![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
BenQ GW2x50(HM) thread.
- Thread starter Medion
- Start date
I'm just curious. When you had the GW2450HM, were you hooked up via HDMI or DVI? I had banding with limited range, but it went away (unless it's a compressed source) when I got full range working. I believe you were using DVI, but I may have you confused.
I saw it on DVI.
DVI. I tried HDMI when I saw your post and both looked the same to me (when the 0-255 setting was set).
the S24A650 does not have HDMI.
Amazon has shipped my GW2750HM pre-order, though estimated delivery isn't till the end of next week.
I'm kinda wary now, though, after reading all these under-whelming impressions of the GW2450. All these GW models are advertised with the same specs, so I would've assumed that they were using the same base panels. Oh well, at least medion's impressions are positive.
I'm kinda wary now, though, after reading all these under-whelming impressions of the GW2450. All these GW models are advertised with the same specs, so I would've assumed that they were using the same base panels. Oh well, at least medion's impressions are positive.
Amazon has a generous return policy, so you should be fine. Normally, I'd be asking "what the f---!?" to these guys complaining about the 24" version, but some of them provided some objective photos/measurements that show the issue. Basically, it's not the same panel as the one used in the 2750, and I'm not sure what's going on.
So far, we've got 3 impressions of the 2750. First was Playwares review, which was VERY positive. My impressions have been very positive as well, just keep in mind that HDMI via Nvidia means you're going to have to edit the driver (it's a driver issue, not a monitor issue). The last person who got a 2750 posted some photos, and basically, colors aren't as vibrant as a Samsung TN, nor should they. The BenQ at Standard/sRGB is closer to being accurate whereas Samsung monitors are typically factory "tuned" to be over vibrant. I do love their look though. The one comparison shot that was shown between a CRT, a Samsung, and the BenQ showed that the BenQ had some typical LCD flaws, but was otherwise much closer to the CRT picture than the Samsung.
But, yea, Amazon has a great return policy. If you end up not liking it, then simply send it back at Amazon's expense.
Having just bought a GW2750 (I'm using it now), I have mixed feelings about it. I was worried about the response time/ghosting, and this is indeed worse than my ancient Philips S-IPS. However I tried a quick game of Portal 2 and the effect this extra ghosting had on my enjoyment was pretty minimal. The Philips is rated 8ms GTG, the Benq is rated 4ms GTG... just shows how meaningless that measure is. The Philips has less ghosting by far.
Despite motion being generally OK, this monitor is still going back.
After endless tweaking of the various picture modes, the picture is much too green and too cold. I'm not sure if it's the Benq's fault, since I'm used to CCFL and this is only my 2nd LED display. However the Dell 2412 I had before looked much better in terms of colour reproduction.
RED: Red on the Benq is either too purple or too maroon, depending on preset used. At least compared to the CCFL, which I love. Neither are calibrated (I don't have the kit), but I can't get a pure red colour from the Benq.
GREEN: Everything has a massive green bias. Skin tones are zombiefied, and blacks appear green too. All the presets have a massive green bias.
WHITE: A pure white screen has a purple/indigo tint. I'm not even sure how this is possible... blacks look green and whites look purple? Yet it does, very much so. Whites on my CCFL are yellow tinted, and I can live with this. It's much easier on the eyes.
I'm not sure if h/w calibration will be able to fix the Benq, because I've manually tweaked the RGB colour settings and couldn't find any combination which looked like the CCFL did. And photos do not look natural at all.
VA issues:
The AMVA screen does not have the IPS glow that I find irritating, but it has equally irritating issues of its own. A solid colour will show horizontal gamma shift which is immediately noticable. Didn't notice vertical shifting. Only really noticeable during web browsing.
I'm also getting massive eye-strain after a single night's use. Brightness <30,Contrast 50. I'm not sure if this is due to LED backlight or the increase in screen size (from 20" to 27").
Would anyone like some side-by-side photos of the Benq with the Philips CCFL? I can borrow a camera and do Prad's ghosting test as well if you'd like.
Despite motion being generally OK, this monitor is still going back.
