Acer XN253Q X

Responsiveness

Input lag

A sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the Acer XN253Q X. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.26ms (under 1 frame at 240Hz) of input lag. This figure is influenced both by the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a low signal delay which even sensitive users shouldn’t find bothersome. Note that we have no way to accurately measure input lag with G-SYNC active in a variable refresh rate and frame rate environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness analyses the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is the concept of ‘perceived blur’, contributed to by both pixel responses and the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is usually the most important on modern monitors, although both elements play a role. A photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ is also explored, which uses a moving rather than static camera. This allows motion on a monitor to be captured in a way that accurately reflects both of these elements of perceived blur rather than simply reflecting the pixel response element.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed to take such photographs at, highlighting both elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed (dark, medium and light background) to show a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 144Hz and 240Hz using all available ‘Over Drive’ settings. Note that the monitor can also be set to 100Hz, 120Hz and 200Hz. Although not documented in this testing, performance there was as you’d expect and some way between the lower and higher values shown here. Additional testing was performed with ULMB active. Where possible, reference shots are shown which include results from an earlier generation of 240Hz monitor (AOC AG251FG) and a very fast 144Hz TN reference (ViewSonic XG240R) with very well-implemented pixel overdrive.

At 60Hz, above, you can see that the UFO appears soft and blurry, without distinct internal details. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement, something also reflected by the reference displays. There are also varying degrees of trailing behind the object due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. With ‘Over Drive’ set to ‘Off’ there is a moderate amount of ‘powdery’ trailing behind the object, particularly for the middle row (medium cyan background). The ‘Normal’ setting cuts back on this considerably and looks fairly similar to the reference shots, perhaps a bit better overall if focusing on the middle row. The ‘Extreme’ setting ramps up the pixel overdrive levels considerably, producing obvious overshoot (inverse ghosting) in the form of colourful bright ‘halo’ trails. From this analysis it’s clear that ‘Normal’ is the optimal setting at 60Hz. The image below shows how things look with refresh rate bumped up to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears narrower with some sharper internal detailing. This reflects a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again varying levels of trailing behind the UFOs due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. The ‘Off’ setting gives some bold ‘powdery’ trailing, particularly for the medium background. The ‘Normal’ setting cuts down on this very effectively. There is just a trace remaining and a small amount of overshoot for the middle row, so things aren’t quite as clean as the rather impeccable XG240R. But not too far off really. The ‘Extreme’ setting provides extreme levels of overshoot, with obvious colourful overshoot. The ‘Normal’ setting is again optimal here. Below you can see how things appear with refresh rate ramped up to 240Hz.

At 240Hz, above, the UFOs again appear more narrowly focused with more distinct internal detailing. This reflects another significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. There is again varying degrees of trailing behind the UFOs due to weaknesses in (or over-accelerated) pixel responses. The ‘Off’ setting shows a short but bold trailing for the dark and medium background. The ‘Normal’ setting eliminates this, replacing it with just a touch of overshoot (slight ‘shadowy’ trailing and some very slight ‘halo’ trailing) behind the UFO. This is most noticeable but still faint and largely un-distracting in practice for the medium background. The reference shows somewhat stronger overshoot, but nothing extreme. The ‘Extreme’ setting does show extreme overshoot, though, with very bold and inky-looking trailing that’s extremely distracting. The ‘Normal’ setting is, again, the optimal setting. Note that there are many transitions that aren’t analysed in this test, which is what our subjective testing will look at shortly.

The monitor has another trick available in the form of ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur), to massively reduce perceived blur due to eye movement. This is an Nvidia-specific strobe backlight feature that can be employed instead of G-SYNC on compatible GPUs. ULMB causes the backlight to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display, with 120Hz and 144Hz selectable for ULMB and working as intended. 100Hz is selectable but the strobe frequency fluctuates between 90.88Hz and 90.94Hz rather than matching 100Hz solidly. This gave obvious stuttering to interactions with the content (including solid 100fps content), making it very uncomfortable to use. For this reason we discounted the setting from further analysis. With the backlight flickering at 120Hz or 144Hz, for the modes that work correctly, some users will find this more fatiguing than the normal operation of the monitor. Individual tolerance to flickering varies and it’s sometimes a trade-off competitive gamers will be willing to make.

The images below show the monitor at 120Hz and 144Hz with ULMB active, including the AOC AG251FG as a reference for comparison (set to PW = 100). Note that ‘PW’ refers to ‘Pulse Width’, which can be adjusted in single unit increments between ‘10’ (minimum) and ‘100’ (maximum). A higher setting increases the length of time for the ‘on’ phase of the strobe, resulting in a higher maximum brightness at the expense of motion clarity potential. The ‘Over Drive’ setting can’t be adjusted with ULMB active.

