Eizo EV2436 (photos inside) - Bleed / Contrast / Color Smudge?

Evening all,

Since Monday I've had the EV2436, which is my first IPS (except for my laptops 12" display) and I'd like you people's opinion on the display.

Bleed: Are we seeing ips-glow or bleed? I took some photos, incl. of each corner, to observe how the glow shifts.

Contrast ratio is listed at 1000:1, but out of the box I measure 733:1. After calibration it falls to 603:1. At 5000K it plummets to 500:1. Prad tested it to well beyond 1000:1. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Could it be related to backlight bleed?

I can still return it if need be for a replacement. Hope to get some good feedback, thanks!

1: Center (distance; 3 feet / 91 cm, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/5)


2: Top-right


3: Bottom-right


4: Bottom-left


5: Top-left

Just to confirm, the above pictures are not at full brightness, correct? If you get that kind of glow/bleed at < 200 cd/m2 , it's a really really bad sample for an Eizo and needs to be replaced right away.

That's ips glow, and I think the camera makes it look more pronounced than it actually is. You can ask for a replacement. but it will probably behave the same.

^^^ That is not the IPS glow I have been aware of for the last 12 years or so. Some of the worst I have seen if it is just that. My fs2333 has glow but nowhere near that.

Difficult to tell bleed and glow apart in IPS panels. I think bleed probably accentuates glow.
However, the combination of low measured contrast ratio and excessive glow is an indication of something amiss IMHO. Especially since these 16:10 panels usually have 1000+ contrast in reviews.

Show the images to Eizo support?

Hello again, and thanks to everyone for their generous input.

@ undertaker2k8

It's full brightness. Taking a cue from you, I've done another set at 140 cd/m2, calibrated to 6500K, gamma 2.2:

1: Center (distance: 3 feet / 91 cm, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/5, 140 cd/m2)


2: Top-left


3: Top-right


4: Bottom-right


5: Bottom-left


I noticed a number of people posting photos from 2 feet / 61 cm, so out of curiosity I did a set.

Due to the proximity I wasn't able to fit the entire display in the frame without tilting the camera:


1: Center (distance: 2 feet / 61 cm, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/5, 140 cd/m2)


2: Top-left


3: Top-right


4: Bottom-right


5: Bottom-left


At 1/5, f5.6, ISO 800, the pictures faithfully reproduce what my eyes see, at least on this screen.

Final details:

Brightness: 42
Contrast: 50
Gamma: 2.0
R: 100
G: 93
B: 94

Report on calibrated display device
------ -- ---------- ------- ------
Current calibration response:
Black level = 0.23 cd/m^2
White level = 142.13 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.18
Contrast ratio = 626:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3127, 0.3285
White Correlated Color Temperature = 6511K, DE 2K to locus = 4.3
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6511K, DE 2K to locus = 0.4
White Visual Color Temperature = 6358K, DE 2K to locus = 4.1
White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6525K, DE 2K to locus = 0.4


Have a good evening everyone.

@ CrabJuice

I think you're right. There may be some bleed in the right side which accentuates the glow. I found some videos on youtube with ips-glow, and the characteristic looks similar.

Have asked Eizo for their opinion.

At this price range there aren´t many options and most brands share the very same panel under the hood
LG builds about 50% of the up to date e-ips and ah-ips on the market the rest is samsung pls or au amva / ips and a few others
in this is case its the LM240WU8-SLA2 or simply LM240 SLA2
this is its data sheet

http://www.datadisplay-group.com/fi...splay-Group/LM240WU8-SLA2-V551B_Datasheet.pdf

your eizo panel is the same as my asus pb248q so any difference will be related to controller circuitry implementation and firmware features. Even the coating is done which is rated 3H. According to prad.de the asus was able to reach a higher static contrast than most other offers for a regular luminance value (close to 1200) and incredibly is able to have this close to unchanged on most of the brightness scale range
This panel is supplied oem´ed so each display manufacturer will do it as they please with access to a firmware sdk programming modules etc eizo not using pwm on illumination and that´s similar to both the asus and the new beng bl when in fact that´s a circuit implementation path provided by LG themselves in which the pwn is negligible like the asus >9400 hertz