After endless tweaking of the various picture modes, the picture is much too green and too cold. I'm not sure if it's the Benq's fault, since I'm used to CCFL and this is only my 2nd LED display. However the Dell 2412 I had before looked much better in terms of colour reproduction.
RED: Red on the Benq is either too purple or too maroon, depending on preset used. At least compared to the CCFL, which I love. Neither are calibrated (I don't have the kit), but I can't get a pure red colour from the Benq.
GREEN: Everything has a massive green bias. Skin tones are zombiefied, and blacks appear green too. All the presets have a massive green bias.
WHITE: A pure white screen has a purple/indigo tint. I'm not even sure how this is possible... blacks look green and whites look purple? Yet it does, very much so. Whites on my CCFL are yellow tinted, and I can live with this. It's much easier on the eyes.
I'm not sure if h/w calibration will be able to fix the Benq, because I've manually tweaked the RGB colour settings and couldn't find any combination which looked like the CCFL did. And photos do not look natural at all.
VA issues:
The AMVA screen does not have the IPS glow that I find irritating, but it has equally irritating issues of its own. A solid colour will show horizontal gamma shift which is immediately noticable. Didn't notice vertical shifting. Only really noticeable during web browsing.
I'm also getting massive eye-strain after a single night's use. Brightness <30,Contrast 50. I'm not sure if this is due to LED backlight or the increase in screen size (from 20" to 27").
Would anyone like some side-by-side photos of the Benq with the Philips CCFL? I can borrow a camera and do Prad's ghosting test as well if you'd like.
+1 to the green bias as well. This is exactly what I saw. You can try increasing the blues a bit but greys might become reddish and whites might become purple. I tried for 3 days trying to find a workable setting, was not able to find one. I don't think you can get accurate color from the monitor alone. You'll probably need to perform software calbration (ie profiles) as well using something like a spyder4.
The problem with this monitor is even with red maxed, reds are still not red. I needed red and green to be about the same in order to get the right greys but it sacrifices the warm of the picture. Blue needs to be kept down but if too low, will make it too green. If too high, reds become purple. Just a mess of a monitor really. All the monitors I've had so far, not one of them was this bad.
I also lowered the brightness and contrast and I also found things a bit too bright as well. There were dark scenes while I felt should be dark but I saw grey. Well if its dark on my Panasonic plasma too then we have an issue.
Ghosting however, on premium, wasn't too bad for me. It didn't significantly affect my kill to death ratio in BF3.
I'm glad I'm not the only one
Your issues exactly mirror my own. I'll pick up another DVI cable tomorrow for a side-by-side comparison, but like you, I'm not impressed with the Benq.It's going back ASAP!
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
Way the hell can't they do good VA Monitors? If i see the TV (VA) tests they all a lot better then the Monitors.
Looks like manufactures think he lets do cheap crap Monitors most will do only office stuff on there PC and gamers are happy with the TN-Panles.
Looks like manufactures think he lets do cheap crap Monitors most will do only office stuff on there PC and gamers are happy with the TN-Panles.
Last edited:
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
It is sort of weird how VA monitors are taking such a big backseat to IPS nowadays. I've been a CRT person, so bypassed most of the VA monitors when they were popular. Which now, I am regretting. I guess it's due to the fact that consumers don't seem to really care what their monitors look like? Or what their screens look like, I should say.
I would think that VA makers could advertise better contrast, better black levels, and sort of go for the plasma vs LCD angle. Although since plasma sales are less than LCD, and companies fake actual contrast levels (50 trillion to 1 dynamic, etc), I guess that sort of advertising wouldn't work so well.
Don't know... there are some nice VA monitors if you want to spend a fortune (Eizo), but for the general public, there aren't many options. I suppose decent blacks aren't a great selling point.
So it looks like the Samsung 650 is the only halfway decent, new VA currently being made (that is somewhat affordable)? There is also that Phillips VA, but does it use the same panel as the BenQ? It's also expensive and not easy to find.
