Color gamut is measured using a saturation sweep that samples the six main colors (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow) at five saturation levels (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%). It yields a more realistic view of color accuracy.

The out-of-box chroma results are interesting because they show how incorrect gamma can affect color saturation. If you look at the 100-percent points (the edge of the triangle), they’re pretty close to their targets. But the lower saturations are as much as 20 percent off the mark. For instance, 40-percent red is right on the 60-percent target. The net result is that the image looks oversaturated in most cases, even though gamut volume is essentially correct. There is a little compensation in the form of lower luminance values for red, magenta, and blue. Of course, what we want to see is for all saturation values to hit their respective targets.

Engaging the CAD/CAM preset worsens the saturation issues. Eighty- and 100-percent values are almost the same, meaning detail in the brightest parts of the image is nearly non-existent. Because of the cooler grayscale in this mode, the cyan and magenta secondaries are off in hue as well.

An instrumented calibration is the best way to set things right. The 20 to 80 percent levels in red, magenta, and blue are still a tad over-saturated, but the lowered luminance brings the actual error below three Delta E. The BL3200PT isn’t quite at the accuracy level of a factory-calibrated professional monitor, but it doesn’t cost nearly as much, either. Considering price versus screen size, this remains an excellent performer.
Now we return to the comparison group:

A 2.02 Delta E result may represent a last-place finish, but it’s still an invisible error. All of the monitors in our group offer great color accuracy, and you’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
| Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review | Read the Review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998 And sRGB
There are basically two categories of displays in use today: those that conform to the sRGB/Rec. 709 standard like HDTVs, and wide-gamut panels that show as much as 100 percent of the Adobe RGB 1998 spec. We use Gamutvision to calculate the gamut volume, based on an ICC profile created from our actual measurements.

Before calibration, the BL3200PT’s sRGB gamut volume measured closer to 103 percent. While this isn’t a big deal in productivity or entertainment applications, photo and graphics users will want to calibrate for greater accuracy and a 100-percent volume. The main culprit is the blue primary, which is over-saturated at the Gamma 3 setting.
- 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.