Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

OSD Setup And Calibration Of The Dell P2815Q

Dell P2815Q 28-Inch 4K Ultra HD Monitor Review
By

The P2815Q’s OSD looks just like every other Dell monitor we’ve encountered, except that it's much simpler. Only basic image adjustments are provided, along with the usual convenience functions.

OSD Tour

Pressing the control button right above Power brings up a quick menu.

The first two options can be changed in the OSD if you wish. Here, they’re set to change picture modes or adjust brightness and contrast. Pressing the third button opens the full OSD.

The control buttons aren’t labeled, but the screen always shows their functions with easy-to-understand icons. Brightness modulates the backlight and, like contrast, ranges from zero to 100. Each click represents about 3cd/m2.

Here, you can change your input source. We used the bundled mini-DisplayPort interface to connect to our test PC and the HDMI port for the performance tests.

Input Color Format comes correctly set to RGB from the factory. If you use a Blu-ray player that only outputs YCbCr, you should change this setting accordingly. To access the white balance controls, select the Custom Color picture mode.

The P2815Q offers eight picture modes. In Movie or Game, saturation and hue adjustments are unlocked. When you select Custom Color, the RGB sliders appear.

The sliders start at their maximums, which means any adjustment reduces contrast. Fortunately, we didn’t have to tweak them too much. In fact, the P2815Q is quite accurate without calibration, so you might not have to manipulate them at all.

Aspect Ratio choices are 16:9 (all resolutions are scaled to fill the screen), 4:3 or 1:1 (pixel-mapped). Sharpness adds edge enhancement, which, at the P2815Q’s native resolution, completely hides fine detail. The default setting of 50 looked alright on our sample.

Dynamic Contrast only works in the Game or Movie modes. It can crush highlight and shadow detail, so use it carefully.

To use the DisplayPort multi-stream feature, set the 1.2 option to Enable. Unfortunately, it won’t enable a 60Hz refresh rate at 3840x2160.

You can see the Energy Use bar in the top-right of the OSD menus. Turning off the power button LED and USB ports can save a bit of juice in standby mode.

The OSD comes in eight languages. If you rotate the P2815Q to portrait mode, you can flip the menu as well. Transparency lets you make the menu opaque or partially transparent and Timer keeps the OSD on-screen for up to 60 seconds.

To control access to adjustments, turn on the Lock feature. Press and hold the lowest bezel key for 10 seconds to unlock.

To allow two-way communication between the P2815Q and your PC, enable DDC/CI. LCD Conditioning runs a series of test patterns designed to mitigate image retention, which is not an issue with LCD panels.

Finally, you can reset all OSD parameters to their factory defaults.

The first two bezel keys are programmable in the Personalize menu. You can have quick access to Picture Mode, Brightness & Contrast, Input Source, Aspect Ratio, and OSD Rotation.

Calibration

The only picture mode that allows a white balance adjustment is Custom Color. Since the P2815Q is already quite close to D65 in its Standard mode, we could only make a slight improvement. Because the RGB sliders start at their maximums, calibration reduced on/off contrast by 18 percent on our sample. You may wish to forgo adjustment to realize the monitor’s full contrast ratio and simply adjust Brightness to taste. The Contrast control won’t clip signal information until it reaches level 79.

Dell P2815Q Calibration Settings
Brightness
89
Contrast
70
Custom Color
Red 100, Green 97, Blue 95

Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 41 comments.
  • -2 Hide
    bak0n , October 15, 2014 1:48 PM
    Or just go buy a 55" to 65" Samsung 4k TV instead.
  • 2 Hide
    Avus , October 15, 2014 2:00 PM
    "Or just go buy a 55" to 65" Samsung 4k TV instead. "

    So instead of buying a $430 monitor, you suggest people to buy a $2000+ TV. This is beyond stupid...
  • 0 Hide
    larsoncc , October 15, 2014 2:04 PM
    "you have to decide exactly what you want your 4K monitor to do"

    No I don't. I can always choose not to use the tech until they get it right, and if they never do, eh.. oh well!

