they will trust i1Pro over i1D3 any day...

Click to expand...

you are completely missing the point here.

This is the quote you made originally:

MonarchX said:

Anyway, I can assure you that color accuracy of your monitor is far better than Spyder 3 suggests.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to get it through to you that you CANNOT make this claim based on the reliability of an instrument. You are conflating instrument accuracy with a display's "color accuracy".

You first need to understand that a display's "color accuracy" is only relative to a particular standard. In HD, that standard is Rec 709, which defines the chromaticity of the white point, and of the three primaries.

The degree to which a display conforms to this standard is what we mean by saying it has "accurate colors".

If you use an instrument that is highly reliable, and you calibrate your display and it reports perfect adherence to Rec 709, then you can confidently say your display has "accurate colors".

Here is the critical point:

If you use an instrument that is unreliable, and you calibrate your display using that instrument, then you CANNOT make confident claims about the accuracy of that display's profile.

Here is the critical point:

You cannot say that in reality, the display is actually more accurate than reported, any more than you can say that the display is less accurate, unless you have some other prior information.

So your claim was patently false, and that was why I corrected it.

MonarchX said:

I am also not here to sound smart or smarter than someone else. No offense, but you tend to engage and just correct things as if we're playing a game of "Who knows best?". 6500K is not the same as D65 - yes, but it can be easily deduced that D65 was implied when a monitor calibration to 6500K was discussed.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if you noticed, someone else pointed out your same error on that forum's thread. If you are an "experienced calibrator", as you claim to be, and in the process of trying to do it professionally, as you also claim to be, then expect to be held up to professional standards of information quality.

I consider the internet a public repository of information for our species, and as such, I like to contribute to improve the quality of information when the opportunity presents itself. I know I have benefited greatly from others who have done the same.

I was obviously talking about sRGB.Rec709 standard... that is THE standard for such monitors. What other standard would a gaming monitor try to comply with???

So you're saying that even though just about every review stated that this monitor's black level is 0.02-0.03 cd/m^2 while Spyder 3 provided a 0.06 cd/m^2 reading, there is now way to know that the display in question actually has a lower or a higher black point than 0.06 cd/m^2?

What about the fact that Spyder 3 measurement of default uncalibrated ST60 plasma shows that ST60 has a terribly inaccurate colorspace, while better probes show otherwise?

Does this monitor even have an ability to to adjust colorspace? I missed that if it has, but AFAIK it doesn't. If it doesn't then the provided colorspace is the default colorspace. You're saying that I can't know whether the actual colorspace is more accurate than what was displayed because it could be less accurate. I have already told you that Spyder 3 reported a very similar default colorspace for high-end plasma sets that, in reality, have more accurate colorspaces... Based on all that I just said, I do assume that an accurate instrument will show that this monitor adheres to sRGB/Rec709 standard better than what Spyder 3 measurement results suggest.

MonarchX said:

So you're saying that even though just about every review stated that this monitor's black level is 0.02-0.03 cd/m^2 while Spyder 3 provided a 0.06 cd/m^2 reading, there is now way to know that the display in question actually has a lower or a higher black point than 0.06 cd/m^2?

Click to expand...

If you had said that you can assure the poster that their display had better black levels, then sure you could make this claim. But Rec 709 does not specify a reference black point. It specifies chromaticities.

MonarchX said:

What about the fact that Spyder 3 measurement of default uncalibrated ST60 plasma shows that ST60 has a terribly inaccurate colorspace, while better probes show otherwise?

Click to expand...

Then you are in a position to comment, because you have access to ground truth information about that particular model (assuming low variability between the ST60 units out there). But you were talking about the Eizo Foris, and it's not clear that you were making your claim based upon reference to measurements of other Eizo Foris' primaries. If you were, then that's fine, like I said.

spacediver said:

If you had said that you can assure the poster that their display had better black levels, then sure you could make this claim. But Rec 709 does not specify a reference black point. It specifies chromaticities.




Then you are in a position to comment, because you have access to ground truth information about that particular model (assuming low variability between the ST60 units out there). But you were talking about the Eizo Foris, and it's not clear that you were making your claim based upon reference to measurements of other Eizo Foris' primaries. If you were, then that's fine, like I said.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether its a black level measurement or a chromaticity accuracy measurement - its a measurement result that is inaccurate based either on the sRGB standard or very similar findings from other review sites. I know that black levels also can very from unit to unit, but considering how inaccurate Spyder 3 is, I am more inclined to believe that 0.06 cd/m^2 is a probe error.

