Display Uniformity

The uniformity of the QNIX display is where we really start to see the cost savings become visible. As I've found when looking at the ultra-wide displays, the taller the monitor the harder it is to get a backlight uniform to within a certain tolerance. If you have a larger tolerance, it will be cheaper and easier to manufacturer but you'll have less uniform backlighting. This is why professional monitors can be so expensive, and it's an area where it looks like QNIX has managed to save on costs.

Looking at the black uniformity, while the two top corners have a large drop-off in light level, the lower right corner is quite bright.

Looking at the White Uniformity, the same drop-off in light occurs here. Somewhat surprisingly this fall-off occurs in the bright corner as well. The center measures in at 198 cd/m2 but most of the panel drops off below that. Corners fall as much as 22% which is clearly visible if you look for it. If a monitor is within 10% it is hard to tell the difference I find, but once you get to 20% you can notice it when you are viewing something that uses the whole screen.

This causes the contrast on the whole panel to max-out at 750:1. In the corners is can fall as low as 468:1 which is a rather washed out appearance. Overall the contrast is fairly consistent, but the contrast of 750:1 isn’t great to start with.

The real issue is the color uniformity of the QNIX panel. While the center is fine, the edges have visible color shifts. Since we consider a dE2000 error level of < 3.0 to be invisible when in motion, but only 1.0 when looking at still images, these are errors you will certainly see. When it comes to using the QNIX for photo editing and other color critical work, it really won’t work well because of these uniformity issues. 

The uniformity is where the QNIX really falters. It’s the first display with color uniformity errors that fall into the red zone in multiple regions. This could be just my sample, or it could be that the tolerances are lower for backlight alignment, allowing more monitors to pass inspection and lowering prices. I can't be certain but it seems that uniformity is a major area where costs have been saved.

sRGB Test Bench Display Lag, Power Use and Color Gamut
POST A COMMENT

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • coburn_c - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    Wow I always assumed these cheapo panels were garbage, but 500:1 contrast and a 50% uniformity? I'll take a cheap 1080p *VA over this any day. Reply
  • peterfares - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    If color accuracy is most important to you then that's probably good idea.

    I on the other hand don't need color accuracy for what I use my computer for. For me, resolution is king.
    Reply
  • dylan522p - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I con't really mind the color accuracy. My problem was the unifromity, you can visually see the difference between blacks on one part of the screen and on another part. The white point is also off. Both of those things were deal breakers for me. Reply
  • jtrdfw - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Back light bleed is the most common complaint with QNIX (and related) since that has to do with the manufacturing quality of the metal frame the panel is in, then case quality. Colors, contrast ratio, input lag, refresh rate, and quality of the panel are not. Note that this is not the common Qnix 2710, but a different and far less popular version.

    In general, it is an unbeatable quality monitor for ~$310 shipped. And shipping takes 1-2 days from Korea (literally).

    It's unfortunate someone sent them a True10 version of this as it is not the same.
    Reply
  • marcosears - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link

    This is just another pretty bad monitor from QNIX. I don't see why people get it when the are much better monitors on the market. /Marco from http://www.consumertop.com/best-monitor-guide/ Reply
  • edlee - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I am troubled by the fact that the Dell U2713Hm, samsung were left out of most benchmarks results which would compared better than having the dell 32" led in the tests?

    Its still readily available, and it would have have been a better comparison since it matches same resolution and screen size.
    Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Saturday, April 12, 2014 - link

    They don't all test out so poorly. Of course if you really want a quality display for production work, pay the price, this is never going to work for you.

    As I always say, fit your hardware choice to your purpose; not everything will work for your tastes or needs. :)
    Reply
  • laweijfmvo - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    sorry, but this is just poorly written. it took me until the bottom of the first page to realize this wasn't a 4k screen, and sentences like this just baffle me:

    "... and utilized the same panel as more expensive offerings, though often with a lower grade panel."
    Reply
  • rpg1966 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    Yes. The line under the heading referring to 2560x1440 confused me as well... Reply
  • pattycake0147 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I too was confused about the resolution of the monitor. The first line of the article talked about "QuadHD displays from South Korea" which made me think that's what I was going to be reading about.

    Your quoted line about panels caught me off guard too, but after carefully re-reading it about four times I figured out what the author meant.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now