Gateway FPD2485W: 24" LCD Beauty or Beast?
by Jarred Walton on February 22, 2007 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Color Accuracy
Something far more important than contrast ratio or brightness is the accuracy of the colors that are produced. A bright display with a high contrast ratio could still have terrible color reproduction, and it's not always possible to correct this. Most people will simply "eyeball" the display output to try and determine what looks best, and there are various color charts available online that can help. Outside of image professionals, that is often sufficient, and most users will find that their eyes adapt to whatever display they use and it is only when doing side-by-side comparisons that differences become apparent.
Monaco Optix XR Pro was used to generate reports of color accuracy. 24 color patches are sent to the display with the colorimeter measuring the resulting values. The difference between what is requested and what the LCD actually shows is known as Delta E, with lower values being better. Any score less than one is basically "perfect" - the naked eye is not going to be able to tell the difference - and scores less than 2.0 are very good. Ideally, you would want all of the tested colors to have a Delta E of less than 1.0, but few people are likely to have problems with anything scoring below 2.0. From 2.0 to 4.0, most people will be able to detect a slight inaccuracy in the color palette when comparing displays side by side, but it's not too irritating. Anything above 4.0 begins to represent a more significant deviance, and numerous scores above 4.0 will almost certainly be noticeable by just about anyone using the display.
The Gateway FPD2485W includes EZTune software to help users calibrate their displays, although this will at best provide moderately accurate results. We started out with the EZTune software, checked the results, and then proceeded to use the Monaco Optix software to calibrate the display. Unless you have a colorimeter and the necessary software, you can expect your results to be closer to the EZTune values, but outside of image/video editing that is often sufficient.
Both displays perform very well when calibrated by Monaco Optix, but not surprisingly the out of box experience from the Gateway isn't nearly as accurate. Uncalibrated results for the 2405FPW were not recorded because it is only intended as a baseline measurement and is not being reviewed. The Dell 2405FPW is about two years old now, but it still performs about the same as the newer 2407WFP and the Gateway FPD2485W when it comes to reproducing accurate colors. We will be taking a closer look at the 2407WFP in the near future, but outside of the most demanding users any of these three displays will work very well. That's not too surprising, considering all three of them are based off of PVA panels.
The second aspect of color accuracy that we need to address is the color depth. The FPD2485W can produce a resulting color pretty close to the requested value, but how does it do in terms of gradient scales? This was something we neglected initially, and after further investigation there is definitely a lot of banding when viewing gradient scales, to the point that we would almost question whether or not this is a true 8-bit panel or if it's really a 6-bit panel. Attempts to capture the results of the banding with a camera have been unsuccessful so far, but needless to say the Dell 2405FPW shows less banding while the 2407WFP doesn't show any noticeable banding. In normal use, the banding usually isn't a serious problem, but graphics editors are likely to notice the effect. Any gradients created in Photoshop or other similar programs have definite problems in regards to producing a smooth color scale on the FPD2485W, and for some people that is a big enough concern that they will want to look elsewhere.
Note: Our review sample is from the first run of these LCDs and was manufactured in November 2006. Later models have apparently improved on some aspects of the display, but unfortunately we can't say whether the color gradients have gotten any better. Again, if colors are important to you, try to check out a display in person and bring up some gradient images to see whether or not you notice any issues.
Update: Additional information on viewing angles and color calibration for print work with these displays is available in our Acer AL2216W review.
Something far more important than contrast ratio or brightness is the accuracy of the colors that are produced. A bright display with a high contrast ratio could still have terrible color reproduction, and it's not always possible to correct this. Most people will simply "eyeball" the display output to try and determine what looks best, and there are various color charts available online that can help. Outside of image professionals, that is often sufficient, and most users will find that their eyes adapt to whatever display they use and it is only when doing side-by-side comparisons that differences become apparent.
Monaco Optix XR Pro was used to generate reports of color accuracy. 24 color patches are sent to the display with the colorimeter measuring the resulting values. The difference between what is requested and what the LCD actually shows is known as Delta E, with lower values being better. Any score less than one is basically "perfect" - the naked eye is not going to be able to tell the difference - and scores less than 2.0 are very good. Ideally, you would want all of the tested colors to have a Delta E of less than 1.0, but few people are likely to have problems with anything scoring below 2.0. From 2.0 to 4.0, most people will be able to detect a slight inaccuracy in the color palette when comparing displays side by side, but it's not too irritating. Anything above 4.0 begins to represent a more significant deviance, and numerous scores above 4.0 will almost certainly be noticeable by just about anyone using the display.
The Gateway FPD2485W includes EZTune software to help users calibrate their displays, although this will at best provide moderately accurate results. We started out with the EZTune software, checked the results, and then proceeded to use the Monaco Optix software to calibrate the display. Unless you have a colorimeter and the necessary software, you can expect your results to be closer to the EZTune values, but outside of image/video editing that is often sufficient.
Both displays perform very well when calibrated by Monaco Optix, but not surprisingly the out of box experience from the Gateway isn't nearly as accurate. Uncalibrated results for the 2405FPW were not recorded because it is only intended as a baseline measurement and is not being reviewed. The Dell 2405FPW is about two years old now, but it still performs about the same as the newer 2407WFP and the Gateway FPD2485W when it comes to reproducing accurate colors. We will be taking a closer look at the 2407WFP in the near future, but outside of the most demanding users any of these three displays will work very well. That's not too surprising, considering all three of them are based off of PVA panels.