I would think that VA makers could advertise better contrast, better black levels, and sort of go for the plasma vs LCD angle. Although since plasma sales are less than LCD, and companies fake actual contrast levels (50 trillion to 1 dynamic, etc), I guess that sort of advertising wouldn't work so well.
Don't know... there are some nice VA monitors if you want to spend a fortune (Eizo), but for the general public, there aren't many options. I suppose decent blacks aren't a great selling point.
So it looks like the Samsung 650 is the only halfway decent, new VA currently being made (that is somewhat affordable)? There is also that Phillips VA, but does it use the same panel as the BenQ? It's also expensive and not easy to find.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
Eizos are just as expensive, or more-so, over here. I think the 2332 goes for about $700ish here too.
The cheapest I've seen it is through Fnatic, which I think was around 299 euros. That is the PLS model, not VA, by the way. The 2331, which is VA, was 229 euros through Fnatic, when they had it in stock. Cheapest I've ever seen it. The 24" Eizo VAs are $900+ over here (or at least what I have seen). So basically they are too expensive to be considered, at least for my poor little self.
The cheapest I've seen it is through Fnatic, which I think was around 299 euros. That is the PLS model, not VA, by the way. The 2331, which is VA, was 229 euros through Fnatic, when they had it in stock. Cheapest I've ever seen it. The 24" Eizo VAs are $900+ over here (or at least what I have seen). So basically they are too expensive to be considered, at least for my poor little self.
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
I always thought Monitors would be cheaper than TV's especially because they have no TV Tuner and ohter inputs and are also smaller but after reading a lot of reviews for over 2 months i did come to the conclusion that you get a lot more for the money if you buy a TV around 700€.
The Eizo's aren't that expensive, they just seem that way compared to newer displays. Displays used to cost a lot more, I recall the Dell 2408wfp and Samsung 245t being 800$+ in Canada back in 2008 and the bigger models were even more.
The FS2332 can be had for around 560$ in Canada. If it was 450$ and sold in major outlets I think it would sell..
The FS2332 can be had for around 560$ in Canada. If it was 450$ and sold in major outlets I think it would sell..
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
If you get 42" LCD TV's with around 3000 contrast and a Delta E around 2.8 and a respons time around 10ms for around 700€ then i think this Monitors are a rip off.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
Yeah, I remember trinitrons selling for $800+ and my first 'big' monitor was a 17" Sony Trinitron -- in used condition-- for $400, (also for my first Windows machine). So in comparison, some Eizo's aren't insanely priced. But they are definitely high priced when compared to other monitors today. It also doesn't help that most of their VA models are from several years ago (so spending a fortune on a 4 year old model seems a bit odd), and if you start going high end Eizo, they are definitely insanely priced for consumer use.
And for some odd reason it seems several monitors are cheaper in Canada than the US. Besides the Eizos, there is also the 24" Samsung 650, which is like $220 in Canada, and $280 in the US.
And for some odd reason it seems several monitors are cheaper in Canada than the US. Besides the Eizos, there is also the 24" Samsung 650, which is like $220 in Canada, and $280 in the US.
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
Way should i buy a 24" Monitor for 500€ if i get a 42" TV that is even better? For example the 40PFL5507K/12 for 650€.
You get a whole lot of other issues with TVs tho.
Most modern ones aren't able to individually set the colour of each pixel.
You have to know about overscan/underscan and how to avoid it
There are "panel lotteries" with many brands of TV. Samsung/LG especially.
You have to sit waaaay back away from a 32" TV, let alone a 42".
Naturally the power they use is a lot higher because of the bigger screen.
Dead pixel policies are less strict on TVs.
Etc.
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
1. Never read such a thing in a review.
2. Overscan/Underscan are even better on some TV's then on some Monitors.
3. If you get the wrong panel and is not as good as the tested one then you can send it back.
4. You don't need to sit waaaaaaay back only 3 times more.
5. A 42" uses 60-90W so normal that a 24" uses 20-40w but that's nothing against a Graphic Card that can eat up around 200-400W even a new PC this days uses more W's in idling that a 42" TV.
