FreeRadical
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 61
its sunday here and i am expecting my monitor within the week. have a crt to replace so i'll give the input lag measurement a try too.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, would I be correct in explaining that the problem lies in unusual or flawed OSD controls, that is:
The Brightness control (backlight luminance) is too high at it's minimum setting.
- The Contrast control is not perceptually linear. That is, a small increase in the contrast value causes an unexpectedly large change in gamma.
its sunday here and i am expecting my monitor within the week. have a crt to replace so i'll give the input lag measurement a try too.
@10e
Any chance that you will do input lag measurements? It would be nice with a second set of numbers, just to be sure that the input lag is indeed around 20ms. It would be greatly appreciated.
The way most LCD's work, they ship with 2.0-2.2 gamma and then you lower the brightness which may cause the gamma to be too dark. Then you *might* have to raise the contrast higher to compensate (but usually don't have to). This panel is the exact opposite, you can lower the brightness all the way to ONE and the default contrast setting is still too high. Any panel that has incorrect gamma and contrast at default settings is a disaster from the start. There's no reason for it to besides laziness or incompetence.
No. Most panels have no connection between gamma curve and the brightness (back light) control. Brightness simply changes backlight intensity. From the info 10e provided there is no indication this panel behaves any different to brightness/backlight inputs.
Despite your typical (for you) doomsday rants, I see zero evidence that this panel ships any more off the mark than the general state of the LCD industry, or any worse than what you seem to hold up as some sort of holy grail. The NEC 20Gx2 shipped very inaccurate out of the box, I remember reading there was significant black crush in it's default setup and the measured result certainly show it did not have perfect factory calibration.
It must really suck to be you. Your one true love monitor died and since they you have had an endless series of "Worse ever" monitor experiences.
For everyone else congratulations on the bargain IPS that can tweak out very nice indeed (epecially if 10e's profile works for you).
My 2209wa came in.
I used spyder2pro and 2.05 gamma (2.2 is way too dark)
12brightness 100red 96green 100blue = 149cdm2 6500k
Sharpness set to 40 (it's a little too high at default)
The Bad
-------------
Whoever is thinking "OOOH It's an IPS, I'm gonna buy it and it will have great colors without calibrating it", is gonna be disappointed. This monitor looks pretty crappy straight out of the box. Mine was 6100 kelvin when I tested it. After setting white point to 6500k, pre-calibration, the skin tones had some green/yellow in them and the gamma for the monitor is set too bright. After calibration they're better but still off. The colors on this thing post calibration are worse than the NEC 20wmgx2 with no calibration done to it.
For some reason I suspect these might be 6bit IPS panels. They don't really band much, if at all, but compared to an NEC or Apple IPS, things just don't seem like a normal IPS. Also there is no polarizer which is slightly annoying.
The black level is "ok" for an IPS but nothing to write home about. For games, the reactivity seems a little faster than a 5ms TN panel. The input lag is low (16ish).
Overall, E-IPS is definitely worse than H-IPS. It's a decent monitor but not a great one. Dunno if I'll keep or not. Here's post calibration picture, for some reason the picture makes the monitor looks like it has much higher contrast ratio than it realy does. Overall, the black level really doesn't look that good due to lack of polarizer. With a polarizer the panel would probably have a lot less glow to it and look way better:
As far as the 10e profile, I'm not seeing any difference either. I mean I install, reboot, and the monitor looks no different. Are those profiles just for printing?
sent it back two days after receiving it.
As far as the 10e profile, I'm not seeing any difference either. I mean I install, reboot, and the monitor looks no different. Are those profiles just for printing?
i tried in Xp, seemed like it didn't work. maybe i am doing it wrong cz the brightness and constrast is same as default .you have to jump through fire hoops to make it "work" if you're on Vista. see some posts a page back
Guys, you need this program that I posted earlier for the profiles to take effect.
Guys, you need this program that I posted earlier for the profiles to take effect.
hey zzzz52, can you give me the steps on how you put in the profile?I'm currently using xp, so it should be working by applying the profile through display properties.
I'm now asking for another exchange and waiting for their reply, as I think I could not stand a display like this any longer
the color tint is annoying even when I am viewing documents.
Pcslide, the left side appears to me darker than the right one, is it?
Are you get a new exchange?
Good luck!
Deja Vu lol
Is there any reason to expect that all of these are uncalibrated in a uniform fashion? IE will 10e's profile make every monitor look the same?
I ask because I applied the profile and did see a change, but if I go to lagom the gamma is certainly off when viewing the gamma calibration and viewing angle tests. I really don't know anything about how lcd's are made but it seems possible that production variances would make each panel slightly different in terms of what calibration is needed to make it look nice.
true or no?
Guys, you need this program that I posted earlier for the profiles to take effect.
lol, some people just can't settle
I'm quite pleased with it.
@10e, you have listed the color and contrast settings through the monitor OSD a couple of times at least. Are the settings on this page of 94,90,92, contrast 74 accurate? Because I swear they were different in another post, and the contrast was like 65.