HP ZR24w

I just got this today :) Doesn't look like any problems so far

Can you wall mount it? I don't have much depth to my desk, and the ZR24w protrudes from the stand a bit, wheras my previous monitor went straight up

The screen is about 10cm closer so need to figure out how to move it back :(

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Just got my replacement... DHL guy didn't call an hour in advance like he was supposed to so I had to fly home from work (40 minutes). I don't think it's his fault, HP totally sucks with taking information and probably never told him.

Anyway, he waited for me until I got home and I swapped it out and based on the quick lookover I gave it with a pixel testing program, all looks good. I'll check more when I get back home. I was a bit worried at first because there was a big black speck that looked like a dead pixel, but I tapped the screen and it's just a piece of dirt inside. I got it to fall halfway down with a couple taps.

I also got a whole new unit, HP said I'd only get the panel and to only give back the old panel, so that's what I did. Now I have two sets of cables and stands.

Overall, getting a replacement from HP sucks.
 
Just got my replacement. However, there is a dead pixel on the upper right corner. But I don't want to exchange it again. Guess I'll just have to live with it.
 
Godziltw said:
It seems strange to me that on default setting (after pressing factory reset) I can't see 1~12. I'll do some calibration and post the result.
Click to expand...

Ok now I can see all black levels (although the first one is barely distinguishable from the background) However, I cannot see white level 254. Contrast ratio is 100 and brightness is 7.
 
Snowdog said:
No Really. Not with standard 2.2 Gamut. Properly calibrated to 2.2 gamut it is completely normal to not see differentiation between the first few dark tones(though you may if you like a bright monitor and have dark conditions). This is no big deal and nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
My U2410 is far from bright and, although I do usually have dark viewing conditions, I have no problem achieving a gamma of 2.2 whilst keeping all shades from 1 to 254 visible. If you literally cannot see the first few shades of black (I'm talking about even if you full screen the dark image in a dark room etc) then I'd say you should consider adjusting certain settings and recalibrating, because it shouldn't be necessary to destroy your monitors ability to render unique values just to achieve a gamma of 2.2.

It might be a "normal" result of calibration, but I do not regard it as a good thing. Personally I want to see all the information that's possible to see in an image - whether that's small details in the brightest portions or the darkest. IMO LCD's are already bad enough when it comes to black levels, and removing their ability to render certain shades, just so you can say they have achieved a certain colour accuracy or gamma, makes utterly zero sense for the average consumer..

Does the average person care more if they can see dark shades in their movies and games, or that their gamma is precisely 2.2 and their dE graph reads <1 across the board? Of course that's not to say that they shouldn't aim for both, nor that destroying your contrast to see blacks, or accepting hideously inaccurate colours, is a good thing. It's simply to say that - for most people - image quality isn't and shouldn't only be about achieving certain colour values either.

It's wise to use some red/green/blue/grey etc gradient images which show all 256 possible values and use them to make sure the calibration software isn't making a mess of your panels ability to render unique values. Because, if the settings used are removing the ability to render certain darkest shades, it's not a huge leap to assume they might well be screwing up the monitors ability to render other unique values properly too..

Calibration doesn't alter color space (profiling deals with color space), it corrects the gamma curve. A correct gamma curve tends to look better and be more accurate. So I disagree with your argument.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure what you thought I was arguing. By "colour space" I was speaking in general terms, and meant that most people are calibrating their screen towards a defined goal / standard like the sRGB spec with a certain gamma value and colour temp specified. Even if a screen is sRGB native a calibration device may well make adjustments to what it thinks your goal is. My point was that people should check what's actually been done by the device during these processes because, depending on several factors, it is entirely possible to reduce your image quality - The removal of your monitors ability to render certain shades of black being merely one example of that.

Here is a Gamma Curve
Click to expand...
Whilst I might still have things to learn, I do know what a gamma curve is, and am aware of what a gamma of 2.2 means :) The point is I can set a 2.2 gamma on my U2410 and still see down to square 1 on the Lagom black test even with my brightness set to 0%. However, if I don't full screen the image then I cannot see the first square and square 2 is just barely visible.. but the rest of the squares are easily visible.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing? It should be easily possible to see down to square 1 on the Lagom test even with a gamma of 2.2, and without setting the monitor to be very bright. The ability to render 256 unique RGB shades whilst maintaining good image quality is what separates the best monitors from the rest. A screen which cannot do it might well mean it's poorly calibrated or simply that the monitor's image quality isn't good enough to allow for that whilst matching the values you specify.