The second aspect of color accuracy that we need to address is the color depth. The FPD2485W can produce a resulting color pretty close to the requested value, but how does it do in terms of gradient scales? This was something we neglected initially, and after further investigation there is definitely a lot of banding when viewing gradient scales, to the point that we would almost question whether or not this is a true 8-bit panel or if it's really a 6-bit panel. Attempts to capture the results of the banding with a camera have been unsuccessful so far, but needless to say the Dell 2405FPW shows less banding while the 2407WFP doesn't show any noticeable banding. In normal use, the banding usually isn't a serious problem, but graphics editors are likely to notice the effect. Any gradients created in Photoshop or other similar programs have definite problems in regards to producing a smooth color scale on the FPD2485W, and for some people that is a big enough concern that they will want to look elsewhere.
Note: Our review sample is from the first run of these LCDs and was manufactured in November 2006. Later models have apparently improved on some aspects of the display, but unfortunately we can't say whether the color gradients have gotten any better. Again, if colors are important to you, try to check out a display in person and bring up some gradient images to see whether or not you notice any issues.
Update: Additional information on viewing angles and color calibration for print work with these displays is available in our Acer AL2216W review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
You skipped quoting the rest of the paragraph:Optimal brightness setting for LCDs is often stated to be 120 cd/m^2. So in many circumstances the extra brightness of the Gateway isn't useful.
JarredWalton - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
400 cd/m2 is the most I could imagine using, and once both LCDs were adjusted the actual white point was a lot closer - meaning even though the maximum on the Gateway was twice as high, once calibrated I didn't use anywhere near that white level. 300+ cd/m2 can be almost painful to look at in my opinion, and 400 or higher is generally overkill.The point is, the only reason Gateway and others seem to have such insane brightness levels is to get better contrast scores. Most people will run around 200 cd/m2, give or take probably 50. But if your black is only able to reach a minimum of 0.35 cd/m2, that means the contrast ratio would be somewhere between 500:1 and 600:1. The "solution" is to simply crank up the maximum brightness, so you can claim a 1000:1 (or even 1200:1) contrast ratio. More is better, right? Except, it's not, because hardly anyone will actually use those super-bright whites.
Also worth noting is that if you max out brightness and contrast (max white level), the color accuracy scores go to hell and the whites all run together, so everything from about 200 or higher on the RGB scale ends up as the same level of white. At maximum contrast, the recommended calibrated brightness (according to Monaco Optix) is 20%, where if I choose 60 contrast the recommended brightness is 61%. As mentioned in the review, the overall color accuracy was better with contrast set to 60 as opposed to 100.
The maximum brightness (100% contrast) was even higher than reported: 500 cd/m2 was pretty close, but black went up to 0.45 cd/m2. Depending on the room you work in, higher brightness may be okay or not. I prefer running closer to 200-300 personally.
DigitalFreak - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
All I can say is that I love my 2405!Painman - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
Besides the already requested input lag tests, modern LCD reviews usually include at least a few gaming tests... some commentary on what kind of visual artifacts are evident with fast moving objects. I had 3 of these Gateways (returned for various defects) and tried to like it, but aside from other problems the smearing was just too much to take... green and brown smudges always popping up in my face. I bought myself an IPS based NEC and I ain't looking back.This isn't a very good gamer panel... thinking about it now sitting in front of this NEC, I can't really say the Gateway FPD2485W is a good ANYTHING panel, tbh.
Aquila76 - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
If you want to see something that'll blow your mind on this display, fire up HL2. At the menu screen, where it's out of focus as it loads the game, it looks like you've dropped to 256 Color mode and are 'dithering' the image. I noticed the same effect when hitting the Nitro in a couple Need for Speed games.knirfie - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
This monitor features DCDi by Farudja, why is there no mention of this in the review (or did I miss it?). And how is the videoquality/deinterlacing over composite/svideo/component?DigitalFreak - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
Page 3:Souka - Friday, February 23, 2007 - link
get an apple cinema display and make sure its calibrated properly....nothing better IMHO... use them all the time at work. Some folk have those Dell units...yuk....color is off, things seem dull, despite all calibration attempts.
Good thing they're just doing web page design and programming....
dcr - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
Could you test WoW and see if you get this "flashing" in the terrain?chizow - Thursday, February 22, 2007 - link
Jarred, nice review of the 2485W, was wondering if you wouldn't mind posting your settings after you calibrated your display with Optix. Reason I ask is that myself and many others felt the color accuracy out of the box on this panel were horrible, especially compared to other displays. I was able to get better results by asking what settings people were using, and obviously what looks good to them will vary person to person and card to card, but it was a big help.Also, it might be worth noting what month your panel was made. There were some serious issues with this panel in early production runs (November), but each successive month seems to correct problems and greatly reduce other problems. Backlight bleed seems to greatly diminish as well as an annoying PSU buzzing problem with newer models.
Lastly, I was glad you mentioned the 1:1 pixel mapping, but I think there needs to be greater emphasis on this aspect of 24" panels or any panel able to do 1920x1080. In the era of HD with all of the inputs this monitor and some competitor models provide (BenQ, Dell Rev. A04), the ability to do 1:1 is a major consideration for the enthusiast. If you have multiple HD capable devices (HDTV, PS3, Xbox360, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) this monitor can basically serve as your entertainment center, all while maintaining its main functionality as a massive 2.3 Megapixel PC display. There's really few other tech-enabling devices I've purchases that can compete with this panel's versatility and functionality.