I'm not too surprised, but the U3014 sure does calibrate quite well. Using CalMAN 5.1 and targeting the sRGB gamut, 200 cd/m2 of light output, and a 2.2 Power Gamma Curve, we obtained some mighty fine results.

Grayscale performance went from fine to superb. We see almost no colorshift at all in the RGB balance, even down at 0%, and an average CCT of 6551. The Gamma is close to ruler flat with a small bump at 5%, but an overall average of 2.22, and our average grayscale dE2000 is just 0.64. Our contrast dropped slightly to 863:1, but that’s a small sacrifice for this grayscale performance.

Colors were already good, but with the improved grayscale we dropped the average dE2000 down to 0.90. Color primary and secondary performance is pretty close to perfect here.

The Gretag chart saw a serious performance increase as well. Our average dE2000 is now 0.73, which means you can’t see any issues with the naked eye at this point. The tiny luminance errors are also totally gone, and if you’re looking for something to complain about on this chart, you’re going to have to keep looking. No error even gets close to 2.0, so this color is practically perfect.

Saturations are just as perfect. Some numbers creep over a dE2000 of 1.0 but very few, and you can’t notice an error that small anyway. Unless you’re measuring with an instrument, it’s going to look perfect.

We also target print and photo applications, and for those we use the sRGB standards: 80 cd/m2 of light, and the sRGB gamma curve. Most of the numbers are directly comparable to the 200 cd/m2 numbers, so I’m going to focus on those that actually changed. First, the U3014 does a very good job of tracking the sRGB gamma curve. We can ignore the number, as unlike power the number varies across the curve, but we want to see how it lines up. The little bit from 0-5% where it doesn’t line up is likely because CalMAN can only measure those 2 points and would need to measure 1%, 2%, 3%, and 4% as well to track the curve better. Overall it tracks amazingly well, so it can do sRGB very easily.

Our color errors are slightly larger, with Red and Blue both being slightly unsaturated in comparison to 200 cd/m2 though the error levels are still very low on average. They just aren’t as exceptional as they were at 200 cd/m2.

Finally we see that the saturations chart shows slightly more error as well, with some numbers creeping over 2.0 here. Even now they will still only be visible when directly next to the correct color sample, and even then it will be almost impossible to tell. For print and photo work, the U3014 will still work very well; it just seems to perform slightly better at high backlight levels.

Pre-Calibration Accuracy, sRGB Pre-Calibration, AdobeRGB
Comments Locked

84 Comments

View All Comments

  • twotwotwo - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Wow, kind of surprised at monitors with 30+ millisecond lag times. I know it's not *that* long. But it is longer than my ping time to Google, and it's hand to monitor, not over a wide-area network. :)
  • cheinonen - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    I really think this is more of a factor of target markets. Games don't use AdobeRGB gamuts, or really need uniformity correctly like photo and graphics work do. If the processing for those features adds a bit of gaming lag I don't think Dell would consider that a big downside, since that isn't the target market anyway. As I said in the review, I'm only so certain on those lag numbers, as other people found much better ones, but methods for measuring lag on a 30" display are a little lacking right now.
  • Kurge - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    It has excellent lag times, well above average. It has a game mode which apparently they didn't test?
  • cheinonen - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    The lag times are using the game mode. I'll update the text later to reflect this fact.
  • Sabresiberian - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Tftcentral reports a significantly lower lag time in gaming mode:

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm

    They are using a different method than they did a few months ago, and all the numbers are lower than what they used to report. They claim it is more accurate.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - link

    cheinonen, lag sucks for normal use, not just gaming! Most people are slower mouse users than myself; I demand responsiveness. I also don't want audio/video out of sync.
  • Martin_Schou - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    To be fair, a ping is typically only 32 bytes. A 2560x1600 monitor has 4 million pixels, each of which needs at least 32 bits of data.
  • JlHADJOE - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    To be fair, the distance to your monitor is typically only 3 feet. A ping to google's servers is probably several hundred miles, each hop of which needs to go through routing equipment which adds its own latency.
  • Sabresiberian - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Number of pixels doesn't seem to be the cause of greater lag, added OSD and connection types make a big difference.
  • asdftech - Friday, April 19, 2013 - link

    Throughput and latency are different things.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now