2. Overscan/Underscan are even better on some TV's then on some Monitors.
3. If you get the wrong panel and is not as good as the tested one then you can send it back.
4. You don't need to sit waaaaaaay back only 3 times more.
5. A 42" uses 60-90W so normal that a 24" uses 20-40w but that's nothing against a Graphic Card that can eat up around 200-400W even a new PC this days uses more W's in idling that a 42" TV.
Many TV's don't have 4:4:4 Chroma support. Only forum members and HDTV Test UK actually test PC support properly. Most review sites ignore PC functionality.
I have a 46" Local Dimming TV with proper text/PC support and no input lag, but I never use it, even though I primarily play console games.
Having 2 displays side by side is much better for multi-tasking (using guides for XBL achievements/using messenger programs/trolling forums, ect) something which Is harder to do with a TV. Sure I could use a tablet (Asus Transformer here) or laptop, but having a multi-display set up is much more convenient.
Not every one has the space for a big TV.
I have a 46" Local Dimming TV with proper text/PC support and no input lag, but I never use it, even though I primarily play console games.
Having 2 displays side by side is much better for multi-tasking (using guides for XBL achievements/using messenger programs/trolling forums, ect) something which Is harder to do with a TV. Sure I could use a tablet (Asus Transformer here) or laptop, but having a multi-display set up is much more convenient.
Not every one has the space for a big TV.
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
I had also 2 CRT's but didn't really needed it, i want everything in one place.
I think i get also little bit bored with the 23"-27" diagonalen because i use my PC for everything and not only for text.
I don't know the impact of the 4:4:4 Chroma support but after a quick test in a store the most TV's looked better then the Monitors.
I think i get also little bit bored with the 23"-27" diagonalen because i use my PC for everything and not only for text.
I don't know the impact of the 4:4:4 Chroma support but after a quick test in a store the most TV's looked better then the Monitors.
Last edited:
Are you on the default (High) setting, or have you tried Premium? I'm less ghosting sensitive than many, but I can tell a difference between this and the plethora of 2ms TN models I've used over the past few months, and I find the BenQ to be more than adequate on High or Premium. I just don't understand how both myself and Playwares (a reputable monitor testing site) can get similar results. My subjective results are backed up by their objective results. Are we seeing a panel lottery here?
I'm not having ANY of these problems. Since I'm not calibrating, I simply set it to the sRGB setting (which vastly limits your calibration options). When I get a Spyder of some sort, I will then set it to user and calibrate it properly. My white is near pure white (AG coating has a hint of sparkle, but that's it).
I can definitely notice horizontal shift in some cases. The top "black" bar on Google's search page is a perfect example. It's also one of the few. Lagcom's viewing angle tests are outstanding on this monitor, far exceeding any TN I've ever used (no surprise).
So basically, again, are we seeing some kind of panel lottery? I could understand if it was just Playwares that got a good one, because we see companies send "tweaked" models for reviews all the time. It's also a different country which could be an explanation (IE, cheaper models sent elsewhere). But then, why would mine be as good as it is? I've even asked myself if it was just me trying to justify my purchase, but it's not. I've had other monitors here that cost the same or less that I decided to return to KEEP the BenQ. I could return this and get my $400 back, and spend either $350 on a Samsung S27B550v, HP 2711x, or a Korean monitor. I choose the BenQ over ALL of those. Each one has its own compromises and I find that the BenQ's compromises suit me better.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
@medion
Have you owned other VA monitors before? I've also wondered if you may be a little biased (even subconsciously), or perhaps have primarily owned TN panels, so compared to them, the BenQ looks great.
I think you have said you have seen an ACD, however, right? Or am I getting people mixed up? If so, you should have at least some idea of different types of panels.
Perhaps it is a panel lottery, although since the monitor is so new, I'd think it unlikely. Maybe it's somewhat personal preference. I've had a Dell 2412 and hated it, and found an ancient CRT preferable, as well as a slightly less ancient VA monitor much better. Yet some people rave about the 2412. So personal preference plays a role too.
So maybe to you, it looks great. To others, they aren't thrilled, or think it's so-so.
