Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
A majority of monitors, especially newer models, display excellent grayscale tracking (even at stock settings). It’s important that the color of white be consistently neutral at all light levels from darkest to brightest. Grayscale performance impacts color accuracy with regard to the secondary colors: cyan, magenta, and yellow. Since computer monitors typically have no color or tint adjustment, accurate grayscale is key.
The XL2720Z comes set to its FPS1 picture mode, so that’s where we begin our grayscale tests.
This is a fair result, but it could be better. The average error is 3.61 Delta E. Grayscale shifts toward blue as brightness increases. From 50 percent on up, you’re able to see a slight blue tint. Fortunately, you can adjust the RGB sliders in this mode (though you can’t change the gamma preset).
Standard is a better mode to use if you don’t plan to calibrate.
The Standard mode chart is pretty close to some of the professional screens we’ve tested, including those with factory calibrations. All errors are under three Delta E and therefore invisible. At this point, all you need to do is change the gamma preset to 4 and you have a very accurate monitor.
Of course, we aim for the top!
It doesn’t get much better than this. In fact the only monitor we’ve measured that beats the XL2720Z is Samsung's S27B971D. Many gamers don’t consider calibration to be important, but trust us, you’ll have a better experience using a more accurate screen. Flat and neutral grayscale tracking means maximum image depth, natural color, and minimal eye fatigue.
Here is our comparison group:
Grayscale performance in the XL2720Z’s stock configuration is very good. In fact, there are a couple of pricier screens below BenQ's display in the results. Remember, these charts represent the Standard picture mode. The FPS modes are not quite as accurate pre-calibration.
After adjustment, the BenQ comes out a winner.
Another trend we’re seeing in new monitors is near-perfect grayscale tracking after calibration. We only had to change the RGB sliders by a few clicks to achieve our best result. It also helps to reduce the contrast control a little. Trading a little on/off contrast for this level of accuracy is definitely worthwhile.
Gamma is the measurement of luminance levels at every step in the brightness range from 0 to 100 percent. It's important because poor gamma can either crush detail at various points or wash it out, making the entire picture appear flat and dull. Correct gamma produces a more three-dimensional image, with a greater sense of depth and realism. Meanwhile, incorrect gamma can negatively affect image quality, even in monitors with high contrast ratios.
In the gamma charts below, the yellow line represents 2.2, which is the most widely used standard for television, film, and computer graphics production. The closer the white measurement trace comes to 2.2, the better.
The different picture modes of the XL2720Z produce varying gamma results. Correct gamma is important if you want to see maximum detail in a gaming environment.
The FPS1 mode yields a fair gamma result. It rides pretty close to 2.2 until 90 percent brightness, where it takes a dip below the line. We measure an error of 7.13 cd/m2.
But again, the Standard mode is preferred for its superior color gamut results, which you’ll see on the next page. Unfortunately, the gamma is not as good as FPS1.
This trace is well below 2.2 across the board, and it doesn’t track well. The maximum error is again at 90 percent, where the XL2720Z measures 12.46 cd/m2 too bright. The image definitely looks flatter with less pop and clarity.
The fix is an easy one.
All you have to do is change the gamma preset from 3 to 4 to bring the gamma tracking up to 2.2. It’s not the flattest tracking we’ve measured, but it comes close. Ninety percent is only off by 2.47 cd/m2; that's a negligible amount.
Here is our comparison group again:
The XL2720Z has some pretty stiff competition in this round-up and it still finishes in third place. A result of .14 represents tight gamma tracking.
We calculate gamma deviation by simply expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.
Even though the BenQ is on the bottom of our test group, we have no issue with its gamma performance. Compared to the rest of our monitor benchmark database, the XL2720Z lands around the middle.
It's still an interim monitor, though. What I really want is a large affordable WQHD or UHD IPS gaming monitor.
especially on a large 27" screen?
In the early 2000s it might have been ok to have such resolution, but nowadays
it is no longer usable. Even for a 24" screen the minimal resolution is
Until they are not making these 27" screens to have more pixels, they are not
seeing any cash out of me. I rather buy el-cheapo monitors from Ebay as a mail
order from Korea.
Monitor manufacturers, please stop living in the 80s and stop hustling us with
sometimes I feel like nobody is listening... or just trying to sell me a bridge for the low low.
decent review, but if youve got the gpu for 144Hz. 2160p @60 is just a cootie shot away
What on earth have happened? Why did prices go up, and resolution went down?
Why are there no 30" 2560x1600 TN panels out there for gamers for 700 Euros?
This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution. We are in it for the refresh rates and the response time. Ive been gaming on a old CRT monitor till last year with a change to the Asus VG248QE. Even though its still much slower than my old CRT it works. I have 2 computers 1 for gaming and one for everyday and video work. Gaming machine is set up around a single R9 290X, 4770K, and a Asus VG monitor. My other computer is a crossfired 295s, 3930K, and 3 IPS 4k monitors.
A single card is better for latency, 4770K is more than enough to push data to the 290X and the monitor has a fast refresh rate. Its better at gaming than my extremely high dollar build. Peripherals are set up differently as you can imagine gaming computer has razer and a 7.1 headset. The other is mostly set up for 2.1 but i do have a 7.1 headset for room sound.
"This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution"
You meant, online multiplayer gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution.
I prefer to play single-player FPS, where I do want to have all the eye candy,
and I want to see the vegetation, desert, sky etc. The only advantage of a PC is
that it can provide better graphics, that is the main point.
Otherwise I could just go out, buy an 1080p TV, a Crapbox1, Crapbox360, or PlayStopper 4, and game on that thing in 1080p.
I think monitor technology is not moving forward (in fact moving backwards) exactly because people are happy to buy their 1080p crap for 500 Euros.
In the early 2000s CRTs were still the standard. 4:3 was the standard aspect ratio. There were no 1080p LCD monitors let alone large 1080p LCD monitors, and I paid ~$1200(NZD) for a 17" 1280x1024@60Hz (16ms) LCD display in 2003. That's how bad it was back then.