    High input lag makes this a particularly poor choice. Input lag impacts every task, not just gaming. Forget it.

    Gamers are really in an "interesting" place this year. You can't get a video card to drive UHD even with the newest chips, and buying a monitor is a minefield. Sure, you can do SLI to get to UHD, that'll get you most of the way there... except certain games (AC), and immediately after any game's release (Titanfall), and sometimes you'll need lower settings to accommodate VRAM issues (Evil Within). This of course bodes poorly for games to be released in the upcoming year if you're buying now. It's the wait for proper support that's really disappointing (usually good support, but look at Titanfall and CoD Ghosts as long waits).

    On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p (again, hope you're running good GPUs). In all monitor tech, you can get low response times, or great colors, or take a risk on a foreign vendor's product that MIGHT be tricked into doing both but will still have some blur/ghosting. You can get Variable Refresh tech that'll work with one brand of GPU but not the other. Lightboost/ULMB or 3D support is up for consideration, but can't be used with AS/GSync.

    I can't help but think it's all a gigantic mess right now.
  • 0 Hide
    B4vB5 , October 15, 2014 2:30 PM
    Avus, a 50 inch UE50HU6900 is 750 euro and UHD@60Hz capable. A 55 inch is just 100 euros more in Europe and thus you should be able to find them for the same dollar amount in the US as right now, that pretty much goes for any HW since we Europeans gets charged more and it just happens to fit with the dollar vs slightly more expensive euro 1:1.
    -------
    I wouldn't be caught dead with this useless monitor in the article. Either go for
    - Quality UHD monitor: Dell IPS 32 inch quality, UP3214Q. 1400 usd isch.
    - Cheap UHD but not junk: Asus 287 for 28-590 Samsung performance but with a much better stand. If wallmounting get the Samsung and save some cash. 500 usd isch.
    - Quality Gaming: Asus 1440p 144Hz super gamer monitor. 1200 usd ish.
    - Desktop real estate and best overall choice: Samsung UE50HU6900 for 8ms B2B UHD@60Hz over HDMi 2.0(Require 970/980). 750 usd isch.

    I'd pick the TV.
  • 3 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 2:40 PM
    Quote:
    On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p

    Outdated quickly? PC display resolution takes about a decade to step up between mainstream standards.

    Unless all you do with your PC is watch movies, not scaling 1:1 with 1080p is usually a "don't-care" item - people who are bothered by that would not buy into those sort of resolutions in the first place.
  • 7 Hide
    jas340 , October 15, 2014 2:55 PM
    You lost me at 30hz...
  • 1 Hide
    CerianK , October 15, 2014 3:42 PM
    I picked up the 39" Seiki 4K TV for use as a monitor, patched the BIOS to a modified version of the 50" BIOS that supports 1920x1080p@120Hz (verified and works fine for gaming) and connected it to a Sapphire Dual-X R9 270 using an HDMI to DisplayPort Active Adapter. Fit and finish could be better, but I can't complain about paying $340 (US) for having a giant hi-res 4K desktop and being able to watch 4K videos (what few there are).

    If my eyesight were perfect, I might be able to make use of 4K at 32" (or perhaps a little smaller), but the way mine is, 39" rocks!
  • 2 Hide
    10tacle , October 15, 2014 3:46 PM
    Quote:
    On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly


    What in the world are you talking about? The majority of households have only recently been running 1080p monitors (within the past few years), and the majority of gamers game on 1080p according to many gaming site polls, not QHD. It will be years before 1440p gets to be mainstream in households. They are still considered a luxury buy in the PC market and will be for some time. Further, when 1080p monitors were out after a couple of years, prices dropped sharply. That has not happened with QHD monitors outside of the cheap Korean Apple rejects.