Only way to know for certain, if you were so inclined, is to pick up a similar VA, such as the samsung 650, and compare them yourself. Or just be happy with what you have. No monitor is going to be perfect.
Have you owned other VA monitors before? I've also wondered if you may be a little biased (even subconsciously), or perhaps have primarily owned TN panels, so compared to them, the BenQ looks great.
I think you have said you have seen an ACD, however, right? Or am I getting people mixed up? If so, you should have at least some idea of different types of panels.
Perhaps it is a panel lottery, although since the monitor is so new, I'd think it unlikely. Maybe it's somewhat personal preference. I've had a Dell 2412 and hated it, and found an ancient CRT preferable, as well as a slightly less ancient VA monitor much better. Yet some people rave about the 2412. So personal preference plays a role too.
So maybe to you, it looks great. To others, they aren't thrilled, or think it's so-so.
Only way to know for certain, if you were so inclined, is to pick up a similar VA, such as the samsung 650, and compare them yourself. Or just be happy with what you have. No monitor is going to be perfect.
As said I'll grab another DVI cable tomorrow and do a side-by-side comparison, with some video of the ghosting. Hopefully this will illustrate what I was saying earlier.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was significant variance between units in this price range. It is a budget monitor, after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was significant variance between units in this price range. It is a budget monitor, after all.
I've toyed with the Samsung 940T, but ended up getting the 940B (TN version) due to the lower cost. My HDTV is an S-PVA, and I've used the Dell 2408, which I believe was VA.
A definite possibility, and one I've considered. However, then that would mean that the measured tools that Playwares used must also be biased, as I'm getting results (subjectively) that would be expected based on their objective measurements. Also, the TN panels I've used were usually vibrant (Samsung), though there were some crappy ones mixed in. I do appreciate the picture quality of the Samsung tNs compared to other TNs, but still find the BenQ superior.
My wife owns an ACD 27" (the last model before the Thunderbolt display). It's got a beautiful picture. I'm not a fan of IPS glow, glossy screens, nor did I want 2560x1444. However, I'm not going to lie and say that the BenQ has better picture quality, as it clearly does not. The ACD has a clearer picture (due to no AG coating and also being higher resolution) and it's got better viewing angles overall. The BenQ has better contrast and more realistic blacks. If you had asked me which was better, I'd say the ACD (just not for my needs). But once you mention the prices ($1000 vs. 400), well, I'm not seeing a $600 difference.
But this doesn't explain Playwares' measurements. My subjective experience is on par with their objective results. Also, I'd notice a colored tint on my screen, and most of the guys here who bought one also claimed to have a colored tint (some red, some green, some blue). Mine doesn't look as Vibrant as a Samsung TN, but I'm not seeing any kind of obvious tint or favored color.
I'd be willing to do a comparison if someone sent me their monitor and I paid to ship it back. However, I don't want to buy/return one. I've gone through 5 over the past 6-8 weeks and I'm done with that. You are right though, no monitor is perfect. I have a basic understanding of the tradeoffs between IPS, TN, and VA. Having had both a TN and an IPS (ACD) in my house, I decided to give VA a try. For my needs, I find that VA > TN > IPS. I will say that IPS is the best all-around PC display today, it just doesn't suit my needs.
I've taken some photos of the green bias and a movie of the ghosting, will upload them tomorrow.
Here's something really interesting, tho, before I do:
When shooting using the camera's LCD viewfinder, the LED monitor (the Benq) would pulsate, but the CCFL (the Philips) didn't. This only happens when you press the camera "shoot" button half-way, so it does its auto focus thing and then waits for you to take the picture. The whole time the Benq was pulsating in the viewfinder.
The only thing I can think of is it's like when you used to see a CRT in a TV program, and it would appear to flicker like crazy. But this wasn't flickering, it was pulsating.
I really think this might be why my eyes can't deal with the Benq: from what I've read LED displays use PWM to dim the backlight and flickering could be rapidly tiring my eyes.. But it was spooky (technical term) to see it happening on the camera viewfinder.
