LG 29EA93—Brightness and Contrast

The LG 29EA93 uses a totally different panel and backlighting setup than any display that I’ve tested, so for once I am coming into a review without any real idea of how something will perform. With the LED backlight set to maximum with a pure white screen, the peak brightness measures at 252 nits. This is a bit lower than I expect but fine for those people without direct sunlight on the screen. With the backlight at minimum that light output level drops down to 61 nits, which provides plenty of range for users that have light controlled environments and want a dimmer display.

White Level— XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

Black levels on the LG are pretty good in comparison to other IPS panels. The black level with the backlight at minimum is a nice 0.237 nits, and that drops all the way down to 0.057 nits with the backlight at minimum. When measured against the peak light levels and against other IPS displays, these are good black levels to see.

Black Level—XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

These numbers combine to give us a contrast ratio over 1060 for both minimum and maximum backlight levels. This puts the LG up there with the best IPS contrast ratios we have measured on any size display. The best VA displays still perform better, but IPS has managed to really improve upon contrast ratios the past few years.

Contrast Ratio— XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

Overall the peak brightness left a bit to be desired on the LG 29EA93, but the black levels and contrast ratio help to make up for that. They still won’t make it a good choice for someone that has to deal with direct sunlight on the display, but for users without that you can get plenty of brightness and a good contrast ratio from it.

LG 29EA93 - 21:9 in Daily Use LG 29EA93 - Color Quality and Color Gamut


View All Comments

  • Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    Unfortunately, with the high input lag, that seems to rule it out for serious gamers altogether, leaving it as something just for cinephiles to use, but they can get a larger 2.35:1 image on a 42” or 50” LCD or Plasma and have a remote for input control and volume adjustment.

    Why don't you ask LG (or Dell) for a detailed technical explanation for this input lag? I tried but failed. :(
    If the input resolution is right the scaler should be bypassed and if the resolution isn't right scaling still shouldn't take more than 5 ms.
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    I did talk to LG in depth about it and the concerns that came up during testing. They seemed receptive to the idea in the future that a mode to bypass all of the processing for displaying the information faster for games about be useful. I have no idea if anything will come of it, but at least they understand the issue from gamers and what they want.

    From all the displays tested, the lag seems to be a combination of multiple inputs, screen adjustments (such as the CMS here), and then scaling the image. The scaler itself might play little to no role in it, and it can all be the inputs and the image adjustments that cause the issue, but without being able to test the individual panel with different components, it would be hard to determine.
  • Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    The HP has multiple inputs too and doesn't suffer from input lag.

    Color adjustments should be possible without latency. I guess LG couldn't come up with a technical explanation for the lag?
  • rwei - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    Was kind of confusing for a few seconds Reply
  • aranyagag - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    recently (3 months) bought an asus PA246Q, wide gamut(Adobe RGB), 16:10 screen, for professional use and at the same time got an Lg 32" as a present. the ergonomics of the asus screen have to be experienced, as have the colours( in colour aware apps-- even Firefox). Even videos are be good to go through as the media player control do not hide the material.
    I think you should consider reviewing it, as it offers tremendous VALUE FOR MONEY.
    The only thing is that I have no idea how it will work for use as a home cinema use-- because that is NOT what I got it for.
  • aranyagag - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

  • Kevin G - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    From the article:

    "Of course there aren’t any 21:9 CRT displays around that I’m aware of so once again this is tested at 1920x1080 resolution using SMTT and the 1:1 mapping selected in the menu."

    Is there any way to test it at its native 2560 x 1080 resolution? I can imagine the scaler for this displaying being a bit unique considering its aspect ration and relatively high resolution. The scaler isn't altering the image resolution but it does have to add the black bars on the side of the image. It is at the very least doing something and running the display at the native resolution would be able to by pass it resulting in lower lag. The lack of 21:9 CRT's would be a problem but couldn't the display be tested against itself? IE two side by side. Getting a solid number would be difficult but observing a significantly lower input lag should be possible.

    I'd also like to see a review of the Dell U2913wm display. it should use the same panel and will likely get similar results (which aren't bad). The main difference appears to be that the Dell supports DisplayPort chaining so there would be a case for testing more than one. :)
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    The testing was done at 1920x1080 and the LG doesn't scale that image, it is centered in the display which in theory should introduce no lag. The only analog displays that I'm aware of that can do 2560x1080 at 60Hz are high end CRT projectors with 9" CRT guns. While still available used, they're still thousands of dollars and a couple hundred pounds to install, so I wouldn't count on seeing one soon for testing a display like this. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link

    FWIW, my FW900 can push 2560x1600@60Hz with some driver patching and custom resolution tweaks. I've heard of people getting up to 70Hz, but that requires exceeding some boundaries I'm not comfortable with. I rarely go above 1920x1200 with my daily work and gaming, but that's only because those super high resolutions have such low refresh rates and they are too difficult to resolve - making it rather moot.

    I'll see if I can match the native resolution of this LG.
  • malkion - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    I tend to dislike seeing tech reviewers get personal feelings involved, or how their opinions of any technology regarding future outlooks are, however, I will never mind it, the review itself being more important.

    The bottom line for me is always to keep new technology affordable, or I will have to wait a few years until it does.

    For any particular monitor that's not a big screen, I'll only pay around $300 tops for it. You can easily guess this fits me into the current sweet spot to buy 27" LCD monitors at the moment, right? For desktop, the is very nice.

    As far as the 21:9, 16:10, 16:9 debate, I actually want them all. More variety for end users. And the popular opinion vs unpopular opinion state-side isn't all that bad either (not that I actually lean towards the 'in the box' mindset)

    I never did like the VCR vs Beta debate, nor do I like industry standards too much over competing tech such as Blu-Ray vs HDDVD or HDMI vs Display Port. I can live with dual players instead. Haha. Or Monitors that sport both types of connectors. It doesn't cost that much for either one to be printed on disc or to include both kinds of connectors. Ok, signing off.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now