MonarchX said:

but considering how inaccurate Spyder 3 is, I am more inclined to believe that 0.06 cd/m^2 is a probe error.

Click to expand...

you'll get no disagreement with me on this.

mhhh..
my foris is next to a Toshiba 46SV685 (SV670 in the US).
The panel is a high quality full led zone backlighted Samsung's VA.

I measured Toshiba's black with Spyder right now.. HCFR says 0,02 and it's visibly deeper than Foris (and more realistic, Eizo's black is too blueish).

Probably I received a "not so good" Eizo, or something as changed in the backlight hardware in latest models (mine is built in january).

Wish I measured the contrast ratio when I had it...

Got mine two weeks ago (to replace a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB that had just died). Overall it is a great monitor: deep blacks, very good color reproduction, amazing brightness range, almost CRT quality motion blur reduction and a very sleek design. On the negative side, it has the bleeding-like problem on both sides (mostly on the right one) but that's about it. I'm very happy with the purchase.

I took the time to take some photos of the screen to try to show how it looks to the naked eye. I used the custom white balance option of my Sony RX100M2 in a dimly lit room while having the screen show a pure white image. The camera returned a temperature value of 6000K. I used the TFTCentral ICC profile and the following settings for the monitor:

Brightness 100
Black Level 45
Contrast 50
Temperature Off
Gamma 2.0
RGB Gain 100/96/90
Contrast Enh. Off
Color Space RGB Full Range

This is the closest representation of how my screen looks (photos have been scaled down from the originals):































































As I said, I'm very happy with it. Oh, and gaming on it with Turbo240 is a pure joy. By the way, if anyone is interested, it was manufactured in Japan on 2013.09.26 (got it from Amazon EU).

impressive photography, and the display does look great.

Well, I think that proves there are some good samples out there! I'm just glad his fails the black/grey stripes test just like mine. It's the only shot in the whole bunch that shows any annomoly I can see and it's classy to include it because it's pretty typical FG2421 behavior with that type of pattern. That center-screen cloudiness is the only thing I ever really notice on this monitor and oddly enough the only actual time I notice it is using this dark grey website.

IMPORTANT QUESTION
Can you see noticeable tearing in games when you play under 120fps with this monitor ?
Some user says there's no tearing without Vsync in games but how is possible ?

It looks like the bottom corners are darker than the rest of the screen. The right corner looks worse than the left. My Dell S2440L looks more less the same if you reverse the right and left.

This would appear to be a common problem with A-MVA screens, and I find it really annoying as my eyes are drawn to the discoloration in the corners when I'm web browsing.

paulgur said:

IMPORTANT QUESTION
Can you see noticeable tearing in games when you play under 120fps with this monitor ?
Some user says there's no tearing without Vsync in games but how is possible ?

Click to expand...

There is tearing without VSync but not that noticeable, and this is coming from someone that has been playing with VSync ON for years. But, you do get some bad stuttering when the framerate drops below 120 FPS.

Mike63 said:

It looks like the bottom corners are darker than the rest of the screen. The right corner looks worse than the left. My Dell S2440L looks more less the same if you reverse the right and left.

This would appear to be a common problem with A-MVA screens, and I find it really annoying as my eyes are drawn to the discoloration in the corners when I'm web browsing.

Click to expand...

Color uniformity is almost perfect on this display and not something to be worried about.

paulgur said:

IMPORTANT QUESTION
Can you see noticeable tearing in games when you play under 120fps with this monitor ?
Some user says there's no tearing without Vsync in games but how is possible ?

Click to expand...

There is a ton of tearing like on any other display with vsync off.

I am deciding between this monitor and the S27C750P, which can be overclocked to 96Hz. Based on the reviews, it seems to have a better colorspace, deeper blacks, but similar contrast ratio. It is also cheaper. I am just not sure whether the image quality suffers greatly at 96Hz and/or whether 96Hz is enough to overcome slow response times/smearing/ghosting.

N0RVE said:

There is tearing without VSync but not that noticeable, and this is coming from someone that has been playing with VSync ON for years. But, you do get some bad stuttering when the framerate drops below 120 FPS.

Click to expand...

Murzilka said:

There is a ton of tearing like on any other display with vsync off.

Click to expand...

Ok but i'm talk about you are almost everytime below 120fps ..............

