Articles: Monitors
 

Bookmark and Share

(0) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 ]

By default, the monitor has 50% contrast and 90% brightness. I achieved 100-nit brightness of white by dropping the settings to 40% contrast and 39% brightness.

Color gradients are reproduced immaculately at the monitor’s default settings but look striped at lower values of contrast. The stripes are not very conspicuous, though.

The viewing angles are just what you can expect from a regular TN+Film matrix. That is, the vertical angle is narrow and the image appears dark when you are looking at the screen from below. Although the manufacturer declares a viewing angle of 160 degrees, this number was arrived at by relaxing the measurement conditions (they now measure the contrast ratio by its drop to 5:1 instead of 10:1; this “innovation” was introduced by many monitor manufacturers to mask the striking difference in viewing angles between TN matrixes and other technologies). The vertical viewing angle would have been much smaller if measured in compliance with the standard methodology.

The gamma curves are not ideal (the red curve sags rather too much), yet I can’t say the monitor has any serious problems with color reproduction. The curves are getting closer to the theoretical ones at lower contrast values, but the difference isn’t big.

The color temperature modes are set up rather sloppily. Like on many other LCD monitors, white is too warm and gray tones are too cold.

The manufacturer declares a response time of 2 milliseconds, which is the averaged number for all gray-to-gray transitions. The average of my measurements is 3.5 milliseconds (I don’t count in the “zero” diagonal of the diagram and “short” transitions like 244-255 which I didn’t measure due to an unacceptably high measurement error).

I don’t mean that the manufacturer lies to us. I use a rather rude measurement method with a step of 32 whereas some manufacturers are already using a step of 1 (that is, they measure transitions like 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, …, 162-163, etc). It’s possible that the monitor has low response time on such transitions. However, in this and upcoming reviews I will be giving an averaged response time for monitors with response time compensation because my methodology remains the same, thus allowing to compare different models correctly. By the way, the averaged response time of TN+Film matrixes without response time compensation is typically 15-20 milliseconds and this doesn’t prevent the manufacturers from declaring a response time of 8 milliseconds in the specs.

Another thing you may be interested in when it comes to a monitor with response time compensation is how accurately this new technology works. The diagram above shows the value of the RTC miss in percent. The miss is 15.2% on average, with a maximum of almost 200% (that is, the pixel brightness grows up to a value three times higher than it should be). The monitor isn’t that bad overall, though. The averaged value of the miss is acceptable, and the RTC error is rather small on black-to-gray transitions, which means RTC artifacts won’t be too obvious at work.

Last go brightness and contrast measurements. Both these parameters are at a very good level in this monitor. The contrast ratio exceeds 300:1 which is an excellent result for a TN+Film matrix.

Thus, the FP93GX is a very good gaming monitor. It is indeed very fast, and its RTC error is reasonably small in most cases. The inaccurate color temperature setup is a drawback of this model, but not a very serious one since it is positioned as a gaming monitor. The unassuming exterior design may prove to be a bigger drawback because people usually want a pretty-looking monitor for home.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment