NEC PA242W Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on September 27, 2013 9:00 AM ESTUpdated 10/2/2013: Talking to NEC after this went live it was found that the review unit had a feature, Metamerism, enabled. This helps to match it to other displays, but also caused the pre-calibration numbers and non-SpectraView numbers, to be incorrect. I'm currently re-running the pre-calibration numbers on the NEC now and updating the pages as fast as possible. The end result is that the NEC performs far, far better out-of-the-box than initially thought.
Be prepared, as there is a lot of bench test data coming here. For my pre-calibration settings I used the sRGB color gamut, a color temperature of 6500K, and a gamma setting of 2.2.
|
Pre-Calibration (re-tested) |
Post-Calibration, 200 cd/m^2 |
Post-Calibration, 80 cd/m^2 |
|
| White Level (cd/m^2) | 197.0 | 204.14 | 80.79 |
| Black Level (cd/m^2) | 0.3457 | 0.366 | 0.1479 |
| Contrast Ratio | 570:1 | 558:1 | 546:1 |
| Gamma (Average) | 2.2633 | 2.1437 | 2.3734 |
| Color Temperature | 6460K | 6426K | 6442K |
| Grayscale dE2000 | 1.573 | 0.6504 | 0.6473 |
| Color Checker dE2000 | 1.0198 | 0.6392 | 0.5331 |
| Saturations dE2000 | 0.9682 | 0.6722 | 0.5675 |
Out of the box the NEC is practically perfect. The grayscale has a little bit of an error but one that should barely be visible if at all. The gamma has a small peak at 95% but no huge issues at all. The colors are reference quality and there is nothing to complain about with them. If this was a post-calibration result I would say it is amazing. The fact that it is a pre-calibration one makes it even that much more incredible.
Post calibration, aside from a dip in the gamma at 90-95%, everything else improves and becomes practically perfect. Yes, the overall error levels can be lower but you couldn't see it. None of the 96 samples in the large color checker chart even come close to a dE2000 of 2, much less the visible limit of 3. The average error of 0.63 is the lowest I've ever seen. It's perfect.
When targeting 80 cd/m^2 and the sRGB gamma target we see similar performance. The gamma curve isn’t perfect but really everything else is. The color checker chart hits an average dE2000 of 0.53 here which is even better, but not visible. What you see on the screen is what you are supposed to see.
With Metamerism turned off, the NEC measures perfectly. The only improvement I could see is in contrast ratio, but they might be letting that suffer to coax more reliable overall performance of the panel which is a trade-off that would be worth it for their target markets. Perhaps once OLED gets affordable we can see something better, but until then this is really, really good.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
1Angelreloaded - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
Actually the whole 1080p labeling is for the HDTV industry and makes no complete sense to use in the PC space and 1080p(1920x1200) is 16 megapixels with 16:10 wide(Camera dependant).bobbozzo - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
I have the Dell u2412M... I like that it's 16:10 (versus my 16:9 Samsung (below)); on 16:9 I don't feel like there's room for the taskbar...Anandtech reviewed the 2412:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5550/dell-u2412m-16-...
At home I have a 23" Samsung 2343bwx which is 2048x1180, but its TN panel has serious problems for me when doing design or photo work; the viewing angle affects colors so much that a solid color looks significantly different at top or bottom of the screen versus the middle. If I move my head, it changes, so it's not a uniformity problem; just viewing angle. I sit over arm's length away, so it'd be even worse closer up.
ZeDestructor - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link
2412 is only sRGB, not wide gamut like the 2408, U2410 and U2413.I agree on anything wider than 16:10 being too wide. 16:10 IMO is the perfect size this side of dynamically-sized holograms.
tarzan1234 - Monday, December 9, 2013 - link
This monitor is designed for graphic designers and digital photographers and they don't need and don't want high contrast. The goal is what you see on screen is what you get in prints. That means what's on the display must be as close to what's on a print as possible. In a standard viewing condition (standard light, natural daylight white), matte paper prints have contrast ratio of about 1:200, luster paper has contrast ratio of about 1:250 to 1:300 and glossy paper has a contrast ratio of about 1:350 to 1:400. For that reason, if you have a high contrast monitor, what you see on screen will be different from what you get in print. You can't change contrast ratio of paper, the only thing you can do is to have a monitor that can be adjusted close to that. That's what professional grade monitors are for. Some of the very best (and most expensive) graphic monitors are made by Eizo, and their contrast ratios are in 1:250 to 1:400 range. One additional note, photographers often set their monitor light output to around 80cd/m2 to 120cd/m2 for the same reason, getting close to how prints look. If the display is brighter, you often end up with dark prints because if it looks OK on a to bright monitor, the prints will be too dark.WhitneyLand - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
>>do you need this? If you’re asking that question then you probably don’t.Instead of this answer how about telling us things like:
1) Is it possible to see benefits without calibration tools?
2) Is it possible to see benefits in applications that don't manage color profiles?
3) If you grab a couple non color-pro friends and ask them if it looks better, what do they say?
cheinonen - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
OK, I'll answer those quickly then:1) Yes, because the out-of-box experience is also very good and it is still more uniform than any other display tested to date. The calibration does not affect the uniformity.
2) Yes, and especially with calibration. The SpectraView software does all of its work inside the monitor LUT, leaving the video LUT alone. So color profiles or not, the image should be basically perfect.
3) I'd have to grab them and see, though I'll admit to mostly having friends who I've converted to really caring about color.
DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
As a multi-monitor user #3 matters to me because it makes all my screens look the same. At work I've got 3 mismatched Dell screens (1901, 2208, 2210); and the fact that despite fiddling I can't get the colors on them to match is noticeable and a bit annoying. At home I have 3 NEC monitors (all bought refurbed to avoid breaking the bank) 2x 2090 and 1x 3090; out of the box colors between the three are close enough to each other that I've never felt the need to buy a colorimeter to calibrate them.inighthawki - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
My experience has taught me to always go with the same monitors in multimon setups. 2x or 3x of the same brand, same model.DanNeely - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
Even if I could've afforded multiple 30's at home I don't have the deskspace for them; and in any event I bought the 20's a year or two before the 30. (The 3way setup was however a major factor in why I bought what I did.)At work I got the screens one at a time; and had a pair of 2208's at one point; they matched each other about as poorly as the 2208 and 2210 do.
powruser - Saturday, September 28, 2013 - link
We have very similar setups. I have one 2490WUXi as my primary display and two 2090UXi as secondary display. All are first generation models which have the A-TW polarizer which greatly reduces the purple IPS glow on dark images when viewing at off angles. I also bought mine refurbished. NEC has excellent refurbs, and their warranty service is excellent as well. You'd have to pry my A-TW NEC displays from my cold dead hands! :)