I think I got a defective monitor or bad windows/nvidia panel settings.
In some games (dayz, arma 3, Castlevania 2, and other) when game starts the monitor's backlight is automatically maxxed out. The displayport icon popsup and everything is bright with horrible gamma.
In dayz and Castlevania 2 I solved forcing value framerate at "120" in settings.ini, in other games I can't find a solution.. this looks very strange, seems like a displayport "anomaly" triggered by games default settings.

Anyone with this problem?

alienzero said:

I think I got a defective monitor or bad windows/nvidia panel settings.
In some games (dayz, arma 3, Castlevania 2, and other) when game starts the monitor's backlight is automatically maxxed out. The displayport icon popsup and everything is bright with horrible gamma.
In dayz and Castlevania 2 I solved forcing value framerate at "120" in settings.ini, in other games I can't find a solution.. this looks very strange, seems like a displayport "anomaly" triggered by games default settings.

Anyone with this problem?

Click to expand...

I prefer this monitor with DVI.
Maybe it's me but I think motion is smoother through DVI (at least with Nvidia).
1 thing about displayport is that Nvidia CP sees FG2421 through DP as Native HD 60Hz. You have to set it to PC 1920X1080 yourself, but through DVI the PC protocols are the only options available.

It appears there is a VA panel lottery going these days!

Could those who are happy with it and not happy with it tell me the followingL
1. Where did you buy it?
2. Where was it made? Japan? Germany?
3. Who made it? Sharp?
4. Do you have any obvious checkerboarding or backlight bleeding? Any other problems?
5. Have you measured your contrast ratio? If so, what is it?

I badly want to buy this monitor, but its so expensive and if its suffers from some of the problems I have seen - like obvious backlight bleeding from the right, then this monitor is NOT worth it...

How's B&H's return policy?

It's $555 there and $610 at Newegg (which I know is cool about returns).

cubsfan-budman said:

How's B&H's return policy?

It's $555 there and $610 at Newegg (which I know is cool about returns).

Click to expand...

This stopped me from ordering from B&H:

STEP 1
REQUEST AN RMA NUMBER (Return Merchandise Authorization)
STEP 2
PACK YOUR ITEM
Place your item in the original manufacturer's packaging
Place the original package into a shipping carton.
Please do not place stickers or shipping labels on the original manufacturer's package.
STEP 3
SHIP YOUR ITEM
The RMA number must be clearly written on the outer box.
Print the label you received in the email and tape it to the carton.
We recommend you ship via insured ground service with a tracking
number. Return shipping charges are the responsibility of the customer.
We are not responsible for lost or damaged packages.

Click to expand...

Give them a call on Sunday and see if that shit is for real, they are open Sundays and closed already early on Friday... weird. They may have some separate policy for shipping instructions on items like this-- who puts a monitor packed in its box into another shipping carton? And they may pay return shipping on defective items.

Going to take a wild shot in the dark that a refund or exchange would take quite a while with these guys. They are kinda sleazy with their import camera prices looking like good prices on USA models, I'm not likely to ever order anything from B&H.

Provantage took almost a month to refund my money on one of these monitors, but they paid shipping both ways in the end.

Newegg recently ran out of these monitors and then reupped. I'd give it a shot, they probably won't change the price much right now, unless Amazon starts actually shipping them out. It doesn't matter how much you spend on this monitor really, 500-700, wouldn't make any difference to me, the important part is getting one that isn't messed up in some obvious way. Newegg is fast at turning them around if they show up borked.

That said, I ended up buying mine from a private seller who promised me a good barely used unit through oc.net and had it up on Amazon marketplace. He delivered, too. It's not perfect but I do love it.

This one is an earlier make than all the others I had, was mfg Sept. 2013

Eizo Store in Italy (maybe EU) sells them at 415 euros right now..
Only 20 available..
http://www.eizostore.it/products-page/foris/fg2421-bk/

All companies freaking do that now! They make the first batch excellent and then they decide to cut costs because another supplier offers them supposedly same quality parts, but in reality, not so same! So, all the reviewers get excellent units and early buyers, who spread the good word around, but once those who carefully save up for it get one - they get sh*t!

Does NewEgg pay fore return shipping and replacement shipping???

MonarchX said:

All companies freaking do that now! They make the first batch excellent and then they decide to cut costs because another supplier offers them supposedly same quality parts, but in reality, not so same! So, all the reviewers get excellent units and early buyers, who spread the good word around, but once those who carefully save up for it get one - they get sh*t!