And without wanting to seem melodramatic, the minute I turned the Benq on to take these photos, my eyes reacted badly. I was trying to look away the whole time because my eyes just didn't like it one bit. Sorry, that was quite melodramatic, wasn't it
Here's something really interesting, tho, before I do:
When shooting using the camera's LCD viewfinder, the LED monitor (the Benq) would pulsate, but the CCFL (the Philips) didn't. This only happens when you press the camera "shoot" button half-way, so it does its auto focus thing and then waits for you to take the picture. The whole time the Benq was pulsating in the viewfinder.
The only thing I can think of is it's like when you used to see a CRT in a TV program, and it would appear to flicker like crazy. But this wasn't flickering, it was pulsating.
I really think this might be why my eyes can't deal with the Benq: from what I've read LED displays use PWM to dim the backlight and flickering could be rapidly tiring my eyes.. But it was spooky (technical term) to see it happening on the camera viewfinder.
And without wanting to seem melodramatic, the minute I turned the Benq on to take these photos, my eyes reacted badly. I was trying to look away the whole time because my eyes just didn't like it one bit. Sorry, that was quite melodramatic, wasn't it
I've taken some photos of the green bias and a movie of the ghosting, will upload them tomorrow.
Here's something really interesting, tho, before I do:
When shooting using the camera's LCD viewfinder, the LED monitor (the Benq) would pulsate, but the CCFL (the Philips) didn't. This only happens when you press the camera "shoot" button half-way, so it does its auto focus thing and then waits for you to take the picture. The whole time the Benq was pulsating in the viewfinder.
The only thing I can think of is it's like when you used to see a CRT in a TV program, and it would appear to flicker like crazy. But this wasn't flickering, it was pulsating.
I really think this might be why my eyes can't deal with the Benq: from what I've read LED displays use PWM to dim the backlight and flickering could be rapidly tiring my eyes.. But it was spooky (technical term) to see it happening on the camera viewfinder.
And without wanting to seem melodramatic, the minute I turned the Benq on to take these photos, my eyes reacted badly. I was trying to look away the whole time because my eyes just didn't like it one bit. Sorry, that was quite melodramatic, wasn't it
I've seen that before. When I had the Samsung S27B350H and the Asus VK278Q side by side, the Samsung would pulsate on camera but the Asus would not. The funny part? In front of me, I could see the Asus flicker and not the Samsung. The Samsung had mostly white whites and black blacks, while the Asus had purple blacks and yellow-ish whites. The Samsung was vibrant while the Asus looked like it was behind a urine filter by comparison.
But some people are sensitive to LED pulsing. I'm not, and apparently you are. Different models pulse to different degrees. Really, this BenQ could have been as hot as Dawn Yanek, and it wouldn't matter because it obviously gave you a migraine. (Link is for reference, totally work safe, unless you'd get questioned for looking at an image search of a fully clothed woman).
In the following pictures, the camera has slightly exaggerated the Benq's green bias. But is very real in my unit.
Benq set to sRGB mode, but is the same in "Normal" mode. Colours cannot be modified in this mode.
LEFT: Philips S-IPS (circa 2006)....... RIGHT: Benq GW2750HM
Here I will say the RED colour of the Benq is better than I gave it credit for originally. *But* if you turn down the green, then the red becomes purple.
So you have to pick your poison: everything too green or everything too blue/purple. Not a good choice!
***
Here are the originals:
Clouds reflected on lake: http://imgur.com/Xa5XK
Beach volleyball player: http://imgur.com/RhlPd
Benq set to sRGB mode, but is the same in "Normal" mode. Colours cannot be modified in this mode.
LEFT: Philips S-IPS (circa 2006)....... RIGHT: Benq GW2750HM
Here I will say the RED colour of the Benq is better than I gave it credit for originally. *But* if you turn down the green, then the red becomes purple.
So you have to pick your poison: everything too green or everything too blue/purple. Not a good choice!
***
Here are the originals:
Clouds reflected on lake: http://imgur.com/Xa5XK
Beach volleyball player: http://imgur.com/RhlPd
Last edited:
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
OMG they all suck against my CRT now i'm even more desperate. Do they really look like this? or is it your photo camera?
