Brightness Uniformity

For brightness uniformity, we test at the same 9 points we measure Delta-E on, but this time measure white and black levels when the center point is as close to 200 nits as we can get. We use the same colorimeter and software as before, - an Xrite i1D2 and ColorEyes Display Pro. Similar to the ordinary brightness test (taken at the center), contrast is set to 100 in the OSD and brightness is set to as close to 200 as possible in the center before measurements are taken.

White Uniformity

Black Uniformity

In both of these, there's a very obvious horizontal brightness dependence. The display is just a bit brighter at the far right than the far left, which also nicely explains why the top right and bottom left (extremes of brightness) also seem to have the highest Delta-Delta-E (as shown on the color uniformity page). 

The brightness irregularity measured here isn't readily visible, in fact in the dark it subjectively looks the other way around (or at least how my camera captured it). I measured both twice and got similar results. 

Brightness and Contrast Input and Processing Latency
Comments Locked

123 Comments

View All Comments

  • InterClaw - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    The Dell has input lag and the HP doesn't have sRGB... :( LG please save us prosumer/gamer types!

    Any word on a refresh of the not-so-pretty LG W3000H?
  • cjl - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    As the owner of a U3011, I have to say, the input lag isn't bad. Yes, it measures as worse than the HP, but 20ms is really not noticeable to the vast, vast majority of people. It's not like the old 2408 for example, which was ~60ms if I remember right.
  • Phoenixlight - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    I don't understand your problem with 1920x1080, it's slightly wider than 1920x1200 but that's it. There's no reason to be against it. Games on my Alienware OptX AW2310 look great.
  • snuuggles - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    Agreed. If you don't game frequently, then fine, higher pixel pitch is great (though text scaling can be a problem as other posters have mentioned). But, *BUT*, if you mostly game, then high res is, at best, counter-productive - it basically forces you to either 1) use a non-native resolution or 2) scale *way* back on the graphical "goodies" or 3) spend $600 a year on GPUs.

    I'd really like it if there was some focus on stuff that *matters* for gaming:

    - input lag
    - pixel response
    - refresh rate

    resolution, color pallet, viewing angle etc are great, and I'll take em', but not when it sacrifices the ability of the display to resolve moving images quickly.

    And, before you say it, I *would* just use a HDTV, except those are, on the whole, pretty junky, have terrible input lag, and are prone to "panel lottery" (where the manufacturer swaps out panels to save money but doesn't use a different model number. How is that even legal, btw?)
  • DanNeely - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    They write the specs for it to have the lowest value for each panel of the right size; that way all of them meet the described specs on the product sheet and they can swap without worrying about false advertising claims.
  • snuuggles - Saturday, January 15, 2011 - link

    You're right, it's clear that what they are doing is legal. But as long as they don't specify stuff like input lag *at all*, even if you wait for a review to tell you this value, the manufacturer can, and often does, swap out a new, lower-performing panel.
  • DanNeely - Sunday, January 16, 2011 - link

    This is the 1st I've heard of input lag varying by panel make. I thought it was entirely due to the image processor used for overdrive/etc modes.
  • DanNeely - Saturday, January 15, 2011 - link

    The lower vertical resolution sucks for trying to do any real work on it.
  • TegiriNenashi - Saturday, January 15, 2011 - link

    Slightly wider? It's shorter!
  • snuuggles - Saturday, January 15, 2011 - link

    @DanNeely and TegiriNenashi,

    You are both right, I think the extra 120 pixels is both useful *and* not a huge burden on frame-rate. I was mostly thinking of the 2560x[whatever] resolutions that are real frame-rate killers.

    I guess I'm just willing to accept the loss since I really don't do a huge amount of work on this computer - mostly gaming as I said, so 1080p is an acceptible compramise.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now