Does NewEgg pay fore return shipping and replacement shipping???

Click to expand...

Yes, and sign up for premier for the free month so you can get 3 day shipping free if you're going to do it. $620 is pricey and they should be delivering premium panels for that kind of money--if they can't get you one they deserve to pay all associated costs, imo. The panels you get from Newegg are likely to be hot of the presses and Eizo is not likely to let their reputation be completely destroyed in the consumer market by not addressing some of these very well known issues.

I really don't think that's exactly what's going on with this monitor, though. Most of the actual pass/fail problems are more a function of QC, dead pixels in the center of the display shouldn't get through. There seems to have been a large batch with bad power delivery somewhere along the system. Other than that, you have to accept that these are rejected panels for an industrial display, there is going to be a huge variance in the reasons for the rejects, and if it weren't for that lottery factor the gaming version of the display couldn't have been made in the first place. The GIS display these panels are being cranked out for and only a small percentage are making it through costs literally 10x the price of the fg2421.

Hi guys, I just took delivery of this monitor and am very impressed with the contrast and colours, and 120hz coming from a 60hz monitor feels pretty amazing.

I did read that there are some issues with it and while mine doesn't have any dead pixels or much backlight bleed there is a small amount of cross hatching visible on plain backgrounds. I really have to look hard for it but its definitely there. Is this simply the nature of the panel or an actual defect? Jut wondering if its worth sending it back as I like everything else about it.

Fraggins said:

Hi guys, I just took delivery of this monitor and am very impressed with the contrast and colours, and 120hz coming from a 60hz monitor feels pretty amazing.

I did read that there are some issues with it and while mine doesn't have any dead pixels or much backlight bleed there is a small amount of cross hatching visible on plain backgrounds. I really have to look hard for it but its definitely there. Is this simply the nature of the panel or an actual defect? Jut wondering if its worth sending it back as I like everything else about it.

Click to expand...

All 4 that I have had on my table are/were worse than what you describe. I actually didn't even correctly identify the crosshatching at first, it's pretty ugly if it's severe, but if you are struggling to identify it you are in good shape I'd say. I have a spot on the lower right that does get pretty noticeable, but literally the only time it's noticeable at all is certain solid shades so it's just not an issue for me. After going through so many of these that had big serious defects, the crosshatching is almost like a perk.

Bluesun311 said:

All 4 that I have had on my table are/were worse than what you describe. I actually didn't even correctly identify the crosshatching at first, it's pretty ugly if it's severe, but if you are struggling to identify it you are in good shape I'd say. I have a spot on the lower right that does get pretty noticeable, but literally the only time it's noticeable at all is certain solid shades so it's just not an issue for me. After going through so many of these that had big serious defects, the crosshatching is almost like a perk.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Bluesun. Its only noticeable on solid backgrounds and I do have to look for it. There's a bit of bleed at the bottom but not too bad. I noticed when I put it into 240hz mode that the image lost a bit of sharpness - have you noticed this? Its super smooth but a bit more blurry.

Fraggins said:

I noticed when I put it into 240hz mode that the image lost a bit of sharpness - have you noticed this? Its super smooth but a bit more blurry.

Click to expand...

Bluesun311 said:

240Turbo ON: (the only accurate anomalies here are the square artifacting, the rest is camera shine/compression)

240Turbo OFF

Click to expand...

Yeah, lolz. I noticed it. It's a lot less destructive in practice during gaming, though. This monitor has a lot of good qualities and quite a few quirks, but one thing that really puzzles me that I might look into on Monday is why my monitor is missing the trace free setting... I remember having it at 60... It's probably a simple explanation but I'm sure the other 3 FG2421s I had all had a setting for trace free. This one doesn't. Totally weird.

Looking back the very first open box one I received was a really nice panel, but it was randomly restarting itself and that's why I returned it.

Bluesun311 said:

Yes, and sign up for premier for the free month so you can get 3 day shipping free if you're going to do it. $620 is pricey and they should be delivering premium panels for that kind of money--if they can't get you one they deserve to pay all associated costs, imo. The panels you get from Newegg are likely to be hot of the presses and Eizo is not likely to let their reputation be completely destroyed in the consumer market by not addressing some of these very well known issues.

I really don't think that's exactly what's going on with this monitor, though. Most of the actual pass/fail problems are more a function of QC, dead pixels in the center of the display shouldn't get through. There seems to have been a large batch with bad power delivery somewhere along the system. Other than that, you have to accept that these are rejected panels for an industrial display, there is going to be a huge variance in the reasons for the rejects, and if it weren't for that lottery factor the gaming version of the display couldn't have been made in the first place. The GIS display these panels are being cranked out for and only a small percentage are making it through costs literally 10x the price of the fg2421.

Click to expand...

You lost me there... These are rejected panels for another type of display? Which one? Where did you buy your and how long ago? Where was it made? Who made it? I keep asking people these questions, but nobody answers... I know that the early versions, those made in September 2013, are the ones working really well. Later versions suck big time.

MonarchX said:

You lost me there... These are rejected panels for another type of display? Which one? Where did you buy your and how long ago? Where was it made? Who made it? I keep asking people these questions, but nobody answers... I know that the early versions, those made in September 2013, are the ones working really well. Later versions suck big time.

Click to expand...

If you read my posts I do answer these questions... usually, but I write too much and people never read my answers. You write a lot, too and 90% of it goes over my head.

Mine was made in Japan late Sept. '13, I've never had one that was marked made anywhere else, and I'm not opening mine up yet so we will have to assume the panel is the SHARP LQ235D1LW03 MVA panel; that's the only panel these are being made from, to my knowledge. I have to assume you've read the TFT Central Review?

Anyway I don't know where the guy got it originally, I think he said from an Amazon Marketplace retailer like pcrush-outlet or one of those. I only bought it from him because he promised me it was a good panel and it had never restarted itself. It hasn't, all three others I had did.

MonarchX said:

I know that the early versions, those made in September 2013, are the ones working really well. Later versions suck big time.

Click to expand...

This is pure speculation. I must say, I think they have in general had spotty QC, and they clearly had a large batch of monitors that had power delivery problems. Eizo isn't headed for Walmart anytime soon.

MonarchX said:

These are rejected panels for another type of display.

Click to expand...

If you want a really nice version of this monitor and you have $6,000 to toss at a 1080p display (wtf) you can have the:


Eizo Duravision FD2405W

Could you answer for me just one more time - when did you buy the ones that sucked and from where? At least post some links of where I can find you answering - this thread has 72 pages... and it would take me far more time to look through them all than for you to just tell me where you got it and when you got it... not that you owe me any answers...

And where should I look for pre-owned or opened units that were pre-tested to not have any/little light bleeding, etc?

Have you had yours calibrated? There is no way I would use it without a proper spectrometer & colorimeter after seeing its un-calibrated color accuracy performance test results... no way!

I only worry about backlight bleeding, red color accuracy, dead pixels (if more than like 1), and cross-hatching. Backlight bleeding not only sucks to look at, but also reduces contrast ratio in the areas it affects.

Well, the asses over at Amazon cancelled my order out of the blue, so now I'm not sure what to do. Fantastic.

MonarchX said:

It appears there is a VA panel lottery going these days!

Could those who are happy with it and not happy with it tell me the followingL
1. Where did you buy it?
2. Where was it made? Japan? Germany?
3. Who made it? Sharp?
4. Do you have any obvious checkerboarding or backlight bleeding? Any other problems?
5. Have you measured your contrast ratio? If so, what is it?

I badly want to buy this monitor, but its so expensive and if its suffers from some of the problems I have seen - like obvious backlight bleeding from the right, then this monitor is NOT worth it...

Click to expand...

1. Amazon EU
2. Japan
3. Sharp I guess
4. No chekerboarding. Tolerable bleeding on the sides.
5. No.

alienzero said:

Eizo Store in Italy (maybe EU) sells them at 415 euros right now..
Only 20 available..
http://www.eizostore.it/products-page/foris/fg2421-bk/

Click to expand...

That's a steal!

Fraggins said:

Hi guys, I just took delivery of this monitor and am very impressed with the contrast and colours, and 120hz coming from a 60hz monitor feels pretty amazing.

I did read that there are some issues with it and while mine doesn't have any dead pixels or much backlight bleed there is a small amount of cross hatching visible on plain backgrounds. I really have to look hard for it but its definitely there. Is this simply the nature of the panel or an actual defect? Jut wondering if its worth sending it back as I like everything else about it.

Click to expand...

If I really look for it, I can also see some minor cross hatching on some areas on mine. If everything else is fine with the monitor I would not send it back myself.