- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
I recently bought 2 TN monitors from Iiyama, a 2017 model 2488HSU-B3 and shortly after a brand new 2018 model 2560HSU.
I have calibrated both of the monitors with displaycal 3.5.3 and a Colormunki colorimeter – so far so good.
Since I am usually in a dim lit room I have used a target luminance of 120 cd/m2 for both calibrations.On the ‘naked eye’ it seems both monitors seem to be configured the same, I can put 2 pictures on the monitors and I can hardly find any difference at all; the main difference seems to be from small differences in the viewing angles of the monitors.
What I can’t understand though; both monitor specs declare a 1000:1 contrast ratio for the monitors. A dutch website already reviewed the monitor last week and was able to measure a 888:1 contrast ratio. My 2488 model seems about right and measurement gives me a 1000+:1 contrast ratio. The 2560 model however measures a maximum of 730:1 ish contrast ratio. I’ve tried recalibrating it and measuring again, but to no avail.
How is it possible that I am measuring such low contrast? Am I doing something wrong? I am using the exact same displaycal settings for both calibrations and measurements – I am mostly using the default settings (no black point correction, no black level settings). (edit: the monitor also has a ‘advanced contrast’ option, Ive tried that, and although it boosts measured contrast 2000:1 it totally destroys the colors).
Hi,
manufacturer’s contrast claims should be taken with a grain of salt. It also depends on signal processing (limiting any of the RGB channels by whichever means effectively limits contrast).
But how did these guys measure this value if it’s just a claim? https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/8283/4/goede-144hz-voor-weinig-iiyama-g-master-gb2560hsu-review-helderheid-en-contrast – they measured it at 150cd/m2, i guess I could try that but I doubt very much this is the case. They also managed 97.5% sRGB gamut where I only measure 94% – could it be that there is any difference in the colorimeter they are using (X-Rite i1 Display Pro – which I thought had the same hardware ,just better firmware than Colormunki).
Calibrite Display Pro HL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.Information published by hardware review sites is hardly gospel. Unless they really publish extensive information about how they conduct these tests – how the monitor was set up, what software was used, other setup parameters – take them with a big grain of salt as well. The gamut coverage measurements this particular site publishes are likely 2D coverage in CIE xy based on the screenshot they show, which is not very useful – gamuts are 3D volumes.
Considering the calibration and measurements, is it safe to conclude that the older 2488 with 1000:1 contrast and 97% sRGB is better than the 2560 with 730:1 contrast and 94% sRGB? As I said, I do not really notice it from the naked eye when comparing screens after calibration. I guess this is due to the fact they both have color/gray scale deviations that fall below delta value of 3.
The idea behind being the new model was to replace the old one (newer one better freesync range) but it would almost look it’s not really an upgrade. If this is a good conclusion, maybe I should just send the new screen back before return period runs out.
is it safe to conclude that the older 2488 with 1000:1 contrast and 97% sRGB is better than the 2560 with 730:1 contrast and 94% sRGB?
Might be that, might be normal manufacturing tolerances.
Then it might be that I have gotten a panel from the bottom of the spectrum. I’ll do one more calibration with default settings and see what it gives! Thanks!
