LG 29EA93 Monitor Review - Rev. 1.25
by Chris Heinonen on February 12, 2013 8:49 PM ESTWith the 29EA93 being targeted towards gamers, where it can offer a wider field-of-view for games in comparison to standard 16:9 monitors, the poor lag performance of the original model was a big issue. Serious gamers would not put up with that, and so it was not connecting with its target market. With the new revision, lag is virtually non-existant. With the caveat of having to test at 1920x1080 instead of 2560x1080 due to CRT limitations, the LG exhibited 1ms of input lag with my testing. Previously we saw 27ms of input lag, so this is a completely different level of performance. Testing with the HDMI input and not the DVI input led to the same results.
Disabling the game mode only introduced another 1-2ms of lag, but at the expense of image quality, so I would leave it disabled. The total lag from input and pixel response was between 9 and 15ms. I say between because the LG 29EA93 appears to have a scanning backlight that doesn’t match-up perfectly to the refresh rate. Because of these different blanking intervals, the refresh rate of pixels can change slightly, so there is a range of response times instead of constant ones.
I also tested lag using a lag tester from Leobodnar.com, which uses an HDMI output and runs at 1080p resolution. Using a photo sensor it flashes a pattern on the screen and then senses the flash, then updates the screen to have the total lag time. Using this device I got the same results as with SMTT, between 9.6 and 15.8 ms of lag. The downside of this method is there isn’t a separate input and pixel lag time test, but it works much faster and seems to be highly accurate in my testing of it. Unless there is significant feedback about SMTT being superior to this, it might be the method I use in the future.
Due to interest, here are some screenshots showing the difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1080 in games. I will attempt to add some more before returning the display.
Compared to the previous version, power use is 2 watts higher with both maximum and minimum backlight. That's close enough to be simple variance between units, so we won't worry about it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
108 Comments
View All Comments
cheinonen - Monday, February 18, 2013 - link
You really don't want this, as while content above 235 is technically not support to exist, some does in the form of specular highlights and other very bright items. Displays or sources that automatically clip this WTW material are possibly losing some image information and shouldn't work that way.name99 - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
I don't want to be a dick, but the colors used in the bar charts are truly horrible --- the kind of colors that look like they are bleeding out of the bars.Please revert to the colors you used to use, or ask a designer to choose new colors (or just copy them from any piece of software that has already thought about this issue, eg the default colors used in bar graphs by Mathematica or Numbers).
Spoelie - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
Something must be wrong with your monitor, they look fine to mebjevers - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
I see Fry's has this monitor listed on their website. Is this the US version 1.25?http://www.frys.com/product/7511746
mcfrumpy - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
I saw the same thing so I went to the Fry's by my place that said that had it in stock. The display model had a manufacturing date of Dec 2012 and Rev00 so I'm guessing it's the old one. My bet is the ones they are selling are older since no one else seems to have it in stock.I'll admit looking at the display model I was surprised how small it looked. For as long as it is, the height of the monitor reminds me a 21 or 22 inch monitor.
SpartanGR - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
LG must find a way to fix this. I mean everyone will want the 1.25 version now.Dracusis - Sunday, February 17, 2013 - link
"Disabling the game mode only introduced another 1-2ms of lag, but at the expense of image quality, so I would leave it disabled."Hmm...
I'm guessing you meant something like:
"Enabling the game mode shaved off another 1-2ms of lag, but at the expense of image quality, so I would leave it disabled."
Regardless, what is this "Game mode" what what exactly does it do to the image quality?
The rest of the article was brilliant, so much detail and careful measurement. Then in one line you toss in this randomly subjective opinion and don't even qualify it when an explanation - I feel totally trolled right now.
SpartanGR - Monday, February 18, 2013 - link
I've spoken to a local seller in Korea and asked him which version they have. Had my hopes up guys but here 's his answer.Hello. Thank you for your interests
I contacted to LG, there was no official firmware update.
And the product we have in stock is the early released version.
Please feel free to ask if you have any further questions.
Thank you. Have a good day!
Best regards,
- dream-seller
Damn! i guess this is going to take a while
Wesley - Monday, February 18, 2013 - link
As others here have probably pointed out, a monitor like this has the potential to vastly improve the field of view in games, especially with some titles that may already have widescreen or multi-monitor enhancements. The images posted up comparing in-game screenshots were nice (thanks for going into that trouble), but perhaps a video demonstrating how things change on a monitor of this size would be better?For example, playing third-person games would enable a larger field of view but how does this affect the first-person perspective? Racing games all too often stretch the sides of the car when you're playing in cockpit view and the image becomes warped when playing in a multi-monitor environment. Would this screen give RTS players some advantage? Starcraft 2 can run on a MBP with the Retina display at native resolution. As a gamer myself, resolution becomes pretty important and I'm tired of 1920x1080. My only options are sinking cash into a 27" Korean monitor, a 30" monster, or something like this, which isn't that much larger but may be more beneficial.
macin - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link
It's 4 am and I am half asleep so bare with me here.So LG is so bothered by a review of a $700 monitor that they revise it. Great.
I am happy to hear that a company actually cares enough to seek feedback to make something better.
Why is it that the only company that line calibrates monitors is Apple?
If LG wants to stand out among other panels, why not do this for the customer as well?
Once spoiled to 2650 x 1440 and the color accuracy of Apple monitors, I can't find anything else I like.
I don't own $2k worth of calibration equip and I can't "eye" anything and get it accurate, but I know it when it see it.
I can see the difference between an out of the box pic and a calibrated pic, but I have to have someone tell me what settings they used to get there.
Maybe since you guys test so many monitors, you could add a Calibrated settings to your display page?