If the HR24w cannot manage this (at least not without introducing banding into gradient images etc) then it's interesting to know, because that's one way to measure the quality difference between IPS panels..

Bottom line. If you have a properly calibrated 2.2 Gamma curve losing the first few dark tones is pretty much expected, Gamma 2.2 heavily compresses the dark end. Don't sweat it. It is a mistake to obsess over this and if you mess around with it you will likely create poorer, washed out image quality.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is, whilst that may be somewhat typical, I'm sitting with a U2410 in front of me which has a gamma of 2.2, in no way looks washed out, and where the individual values are visible from square 1 to 254, with square 1 and 254 being just barely visible. I find it surprising that people would settle for less, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to switch to a screen which didn't offer that level of performance.

On the contrary.. I think it's a mistake to obsess about numbers instead of using test images to remove some of the subjectiveness and actually check the reality of what calibration adjustments actually render on the screen and what your eyes can actually see.. Colour/gamma accuracy is nice, but it needn't come at the expense of image quality, at least if your panel is good enough to allow for both. You should be able to achieve a gamma of 2.2 whilst keeping squares 1 through 254 visible on tests like Lagom, and without introducing banding on gradient test images which show all 256 shades..
 
PatK said:
On the contrary.. I think it's a mistake to obsess about numbers instead of using test images to remove some of the subjectiveness and actually check the reality of what calibration adjustments actually render on the screen and what your eyes can actually see.. Colour/gamma accuracy is nice, but it needn't come at the expense of image quality, at least if your panel is good enough to allow for both. You should be able to achieve a gamma of 2.2 whilst keeping squares 1 through 254 visible on tests like Lagom, and without introducing banding on gradient test images which show all 256 shades..
Click to expand...

You say you understand gamma 2.2, but you continue to demonstrate that you don't. Just look at 2.2 gamma graph. The first few tones all output in a straight line near zero. You continue to completely miss the point of standard 2.2 gamma. You aren't missing anything in those first few tones, because they aren't really expected to be visible, there is no unique information in the 0-4 range of the dark end because artists/photographers and image processors working in proper 2.2 gamma won't put anything in that range.

Running an inaccurate gamma curve so you can see them is obsessing over an artificial constraint. I suspect your gamma curve is inaccurate (or your black levels are weak) can you provide it? Here is mine:

cali2680.png


Notice I have perfect tracking an the low end, both the target and output are a flat line for the first few tones.

My panel is also profiled on an internal 12bit LUT so it is almost certainly more accurate than external 8 bit video card calibrations.

There is no need, nor desire to see all the tones in the 0-4 range, as there is nothing essentially down there to see except on artificial test like a tone step diagram.

Gamma 2.2 is meant to be just about indistinguishable in those ranges. You are obsessing over seeing something where there is in practical reality, nothing to see.
 
You're not supposed to be able to see the first few shades easily with a gamma of 2.2. In fact, I've used monitors where the first few shades were too easy to see, making compression artifacts in dark areas of movies and images very noticeable. Trust me, you don't want to see those ugly artifacts. Ironically, I've found that's more of a problem on PVA panels, which people claim suffer from black crush.

Assuming a perfect 2.2 gamma curve at 120 cd/m²&#8206;, here are the brightness values of shades 0-10 rounded to the nearest hundredth:

0 = 0.00 cd/m²&#8206;
1 = 0.00 cd/m²
2 = 0.00 cd/m²
3 = 0.01 cd/m²
4 = 0.01 cd/m²
5 = 0.02 cd/m²
6 = 0.03 cd/m²
7 = 0.04 cd/m²
8 = 0.06 cd/m²
9 = 0.08 cd/m²
10 = 0.10 cd/m²

Most LCD monitors can't even reach 0.10 cd/m² at 120 cd/m². Since LCD monitors can't display true black, the brightness values are normally pushed up.

Also, the Lagom LCD test images are tagged as sRGB, so if you're using a color-managed browser, you'll get different results.

The sRGB standard has a different gamma curve, with a ramped-up linear section near black to make the first few shades easier to see.

For the sRGB gamma curve at 120 cd/m², here are the brightness values of shades 0-10 rounded to the nearest hundredth:

0 = 0.00 cd/m²
1 = 0.04 cd/m²
2 = 0.07 cd/m²
3 = 0.11 cd/m²
4 = 0.15 cd/m²
5 = 0.18 cd/m²
6 = 0.22 cd/m²
7 = 0.25 cd/m²
8 = 0.29 cd/m²
9 = 0.33 cd/m²
10 = 0.36 cd/m²

That's a huge difference compared to 2.2. So basically, if you're calibrating to 2.2, the first few shades should not be easy to see, but if you're calibrating to the sRGB gamma curve, then the first few shades should be visible.

