NEC EA244UHD Review
by Chris Heinonen on August 7, 2014 2:30 PM ESTsRGB Test Bench
The NEC EA244UHD has a built-in sRGB mode that is used for all of these measurements. SpectraView II can only calibrate the NEC to native gamut and while CalMAN 5.3.5 can use ICC-aware patterns for doing measurements, we do not use that option. Most programs are not ICC-aware and we want to show the most real-world performance that we can.
| Pre-Calibration |
Post-Calibration, 200 cd/m2 |
Post-Calibration, 80 cd/m2 |
|
| White Level ( cd/m2) | 202.6 | 198.5 | 80.5 |
| Black Level ( cd/m2) | 0.2677 | 0.2783 | 0.1143 |
| Contrast Ratio | 756:01:00 | 713:01:00 | 705:01:00 |
| Gamma (Average) | 2.06 | 2.17 | 2.37 |
| Color Temperature | 6347K | 6734K | 6593K |
| Grayscale dE2000 | 2.48 | 0.46 | 1.3 |
| Color Checker dE2000 | 2.21 | 0.79 | 0.87 |
| Saturations dE2000 | 2.42 | 0.78 | 1.1 |
The sRGB mode has a slightly red tint to the grayscale that gets worse as you get closer to 100% white. The gamma has a larger issue with it falling below 2.0 past 70% and giving us an average gamma of 2.06. Even with this gamma issue the color checker has a very good average error of 2.21 and the saturations error is only 2.42. The largest issue we see is actually the 100% white error, and this is something that calibration can usually correct quite easily.
As expected, calibrating to 200 cd/m2 using CalMAN gives us an RGB balance that is almost perfectly flat. The gamma drops down a bit at the end, but I expect we will see this happen more as I move to 256-point readings instead of 21-point. If I drop the readings back down to 21 it looks virtually perfect, so I wouldn’t worry. The grayscale dE2000 has an average of 1.0, so it is very good.
Color saturations are not adjusted, but the luminance is adjusted because of the improved gamma after calibration. This lets the color checker error fall to 0.79 on average and the saturations error fall to 0.77. Both of these are incredibly good and it means you won’t see any flaws when using the NEC EA244UHD after calibration. The contrast ratio takes a small hit from correcting 100% white, but not a major one.
Calibrating for the sRGB gamma and 80 cd/m2 also produces results that are very good. They are not as good as at 200 cd/m2 but are still good. I included gamma using both 21-point and 256-point charts so you can see the difference it makes in reporting. I don’t see this gamma issue past 90% that the chart indicates, but I also don’t do much work with nearly-white images. Overall these results are great and only look not-great when compared to the 200 cd/m2 ones.
I wish that SpectraView II could calibrate the gamut of the EA244UHD for sRGB but it doesn’t need it. If you own the hardware that can calibrate it you can use software like CalMAN or DispCalGUI and get fantastic results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
DanNeely - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
The former as in "I couldn't type yesterday"piroroadkill - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Total disagree. I'd rather have a 40" 3840×2160 monitor and run it at 100%.I don't want increased DPI, I wanted increased size and res :D
AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
piroroadkill, yup, same here. 44" gives 100 PPI. Someone just needs to make one, and curve it while they're at it (and stop curving the damn TVs).althaz - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Agreed. What I want is a 30" 4k monitor (ideally 16:10) that can handle 4k @ 60Hz. Everything else just needs to be "good enough". Ideally I'd prefer a VA monitor for the better contrast (FAR prefer good contrast over slightly better off-angle viewing), or better yet an OLED (probably still years away), but 30" 4k with good enough everything else at the right price would get me over the line for a pair of them right now.piroroadkill - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
An 8:5 (1.6:1) AR monitor of this resolution? Not a chance. You'd have to go back to 2001.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_mo...
Shadowself - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Probably true, 16:10 seems to be, unfortunately, a thing of the past. However, an ~ 30" 4096x2560 monitor would be truly wonderful!Tristor - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
I completely disagree. The benefit of 4K to me is the much increased PPI which makes it possible to utilize actual high resolution textures without the need for anti-aliasing in CGI work and having a denser amount of screen real estate for code work. I already run 3x1080P 23" displays, so 24" is about my max size for displays, and being able to quadruple my resolution (and PPI) in the same footprint is amazing and just what I'm looking for.My only holdout is waiting to see the dust settle on all the 24" IPS UHD options so I can pick what will end up being a good choice for the long-term, then I'll be ordering 3 of them. NEC is one company I've definitely been watching, as has Dell. I'm looking forward to seeing what Eizo actually releases. They showed off a new 24" UHD Color Edge at NAB that looks fantastic, including being a native 10-bit UHD panel.
For gaming, maybe it'd be fine to just have one larger UHD monitor, but I could easily see myself using my same setup for gaming with the monitors just rotated into portrait mode with nVidia Surround to make the most of it. There's just no advantage I can see to a larger physically sized display unless you don't have proper vision correction.
MrSpadge - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Then simply don't buy it - there are larger models available, of course. The modles around 24" are for people who's desk is not large enough for 30"+.CSMR - Thursday, August 7, 2014 - link
No need for such a high resolution resolution. 2160p is extreme and goes beyond what is needed for sharpness, adding cost and gpu requirements.The usual 1200p of 24" monitors, or even 1080p, are too low, but 1440p or 1600p would have been perfect.
Why is the PC market quadrupling pixel counts so that we are left with either lowish dpis or extremely high dpis and nothing in the middle?
fokka - Thursday, August 7, 2014 - link
there have been 1600p/30" and 1440p/27" displays for ages now, i think an upgrade to 4k/uhd is nothing too crazy in 2014. 2160p on 24" is a bit much as we see, yes, but we have 1080p on our 5" phones, 1800p and above on 15" laptops, i think it's good that the market is moving again.where you are right though is that they should offer more 1200p-1600p displays in the 20-24" region, that would be very nice and reasonable indeed.