BenQ EW2420 Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on October 13, 2011 12:00 AM ESTColor Uniformity
The overall color quality of the BenQ was just acceptable with a dE of slightly over 2, and that isn’t limited to the center. Color quality is best at the center and middle-bottom of the screen, with the error level getting higher at the top and corners of the screen.
This is a pattern that we will see repeated when we get to the brightness uniformity charts as well. Most likely this is caused by unevenness in the LED backlighting across the screen, which influences the color quality as a result. With a dE that doesn’t fall below 2 anywhere on the screen, the BenQ isn’t a display that can be recommended for serious print work, but for day-to-day use it should be good enough. As with most displays the highest dE errors occur in colors that are a majority blue, and these errors are less visible to the eye than if the colors were mostly red or green. Grayscale tracking was very good overall, and that’s the most important element of image as far as human vision is concerned.
Color Gamut
The BenQ EW2420 has LED backlighting but still only covers the standard sRGB colorspace and not the AdobeRGB space. We see in the gamut chart that it covers around 70% of the AdobeRGB space, which is average. This also contributes to the higher dE values as some of the color samples used in that test fall outside of the sRGB gamut.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
cz - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link
This is one of my two 24" 1900x1200 monitors on my desk. It has DVI and HDMI inputs also it has mic array, speakers and Webcam. I am watching Comcast cable on this monitor in 1080 mode right now.vailr - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link
The BenQ XL2410T monitorhttp://promotions.benq.us/gaming/xl2410t-monitor.h...
has a $75 off coupon available via Benq's facebook page.
Features:
120 MHz refresh rate
LED backlit
nVidia 3D ready
2 ms GTG
FPS "Shooting Game mode settings are co-developed by HeatoN, SpawN & BenQ engineers."
Picture-by-picture, for displaying two side-by-side screens within a single monitor, from 2 different video sources.
vailr - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link
Shopping link: http://shop.benq.us/ProductDetail.aspx?id=56elevants - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link
I need 120hz. Does anybody know any PVA/IPS 120hz lcd's?rickon66 - Friday, October 14, 2011 - link
After using several 24" and a 26" 1920 x 1200 monitors for the past few years, I added a 27" 1080p to my stable and it lasted about a week. I could not stand the loss of 120 lines of resolution so it went back to the store and was replaced by a U3011. If I was going to consider 1080, I would just as soon get a quality 32" TV and use it as a monitor. Computer monitors need to be at 16:10 and no less!!svojoe - Saturday, October 15, 2011 - link
I didn't think my needs were bleeding edge. I've been looking for a16x10
LED
IPS (or VA)
2x HDMI (DVI is fine, but I like simplicity)
Thats it, I don't really care about the resolution, anything between 21-27" is fine.
It looks like there is a half dozen or less choices out there, most of which are crazy expensive. I figured this would be on its way to being fairly standard!
Any recommendations?
jah1subs - Monday, October 17, 2011 - link
Reality check. 16x10 ratio is going away because manufacturers can cut more panels out of a single sheet of glass with 16x9 than with 16x10. This information is now 2-3 years old. I saw it on Digitimes that long ago. IIRC, 16:9 enables manufacturers to get about 5% more panels more sheet than 16:10. It is only about money.That said, I recently started using a 5 year old Dell Latitude D810, which has a 1280x800, i.e. 16x10 display. The extra height of the display, in this case 80 pixels, makes a real difference when dealing with a laptop. Because of the vertical space consumed at the top and bottom of the screen, this extra 80 pixels is more than the arithmetic 11.1% of the usable area.
Yes, 16x10 is better for working, but it loses out to economics and movie standards.
That is the end of this repeat of the reality check.