RealNC wrote:This looks more like a lack of dynamic range due to wrong gamma tracking. Not sure if it's due to 6-bit. Probably just due to wrong gamma.
I already considered this, but these were rushed, non-scientific tests to prove a point that banding can be due to the source images, not the monitors themselves. 6-bit or no, the TN is going to be more difficult to capture accurately thanks to gamma shift inherit to the panel type (I'd need to move the camera even further away from the screen to rule that out more fully, and I was short on placement space).
That said, devoid gamma tracking (both displays were
calibrated in DisplayCal with a colorimeter), it is common sense that 6-bit FRC may have more (especially color) banding (maybe not quite as much as in the comparison photos) than true 8-bit. Note the two displays are closer in banding levels with the grey gradients than with the color gradients.
lexebidar wrote:Thanks @jorimt
That is exactly the kind of test I was looking for. Good idea to over brighten everything to show differences.
The TN panel maybe shows a little bit more of banding on corrupted images but on corrected images it looks about the same.
You also have to keep in mind that viewing the images on your monitor is going to make them look different (maybe worse, maybe better) than what I or another sees on their monitor, so it's still an approximation. The only way you're going to see any of this 100% accurately is in person.
But I hope this has proven to you that the source is more important to consider than the monitor when it comes to banding.
lexebidar wrote:So all in all, banding should not be something to keep in mind with those 24,5 panels.
I'd argue it's not something to keep in mind on the 8-bit TN panels that get complaints either. I can't say for certain, as I don't own one, but I don't see how the monitors themselves could be the cause; the sources images used and user error (settings and poor camera capture) could be to blame there as well.
lexebidar wrote:You might be the best person to advice on this. Why do You keep both panels and (purely subjectively) which one do You prefer?
The 240Hz monitor is primarily for testing (Blur Busters usage). The 144Hz IPS is still my primary display for general use and where I do most my gaming.
I've played Overwatch a number of times on the 240Hz display, and while there is a responsiveness/performance difference, it isn't extreme enough a difference to sacrifice picture quality for me personally, and I'm not enough of a competitive player to care about eking out an extra 2ms+ of responsiveness.
If you're looking for a cutting-edge eSports gaming performance monitor, then the 240Hz model is the way to go, no question. But if you're looking for a more flexible, general use monitor that has the best overall picture quality, IPS still wins. I can understand your opposition to IPS glow though, so you're just going to have to make a personal decision there.
I'm repeating myself at this point, but I'd still say if you want to avoid IPS glow, a compromise would be a true 8-bit TN; I just don't think you'll find the color reproduction of a 6-bit FRC TN acceptable in person, especially if you use it for watching media content on a regular basis.