【转】Xbit labs的最新显示器测试！（部分转贴）

gz0921

这次测试了几款19宽的显示器，转一部分。

首先是BenQ 的G900WA，作为一台只卖1250元的显示器能有这样的成绩令我十分吃惊！

The monitor has 90% brightness and 50% contrast by default. I achieved a 100nit brightness of white by choosing 56% brightness and 50% contrast. The matrix is the same quality as the E900WA’s: color gradients are reproduced without bandings but darks are indistinguishable from black at a contrast of 25% and lower. At a contrast of 65% and higher lights are the same as white.

As for the backlight brightness, it is the contrary to what we had with the previous model. The average deflection is 6.5% on white, the maximum being as high as 20.4%. It is a barely satisfactory result. The X-shaped pattern is not so conspicuous here – the brightness is just getting lower from the center to the edges. The result is good on black: an average of 2.8% with a maximum of 8.4%.

The gamma curves are almost perfect, lying close to the theoretical curve for gamma 2.2.

The value of gamma is somewhat higher at the reduced settings, yet the curves are still good overall.

This monitor has a very good color temperature setup for its product class. The choice of modes should satisfy most users while the temperature dispersion is not higher than 700K and even within 350K in the Normal mode.

The color gamut is the same as with the previous model.

The matrix is about as fast as the matrix of the above-discussed E900WA: an average response time of 15 milliseconds (GtG) with a maximum of 25.5 milliseconds. This is not fast even for an RTC-less TN matrix.

The contrast ratio is good at 300:1 and higher. Its maximum value is lower than that of the E900WA (although their specs suggest the opposite) but higher than 400:1. Subjectively, there is no difference between the G900WA and E900WA in terms of contrast ratio.

The Senseye+Photo modes are set up almost exactly like in the previous model. Unfortunately, there are the same white outlines on this monitor, too.

Color reproduction is awful in every mode other than sRGB (in this mode colors are as good as at the default settings). Above you can see the gamma curves as they are in the Photo mode. The value of gamma is too low for the blue and red curve and their shapes have little in common with the theoretical curve. People at BenQ have a peculiar notion about how photos should look I should say.
The BenQ G900WA is a very fine monitor and differs from same-class products with its good color reproduction. However, the E900WA model from the same series seems to me to have a better exterior design but similar characteristics. Perhaps you would personally prefer the calmer design of this model, though.
Highs:

• Good color reproduction setup

Lows:

• No digital interface
• Slow matrix

Recommended usage:

• Text-based applications (documents, spreadsheets, Internet)
• Simple processing of graphics and photographs

从上面的测试来看：
1、均匀性方面白色稍差，黑色均匀性很突出
2、GAMMA设置非常准确
3、色温设置非常准确，特别是6500K。
4、响应时间方面没有RTC
5、对比度不错

[ 本帖最后由 gz0921 于 2008-7-21 15:43 编辑 ]

gz0921

再转一个961GW的测试坐下参考：

The monitor has 100% brightness and 75% contrast by default. I lowered both to 23% to achieve a 100nit white. Darks are reproduced correctly through the entire range of settings. Lights merge into white at a contrast level of 90% or higher. Color gradients are displayed with slight banding. The brightness is regulated by means of backlight modulation at a frequency of 331Hz.

The white brightness is quite uniform: an average deflection of 4.5% with a maximum of 14.4%. It is worse on black (an average of 4.7% with a maximum of 18.5%) but mostly due to the darker bands along the sides of the screen.

The gamma curves are good at the default settings even though differ somewhat from each other. Let’s see what effect the gamma option can provoke (gamma mode 1 is selected by default).

It’s clear that the value of gamma is somewhat reduced in Mode 2 and increased in Mode 3. What is important, the three curves all retain their shape and relative position.

At the reduced settings the curves nearly coincide with each other but have a lower value of gamma than necessary. The image is whitish and low-contrast as the consequence. You can choose Mode 3 in the monitor’s menu and get nearly ideal curves without using a calibrator.

