I have no complaints about the image quality. It has all the advantages of the SyncMaster 910N, but doesn’t have those light edges I described above.
As you can see in this graph, even “Gamma Mode 3” doesn’t provide an ideal setup. The gamma compensation coefficient is slightly higher than necessary, that’s why the gamma curves bottom out in the middle of the range. But as I said above, this setting is the closest to the ideal.
Anyway, there are practically no problems with the monitor’s color reproduction here, save for the slightly over-intensive green. A minor problem occurs when the brightness and contrast settings are reduced – the monitor ceases to distinguish between dark tones:
This problem concerns “Gamma Mode 3” alone, but other modes produce even worse gamma curves – they are evidently too high, so I have to admit that Mode 3 is the most optimal here.
The response time graph differs from the graph of the SyncMaster 910N as it doesn’t have that sudden growth of the pixel rise time in the left part. But this is most probably due to different calibration curves of these two monitors, as even a slightest change in the brightness of the matrix may seriously affect the response time here.
The SyncMaster 910T also has an excellent contrast ratio due to the low level of black, but the maximum level of white is much lower than with the previous model, and lower than specified. On the other hand, you seldom need a brightness of above 200nit in practice, so you should not worry about this parameter much.
Thus, the SyncMaster 910T, just like the junior SyncMaster 910N model, is a good, work-oriented monitor. It boasts an excellent contrast ratio and wide viewing angles. As for its disadvantages, its response time is rather high (but that’s a common drawback of all PVA matrices), and a not-very-precise color reproduction setup which only comes close to what is desired at one gamma compensation setting out of the three possible.