Samsung 245T: LCD Prime

by Jarred Walton on February 7, 2008 1:00 AM EST

Calibrated Results
Brightness and Contrast Ratio

For those that need accurate colors, you really need hardware color calibration. Here, we report scores for the same areas as we did on the previous page, only this time we gather the results after we calibrate the display with Monaco Optix XR Pro.


Monaco
Optix XR Pro


Monaco
Optix XR Pro


Monaco
Optix XR Pro

Color Accuracy


Monaco
Optix XR Pro



Calibration is usually best at decreased brightness levels, and we found dropping the 245T from its default settings down to 30% brightness (and keeping the default 75% contrast) with RGB settings of 36/50/50 resulted in the best scores. (Note that the red by default seems to be brighter than necessary.) We test indoors with a moderate amount of lighting, and adjust the displays according to directions. The Samsung 245T ends up ranking as one of the best LCDs we've tested, post-calibration, with a score of 1.07. Nearly all of the scores are close to 1.0, and only one color as a Delta E above 2.0.



We also tested with ColorEyes Display Pro to see if we could achieve better results. So far, we have yet to encounter a desktop LCD that scores better using ColorEyes Display Pro, which is actually surprising to us -- it seems more robust in many areas and generates newer ICCv4 profiles, but the final reported scores continue to be lower on desktop displays.

While we cannot make any sort of guarantee that the color profiles we created are anywhere near representative of all 245T panels, we frequently get requests from readers for these color profiles. If you want truly accurate colors, your best bet is to go out and invest $300 in a colorimeter and software calibration package. If you're still interested in trying out our profiles, however, we are happy to make them available. Again, your mileage may (re: will!) vary.

Uncalibrated Results Printing Results
Comments Locked

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • Deusfaux - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    I thought Samsung monitors had a 16:9 scaling mode?
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    This one doesn't... other Samsung displays might. See the OSD image gallery for details. The only options are "Wide" (fill the whole screen) and "4:3". That means that 5:4 resolutions (1280x1024) will also be distorted no matter what you do. I don't think the minor stretch of 16:9 to 16:10 is terrible, but some people care more about that than I do. Again, though, this is only an issue on non-PC use (or if your drivers don't allow you to correct the scaling).
  • hotdogandchips - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    Jarred, can you tell us when the NDA regarding the 2408WFP expires by any chance? ;0
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    LOL... actually, no, I can't. Funny thing is that the date isn't set in stone just yet either, which is part of the reason I can't say. It's supposed to be this month, based on what I heard at CES, but it might get moved to early March?
  • AcAuroRa - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    According to

    http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/...">http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consum.../C070096...

    ... its a TN.... bah I'm confused -_-.. is it a TN or a PVA?

    I actually own a w2408... and I actually like the thing -_-;;...but if there can be some facts straightened out I might go and get a 245T off the 'Egg as it is currently on sale for $650...
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    See above post... the unit I reviewed is most assuredly an S-PVA panel. I believe the PDF is simply erroneous.
  • bobo51 - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    I am confused.

    The article identifies the 245T as having a PVA panel. But I just went to the Samsung website and in their specification PDF for the 245T the panel is stated to be a TN.

    Is their website document incorrect?
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    I can absolutely state that the 245T LCD I have is S-PVA (based on how it looks from various angles), and Samsung told me it was S-PVA before I received it. http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/...">This states otherwise, so I guess someone just put the wrong information in there. The other possibility is that there are different LCD panels in some of the 245T displays... hopefully not.

    Most companies do not make a point of stating what sort of technology their panels use. While I can understand that on TN panels, I'd think anyone using a PVA or IPS panel would want to crow about it. Kudos to Samsung for at least putting information on all of their displays in the PDF files; now they just need to make sure the data is correct. :)

    I'm going to email my Samsung contact about this and see if there's just an error in the PDF that they can correct.
  • XrayDoc - Thursday, February 7, 2008 - link

    I was all excited about this new display until I read about the limited scaling choices. I can't believe they didn't include a 1:1 or pixel to pixel option! Not everyone has a triple SLI video card setup that can run Crysis well at 1920 x 1200. I'd much prefer to run the game at a lower resolution with black borders and have the "pixels" look sharp, as opposed to stretching the non native resolution to fill the screen and look blurry! Plus automatically stretching 16:9 aspect sources vertically to fill the 16:10 screen is just plain ludicrous. Most people can notice when the aspect ratio is displayed incorrectly. What happens with a 2.35:1 ratio DVD? Does that also get stretched vertically so that you dont' see any black bars at the top or bottom? This single design flaw is a definite deal breaker for me. I hope the upcoming new models from Dell, etc. don't have this same design flaw.
  • yyrkoon - Friday, February 8, 2008 - link

    The big question would be; 'why do you need a 24" LCD to play Crysis?' For me personally I cannot see the need for anything much more than a 19" LCD(a good one at that) for gaming. This making current title fly on my C2D system with a 7600GT, and it draws way less power than one of the current higher end cards. Granted I probably wouldnt mind using a 8600 or something that draws slightly more power, and has DirectX 10 capabilities, but I wont go out of my way just yet to purchase another card, especially since I am still using XP Pro.

    Also I'm noticing complaints about input lag ? I would think this would be an image retouching LCD which doesnt require fast screen refreshes. You can buy cheap fast LCDs that will play games just fine(all day long).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now