Dell U3014 LCD Review
by Chris Heinonen on April 15, 2013 2:00 PM ESTAnother reason that we changed calibration packages is that we can now target AdobeRGB correctly, as CalMAN supports it and almost any other color space out there. Here we used the U3014 AdobeRGB preset and measured with the same targets as before. We didn’t do the 80 cd/m2 pass as AdobeRGB doesn’t use an sRGB gamma curve in the specification, and we saw how the Dell U3014 handles the change in luminance levels already. We are mostly looking to see how the monitor handles the larger gamut of AdobeRGB and if it gets the color points correct.
Once again, the Grayscale has a green bias to it by default. The overall average CCT looks good at 6568K, but that’s why you have to look at the individual RGB components as you can easily have an accurate CCT but have a color shift that is clearly visible.
The gamma is once again very good up until 85-90% where we see a steep drop-off that seems to be crushing highlights a bit. This issue pushes the average gamma down to 2.1 from our 2.2 target. I checked the contrast with a pattern before setting it and taking the measurements so all white samples are visible, but it seems to push them too close together at the top. I’d recommend taking the contrast down 3-4 levels from the maximum available to help with this highlight clipping, but that also will reduce the contrast ratio a bit as we saw with the sRGB calibration.
The grayscale starts out good, but you get errors above a dE2000 of 5 from 35% on, except for at 85%. Given the green tint that we saw in the RGB balance this isn’t surprising at all, since dE2000 is really a combination of gamma and RGB balance, and if both of those are perfect your dE2000 should be perfect as well. Conversely, when there are errors (as seen above), they'll show up here as well.
Colors again are very good by default, with errors being made much worse by the presence of white in the average. You can see the much larger gamut of AdobeRGB here, as those color points are in different locations than they are with sRGB. The color dE2000 errors are on top, and on bottom is the AdobeRGB CIE chart with the sRGB CIE chart overlaid on it to show the difference in gamut size.
The Gretag chart fares worst in the default AdobeRGB mode, with the grayscale being a very high error and skin tones being bad as well. Most other colors manage to get to a dE2000 of 3.0 or below, but the average for the whole chart is 3.22, which is still good for no calibration but not excellent. Luminance levels for the colors are all still fantastic, which is the most important thing to get right, but other aspects of the colors don’t fare as well.
Finally our saturations show that we have errors that get larger the closer we get to being unsaturated. Despite the higher errors there, our eyes are really more sensitive to errors with 100% saturation, so it’s better that the errors happen this way than the opposite way. Of course, this should improve after calibration, and then we hopefully won’t have to make any sacrifices at all.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
JDG1980 - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
It was just reported today that a no-name vendor is releasing a 50" 4K TV for $1500 (the same price as this Dell monitor). I hadn't expected prices to drop that quickly. Although this particular 4K TV probably isn't suitable for monitor use (too big, not clear if it supports 60 Hz, probably has a crappy TN panel) it would be great if it was the leading edge of a new wave of inexpensive 4K TV sets. If there was a 32" 4K TV that supported 60 Hz input (HDMI only goes up to 24 Hz at that resolution, you need DisplayPort for 60) and was reasonably priced, it would make an awesome computer monitor with better DPI than pretty much any existing desktop solution. Hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer for this.cheinonen - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
Sharp has a 32", 4K display but I believe the MSRP on it is around $6,000. I also believe that it has issues running at 60Hz over a single DisplayLink, but the person I know with one was still working on this issue. So one exists, but it costs a fortune right now. For that $1,500, 50" 4K, I really can't imagine how they're getting there with any sort of quality right now, but we will see.Andrea deluxe - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
ok... year 2013 and 33ms of input lag?dell and company... are you kidding people?
DanNeely - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
They're not kidding anyone; they're targeting people for whom the perfect color balance that requires two frames of processing to achieve is more important than getting a latency score that doesn't matter outside of gaming.hackztor - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
Low input lag can be had in the 3007wfp-hc (I still use this as my main gaming monitor, and 3011 as my secondary). This monitor did not include a scaler so input lag was low, now all monitors want to put hdmi and display port on so they can be used with consoles hence higher input lag.kasakka - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - link
But the scaler has long been one of the best parts of the high res Dells. I've been using a Dell 3008WFP for years now and due to the high res, many new games just aren't playable at native resolution without multiple GPUs. Thanks to the scaler, I'm happily playing at 1920x1200 which runs well at full detail. Compared to leaving scaling to the GPU, the scaler on the Dell does a far better job resulting in much less blurry picture.For the record I have not been bothered by the input lag either, which I think was reported being somewhere between 20-30ms on the 3008WFP.
mike55 - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
As Chris mentioned, TFT Central found that there was very little input lag in game mode. ~3.2 ms for pixel response time, and virtually no signal processing time. I'm confused as to why the results are different. Why would using an oscilloscope produce different results?bebimbap - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
If you are even thinking about gaming on a 60hz monitor you shouldn't be complaining about 33ms input lag coming out of this one. If a frame is 16.7ms @60hz 33ms is 2 frames, compared to using a 144hz of only 6.9ms per frame, or ~5 frames in 33ms. So even though you are missing only every other frame in reactivity compared to a quicker 60hz monitor, you are missing 4 out of 5 frames compared to a 144hz.if you need something faster you could always go for a TN based benq or asus 144hz 24"/27" gaming monitor they have 1-2ms input lag and lightboost but only up to 120hz.
I have both a u3011 and a vg248qe and I cannot game on my u3011 anymore after gaming on a vg248qe @120hz with lightboost. But I do everything else on the u3011, photoshop, movies, browsing, etc, again everything other than gaming. when i'm not gaming the vg248qe acts as a nice blank screen or pallet space for photoshop.
again if input lag is important to you, get a TN based 144hz asus or benq you will be VERY happy. do not look at PLS/PVA/IPS it's just a waste of time.
mayankleoboy1 - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link
Remember, they are the same people who put extreme crappy 1366x768 panels on notebooks.So shittyness is synonymous with Dell.
cheinonen - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - link
Everyone still puts 1366x768 panels in laptops, as I noticed my Dad's Sony and sister's Acer both rocking those on vacation a couple weeks ago. I wouldn't say that's a Dell problem, but an industry problem.