ASUS PA246Q 24" ProArt Monitor: No Adjustments Needed?
by Chris Heinonen on July 2, 2012 1:30 PM ESTThe ASUS PA246Q comes designed to compete at the higher end of LCDs, with a 16:10 aspect ratio, AdobeRGB color gamut, 10-bit panel (using ARFC to extend a native 8-bit panel), and a fully adjustable stand. It also promises better performance out of the box than other displays, so you don’t need to own calibration equipment to get a more accurate image, and has a full CMS that you don’t see on PC monitors very often.
In a few places it delivers but in others it falls short. The out of the box performance might have met their dE target, but there are so many different ways to determine the average dE and no method is given here, so I can’t determine for sure if ASUS is achieving their goal. What I can determine is how it rates using our standard measurements; unfortunately, it came in at the same level as other displays when looking at real world, Gretag Macbeth colors on the color checker chart. Once calibrated the performance is good for colors, but the grayscale is off by quite a bit delivers overall inaccurate color reproduction compared to other high-end displays.
From a strictly personal view, the screen itself looks very nice and clean, and the anti-glare coating shouldn’t distract anyone I don’t think. Much as high-end projectors are said to give a “film-like” image, the PA246Q image looks very nice and natural in daily use. Even with my personal preferences towards the image it produces, the higher black levels and lower contrast ratios also leave a bit to be desired and leads me to wonder when we can finally get a backlit, RGB LED array display to address this.
The one area that really isn’t there yet is the CMS system. While very promising for the future with displays, I would like to see a full 3D system and not 2D, so that you can get all the primary and secondary points dialed in correctly. The main issue is that the math for determining the intermediate points doesn’t seem to be correct, which leads to an image with banding in gradients and image posterization. This is another reason that typical measurements of display performance often fall short as if you only measure the six target points the CMS would look fantastic, but the other billion points look much worse in real life.
Overall the ASUS PA246Q does a lot of things well and is even acceptable for gaming, but it doesn’t do anything amazingly well. I would say it is a great general-purpose display, but the price tag puts it well beyond that category for most people as it clearly aims for a higher level of use. One main competitor would be the Dell U2410, but I haven’t reviewed that so I can’t say how it would stack up in comparison. If the ASUS came in closer to $350-400 it would be easy to recommend, but at nearly $500 with calibrated results that leave a bit to be desired in the grayscale I find that harder to do.
Since I haven’t used the main competitors, the ASUS PA246Q could easily be the best choice in its price range if you need IPS, AdobeRGB, a 16:10 ratio, an ergonomic stand, and decent calibrated results. It just isn’t exceptional enough at what it does for me to be able to unconditionally recommend it for everyone.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
View All Comments
Leyawiin - Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - link
Just submitted my order - time for a quality monitor for the first time in my life!cheinonen - Thursday, July 5, 2012 - link
As I mentioned above, they're very different monitors. The PA246Q is a 10-bit panel with a full AdobeRGB color gamut from CCFL backlighting, and the PA248Q is an 8-bit panel with LED backlighting and only the sRGB gamut. It's a more mainstream panel than the PA246Q so for non-print and photo editing users, it might be a better choice, but they aren't practically the same other than size, resolution, and vendor.appliance5000 - Saturday, July 7, 2012 - link
The reviewed monitor is an 8 bit panel interpolated to simulate a 10 bit panel - a little dubious.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 5, 2012 - link
Is this actually a 10-bit panel?Also, since sRGB mode on some wide gamut monitors works (U2410) and is completely broken on others, whenever you review a wide gamut monitor you should separate its performance in terms of sRGB content and AdobeRGB content. The way you lump them together with a "color quality" chart makes little sense. For those dealing with sRGB content, having a monitor exceed the sRGB space can actually lead to poor quality if the monitor doesn't have an effective sRGB emulation mode.
I would take a look at how prad.de and tftcentral separate sRGB and AdobeRGB modes in their reviews.
cheinonen - Friday, July 6, 2012 - link
I will take a look at that. I've only had a couple come through with AdobeRGB support so far, so I haven't setup a separate test section for it, but I can do that in the future.appliance5000 - Saturday, July 7, 2012 - link
I hear you on the srgb - I have an nec p221w (which is an excellent spectraview compatible monitor for about $400.00. With hardware cal the delta e is well under 1 for adobe rgb at a brightness of 140 cd/m2. I highly recommend it)But, being a wide spectrum (97% adobe rgb) srgb seems tough to calibrate for print. My question is : Isn't s-rgb used mainly to proof for web use, particularly for non color managed environments, in which case a delta e of 3 - 5 is fine? The point being that most people pull a monitor out of the box and turn it on for 5 years - there's no way to know what they're looking at.
aranyagag - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
it clears eizo monitor test and other monitor tests which are supposed to weed out 8 bit monitors. Also I have an sRGB camera, which shows proper colours when the monitor is placed in rgb mode-- laparoscope.Dug - Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - link
I had always thought AdobeRGB was just a higher gamut allowing you to see for instance a raw file shot in AdobeRGB at its full potential. The problem is the assumption that this is better.I've found that most print shops don't have the correct profiles, don't use the embedded profile, etc.
I've gone down the expensive road of getting the correct monitor, printer, and color profiling both to print myself.
In all honesty its a pain in the ass with very little gain.
If everything isn't done just right then you end up with dull colors.
If everything is done right, there is a difference, but I wouldn't necessarily call it better. It may be more accurate, because you've been told it is, but it is subtle.
If you have to email, show on web, print to a printer without correct profile, etc you've wasted all your time if using AdobeRGB.
I kind of relate it to calibrated televisions. If anyone saw a true calibrated television, they probably wouldn't like it. It's very dull. Everyone likes a little extra contrast and run a little hot.
Sense the entire world runs on sRGB, I say stick with it. There's less chance for error and it will look good on anyone's monitor and printer.
CrimsonFury - Thursday, July 12, 2012 - link
Still using my 8 year old Lacie 22" CRT until something better comes along. 4:3 2048x1536 @85Hz. Still waiting for an LCD with that sort of pixel density around 24" in size.I dislike 27" and above screens, I find them too large for a comfortable viewing position. Also on the high res 27" - 30" panels pixels per inch are still lower than my old 22" CRT
AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, July 14, 2012 - link
Looks like a great attempt at a quality monitor. But when are we gonna get past the 60Hz barrier??? At least 80Hz framerate would be so much better.