This is the graph of the SyncMaster 930BF – the graph of the junior model is absolutely the same. The RTC technology is at its best here: the response time is everywhere lower than on the black-white transition (where it is a little above 10 milliseconds). Without RTC, analogous matrixes have a response time of 23-27 milliseconds at the maximum, but now this maximum is much lower. If we don’t count in the black-white-black transition, the full response time of this monitor is as low as 7 milliseconds!
Alas, this impressive result was achieved through inadequate means, in my opinion:
This is the RTC error graph for the 930BF (it looks the same for the 730BF). You can see that the error amounts to tens of percent, which is just horrible in comparison with the above-discussed 970P. As a result, a white trail is perfectly visible even in Windows desktop applications when you’re dragging a window (especially at low contrast and brightness settings), not to mention in movies or games:
You don’t have to look for this effect; it is perfectly visible at ordinary use of the monitor and leaves a nasty impression at work as well as in games.
As for the static image, these two monitors do not differ much from many other models on TN+Film matrixes. The monitor reproduces color gradients without any obvious problems; the viewing angles are ordinary for this matrix type (which is another way of saying that the vertical viewing angle is too small). The backlighting is not strictly uniform: narrow, but clearly visible light streaks can be seen on a black background along the edges of the screen even in normal daylight. Well, this is not an untypical thing for TN+Film, either.
The gamma curves for the 730BF and 930BF are nearly identical, so I only offer you one graph, for the senior model at the default settings. The monitor is well-calibrated, but the contrast setting is higher than necessary as the characteristic bend of the curves at the top right of the graph indicates. As soon as you reduce the contrast by a few percent, the bend disappears while otherwise the curves remain unchanged. I didn’t observe any loss of dark tones at reduced brightness or contrast settings.
The color temperature setup of the two models differs a lot. It’s more or less correct on the 930BF where there is a small difference between the temperatures of different tones of gray, while the 730BF is just predisposed to blue hues. Its color temperature is high above the norm. The “Warm” mode looks the worse in practice because you clearly see the difference between the white color that has a red-yellow hue typical of the low temperature and gray whose temperature is above 7000K, i.e. among cold, blue hues. It is really hard to use the monitor in this mode without additional calibration. The “Normal” mode produces a similar difference in numbers (it should actually correspond to 6500K temperature), but it doesn’t strike your eyes that strongly.
The brightness and contrast parameters are exactly what you may expect from a good modern TN+Film matrix. I want to note the fact that the 730BF seems to have a slightly higher brightness of the backlight lamps. It has a brighter white and brighter black than the 930BF, although their contrast ratios are similar.
So, the main and very serious drawback of the SyncMaster 730BF and 930BF monitors is their very shoddy implementation of RTC: the RTC error amounts to tens of percent, so any moving object is accompanied with visual artifacts. The artifacts are so strong that they even make working with desktop applications uncomfortable: light, almost white, trails follow behind the mouse cursor and moving windows. The trails become the more conspicuous if you reduce the brightness and contrast below the default (but at the default settings the brightness of white is 200cd/sq.m, i.e. two times above the level recommended for work with text). I could also complain at the inaccurate color temperature setup of the 730BF, but this defect is really negligible against the gross problems with the RTC setup!