For our pre-calibration measurements we target 200 cd/m2 of light output, the sRGB gamut, and a gamma of 2.2. On the VUE 30 there are color temperature settings you can use for the grayscale and the warm setting was found to produce the most accurate image.

I’m also going to approach this review differently than before. The charts for all these measurements will be available in individual galleries. There is a table at the top of the page that summarizes the pre and post calibration measurements to easily see how well the monitor does before and after calibration. This should make it easier to read, and allow me to better focus commentary about the monitor performance on the areas that need it.

  Pre-Calibration Post-Calibration,
200 cd/m2
Post-Calibration,
80 cd/m2
White Level 201.78 195.562 77.6183
Black Level 0.3214 0.3197 0.1388
Contrast Ratio 628:1 612:1 559:1
Gamma (Average) 2.2552 2.2406 2.5132
Color Temperature 6657K 6593K 6452K
Grayscale dE2000 4.0657 0.7705 1.3304
Color Checker dE2000 5.7431 4.0627 4.3305
Saturations dE2000 4.6853 3.7814 4.1323

The major improvement that we see is for the grayscale and gamma. On our 200 cd/m2 target calibration, those both come out nearly perfect. There is a small gamma spike at 95% but nothing really bad at all. The overall dE2000 is so low as to be unseen. When targeting 80 cd/m2 and the sRGB gamma curve, the Nixeus doesn’t perform quite as well. The gamma has a little more variation and the dE2000 is somewhat higher, though still very low. The loss of contrast ratio is the larger issue here.

Both grayscale results highly improve upon the original, which is slightly warm and has a very large error level as you approach peak white. The problem with the Nixeus VUE 30 lies with color reproduction. The errors for both the 96-point color checker and the saturations measurements improve, but not by a huge degree. Most of that improvement can be tied back to the grayscale improving since those numbers are a large part of these later tests. The default 6-point gamut chart is dropped here as the saturations chart covers that, and that dE2000 average is too heavily impacted by the grayscale data.

What we see is a wildly oversaturated gamut where green, cyan, red, yellow and magenta all fall far outside of the sRGB gamut boundary. With Green even the 60% saturation value is outside the sRGB gamut, which leads to very over-saturated colors. Even post-calibration we see that green dE2000 errors are past 5 from 40% on, and approaching a dE2000 of 10 by 100%. Aside from a few select colors in the Color Checker pattern, and the grayscale, almost all the colors have a large visible error.

The Nixeus lacks an internal LUT to fix this, and only so much can be done through the video card. A large gamut is nice, but just like with an OLED smartphone, we don’t want that gamut to be wildly oversaturated and push the color way outside of their boundaries. For any sort of color-critical work, or even just browsing photographs, the wild gamut of the VUE 30 will likely be a bad choice for those people after accurate colors. If you like a big, punchy image, you’ll probably like it.

Since we can’t control this gamut, perhaps using AdobeRGB as a target will lead to a better result? I decided to give it a try and see if that improves things at all, or if it was still an issue.

Brightness and Contrast AdobeRGB Calibration
POST A COMMENT

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • cheinonen - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    I probably need to have a Cut-and-Paste note for the lag section at this point. I was using SMTT which worked reasonably well, but no longer is selling licenses and mine has long expired now. Mirroring a counter can have issues, but the main one is there isn't a CRT I can reasonably buy that does beyond 1920x1200 (since I'm moving into the world of Barco and Sony 9" CRT projectors that cost a ton and take up far too much room) so then I have to scale the video input anyway. All the lag testers, like the Leo Bodnar, are designed around TVs so they cap at 1080p for output right now.

    Hopefully with 4K TVs coming out there will be someone that makes a lag tester that uses HDMI 1.4a and can run at multiple resolutions, but it doesn't exist yet. All other lag measurement methods use oscilloscopes and custom software, which is beyond what I can manage at the moment. The Leo Bodnar is far from ideal for this, but it's the best of a bad situation. For monitors that allow direct 1:1 input, I always measure that mode and not a scaled mode. Often I find the differences are only 1-2ms, though, so the scaler really isn't adding that much of an impact.
    Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Thanks for the clarification.

    That aside, scopes aren't too expensive.. I mean, a bunch of my friends (Uni students) bought a bunch of Rigol scopes (around 300AUD each) just so they didn't have to trek down to uni for working on their projects. Sure, you can get really expensive ones well into the thousands range, but last I checked a few weeks ago from reading TFTCentral's reviews, a USB scope is in the €300 range, which IMO isn't bad at all considering the sheer datalogging you can do from a computer vs an independent scope...
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, August 22, 2013 - link

    Wouldn't you rather have a Copy-and-Paste note? If you Cut you'd lose it after the first usage! Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    It's not cheap enough to make me want to buy it over a 30" Dell.

    The fit and finish and look of this is so ultra-cheap. A bit of decent quality matte plastic and a stand that isn't terrible wouldn't break the bank, but it would make this look worth the money they're charging.
    Reply
  • ZeDestructor - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    TBH, all they really needed to do was skip glossy anything.. a simple, flat, square matte bezel and all would be good in the world... Reply
  • spat55 - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Funny thing is this has the same OSD as my DGM (Digimate) 27" 1440p monitor. Really nice quality, but I have heard bad things about the power supplies going bang, but I have had mine for 4 months so hopefully I will be good and have a decent batch. Reply
  • coolhardware - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Crazy timing, I just ordered a 27" 2560x1440 Korean made display last night. It was a hair over $300 at Amazon (shortened URL: http://goo.gl/zU4E3x ) and I was shocked that it was so cheap. It is no frills, with Dual Link DVI as the only interface but that is my preferred interface anyway. :-)

    As for size:
    30" 2560x1600 = 404.49 square inches (25.4″x15.9″)
    27" 2560x1440 = 311.5 square inches (23.5″x13.2″)
    So for $300 for a 27" model you get 77% of the display area of the $700 30" model... not bad!
    (Source: Pixensity.com Desktop LCD List)

    After reading this review I am glad that I did not get a 30" Korean model as it looks like there is still some improvements to be made and that price is still very high. I agree with the article and other commenters that a Dell 30" (or similar) may still be preferred and I am looking forward to comparing the new 27" display to my old standby the Dell 3007WFP (from way back in 2005!)
    Reply
  • Nfarce - Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - link

    Good luck. Those inexpensive Korean knock-offs have a high rate of QC issues, from dust/dirt inside the display to plenty of dead pixels and uneven LCD mounting inside the bezel. I just dropped $699 on an LG 27EA83-D at Fry's and am seriously thinking of returning it and getting a 30" Dell U3014 direct from Dell for $999 on sale all month with a coupon code. The LG is great but not as big a leap from my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung as expected, even with the higher resolution. Reply
  • peterfares - Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - link

    I've had a cheapo Korean for over a year now. Paid $290 for it shipped to my door. Sits next to my Dell U3011. Not a single issue. No defective pixels, either.

    Don't buy a model with edge-to-edge glass and you won't have any dust in your screen. Glass=glare and is stupid anyways.
    Reply
  • dlang1234 - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    I don't understand why you haven't tested the MonoPrice version of the monitors considering they are around the same price range.
    30" IPS Crystal Pro Monitor $797.50

    http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now