The response time graph looks odd in comparison with older RTC-less monitors, but quite normally for the new monitors. It does not differ much from the graphs of the above-described TN+Film monitors from Samsung.
The graph of the VX724 differs but slightly. The pixel rise line goes a bit higher, but has the same shape. The difference between the two models is very small, especially compared with how faster these monitors are against ordinary TN+Film matrixes.
The RTC error graph is obviously better than with the Samsung monitors. There’s only one 23.5% peak as opposed to nearly 40% with the SyncMaster 930BF and 150% (!) with the 760BF.
The graph of the VX724 looks even better. The maximum error is just a little over 10%. Well, the map of transitions between different tones of gray has some errors of about 60%, but the overall result is still much better as compared with the Samsung monitors.
The RTC error is small on black-gray transitions which are prevalent in Windows desktop applications, so the RTC-related artifacts are hardly perceptible and are not discomforting at all. They are not conspicuous in games and movies, either, unless you are looking for them on purpose. In this case the excellent response time of the monitor makes up with interest for the accompanying visual artifacts.
The gray-to-gray transitions histogram shows that the monitor is free from the problems with light-gray to light-gray transitions we have seen on the SyncMaster 760BF. The histogram is quite uniform, with a maximum of about 14 milliseconds (the maximum was as high as 32 milliseconds on the 760BF!)
So, the strong RTC artifacts and high response time on light tones is not the common problem of all monitors on TN+Film matrixes, but a problem of Samsung who did not implement the RTC mechanism well enough. The RTC artifacts are less strong on the ViewSonic monitors, and the problem with the light tones is not observed at all.
The gamma curves of the monitors go below the necessary level (you see the VX924 graph above, but the graph for the VX724 is almost the same). It means the onscreen image is going to look darker and have a higher contrast than necessary. When the brightness and contrast settings are reduced in the monitor’s menu, the curves go up a little, getting closer to the theoretical curve for gamma=2.2.
The color temperature setup of both monitors is acceptable, but the 19” model is a little better in this respect: the difference between different levels of gray is smaller on it. As for the junior model, the 5400K setup looks the worst of all: the white color does have the said temperature, but light gray is close to 7000K!
The contrast and brightness parameters of these monitors are at an average level as TN+Film matrixes generally go. The 17” model was the brighter of the two Samsung monitors whereas here the senior VX924 is brighter than the VX724, their contrast ratio being almost the same (except at the 100nit settings).
So while the first TN+Film monitors from Samsung with RTC call for improvements, ViewSonic has offered much better products. Its monitors are actually faster than Samsung’s, considering the problems of the latter on transitions between light tones, but have a much lower RTC error. In most cases you can’t discern any RTC artifacts on the ViewSonic monitors! Both these advantages result from a more accurate RTC setup.
As concerns the static image, these monitors do not differ from the models on the same, but RTC-less matrixes. The RTC mechanism can only affect a moving object, and apart from this feature, these monitors haven’t changed since their predecessors.