HP Z27q Monitor Review: Aiming For More Pixels
by Brett Howse on December 22, 2015 8:00 AM ESTsRGB Calibration
Calibration of the monitor is done with SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5 suite. For contrast and brightness, the X-Rite i1DisplayPro colorimeter is used, but for the actual color accuracy readings we use the X-Rite i1Pro spectrophotometer. Pre-calibration measurements were done at 200 nits for sRGB with Gamma set to 2.2. In addition, the display is also calibrated for 80 nits.
Grayscale
Out of the box, the grayscale could use some work. The white point is a bit warm, gamma is too high near 100%, and there are error levels over 3 at a couple of the measurement points. Overall the dE is just 2.5, which is reasonable, but anyone wanting to use this display for professional work is going to need to calibrate it.
Saturation
The saturation numbers are much better, which is good since the LUT is not adjustable. Overall the dE is just 1.7, which is very good, and none of the individual tests had an error over 3. You can see that the sRGB gamut is nicely profiled.
GMB
Gretag Macbeth is the most comprehensive test, which goes outside of the standard gamut and saturation tests, and includes many other important colors such as flesh tones. Once again the Z27q is very accurate, with an overall score of just 1.41, which should be plenty accurate for most people. In fact, the grayscale is a part of this test, and it would have pulled the score up even higher. This is a very good result.
200 cd/m2 Calibrated
Next, we use the CalMAN software to calibrate the display. Since this display does not have an accessible LUT, the video card LUT is the only one able to be calibrated. This fixes pretty much just grayscale, but in this case that is the only thing that really needs work anyway.
Grayscale
Once calibrated, the grayscale is almost perfect. The gamma curve is much closer to where it should be, and the overall error level averages just 0.82. The 100% level is better, but still not perfect, but other than that the other results are very much improved. The white point is also fixed with calibration.
Saturation
The improved white point also has a nice impact on the saturation sweeps, with an overall average error level of just 0.73.
GMB
The Gretag Macbeth test also sees a nice improvement, going to an average error level of 0.93, which is fantastic. There were a couple of the colors which spiked close to dE of 3, but overall this is a very accurate panel once calibrated.
80 cd/m2 Calibrated
Since the average office space may not calibrate just at 200 nits, we also run through the tests again at 80 nits calibrated to see if the panel is as accurate with the backlight lowered.
Grayscale
There are no issues once calibrated at 80 nits. The average error rate is just 0.82 again, matching the 200 nit score. White point and gamma are very good as well, although there is a slight bump in gamma close to 100% white level.
Saturation
The saturation score has even improved at 80 nits, coming in at just 0.51 dE2000 average. Please pardon the graph – there is a bug with our workflow for the 80 nit level for saturation.
GMB
Once again we can sum up the Z27q as a very accurate display, once calibrated. The built in LUT for sRGB is very accurate, with the Gretag Macbeth average dE2000 of only 0.56. Considering you can’t calibrate the LUT on your own, it is even more important that HP gets it correct at the factory, and it appears that they have done their homework.
Relative Color Comparator - Correct on bottom, displayed on top
I don’t really find the inaccurate grayscale to be a big issue out of the box. Anyone purchasing the monitor for professional work is going to be calibrating it anyway. Prosumers who are after a 5K panel and don’t have the software or hardware to do calibration will likely be happy with the out of the box results too, since they are fine for most people.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
theduckofdeath - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
Yes and no. It's very much about paying extra to be an early adopter. In many cases small scale means higher price because it requires a lot more manufacturing accuracy.Prices of these 4 and 5 k displays will plummet in a couple of years. Though, to be fair, it's no rush as GPU's really aren't able to display much else than static images, text and video on this resolution today.
CaedenV - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
less material used, plus higher output capability, plus a more reliable process. It all adds up to far less cost, and far FAR less waste, so the product costs much less.Think of it this way... a 6" 16:9 display has 15.37 square inches of material. A 27" display with the same aspect ratio has an area of 311.53 square inches.
Lets say that the phone display costs ~$50 (just for the sake of nice round numbers... I have no idea what a high end cell phone display costs). That would break down to $3.25 per square inch... extrapolating that to the larger display it would scale up to $1,012.50.
But there is a difference between a cell phone display and a computer monitor. A cell display is merely the display, and the backlight with minimal controllers and other electronics, and no housing... the monitor has a USB3 hub ($), a stand ($$), a housing ($), a controller supporting multiple inputs, resolutions, frequencies, and scaling ($$$), a power supply ($), higher shipping costs per unit ($), higher storage costs per unit ($) etc.
Plus, lets not forget about issues of manufacturing. Lets say that for every 1000sq" there is a defect that makes a device unusable. That means that for every ~67 cell phone displays, there is one bad apple, so the average cost of each display rises ~1/67th, or 75 cents per unit.
But if that same kind of manufacturing ratio is applied to the larger screen, then that means that one out of every 4 displays is going to be bad, which means a 25% increase in screen price (+$253 per unit! way more than 75 cents!).
TL;DR... smaller things are going to cost less.
Frenetic Pony - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Size of the display matters more than PPI of the display in terms of cost.DominionSeraph - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Could you possibly have taken worse photos? Bland, poorly lighted in intensity and color, and at really unflattering angles.The first pic looks crooked because of the angled countertop back. The second IS crooked.
This doesn't look like a professional review of a $1000 monitor, it looks like a Craigslist ad for a $15 one.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Whew, being a little toasty, eh?It's clear that the photography is subpar, but it might be helpful to provide some explanations to fix the noted issues.
Anandtech is all about learning stuff that you didn't previously know, so I'm sure the reviewer would appreciate some learning in the "opposite" direction under these circumstances.
K_Space - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Agreed! Helpful feedback goes a long way:1) intense flash photography tends to create harsh shadow and poor exposure of the background. Use a DIY or cheap soft box (or point flash toward a WHITE ceiling). You can manually reduce flash power or simply stand back more.
2) Use a virtual grid in the optical view finder. By default intensely geometrical shapes like the first picture will likely bring out all the faults in the lens designs (definite barrel distortion in the first picture). Simple correction in LR. Lots of freebie tools do a similar job if you are not Adobe inclined.
3) Use a white background; this will also help create a reference point for white balance.
fanofanand - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
In the last year I see comments regarding the photography in nearly every article, to the point where someone pointed out Josh's lack of arm hair (weird thing to notice). I don't expect a technical journalist to also be a professional photographer. It's the review that's important, not the photos....K_Space - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Except there is nothing professional about the tips above (mind you the OP was a bit harsh). It's at best a bit of tidying up. Good presentation never hurt's anyone. Certainly the review is important and in Brett's defence these pix are still better than some of the shots you get in TFT central and I wouldn't fault their reviews either.RT81 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I'd almost prefer they'd err on the side of having photos like this rather than the alternative. Sometimes reviewers go overboard with the slickness of the photos to where I wonder if they'd be better off just working for the marketing department of the manufacturer. I find it nice to see frank, no-nonsense, non-shopped photos of hardware in-situ. That monitor sure as hell isn't going to look nice and new after a month or two sitting on MY desk.damianrobertjones - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Totally agree. Someone there MUST be able to use a camera. It is a tech site after all.