QNIX QX2710 LED DPmulti True10 Review
by Chris Heinonen on April 11, 2014 6:00 AM ESTsRGB Test Bench
All calibration measurements are done using SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5.3 software with a custom workflow. Measurements are done using a C6 colorimeter that is first profiled against an i1Pro spectrometer to ensure accurate results. There are two sets of targets we use. Pre-Calibration and our first calibration aim for 200 cd/m^2 with an sRGB gamut and a gamma of 2.2. This is a common real-world setting for a display. The final target changes the white level to 80 cd/m^2 and the gamma curve to the tougher AdobeRGB standard.
|
Pre-Calibration |
Post-Calibration, 200 cd/m^2 |
Post-Calibration, 80 cd/m^2 |
|
| White Level (cd/m^2) | 204.1 | 201.0 | 84.3 |
| Black Level (cd/m^2) | 0.275 | 0.281 | 0.131 |
| Contrast Ratio | 742:1 | 716:1 | 644:1 |
| Gamma (Average) | 1.90 | 2.17 | 2.45 |
| Color Temperature | 6702K | 6629K | 6506K |
| Grayscale dE2000 | 2.74 | 0.44 | 0.81 |
| Color Checker dE2000 | 3.37 | 1.53 | 1.65 |
| Saturations dE2000 | 2.41 | 1.42 | 1.50 |
For this review I’ve switched from taking 21 measurement points to taking 256 levels for grayscale. It provides a much better level of detail than before. Color measurements can’t be measured at the same level of detail, but I do measure them as much as possible.
Using the "Warmish" color temperature setting, we see a good RGB balance before calibration. What isn’t as good is the gamma point, which starts out at 1.6, rises up to 2.0 and then falls down quickly at the top end. This causes crushing of highlights, where values from 90%-100% will look almost identical, and causes shadows to be washed out as well. Colors also have errors with colors on the Green-Yellow-Red side of the CIEuv chart being over-saturated. This also causes the skin tones to be exaggerated.
Post-calibration at 200 cd/m2 the RGB balance is improved but more importantly the gamma is far improved. The gamma is so far off the 2.2 target above 90% that we can’t fully correct it here, but calibration does a good job of fixing it overall. The dE2000 errors fall and are all below 2.0 now with an average of 0.44 that is very good. Color errors improve but there is still a lot of over-saturation in oranges, yellows, greens, and reds that cause visible issues. The lower half of the color gamut is much more accurate.
When we target 80 cd/m2 we see more issues with the gamma, as the lower light output provides us less range to fix the gamma through the hardware LUTs. The grayscale dE2000 is higher as a result but still below 2.0 everywhere. Colors have the same issues, as the green line is hidden behind the yellow line on the saturations chart, but it is otherwise almost the same as it is with 200 cd/m2.
The pre-calibration numbers are okay for the QNIX, but the main thing that holds it back is the gamma preset it utilizes. It makes it hard to hit the gamma target of 2.2 that we look for and means you can see some highlight clipping, even after calibration.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
coburn_c - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
Wow I always assumed these cheapo panels were garbage, but 500:1 contrast and a 50% uniformity? I'll take a cheap 1080p *VA over this any day.peterfares - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
If color accuracy is most important to you then that's probably good idea.I on the other hand don't need color accuracy for what I use my computer for. For me, resolution is king.
dylan522p - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
I con't really mind the color accuracy. My problem was the unifromity, you can visually see the difference between blacks on one part of the screen and on another part. The white point is also off. Both of those things were deal breakers for me.jtrdfw - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link
Back light bleed is the most common complaint with QNIX (and related) since that has to do with the manufacturing quality of the metal frame the panel is in, then case quality. Colors, contrast ratio, input lag, refresh rate, and quality of the panel are not. Note that this is not the common Qnix 2710, but a different and far less popular version.In general, it is an unbeatable quality monitor for ~$310 shipped. And shipping takes 1-2 days from Korea (literally).
It's unfortunate someone sent them a True10 version of this as it is not the same.
marcosears - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link
This is just another pretty bad monitor from QNIX. I don't see why people get it when the are much better monitors on the market. /Marco from http://www.consumertop.com/best-monitor-guide/edlee - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
I am troubled by the fact that the Dell U2713Hm, samsung were left out of most benchmarks results which would compared better than having the dell 32" led in the tests?Its still readily available, and it would have have been a better comparison since it matches same resolution and screen size.
Sabresiberian - Saturday, April 12, 2014 - link
They don't all test out so poorly. Of course if you really want a quality display for production work, pay the price, this is never going to work for you.As I always say, fit your hardware choice to your purpose; not everything will work for your tastes or needs. :)
laweijfmvo - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
sorry, but this is just poorly written. it took me until the bottom of the first page to realize this wasn't a 4k screen, and sentences like this just baffle me:"... and utilized the same panel as more expensive offerings, though often with a lower grade panel."
rpg1966 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
Yes. The line under the heading referring to 2560x1440 confused me as well...pattycake0147 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link
I too was confused about the resolution of the monitor. The first line of the article talked about "QuadHD displays from South Korea" which made me think that's what I was going to be reading about.Your quoted line about panels caught me off guard too, but after carefully re-reading it about four times I figured out what the author meant.