X-bit labs

24" LCD Monitors Roundup (page 3)

Category: Other

by Oleg Artamonov

[ 10/23/2007 | 08:48 AM ]

The gamma curves look neat at the default settings, lying in a dense group near the ideal curve for gamma 2.2. Both darks and lights are reproduced without problems.

The gamma curves rise up at the reduced brightness and contrast, making the image somewhat faded, but do not suffer any dramatic change otherwise.

The color temperature modes are set up perfectly. It’s only on the darkest halftones that the temperature deflects by more than 200K from the average value. My only gripe is that there are only two factory-set modes, Cool and Warm, while most other monitors usually offer at least three (Warm, Normal and Cold). If you prefer a color temperature below 6800K, you’ll have to set this monitor up manually.

The response time average is 9.7 milliseconds GtG with a maximum of 35.3 milliseconds. Not exceptional, yet this is a good enough result for a PVA matrix. The monitor is going to suit fine for both work and games/movies.

The level of RTC errors is low at 3.9% on average and 35.5% at the maximum. The error is really big on quite a small number of transitions, so the RTC artifacts won’t be conspicuous. You’ll have to look for them specifically in order to see them.

The monitor’s contrast ratio is low, unfortunately. It is even below 300:1, which is a disappointing result for a PVA matrix. There can be two theoretical reasons for that: monitor’s overall setup and its analog input.

My overall impression about the AL2416Ws proved to be better than I had expected before testing it. Yes, considering the rapid decline of prices on 24” models with digital input and much broader functionality, this monitor doesn’t look very appealing. I think the price difference between the AL2416Ws and more serious products is very small and tested it out of academic interest. I wanted to see what would come out if the functionality of a 24” monitor is cut down to the level of a low-end 19-incher.

And, the result isn’t too bad, by the way. In fact, all the problems boil down to the inconvenience of using an analog input instead of a digital one. The image quality should be all right if you’ve got a modern graphics card, but the necessity of having to run the auto-adjustment becomes irritating sooner or later. Otherwise, the monitor’s parameters such as color reproduction, response time and others are quite good, matching those of more serious models.

The advantage of the digital interface over the analog one is actually true for monitors with smaller sizes of the screen. The good point of DVI is not even in providing a higher-quality picture (modern graphics cards cope not only with 1600x1200 but even with 1920x1200 as I’ve made sure when testing this monitor), but in being more practical. You get an absolutely sharp picture right away, on the first connection, without additional setting up, and on almost every graphics card.