Quality Tests: Asus MS246H
Now over to the CCFL-based MS246H. Out of the box, we have settings of 100 brightness, 80 contrast, and R/G/B levels set to a “normal” profile. This yields a 6900K color temperature, 221.4 cd/m2 luminance, and a 0.2 cd/m2 black level. So, on first viewing, the CCFL display is actually much closer than the LED model to our desired output. Despite the promise of LED, the MS246H measures a slightly deeper black, the color is more natural, and you get even lower minimum luminance.
After using Eye-One Match Advanced, we had calibrated values of 91 contrast, 52 brightness, and color values of R80/G78/B86. Note the trade-off here in higher color values for lower brightness. This yielded a 6500K temperature and 120.2 center luminance.
Quite a difference in those luminance values, huh? The bottom seems to fall right out of the center, if you will. If we look at the raw data from Eye-One you can see the slight bend in the color channels, particularly toward the top:
The cool thing is that our minimum luminance dropped to 0.1 cd/m2 in every location. The blacks on this display are really black, and we sure didn’t notice a gamma difference between 2.2 and 2.3.
Compared to its LED cousin, the MS246H does a worse job with deep blues and violets. On the other hand, this display exceeds our standard profile throughout most other shades. ColorThink Pro notes a total gamut for the MS246H of 878 155.
Delta-E averages 2.64 and tops out at 5.25. This is noticeably higher than the equivalent Asus LED display. In particular, notice how all but one of the grayscale tests for the MS238H show a sub-1 dE while every one of the MS246H’s grayscale results are over 1 dE, and most exceed 3 dE. This is telling us that, in theory, the MS246H is less accurate in overall color reproduction than its LED counterpart.
"Ultimately, we’d pick LCD for media consumption, but we’d pick CCFL for editing work where detail and accuracy are paramount. LCD is more fun to watch; CCFL is more reliable."