    It's going to be several years before I feel the need or even want to plunk down cash for not only a decent 4K monitor when they actually come out and are reasonably affordable (<$800US) but the GPU(s) to power it at decent frame rate numbers.

  • 1 Hide
    Xander Konrad , October 15, 2014 3:50 PM
    30 hz?
  • 0 Hide
    Avus , October 15, 2014 3:52 PM
    Quote:
    Avus, a 50 inch UE50HU6900 is 750 euro and UHD@60Hz capable. A 55 inch is just 100 euros more in Europe and thus you should be able to find them for the same dollar amount in the US as right now, that pretty much goes for any HW since we Europeans gets charged more and it just happens to fit with the dollar vs slightly more expensive euro 1:1.


    Your American pricing ("price convertion") for UHD TV is wrong. The cheapest Samsung 50" 4k is around $1300USD. 2nd tier brand 50" 4k is around $1000USD. They are definitely not as cheap as you think.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 4:23 PM
    Quote:
    It will be years before 1440p gets to be mainstream in households. They are still considered a luxury buy in the PC market and will be for some time.

    The advent of dirt-cheap 1080p screen relegated practically all other resolutions to niche markets so I seriously doubt QHD will ever become a significant mainstream resolution - the same way inexpensive 1080p practically wiped out 1200p.

    About eight years ago, 1080p and 1200p were both available around $300 but today, 1080p is down to $100-150 while 1200p is still $300-500.

    4k will be the next major mainstream resolution about five years from now.
  • 0 Hide
    ShawnT007 , October 15, 2014 4:59 PM
    Quote:
    "you have to decide exactly what you want your 4K monitor to do"

    No I don't. I can always choose not to use the tech until they get it right, and if they never do, eh.. oh well!

    High input lag makes this a particularly poor choice. Input lag impacts every task, not just gaming. Forget it.

    Gamers are really in an "interesting" place this year. You can't get a video card to drive UHD even with the newest chips, and buying a monitor is a minefield. Sure, you can do SLI to get to UHD, that'll get you most of the way there... except certain games (AC), and immediately after any game's release (Titanfall), and sometimes you'll need lower settings to accommodate VRAM issues (Evil Within). This of course bodes poorly for games to be released in the upcoming year if you're buying now. It's the wait for proper support that's really disappointing (usually good support, but look at Titanfall and CoD Ghosts as long waits).

    On the monitor side, you can go to 1440p, and watch as your tech is outdated quickly (as 4K/UHD gets its act together...maybe) - and be permanently stuck with a resolution that doesn't scale 1:1 with 1080p (again, hope you're running good GPUs). In all monitor tech, you can get low response times, or great colors, or take a risk on a foreign vendor's product that MIGHT be tricked into doing both but will still have some blur/ghosting. You can get Variable Refresh tech that'll work with one brand of GPU but not the other. Lightboost/ULMB or 3D support is up for consideration, but can't be used with AS/GSync.

    I can't help but think it's all a gigantic mess right now.


    ...um... no... im playing 290x xfire, on Samsung 4k, liquid cooling and all games including Titanfall, BF4, ESO, etc are max settings between 60fps - 90fps. only game that has issues is Watch Dogs and we all know why that is happening. Call it what you want, once you go 4k (done right) you know it is the true PC gamer master race!
  • 1 Hide
    centralpoint , October 15, 2014 5:39 PM
    1440p = 2560x1440 = 16x9. 1440p will display/scale 1080p just fine, also 720p and 1600x900. 1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 6:04 PM
    Quote:
    1440p monitors are becoming very reasonable in price. If you shop around you can find them for around $300 and the price will continue to drop as they are out longer.

    The only $300 1440p displays that are "available" are Asian imports, many of which coming with vague (if any) performance guarantees. For people who want to stick to something officially sold in North America, prices start in the neighborhood of $500. Some of the cheaper 4k displays are getting close to that.