*The following photo is not 100% accurate and is just for illustration*
The Benq is a lot better than the Philips at displaying black.
It has less bleed (you can see a lot of bleed in the corners of my Philips, and the glow is nowhere near as bad.
In reality, the Benq screen is very uniform. There is no difference between the left side and the right side. I'm simply not good enough with a camera to take an accurate low-light photo.
The Benq is a lot better than the Philips at displaying black.
It has less bleed (you can see a lot of bleed in the corners of my Philips, and the glow is nowhere near as bad.
In reality, the Benq screen is very uniform. There is no difference between the left side and the right side. I'm simply not good enough with a camera to take an accurate low-light photo.
As I said, the camera exaggerates the effect a little. But yes, there is a green bias. I'm sorry
Prad.de ghosting test results:
http://youtu.be/86GwlOdxw2c
Video taken on camera, and yes, I suck with cameras Ghosting is a lot worse than my IPS. However, this is a synthetic test, and I was perfectly happy playing Portal 2 on the Benq.
Fast paced FPS, however, I would think you would be affected a lot more.
http://youtu.be/86GwlOdxw2c
Video taken on camera, and yes, I suck with cameras
Ghosting is a lot worse than my IPS. However, this is a synthetic test, and I was perfectly happy playing Portal 2 on the Benq.Fast paced FPS, however, I would think you would be affected a lot more.
Leaving RED set to 97, and BLUE at 87, I tried GREEN values from 97 down to 75. At 85 the the green tint was removed from both photos, but at a cost.
Things that have no business being purple, light things like dead grass, or dark things like black pebbles, now all have a purple sheen.
edit: I will upload this one photo. Taken with green set to 85 (red 97, blue 87).
Can you see a purple tint in it?
The camera really doesn't do a good job of picking it up.
Last edited:
For those interested, I bought the GW2750 and also have a green tint.
Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to correct this with the standard OSD.
The reason is that the color channels are badly aligned on this monitor at the dark AND the light end of the spectrum. Since the OSD only lets you set the individual RGB gains, in fact the individual contrast, if you set the white point nicely, the darks will be off, and inversely.
There are 2 solutions to improve this issue:
1. There is a hidden control to set individual RGB black levels. It's not in the OSD, but you can set this using a special software called softMCCS which accesses directly the monitor controls and lets you set these values. You can download it here.
Of course it's difficult to verify that your settings are correct without calibration hardware, but at least you can play with these additional settings to greatly improve the grey balance across the whole spectrum.
For info here are my settings: (I have Eye One and calibration software to check for accuracy). Just be aware that my settings may not apply to your particular monitor as each screen is slightly different. Also make sure you have a DVI cable, not VGA which will completely change colors.
a. With the standard OSD, set the following values:
- Picture mode: standard
- senseye: off
- dynamic contrast : off
- brightess: 18
- contrast: 47
- sharpness: 1
- gamma: 4
- AMA: as you like (premium is better but this setting doesn't affect colors)
- Color temp: user mode
- RGB: 98, 94, 97
b. Launch softMCCS and wait for it to detect your monitor. Then, under "image adjustment", set the following:
- RGB video black levels: 50, 45, 43
- all the other settings can be modified here, they correspond to the standard OSD settings.
- The settings are kept by the monitor even if you turn it off.
On my screen, these settings are the closest to recommended sRGB standard: nice linear Gamma at 2.2, luminance at 120 cd/m2. contrast around 2000, color temp linear at 6500k. DeltaE deviation is around 2 in average.
Just be aware that it will not give you a perfect picture because there is still some strange color spikes at the dark end which you can only correct by changing the graphics card lut.
You can try to fix the spikes by eye using VideoEqualizer for example.
2. So the second or complementary solution is to calibrate the monitor if you can.
As a conclusion, I am still quite happy with the monitor:
+
- deep black
- good homogeneity (no light patches or leeking at the edges)
- Coating is good: not to dull, not too reflective.
- it's big so I it's easier on my eyes than my previous 23" which I found characters too small. Also I can place it further back on my desk and make more room for papers and so.
