Skip to main content

BenQ BL3200PT Review: A 32-Inch AMVA Monitor At 2560x1440

Results: Viewing Angles and Uniformity

The more monitors we test, the more we can see that off-axis viewing performance is dependent not only on pixel structure (IPS, PLS, TN, etc.) but the backlight technology as well. And we can see that the anti-glare layer makes a difference too.

Since this is the first AMVA panel we’ve photographed, we have no frame of reference for its off-axis image quality. To us, it looks pretty close to most of the white-LED IPS screens we’ve tested. The light falloff and color shift to green seems consistent whether you view from 45 degrees to the side or from above. Head-on there are no issues, and considering the enormous screen area, that’s a good thing. As I sit writing this, I’m exactly 28 inches away and I can’t see any issues at the edges or corners. If three people sat close to each other, they’d all enjoy a consistent picture.

Screen Uniformity: Luminance

To measure screen uniformity, zero and 100-percent full-field patterns are used, and nine points are sampled. First, we establish a baseline measurement at the center of each monitor. Then the surrounding eight points are measured. Their values get expressed as a percentage of the baseline, either above or below. This number gets averaged. It is important to remember that we only test the review sample each vendor sends us. Other examples of the same monitor can measure differently in this metric.

First up is black field uniformity.

We mentioned earlier that AMVA technology has a reputation for poor uniformity. Obviously, BenQ and AU Optronics overcame whatever was plaguing previous designs. Our press sample turns in one of the best results we’ve seen. Even if it were higher, the BL3200PT’s low black levels would hide those flaws. To our eyes, it looks perfect.

Here’s the white field measurement:

BenQ's PG2401PT wins this test by virtue of its uniformity compensation look-up table. It’s impressive to see the Overlord screen is only a little behind it. The BL3200PT scores a mid-pack result. However, compared to our entire database, it’s well above-average. Again, our eyes cannot discern any variations in brightness across the screen. For a monitor this large, that’s beyond excellent.

Screen Uniformity: Color

To evaluate color uniformity, we display an 80-percent white field and measure the Delta E error of the same nine points on the screen. Then we simply subtract the lowest value from the highest to arrive at a result. Smaller numbers mean a display is more uniform. Any value below three translates to a variation that is invisible to the naked eye.

Color uniformity is equally solid at a low error of 1.74 Delta E. That’s nowhere near visible and represents one of the better results we’ve measured overall.

  • npyrhone
    "Remember that 92 ppi number we mentioned at the beginning of today's story? That seems to be a sweet spot. It works fine at 24 inches if your screen is FHD. You won’t discern individual pixels, but you’ll be quickly wishing for more screen real estate. Moving up to 2560x1440 at 27 inches increases density to 109 ppi. That’s great for gaming and photo work. However, text and small objects become difficult to see for many users."

    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.
    Reply
  • kid-mid
    I rather have the 27" QNIX Evo II 1440p for $300 or the ROG Swift for $600.
    The days of 60Hz are almost over with..
    Reply
  • moogleslam
    I rather have the 27" QNIX Evo II 1440p for $300 or the ROG Swift for $600.
    The days of 60Hz are almost over with..
    Except that the Swift cost $800
    Reply
  • moogleslam
    The Swift cost $800
    Reply
  • Merry_Blind
    "The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small."

    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...
    Reply
  • animalosity
    Why in God's green earth would you pay $1000 for a 1440p display at 60hz when you can get a 4K for way less than that now. Rather have UHD....
    Reply
  • Bondfc11
    I agree with npyrhone - there are ways to enlarge everything on your screen if the density is too low. Having said that - this is an interesting panel. However, I cannot wait for the days when not TNs, but also IPS and VA panels (in large formats) become standard at 120Hz. The hertz do make a noticeable difference in everything you do on the screen.
    Reply
  • ohim
    I`ll wait to see what Active Sync monitors will be able to do , an IPS with Active sync over a TN with 144hz.
    Reply
  • Merry_Blind
    I`ll wait to see what Active Sync monitors will be able to do , an IPS with Active sync over a TN with 144hz.
    What is Active Sync?
    Reply
  • Merry_Blind
    Why in God's green earth would you pay $1000 for a 1440p display at 60hz when you can get a 4K for way less than that now. Rather have UHD....
    It's not 1000$ though...
    Reply