The color temperature setup is not quite neat: there is a large dispersion of temperature between the levels of gray. Besides, the monitor doesn’t offer a warm temperature because most of the gray tones are too cold, 7000K and higher, even in the Warm mode.

This is a typical color gamut again, somewhat larger than sRGB in greens and smaller in reds. Of course, it cannot compare with the color gamut of the above-discussed SyncMaster 931CW.

The monitor is not as fast as the 931CW, but far faster than RTC-less models. Its response time average is 3.8 milliseconds (GtG) with a maximum of 17.4 milliseconds on some transitions.

The level of RTC errors is lower than on the SyncMaster 931CW. The average error is 10.2%, the maximum is 60.5%. It means that RTC-provoked artifacts will be visible on some transitions.

The SyncMaster 961GW boasts a superb contrast ratio. It is never lower than 300:1 and as high as 500:1 at the maximum. That’s a very good result for a TN matrix.
Samsung’s monitors traditionally offer two sets of predefined modes. The MagicBright modes differ in contrast and brightness while MagicColor varies color saturation. Interestingly, many Samsung monitors have a quick button on the front panel for choosing a MagicBright mode but the MagicColor option is only available from the menu. Let’s see what is different in these modes.

The levels of brightness and contrast are selected quite properly in every MagicBright mode and correspond to the names of the modes. It is nice the contrast ratio is never lower than 350:1. The gamma curves have the same shape (as at the default settings) in every mode.
Dynamic contrast is also listed among MagicBright modes but it is not mentioned in the table. We can’t yet do any measurements for dynamic contrast technology in our labs.

Color reproduction does change with the MagicColor technology. It is not accurate anymore (the overall shape of the curves is the same in the Intelligent mode but they are not so high up). So, it is reasonable that this technology is hidden deep in the menu. If you prefer a very high contrast ratio and very saturated colors, you can enable it one and for all. Other people won’t ever need it.
So, if you are looking for an appealing shiny monitor with a fast matrix, you should definitely consider the SyncMaster 961GW. The only problems I can see with this model are that its color reproduction setup is somewhat sloppy and its case gets soiled just too easily.
Highs:

• Superb exterior design
• Fast matrix
• Broad screen adjustment options
• Appropriate setup of the factory-defined MagicBright modes
• Excellent contrast ratio

Lows:

• Easily soiled case and a glossy coating of the matrix
• Not very accurate setup of the RTC mechanism

Recommended usage:

• Text-based applications (documents, spreadsheets, Internet)
• Movies and games (including those that require a fast matrix)

LULU

笨球翻生啦{biggrin:]

owenozx

19寸，有点落后了

nanao001

看显示器测试还是棒子那网专业{hug:]

http://www.monitor4u.co.kr/

末日之刃

原帖由 gz0921 于 2008-7-21 15:36 发表
这次测试了几款19宽的显示器，转一部分。

首先是BenQ 的G900WA，作为一台只卖1250元的显示器能有这样的成绩令我十分吃惊！

The monitor has 90% brightness and 50% contrast by default. I achieved a 100nit ...

400多比1的对比度在台机中算差了[innocent>

gz0921

原帖由 末日之刃 于 2008-7-21 19:59 发表

400多比1的对比度在台机中算差了[innocent>

xbitlabs的测试数据只能在xbitlabs自家的评测中做横向比较，不能跟其他网站的评测相比较，因为测试条件不同。
400：1在xbitlabs的评测里不算差的。

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/19inch-10.html

末日之刃

原帖由 gz0921 于 2008-7-21 21:31 发表


xbitlabs的测试数据只能在xbitlabs自家的评测中做横向比较，不能跟其他网站的评测相比较，因为测试条件不同。
400：1在xbitlabs的评测里不算差的。

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/19inch- ...

囧 忘记了蜘蛛是没有黑位校正……