One thing to keep in mind though is the amount of ambient light will affect how easy it is to see the darkest shades. It will be easier to see the darkest shades in a dark room.

Also keep in mind that calibration programs don't test every shade. They test a few shades and interpolate the results. Also, calibration can't invent in-between shades, so the darkest shades are usually not accurate even with calibration. This is why high-end monitors have 12-bit lookup tables with precisely calculated values.
 
Snowdog: what are you using for a calibrator? Those are interesting looking results pages, especially that DICOM conformance tab (I used to work on a telemedicine app a while back)...
 
kenyee said:
Snowdog: what are you using for a calibrator? Those are interesting looking results pages, especially that DICOM conformance tab (I used to work on a telemedicine app a while back)...
Click to expand...

It is the standard Spectraview package that shipped with the 90 series NEC Spectraview monitors. The included calibration device is an NEC stamped Eye-One Display 2.

AFAIK NEC shipped the exact same monitor in a different color as a medical display(but not full blown radiology). In fact the colorimeter is stamped Spectraview II and Gammacomp MD. Looks exactly like this:
http://www.necdisplay.com/medical/accessories/gammacompmd/
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
You say you understand gamma 2.2, but you continue to demonstrate that you don't. Just look at 2.2 gamma graph. The first few tones all output in a straight line near zero. You continue to completely miss the point of standard 2.2 gamma. You aren't missing anything in those first few tones, because they aren't really expected to be visible
Click to expand...
As Toasty X pointed out, on an ideal 2.2 gamma curve, the average LCD isn't even capable of generating blacks below somewhere around step 10! So apparently I was indeed referencing sRGB gamma.. perhaps this helps clear up a bit of confusion :) I take the attitude that - if values are present in images - I'd like them to be rendered on the screen. Personally I think it's preferable that a screen renders all 256 unique sRGB values in a visible way.. But that wasn't even my main point.

My point was that calibration, used incorrectly, may well damage a monitors ability to render certain unique shades. The fact that you don't think these dark values are very important is fine, but is a separate point.

As to that point, about how important any of that content is anyway, I never did say that you're missing anything vital! However I simply prefer to know that if, for whatever reason, the content on the screen gets dark enough, I'll be able to discern unique values in that range if I really have to. As for content providers not putting anything interesting in that range.. well, you'd hardly expect them to stick a lot of detail in values close to black! But, at the same time, if you haven't noticed - sRGB images (IE 99% of all the content online) doesn't create content that just jumps straight from 0 to an RGB value of 10 either! There's plenty of dark images out there which contain small amounts of shadow detail in that area.. I prefer to know that my monitor is still actually rendering it, even if it isn't too visible under most conditions :)
 
ToastyX said:
You're not supposed to be able to see the first few shades easily with a gamma of 2.2.
Click to expand...
The key word in your sentence is "easily". If someone can see a value of even 4 or 5 easily then I would indeed suggest they have calibrated their screen incorrectly. If I used the word easily, perhaps I should clarify.. I can "easily" see those dark values - As in, I can easily see them when examining very closely, in a dark room, with the image full screened! Indeed, if you aren't viewing the image full screen, and you're in a bright room, then I would expect (with proper calibration) you would really start to struggle below square 6 or 5. However, that's a completely different thing from calibrating your screen such that it is literally incapable of generating those dark values on your screen.. As I said, for most users, depending on their goals this is probably NOT what they want to do..

Most LCD monitors can't even reach 0.10 cd/m² at 120 cd/m². Since LCD monitors can't display true black, the brightness values are normally pushed up.
Also, the Lagom LCD test images are tagged as sRGB, so if you're using a color-managed browser, you'll get different results.
The sRGB standard has a different gamma curve, with a ramped-up linear section near black to make the first few shades easier to see.
Click to expand...
Those are all excellent points, and indeed throw up many possibilities for why different people see different things. I still think, if things are explained to the average person, they'd prefer to see all unique values from 0-255 when possible in sRGB content..

