Monoprice IPS-Glass Panel Pro 27" LCD Monitor
by Chris Heinonen on October 22, 2013 2:40 AM ESTAll calibration measurements are done using SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5.1.2 software with a custom workflow. Measurements are done using a C6 colorimeter that is first profiled against an i1Pro spectrometer to ensure accurate results. There are two sets of targets we use. Pre-Calibration and our first calibration aim for 200 cd/m^2 with an sRGB gamut and a gamma of 2.2. This is a common real-world setting for a display. The final target changes the light level target to 80 cd/m^2 and the gamma curve to the tougher sRGB standard.
|
Pre-Calibration |
Post-Calibration, 200 cd/m^2 |
Post-Calibration, 80 cd/m^2 |
|
| White Level (cd/m^2) | 200.35 | 199.3 | 80.05 |
| Black Level (cd/m^2) | 0.2025 | 0.22 | 0.1669 |
| Contrast Ratio | 989:1 | 906:1 | 480:1 |
| Gamma (Average) | 2.1753 | 2.1818 | 2.41 |
| Color Temperature | 6401K | 6495K | 6551K |
| Grayscale dE2000 | 4.1762 | 0.5602 | 0.9245 |
| Color Checker dE2000 | 3.2142 | 0.99 | 0.9496 |
| Saturations dE2000 | 2.5515 | 0.8227 | 0.8172 |
There are a few preset modes in the Monoprice Glass-IPS Panel Pro display but the Standard mode is the most accurate one. Using Standard and the Normal color temperature setting produces the most accurate results. However the display still has a serious lack of blue in the grayscale and the gamma curve is well off the target. Colors also show large errors, especially in skin tones, and they are exacerbated at lower levels due to the poor gamma. The overall errors levels are OK but not wonderful.
With our 200 cd/m^2 calibration target the Monoprice improves immensely. The contrast ratio has a slight drop to 906:1 but the grayscale, RGB balance, and gamma are now virtually perfect. More impressive is the improvement in the color gamut, with an average dE2000 for the color checker chart of only 0.99. A few samples creep above dE2000 levels of 2.0 with a little over-saturation in the red gamut, but otherwise this performance is phenomenal.
The 80 cd/m^2 results are not quite as good. Due to the high minimum brightness setting the contrast has to drop all the way down to 480:1 to make our light output target. The grayscale and gamma are still virtually perfect, but you won’t have the same pop that you do with a target of 160 cd/m^2 or higher. What you will see are colors that are still as accurate as the prior calibration and virtually perfect.
Considering the color accuracy of this display after calibration, it seems like a cheap option for an image professional that wants color accuracy. Fortunately for them contrast ratio usually isn’t as important as overall accuracy so that lower contrast level may still work fine. That small change could produce a display with one of the overall best set of post-calibration benchmarks that I’ve yet to test if it were made.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
peterfares - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Would you really count $475 for this as a steal? It seems quite expensive for a rebranded cheapo WQHD monitor.The Dell is probably worth the extra money, especially considering the 3 year advanced exchange warranty included vs 1 year not.The Microcenter monitor also has the same inputs for $400.piroroadkill - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
I'd agree that a far more premium look, more inputs, better stand, etc are worth $75 alone.Let alone 3 year advanced exchange warranty. The Dell is definitely worth the extra money.
Fergy - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
I would gladly play $50 not to have glossy plastic bezels. And $50 to calibrate it for me. I have had my current Dell monitors since 2006 and I am not going to pay $100 less for a cheap looking monitor. It would just irritate me every day.DanNeely - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
To a large extent these monitors are aimed at people who consider $600-700 crazy; but are willing to make compromises to stretch up from a 1080p screen. They're the same people who bought the low end 1920x1200 monitors a half dozen years ago when good ones cost $500 and most people bought $200 1680x1050 screens if they were stepping up from the cheapest common denominator.LancerVI - Thursday, October 31, 2013 - link
.....or they're just gamers who don't need/want that kind of color fidelity, but want the resolution and decent response time. Now that GPU's are getting beefy enought to push beyond 1080p maxed out, it's only natural for gamers to look beyond 1080p monitor solution.Flunk - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
With a $75 delta over a $400 base, I would get the Ultrasharp every time. Dell's monitor is not only better out of the box but you've got a much better history of quality with their high-end monitors. I was going to post that I would rather have a 24" Ultrasharp than this 27" cheapie but the price different is much less than I expected.Maybe if they priced this at $350 it would look like a deal to some. I still wouldn't buy it, LCDs last too long to buy a cheap one.
CaedenV - Thursday, October 24, 2013 - link
That is what I learned the hard way. 4 years ago I picked up a 1200p display for $300 because it was what I could afford, instead of spending the $5-600 on one that would really be nice. But now I am stuck with a monitor that has a faint but noticeable buzzing sound, backlight bleeding, horrible color, huge pixels (1200p on a 28" monitor), and displays have improved so much that there is no possible way to resell the thing to help me move up. So now I am stuck with this thing for another couple years every day being painfully aware that I made a bad call.Next time around I will be waiting for a non-tiled 4K 60fps display in the 35-42" range. It will cost a pretty penny, but if I am going to have to look at it 4-10 hours a day for 7-10 years then the price will be more than justifiable. Monitors, power supplies, and hard drives are things that cost a bit more up front for quality, but more than pay themselves off in reliability and longevity.
CecileWamsley - Monday, October 28, 2013 - link
my Aunty Maria recently got an awesome cream Chevrolet Corvette Z0-Six by working off of a macbook. pop over to these guys... http://smal.ly/8wUo2blau808 - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Sorry, but that thing is hideous.imsabbel - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Okay, this monitor is just as unusual as the other monoprice one. Over 150 Cd/m^2 MINIMUM brightness? I know people like "brighter is better", but 100 Cd/m^2 is the recommended brightness in a well lit workplace. For a reason.At night, in a dark room, its already too bright. 163 minimum means you are messing up your eyes bigtime if you are a nighttime gamer. In a dark room, 20-30 are perfectly fine.