Uncalibrated
Before calibrating any panel, we measure zero and 100-percent signals at both ends of the brightness control range. This shows us how contrast is affected at the extremes of a monitor's luminance capability. We do not increase contrast control past the clipping point. While that'd increase a monitor’s light output, the brightest signal levels would not be visible, resulting in crushed highlight detail. Our numbers show the maximum light level possible with no clipping of the signal.

BenQ specs the BL3200PT at 300 cd/m2 max output. But we could only get to 248.9853 cd/m2 with the Contrast control on 50. Increasing it clips detail and shifts the color of brighter image elements towards green. When a monitor is this large, however, anything over 200 cd/m2 still looks suitably bright.

AMVA technology promises better black levels and contrast than IPS, and this display certainly delivers. With the backlight on maximum, BenQ lays waste to the rest of the group. In fact, a .1046 cd/m2 result is better than many HDTVs.

Despite its lower white level, the BL3200PT offers max contrast that’s almost double the second-place X270OC, putting it far ahead of any IPS screen we’ve tested and almost all of the TN monitors too.
We believe 50 cd/m2 is a practical minimum standard for screen brightness. Any lower and you risk eyestrain and fatigue. The XL2720Z bottoms out right at 50.5889 cd/m2. This is a great light level for playing games or working in a totally darkened room. As you’ll see below, black levels and contrast hold up extremely well, too.

We’ve only seen a couple of other displays measure darker than the BL3200PT, and they had correspondingly lower minimum white levels. Remember that the BenQ is actually practical to use at its minimum backlight setting unlike some other screens.

The resulting contrast is only a little lower than the maximum. That's the sort of consistency we always look for and appreciate from any display. No matter your brightness preference, you’ll always see a contrast ratio of around 2200 to 1.
|
|
|
|
|
| Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
After Calibration
Since we consider 200 cd/m2 to be an ideal point for peak output, we calibrate all of our test monitors to that value. In a room with some ambient light (like an office), this brightness level provides a sharp, punchy image with maximum detail and minimum eye fatigue. On many monitors, it’s also the sweet spot for gamma and grayscale tracking, which we'll look at on the next page.
In a darkened room, many professionals prefer a 120 cd/m2 calibration. We have found this makes little to no difference on the calibrated black level and contrast measurements.

The black level doesn’t suffer one bit after calibration. It’s less than half of the second-place AOC G2460PQU. AMVA panel technology seems to surpass the excellent dark-image performance of TN, while offering better off-axis viewing performance. It’s a win-win in our opinion.

The calibrated contrast ratio is solidly over 2000 to 1, which is excellent. We’re still hoping to see HDTV-level contrast in computer monitors someday, and the BL3200PT takes a huge step towards that goal. While AMVA is unlikely to ever match plasma or OLED in the black-level department, it’s emerging as the best LCD tech so far (at least in this discipline).
ANSI Contrast Ratio
Another important measure of contrast is ANSI. To perform this test, a checkerboard pattern of sixteen zero and 100-percent squares is measured, yielding a somewhat more real-world metric than on/off readings because we see a display’s ability to simultaneously maintain both low black and full white levels, factoring in screen uniformity, too. The average of the eight full-white measurements is divided by the average of the eight full-black measurements to arrive at the ANSI result.

We’ve seen feedback on early AMVA panels talking about poor uniformity and light bleed. Obviously, our sample does not suffer from those maladies. In fact, this is the first time we’ve seen a display’s ANSI result exceed its calibrated outcome, demonstrating excellent quality control on the parts of BenQ and AU Optronics.
- A 32-Inch QHD AMVA Monitor
- Packaging, Physical Layout and Accessories
- OSD Setup and Calibration
- Measurement and Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness and Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking and Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut nd Performance
- Results: Viewing Angles and Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response and Input Lag
- BenQ BL3200PT: Bigger Is Better
I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
The days of 60Hz are almost over with..
The days of 60Hz are almost over with..
Except that the Swift cost $800
That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
What is Active Sync?
It's not 1000$ though...
Part of the reason people do comes down to one, the pixel density (if that matters) and two the GPU horsepower necessary to run it. 4K panels are cool, but I don't game on one at all. I have one, but it isn't my go to monitor due to the low refresh rate, lag, and blur. Is it pretty? Sure. But honestly right now that 28" 4K panel is dumb as a post.
I'm always amazed how most people don't know you can adjust the size of pretty much every font inside of Windows. I've had people lowering the resolution of the screen and seeing everything blurred until I showed them that you can adjust the font sizes.
But for TH to make a comment like that? Did BenQ's marketing department sent you the text ready?
I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
Its not so much your apps that are the concern, because yes, most of them will give you some scaling options. The issue is that Windows does not scale very far. Your UI (icon text, folder names, Windows Explorer stuff) will be smaller at higher PPI.
That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
Windows 7/8/8.1 has gui scaling as does MacOSX. Non issue.
I'm always amazed how most people don't know you can adjust the size of pretty much every font inside of Windows. I've had people lowering the resolution of the screen and seeing everything blurred until I showed them that you can adjust the font sizes.
But for TH to make a comment like that? Did BenQ's marketing department sent you the text ready?
I am one of the people to whom 1080p @ 24" renders things hard to see (not exclusive to text, mind you).
I am fully aware of Windows' high-DPI settings. But let me tell you, unless the applications you are running have good built-in support for it, Windows' high-DPI is not going to be a magic bullet.
You have 2 options: Win XP's high-DPI which will increase font size and leave every GUI element on screen looking highly unbalanced, OR the newest method that scales up the canvas surface upon which everything was rendered before "printing" it on screen, in which case you will also end up with blurriness.
Trust me on this. I have tried using high-DPI for extended periods of time, not just toggled it on and off so I could tell myself it's there and pretend it works fine. Unless you have a real disability like me though, you may have a hard time understanding where I'm coming from... so no hard feelings.
Basically, sharpness of a glossy (or anti reflect, just not anti glare) high DPI monitor is amazing, I just can't get over that... I don't understand why the market is moving away from that...
By the way, is there any monitor you can reccomend that has this specs? And one that is more than 60HZ?
I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
Its not so much your apps that are the concern, because yes, most of them will give you some scaling options. The issue is that Windows does not scale very far. Your UI (icon text, folder names, Windows Explorer stuff) will be smaller at higher PPI.