The situation changes to the contrary at 100nit screen brightness: the display loses about 20% of the dynamic range, but this time in the dark tones.
Thus, this display is only capable of rendering the maximum number of tones in a very narrow brightness range around 150nit.
The response time with brightness and contrast settings at maximum was 38ms. At 100nit screen brightness, the pixel rise time increased, but the fall time was smaller. As a result, the display showed a response time of 32ms. We may guess that there should be a golden mean somewhere. It is true. At default settings (50% for both: brightness and contrast), the display response time equaled 23ms, which is even better than the manufacturer’s promised 25ms.
Pixel rise time
Pixel fall time
The specified screen brightness of the display is 250nit, but I couldn’t go far beyond 200nit. The contrast ratio heavily depends on the display settings. Anyway, at any settings, it doesn’t exceed 420:1 against the specified value of 600:1. Moreover, as I have already mentioned, the contrast ratio drops when the brightness setting is set too high. It is only about 22:1 at 100% brightness.
Our verdict is: the more expensive display from Iiyama suffers from problems that should not occur in products of this price range. Namely, I am talking about such issue as loose color temperature settings, full dynamic range only in a very narrow range of settings, a slump of the contrast ratio at an increased brightness… The only unquestionable advantage of this model is its two DVI inputs, but I really doubt they can justify for a few hundred dollars higher price compared to the models we will see next. Other display characteristics offer nothing extraordinary.