This is a good because you can use 0% brightness profiles with no hassle

Although great in most features they share a certain amount of backlight bleed and then its the luck of the draw if you get one with a lower bb/glow
of course if you can swap it for another you might get one with lower your seems in fact too high (for the shutter speeds you refered to)
look at my post elsewhere for photos with shutter speed data
In my case I think I was luckier than you
other than that only if you go up a step on the price range (>800usd) will you get any better but as in most cases forget about gaming (asus pb248q lag is 5.9ms and pixel overdrive has 5 steps from 0 to max)

in the end if it bothers you too much try to build a calibration profile starting from brightness 0 or close to 0 if possible, bb will be much less noticeable and post back your static contrast ratio

It is also a fact that before messing with settings and /or calibrating all these display do benefit from a burn in period running rgb slides full screen for a couple hours. If this is done in the first dozen hours of the display´s life and afterwards from time to time when idle the bb will be lower due to not burning a fixed mask (the one the bb/glow imprints on the screen) on a static area and generallyx speaking the image will show better evenness all across

Thanks for the info ninogui, I learned something!

Having looked more at both photos and monitor I've noticed that the falloff is actually smoother than shown by the camera.

Also, moving a white cursor onto the screen makes your eyes adjust, while moving your head causes the glow to shift. So ultimately the subjective impression isn't as strong as when captured in a photo.

Here are some static contrast measurements. I couldn't get reliable readings below brightness 2.


Not sure what to make of it.

It's otherwise a marvellous screen, but the drop from 741:1 to 550:1 does show. The higher contrast simply has better definition/micro-contrast in the highlights and shadows. The Czech review did measure a max contrast ratio of 1215:1, which is a far cry from 741:1, while Prad got 25% more. So hmm...

Thks for posting

Why is your calibration based on 5000k I would say that´s too warm color

Just for the sake of it and because in the US you still have no access to the asus pb248q while you still can ask the supplier for a swap to another panel, same model
maybe you are lucky and get a better one

the nec 244 has a higher static contrast ratio although using pwm at a lower frequency (but many people are not bothered)

The ev2436 has two user modes and I calibrated one to 6500K and the other to 5000K. I happened to be 5000K when I measured the contrast. 6500K would have yielded slightly better contrast since the RGB sliders are a bit higher. For comparison the factory default gave a color temp of 7167K, so quite cool.

Am wondering, it's connected with VGA, but that shouldn't degrade the contrast ratio, or?

I read Prad's review of the pb48q and the ips glow looks really similar to the eizo. Their photo is a bit bluer, but that's probably due to camera and image processing.

I hope to hear back from Eizo on Monday. I have till next week to decide if I keep it or not -- or maybe Eizo support can send me a cherrypicked reviewer's models, grin! I am in Scandinavia, btw, and was considering the Asus. It's cheaper than ev2436 and Prad found excellent grey values, but decided to go with the Eizo for guaranteed pwm absence.

thmb said:

Am wondering, it's connected with VGA, but that shouldn't degrade the contrast ratio, or?

Click to expand...

it's possible. vga is an analog signal, so ultimately the whitest white the monitor receives (thus contrast) can be affected by things like cable and video card dac quality which aren't issues with digital connections.

test it with a digital connection. eizo would probably ask you to do the same.

livefastdieyoung said:

test it with a digital connection. eizo would probably ask you to do the same.

Click to expand...

Unfortuntely I have no access to a computer with dvi. I did try it on 3 different computers, two with integrated Intel cards and one with an Nvidia Quadro. Contrast ratios were similar. The quadro squeezed out +20 on average, but nothing revolutionary.

Maybe I should return it and try the Asus. Haven't had much luck with Eizo. I tried two ev2336, the first of which had 12 dead sub-pixels. The 2436 is a step up in every area, except ips-glow.

livefastdieyoung said:

it's possible. vga is an analog signal, so ultimately the whitest white the monitor receives (thus contrast) can be affected by things like cable and video card dac quality which aren't issues with digital connections.

test it with a digital connection. eizo would probably ask you to do the same.

Click to expand...

But probably will be negligible

Thing is with vga you have to watch out for clock and phase, there´s an advantage though vga will be easier to accept a refresh rate / pixel clock out of factory parameters (higher)
send you a cherry picked unit ? Highly doubtful but good luck with that lol

Hehe, I'm probably a fussy customer: "I want my money's worth!"

Though seriously, if Eizo cannot guarantee delivery of advertised specs, then they should lower them. Although, supposing this is a general phenomenon with many units under-performing, I can imagine a battle between Eizo's engineers and Eizo's marketing people, and we know who usually win those. "It's 75% within spec, close enough!" Good thing they don't sell elevators. . . .

I adjusted the clock and phase as well as I could using Eizo's test software. Can't think of anything else to try.