+-
There is horizontal gamma shift when you look from an slight angle. It's probably also more visible because it's 27". To avoid this you need an IPS screen. I've seen TN panels which were much worse, but also some TN panels which are quite similar in this respect.
-
Color accuracy: I wouldn't buy this screen if I didn't have calibration hardware.
Probably one of the worse monitors I've had in terms of color accuracy at default settings.
But its fixable.
Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to correct this with the standard OSD.
The reason is that the color channels are badly aligned on this monitor at the dark AND the light end of the spectrum. Since the OSD only lets you set the individual RGB gains, in fact the individual contrast, if you set the white point nicely, the darks will be off, and inversely.
There are 2 solutions to improve this issue:
1. There is a hidden control to set individual RGB black levels. It's not in the OSD, but you can set this using a special software called softMCCS which accesses directly the monitor controls and lets you set these values. You can download it here.
Of course it's difficult to verify that your settings are correct without calibration hardware, but at least you can play with these additional settings to greatly improve the grey balance across the whole spectrum.
For info here are my settings: (I have Eye One and calibration software to check for accuracy). Just be aware that my settings may not apply to your particular monitor as each screen is slightly different. Also make sure you have a DVI cable, not VGA which will completely change colors.
a. With the standard OSD, set the following values:
- Picture mode: standard
- senseye: off
- dynamic contrast : off
- brightess: 18
- contrast: 47
- sharpness: 1
- gamma: 4
- AMA: as you like (premium is better but this setting doesn't affect colors)
- Color temp: user mode
- RGB: 98, 94, 97
b. Launch softMCCS and wait for it to detect your monitor. Then, under "image adjustment", set the following:
- RGB video black levels: 50, 45, 43
- all the other settings can be modified here, they correspond to the standard OSD settings.
- The settings are kept by the monitor even if you turn it off.
On my screen, these settings are the closest to recommended sRGB standard: nice linear Gamma at 2.2, luminance at 120 cd/m2. contrast around 2000, color temp linear at 6500k. DeltaE deviation is around 2 in average.
Just be aware that it will not give you a perfect picture because there is still some strange color spikes at the dark end which you can only correct by changing the graphics card lut.
You can try to fix the spikes by eye using VideoEqualizer for example.
2. So the second or complementary solution is to calibrate the monitor if you can.
As a conclusion, I am still quite happy with the monitor:
+
- deep black
- good homogeneity (no light patches or leeking at the edges)
- Coating is good: not to dull, not too reflective.
- it's big so I it's easier on my eyes than my previous 23" which I found characters too small. Also I can place it further back on my desk and make more room for papers and so.
+-
There is horizontal gamma shift when you look from an slight angle. It's probably also more visible because it's 27". To avoid this you need an IPS screen. I've seen TN panels which were much worse, but also some TN panels which are quite similar in this respect.
-
Color accuracy: I wouldn't buy this screen if I didn't have calibration hardware.
Probably one of the worse monitors I've had in terms of color accuracy at default settings.
But its fixable.
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
There is also the Philips 273E3QHSB that is waiting to be tested, the older Philips VA Monitors had good reviews
Last edited:
tftcentral published a review of that Philips - http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_273e3qhsb.htm
Calibration seems to be pretty good (they lowered the green level in user mode from 100 to 88).
Calibration seems to be pretty good (they lowered the green level in user mode from 100 to 88).
My samsung S24A650 has some weird color issues as well on greens. Though not as bad as the BenQ was.
Thanks Kikou for that link! I will try it on my and see if it works. Maybe I can finally get red of that neon green look on everything while blues and reds are perfect!
Otherwise I have conceeded to the fact I will have to get a hardware calibrater. Though I new this buying it as prad suggested it in their review that the monitor could not be calibrated by the OSD alone.
Thanks Kikou for that link! I will try it on my and see if it works. Maybe I can finally get red of that neon green look on everything while blues and reds are perfect!
Otherwise I have conceeded to the fact I will have to get a hardware calibrater. Though I new this buying it as prad suggested it in their review that the monitor could not be calibrated by the OSD alone.