Also keep in mind that calibration programs don't test every shade. They test a few shades and interpolate the results. Also, calibration can't invent in-between shades, so the darkest shades are usually not accurate even with calibration. This is why high-end monitors have 12-bit lookup tables with precisely calculated values.
Click to expand...
Another very good point.. And also a reason why I think people should, as best they can, examine what's generated against test images, to attempt to discern what the calibration process is actually doing, rather than just read the graphs the reports produce :)
 
PatK said:
. I still think, if things are explained to the average person, they'd prefer to see all unique values from 0-255 when possible in sRGB content..
Click to expand...

It is possible that you could mislead the average person by arguing something erroneous. It wouldn't be the first time.

That is why I first chimed in about the fact that you really don't need to see these values(1-4), that it isn't even desirable to see them and can in fact degrade your image quality to see them. Imaging professional will often push shadow noise into these low levels with the expectation that they won't be seen.

By setting up your monitor to see every tone, it is not only technically incorrect, it also leads to less pleasing image quality as you will see more shadow noise, more compression noise and a flatter less contrasty image.

Could you post your calibration info? I would really like to see what is going on with your setup that makes every value visible.
 
Snowdog said:
It is possible that you could mislead the average person by arguing something erroneous. It wouldn't be the first time.
That is why I first chimed in about the fact that you really don't need to see these values(1-4), that it isn't even desirable to see them and can in fact degrade your image quality to see them. Imaging professional will often push shadow noise into these low levels with the expectation that they won't be seen.
Click to expand...
Well.. it's just a difference in preference. I prefer to know that the noise exists if it's there. Perhaps my words made it seem that these shades are more visible than they are though.. The fact that I can see them doesn't mean I'm annoyed by noise, because the shades are barely visible even under close examination. I was one of the (if not the) first person posting on the internet about the U2410's dither type noise in sRGB/Adobe mode too, so I think I can spot image noise - at least a lot better than any of the people reviewing the U2410 up until that point :) I do not find these shades being visible causes any real issues, in terms of being annoyed by things like noise etc..

By setting up your monitor to see every tone, it is not only technically incorrect, it also leads to less pleasing image quality as you will see more shadow noise, more compression noise and a flatter less contrasty image.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that has not been my direct experience, so I can only disagree here. Yep, you'll have an image that has a tiny bit less contrast.. But there is a difference between invisible, highly visible, and barely visible, in terms of those dark shades. Just because I don't want those values effectively being rendered as invisible doesn't mean I think they should be highly visible either.. It's a balancing act, and you're right to point out you can easily make a picture look like crap by making those dark regions look too bright..

Could you post your calibration info? I would really like to see what is going on with your setup that makes every value visible.
Click to expand...
Well, although I'm tempted to fetch the Eye One (or a friends Blue Eye) and take some measurements, it's missing my entire point anyway.. Which is that people need to start examining image content carefully and seeing the actual results which are rendered after using calibration devices. If you prefer to calibrate in such a way that content below a certain RGB value is never visible inside things like standard sRGB content then that's fine - I simply do not share the same preference, and completely disagree that people will see a lot of noisy images etc as a result of that preference - at least unless they overdo it and make the blacks too bright. But it's an area where people should definitely spend some time experimenting.. Don't want to derail this thread further but it's an interesting area for sure.. :)
 
Last edited:
I want to start out by saying thanks to everyone on this board. I have been a lurker here for a few months and the replies and advice I've seen have been invaluable. I hope you guys can help me yet again. :)

I bought this screen a couple weeks ago and have been loving it with the exception of one problem. It's too bright! I have brightness at 0, and actually lowered contrast from 80 to 65. It looks better at these settings, but still feels too bright when I look at things with lots of white, for example my Gmail inbox, Google Reader, or iTunes playlists. I don't have a colorimeter and have tried many of the calibrated results posted on this site, but they actually make the screen even brighter. Do you guys have any advice as to how I could make the screen softer on the eyes? Right now it seems as if I'm going to have to return it, as when I look at those white screens, my eyes hurt.

Thanks for any help.
 
wowzors said:
Do you guys have any advice as to how I could make the screen softer on the eyes? Right now it seems as if I'm going to have to return it, as when I look at those white screens, my eyes hurt.
Click to expand...

This is unfortunately a common problem with LCDs. I found my NEC a little too bright when new. It was about 165 cd/m2 minimum.

But CCFL tubes lose brightness over time, so today it is about 120 cd/m2 at minimum, which is fine. For my use I set up a second calibration to deal with when I found it too bright, but I don't use it anymore, now that the brightness has mellowed.

