ASUS MX299Q Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on September 23, 2013 12:00 AM ESTAll our monitor testing and calibration data is obtained using SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5.1.2 software. Meters used are a SpectraCal C6 colorimeter and an XRite i1Pro spectrometer.
There are many different preset modes on the MX299Q and for once, sRGB didn’t turn out to be the best option. sRGB is accurate but also cuts off access to brightness and all other adjustments. The Standard mode using the default User color setting (100, 100, 100) provided a more accurate mode out-of-box and more adjustments. Because of that it was utilized for all the pre- and post-calibration measurements.
|
|
Pre-Calibration |
Post-Calibration, |
Post-Calibration, |
|
White Level (cd/m^2) |
202.65 |
200.00 |
81.903 |
|
Black Level (cd/m^2) |
0.1914 |
0.1967 |
0.0776 |
|
Contrast Ratio |
1059:1 |
1017:1 |
1055:1 |
|
Gamma (Average) |
2.1907 |
2.2016 |
2.3687 |
|
Color Temperature |
6673K |
6511K |
6498K |
|
Grayscale dE2000 |
1.5635 |
0.4557 |
0.6155 |
|
Color Checker dE2000 |
2.0681 |
1.1397 |
1.1248 |
|
Saturations dE2000 |
1.59 |
1.0133 |
1.1605 |
As of this review, I’m no longer including the standard Gamut chart. All of the data that gamut provides is available in the saturations chart, making the Gamut chart redundant. The Gamut error calculation also includes the white-point error in the data, making an accurate grayscale account for 25% of the gamut error. This is included in the Saturations data as well, but accounts for a far smaller amount (1%) of the overall total. I’m also testing a new Saturations error chart that includes far more readings and utilizes a line chart to show the error. The X-axis is missing, but left is 0% saturation and right is 100%.
The pre-calibration numbers are really quite good. The main issue on the ASUS MX299Q is that the gamma isn’t totally linear and there is a red-push that results in poor skin tones. The overall grayscale is good but has too little blue. None of the colors are truly egregious in their error levels but greens and yellows fare the worst overall.
Calibrate it to 200 cd/m^2 and these issues are gone. The gamma is perfectly linear now and the grayscale errors are missing. Skin tones are good and colors are better but green and yellow are a bit over-saturated. The contrast ratios remain incredibly high, and the overall image on-screen looks remarkable.
The sRGB gamma and 80 cd/m^2 calibration provides similar excellent results. There is a bit of a bump at 95% in the gamma but otherwise it is quite good. Green and Yellow maintain a bit of over-saturation but most colors are very accurate.
Looking at these before and after results the MX299Q starts out well but ends up even better. The 21:9 panels are being designed to be capable of incredibly strong overall performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
JJ_Judge - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It would be VERY useful if somebody would actually test a 21:9 monitor for gaming, and not just speculate on "how cool it would be for games". Because the only thing that's stopping me from buying such a monitor is the fear it wouldn't be compatible enough with major gaming titles...cheinonen - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
You can read the prior 21:9 monitor review from LG to see more details on how I found it with gaming. I found most titles worked fine, though Diablo III didn't when I tried to test it with that.flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Saw one in Canada Computers. Loaded a 1080p youtube video of BF3 being played at 2560*1080. Seemed very cool.Hrel - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
This is getting so ridiculous. Movie makers need to just all agree to use 16:9 in their films, and if they need more in the shot width wise they can just zoom out. 2.41:1 ratio, yeah, I've seen that. One of my largest monster peeves. Since it's not a pet peeve because I'm right any anyone who thinks you need something wider than 16:9 is OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
This post is a good example of speaking from ignorance. You clearly know nothing about film, movies, aspect ratios, monitors, etc. I don't think you're even aware of what you're suggesting.Most already-released movies are wider than 16:9, cropping them is obviously unacceptable.
Our eyes are situated side by side, not top and bottom. We have a ~180 degree horizontal FOV.
There just isn't very much to look at on the ground and in the sky.
16:9 is bad for web content. Portrait is better, because we scroll up and down to read, not left and right. It's also inferior to 16:10 because you simply lose the vertical pixels.
I don't mind using 16:9 myself, but it's VERY far from ideal.
peckiro - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
There obviously is a lack of major antipsychotic medication in a poster here.xaml - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
What aspect ratio and resolution does this poster have?VN_Tran - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
It so amazing !!!johnnyboy101 - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Hello - my apologies if this is a dumb question, but in other's experience with 2560x1080 monitors (I have the Dell variant), do games actually render the full 2560x1080? Or do they render 1920x1080 and then stretch it? Given that it is a non standard resolution? Any insight appreciated!gatygun - Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - link
render in full