Results: Color Gamut And Performance
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%). This provides a more realistic view of color accuracy. Since there are no color management controls on the EA294WMi, we're only showing the post-calibration graphs (although we’re sure they'd look pretty much the same out-of-box).
While this chart isn’t quite as good as the one generated by AOC's Q2963PM, it’s very close. All of the color points, at every saturation level, are within a hair of perfect. And aside from 100-percent blue, color luminance is superb as well. Since there is no way to adjust color on the EA294WMi, it’s possible that a second sample would measure slightly differently. Regardless, there is no visible error, and the observed performance is excellent.
Again, this display is in the top tier of performance for color accuracy. Only three other monitors have scored better in 2013. The EA294WMi is plenty accurate for professional work, unless you need the wider Adobe RGB 1998 gamut.
Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998
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 actual measurements. We’ve expanded the chart from previous reviews to also include the sRGB gamut volume.
At 97.15 percent, NEC approaches the full sRGB gamut. It also comes a little closer to Adobe RGB 1998 than most other Rec 709. monitors at 70.9 percent. This screen is best suited for productivity, gaming, and entertainment, and it renders the full color gamut in those applications. While pros may need the wider 1998 spec, the EA294WMi’s superb color accuracy makes it well-suited for high-end photo work.
Current page: Results: Color Gamut And PerformancePrev Page Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response Next Page Results: Viewing Angle And Uniformity
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors.
Considering this screen is $805 for this monitor on Newegg, I rather get a nice 2560X1440, like the Dell U2713, for the money, or dual 1920X1200 screens. 2560X1080 really isn't an ideal resolution for any practical application.Reply
$750 for this! bahh!Reply
Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much moneyReply
11821147 said:Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money
Darn thing lagged on me!
Well this is a professional monitor so the high price is not that surprising. Still if i were on the hunt for a monitor this wouldn't be my choice.Reply
No and screw LG and others that model them.Reply
You could get 2 Dell Ultrasharp U2412M's plus a dual monitor mount for the price of this, it just doesn't make sense at this price point.Reply
There's also the issue of ultra wide screen. This seems to have a niche market that doesn't exist, a professional grade monitor that's only particularly good at watching movies. People who just watch TV and movies all day aren't going to be willing to spend more than 250 on a monitor , and those who want/need professional features will want as much screen real estate as possible, opting for large 16:9 or 16:10 monitors.
This is exacerbated by the fact that this aspect ratio is literally ONLY helpful for movies, not even TV. having big black bars on each side during a TV show or older movie that doesn't have the cinematic aspect ratio is way more distracting than the thin bars at the top and bottom created by cinematic movies on normal 16:9/10 monitors.
I dislike this new trend. I'd rather have a 27 inch with 2560x1440. Why are we constantly trying to lower our screen resolutions. This 1080p trend needs to stop.Reply
I would prefer 2560x1600 on a 24" screen myself.11822582 said:This 1080p trend needs to stop.
The problem is the bulk of offer and demand gravitates around 1920x1080 since that is what most common forms of entertainment are optimized for. With 1080p screens starting as low as $90, anything higher than that for 3-5X the price becomes a tough sale so these higher-resolution monitors get pitched and priced as "professional" displays instead of trying to compete for people's desktops.
I paid $270 for my 24" 1200p display four years ago. Equivalent models today are usually listed around $400. To me, this seems to indicate that mainstream interest in higher resolution desktop displays has regressed, hence the switch to pitching those nearly exclusively at professionals and enthusiasts.
Seems to me that if your a fan of the 4:3 ratio, and want a seamless dual monitor experience, this might be the way to go. For once, a person might have reasonable room to put two windows side by side. And it sure as hell takes up less desk space than two separate monitors.Reply