But in your case: With monitor brightness at zero, you can try popping up your graphics card control panel and open your desktop color controls. Turn down your brightness till comfortable. There is no way around it you will sacrifice contrast. It may not be pleasant.

You might be better off returning and looking for a LED based screen, they usually go to lower brightness levels. Or make sure the next LCD goes below 100 cd/m2 natively by asking here.
 
The NEC EA231WMi can go down to like 50 cd/m². That's my recommendation if you want an IPS monitor capable of low brightness.
 
another-user said:
you could just turn down the gamma in your video cards control panel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Is there a way to do this on a Mac?

Also, I have it hooked up to a Macbook Pro, and the normal brightness up and down keys on the keyboard don't work for ZR24w. If there were a way to control brightness from the OS, that would be perfect. Is this possible? My eyes are likely more sensitive than normal because even on the MBP display, I used to change the brightness frequently throughout the day.

ToastyX said:
The NEC EA231WMi can go down to like 50 cd/m². That's my recommendation if you want an IPS monitor capable of low brightness.
Click to expand...

Thanks. To be completely honest, I really love the ZR24w and would be sad to see it go. I really want to do whatever I can to try and keep it.
 
Last edited:
If the brightness is set to 0, then it's already at the lowest possible brightness. There's no point in using a program because the only way to reduce the brightness further is to reduce the contrast, so you might as well use the monitor's contrast control and lower it some more. It's better to reduce the contrast in the monitor itself rather than through software so you don't lose shades. However, if you're going to be changing the contrast often and would rather do it through software for convenience, here's a program: http://www.charcoaldesign.co.uk/shades

The problem with reducing contrast is it won't look as good as a monitor that can really go down to a lower brightness. The NEC also has an option that will adjust the brightness automatically depending on the ambient light level.
 
Is anyone elses noticeably darker at the bottom? I seem to have a smooth gradient of light to dark/reddish tinge
 
ToastyX said:
If the brightness is set to 0, then it's already at the lowest possible brightness. There's no point in using a program because the only way to reduce the brightness further is to reduce the contrast, so you might as well use the monitor's contrast control and lower it some more. It's better to reduce the contrast in the monitor itself rather than through software so you don't lose shades. However, if you're going to be changing the contrast often and would rather do it through software for convenience, here's a program: http://www.charcoaldesign.co.uk/shades

The problem with reducing contrast is it won't look as good as a monitor that can really go down to a lower brightness. The NEC also has an option that will adjust the brightness automatically depending on the ambient light level.
Click to expand...

I agree, there definitely is a decrease in image quality as I reduce contrast to make it less bright. I looked into the EA231WMi monitor and the only things holding me back are that it is 1920x1080 and has a slower response time than the ZR24w. Is there another comparable IPS monitor you could recommend that's 1920x1200? Thanks again!
 
mejobloggs said:
Is anyone elses noticeably darker at the bottom? I seem to have a smooth gradient of light to dark/reddish tinge
Click to expand...

Mine is darker on the bottom centimeter, and it does look like a gradient. It isn't noticeable unless I really look for it. No reddish tinge.
 
wowzors said:
Thanks for your reply. Is there a way to do this on a Mac?

Also, I have it hooked up to a Macbook Pro, and the normal brightness up and down keys on the keyboard don't work for ZR24w. If there were a way to control brightness from the OS, that would be perfect. Is this possible? My eyes are likely more sensitive than normal because even on the MBP display, I used to change the brightness frequently throughout the day.
Click to expand...
It's very unlikely you'd be able to turn the make changes to the display's brightness control via Mac OS. I don't have my old Power PC Mac Mini (which only has Tiger on it) hooked up right now, but have you tried using the calibrator referenced at http://www.computer-darkroom.com/colorsync-display/colorsync_1.htm to adjust the gamma?
 
wowzors said:
I agree, there definitely is a decrease in image quality as I reduce contrast to make it less bright. I looked into the EA231WMi monitor and the only things holding me back are that it is 1920x1080 and has a slower response time than the ZR24w. Is there another comparable IPS monitor you could recommend that's 1920x1200? Thanks again!
Click to expand...