    With 4k displays entering the $500-700 range, 1440p is going to get relegated exclusively to niche status and the price tag is going to rise due to low volume.
  • 1 Hide
    10tacle , October 15, 2014 6:23 PM
    Quote:
    The advent of dirt-cheap 1080p screen relegated practically all other resolutions to niche markets so I seriously doubt QHD will ever become a significant mainstream resolution - the same way inexpensive 1080p practically wiped out 1200p. About eight years ago, 1080p and 1200p were both available around $300 but today, 1080p is down to $100-150 while 1200p is still $300-500.


    Hmmm. I'm not sure that's really the same comparison. I have both 1080p and 1200p monitors (two 24" 1080s, one 25.5" 1200). Both screens still share 1920 horizontal lines. The only difference is that a 1920x1200 monitor of course has a little more viewing height in display lines. Effectively otherwise to the eye they are the same resolution (same desktop screen icon sizes, no noticeable increase in game graphics resolution, etc.).

    Just my opinion of course, but I think that's a completely different situation than moving up to a completely new eye candy world of 2560x1440. I still love my 25.5" Samsung's extra viewing height. It is hard to beat without moving up entirely to a new screen size and resolution, which is what I did with a Dell U2713H. With HDTVs being 1080p, it was only logical that LCD screen manufacturers focus on 1080p monitor screens for the mainstream markets. Simply put, 1920x1200 monitors were not manufactured in high capacity and hence the higher pricing. But you probably are right though...QHD will not be mainstream ever like 1080p.
  • 0 Hide
    bimbam360 , October 15, 2014 7:08 PM
    Gaming at 1440p for the last twelve months highlights just how bad most games textures still are. Seeing as the market continues to be flooded with shoddy console ports or 'filler' indie titles, I can't see any reason to upgrade.

    Hell I almost regret going 1440p, only a handful of titles have put that to good use. For everything else, it just highlights how bad the texture res is. And yes I run the vast majority of games on Ultra presets.
  • 0 Hide
    kalijaga1 , October 15, 2014 7:25 PM
    Have of agree with Shawn, once bitten with 4k gaming at 28 inch, 1440p feels 'unrealistic'. 1080 is now being used as my work screen (in add to 900p) . For every privilege , price and sacrifice has to be made.
    Suggestion: try Sniper Elite 3, BF4, Thief and WatchDogs at 4k.
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , October 15, 2014 8:14 PM
    Quote:
    Effectively otherwise to the eye they are the same resolution (same desktop screen icon sizes, no noticeable increase in game graphics resolution, etc.).

    The point I was trying to make had absolutely nothing to do with "noticeable increase in resolution" but everything to do with which resolutions turn into commercial success - as in widely adopted and mass-manufactured mainstream resolution that ends up becoming the de-facto standard even for cheap displays.

    When 1080p became widely accepted, 1080p display prices dropped like like rocks all the way down to $100 while 1200p displays remained at $300+ despite having only marginally higher resolution. Vanishing demand made production vanish and without mass manufacturing, unit costs remain high.

    With 4k displays already starting to undercut 1440p before 1440p ever had a chance to reach mainstream-friendly price points, it looks like 4K is already set to win the race for next mainstream desktop resolution - by this time next year, 4K will probably be widely available for cheaper than most similar-quality 1440p.
  • 1 Hide
    tomfreak , October 15, 2014 10:41 PM
    4K @ 30Hz, and TN panel = how about NO.
    I'll stick with my old IPS 60hz until 4K is IPS+60Hz and become affordable.
  • 1 Hide
    Jim90 , October 16, 2014 12:35 AM
    Being able to game at 4k is - and will be for a very long time - a luxury few people can afford, and we don't want to give false information to folk who don't know enough about these requirements.

    Additionally, developers have to start properly supporting this res with appropriate textures, etc - and not introduce compromises/cheating e.g. concentrating on only 'slow paced games' so they can force 30fps lock.
Display more comments
React To This Article