Might be worth looking at a filter as a way of reducing brightness without cutting contrast as much.
http://www.amazon.com/3M-Privacy-Filter-PF24-0W-Widescreen/dp/B001D4GGQY
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
ToastyX said:
If the brightness is set to 0, then it's already at the lowest possible brightness. There's no point in using a program because the only way to reduce the brightness further is to reduce the contrast, so you might as well use the monitor's contrast control and lower it some more. It's better to reduce the contrast in the monitor itself rather than through software so you don't lose shades.
Click to expand...
But when you lower the RGB values you can decrease the brightness without reducing contrast, right?

mejobloggs said:
Is anyone elses noticeably darker at the bottom? I seem to have a smooth gradient of light to dark/reddish tinge
Click to expand...
My first monitor had obvious redish tint at the bottom, most on left down corner, i exchanged the monitor because of it.
My second monitor (current one) have blue-ish tint on bottom, most on left corner, it's almost like the red tint on my first monitor got transfered to blue tint on my second monitor.
But the blue tint on my current zr24w is a bit less obvious than what the red tint was.
Hmm i think i will keep this one, i have a feeling that i would never find a ZR24w without tinting issues.
Also the exchange monitor have ZERO backlightbleed, a fullscreen black image is completely dark, very impressive.



Which of these methods is the best method to calibrate this monitor?:

1= '6500K - sRGB' color preset set in OSD, 80 contrast
2= 'Custom Color' color preset set in OSD, 80 contrast, adjust RGB values (and get down to 120 cd/m2 by setting 0 brightness+adjusting down the RGB values)
3= 'Custom Color', 100 contrast, adjust RGB values (and get down to 120 cd/m2 by setting 0 brightness+adjusting down the RGB values)
4= Using the monitors native whitepoint: 'Custom Color', RGB values at default (255), 80/100 contrast(?). My native whitepoint seems to be 6300K, that's too low i guess?

Methods #1-3 all have these targets in the calibration software= sRGB, 6500K whitepoint, 2.2 gamma, 0,00 cd/m2 black luminance, 120 cd/m2 white luminance.
Method #4 have instead of 6500K target it have 'Native' as whitepoint target.

According to my spyder3 software my black luminance does not get better AT ALL by setting the contrast to 100.
It's hard to visually compare the calibrations where you adjust RGB values with where you don't adjust the RGB values because you can't swap back and forth the calibration with 1 mouseclik because the software cannot change the monitors RGB values.
 
Blackbird said:
But when you lower the RGB values you can decrease the brightness without reducing contrast, right?
Click to expand...

No. This will increase panel blocking, as will using the video card to lower brightness, as will lower contrast, etc... All of these will lower brightness, but not black levels so contrast will drop.

There is only one thing you can do to lower brightness without lowering contrast; turn down the back light. Once you reach backlight at zero, you are will have resort to contrast lowering techniques.
 
Snowdog said:
No. This will increase panel blocking, as will using the video card to lower brightness, as will lower contrast, etc... All of these will lower brightness, but not black levels so contrast will drop.

There is only one thing you can do to lower brightness without lowering contrast; turn down the back light. Once you reach backlight at zero, you are will have resort to contrast lowering techniques.
Click to expand...
Hm ok, but increasing the contrast from 80 will compensate/reduce the loss in contrast?
 
I contacted HP technical support and they think that my monitor is unusually bright. They're sending me another one in a couple of days to see. I'll post how it turns out.
 
How do I display an entirely black screen? Tried to do it in various webbrowsers, but they all display white lines around the sides or top etc

I have a stuck pixel and rather large contrast issues down the bottom left I want to get a photo of
 
mejobloggs said:
How do I display an entirely black screen? Tried to do it in various webbrowsers, but they all display white lines around the sides or top etc
Click to expand...
Go to the place where you can choose screensaver, choose 'Empty' screensaver, and then clik 'Example'.
 
Anyone have a theory on why my black luminance doesn't get better at all when i set contrast to 100? (and calibrate too)
 
Blackbird said:
Anyone have a theory on why my black luminance doesn't get better at all when i set contrast to 100? (and calibrate too)
Click to expand...

Try different calibration software (for example basiccolor: http://www.basiccolor.de/english/Datenblaetter_E/squid_E/squid_E.htm). It has been mentioned before (>20 pages back) that certain calibration suites report inaccurate black levels. I think it was spyder2 or 3 software, i'm not sure which version it was but it was definitely software delivered with a spyder calibration package.
 
Blackbird said:
Anyone have a theory on why my black luminance doesn't get better at all when i set contrast to 100? (and calibrate too)
Click to expand...

There is actually no reason to expect that it would. Pure black is a weakness of all LCDs. It would be nuts to have default settings (80 contrast) that didn't already have black that was as black as possible.

If you read the TFTCentral review that reported an improvement at 100%, ignore it, that was more in line with measurement variation, than an actual change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top