With ULMB active you can see that the object is significantly narrower and more sharply focused, even if you compare 120Hz ULMB to 240Hz with the technology disabled. At 144Hz in particular, you can see excellent well-defined internal detailing on the UFO itself. Including distinct notches on the body and 3 distinct eyes on the alien. The distinctions are somewhat higher with ‘PW = 10’ than ‘PW = 100’ at a given refresh rate, but strong in both cases (particularly at 144Hz). This indicates a significant decrease in perceived blur compared to the technology being deactivated, even when comparing to normal 240Hz operation.

You can also see moderate overshoot behind the UFOs, with very high levels of pixel overdrive used to ensure conventional trailing is kept out of the equation. Trailing behind or potentially in front of the object under strobe backlight operation is broadly termed ‘Strobe Crosstalk’. Whilst the overshoot observed here (a form of strobe crosstalk) is something that can be noticed in practice, it is not as noticeable or detrimental to overall perceived blur levels as some forms of strobe crosstalk. Trailing that’s so bold it appears as repetitions of the object either behind or in front, for example. Because not all parts of the screen refresh simultaneously, strobe crosstalk can manifest differently at different parts of the screen. That was not an issue here as strobe crosstalk behaviour (moderate overshoot in this case) appeared similar throughout the screen.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V the monitor provided an exceptionally fluid experience, where the frame rate kept up with the 240Hz refresh rate. Compared to a 60Hz monitor (or indeed this monitor running at 60Hz), the monitor is outputting 4 times as much visual information every second. And twice as much visual information as a 120Hz monitor or ~1.67 times as much as a 144Hz monitor. This gave an exceptional ‘connected feel’ when interacting with the game world. A certain precision and fluidity that’s not there at significantly lower refresh rates (or frame rates), regardless of input lag. Although low input lag, as in this case, is certainly an important ingredient for strong ‘connected feel’. The perceived blur is also greatly reduced, much as demonstrated earlier with Test UFO. This made it easier to track enemies during engagements, including when turning in a vehicle or staffing or turning the character rapidly. Compared 144Hz, the step up in terms of ‘connected feel’ and lower perceived blur is nowhere near as pronounced at the step up from 60Hz to 144Hz. It’s certainly there and competitive gamers who can maintain this sort of frame rate might appreciate the edge it gives. But for most users ~144Hz would provide something of a ‘sweet spot’ – and in terms of frame rate on most titles, it’s certainly more achievable with some of the eye candy turned on.

The monitor provided very snappy pixel responses, too, putting the 240Hz refresh rate to very good use. When we tested 240Hz models in the past using earlier versions of this panel, including the ViewSonic XG530 and AOC AG251FG (plus various other models we’ve used but didn’t fully review), there were some notable weaknesses in pixel transitions. Nothing extreme, but some ‘powdery’ trailing where brighter shades moved against significantly darker backgrounds. On this model we did not observe any distinct weaknesses of that sort. There was a bit of overshoot in places, including some ‘shadowy’ trailing (somewhat darker than object or background colour) and a little ‘halo’ trailing (brighter than object or background colour). This was short and snappy overshoot and it was not extreme and colourful, so wasn’t something we found distracting or generally eye-catching. It didn’t really detract from the experience, in other words. But sensitivity to overshoot does vary.

Given the extensive analysis above, we don’t really have much to add from Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The 240Hz refresh rate at suitably high frame rates again provided exceptional fluidity and a very low level of perceived blur. There were no distinct weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, just a touch of overshoot in places but nothing too eye-catching in our view. This title hardly calls for such a ‘competitive advantage’ from this sort of extreme refresh rate and frame rate. It was nice to have, but given the visual sacrifices we felt this title was more enjoyable with the eye candy turned up and the frame rate perhaps 80fps or more lower than this. With G-SYNC enabled, of course, as we explore shortly. We also made some observations using movie content of various frame rates, including Netflix and YouTube content. This was mainly 24 – 30fps, but some of it was 60fps content. There were no weaknesses of note from the monitor itself, with the frame rate limiting fluidity. There was perhaps a small amount of overshoot in places, but this was very faint and short-lived and not particularly noticeable really. 240Hz is also quite neat in that 24fps, 30fps and 60fps all divides evenly into it. This reduces juddering when watching such content, so it can be nice if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing. The low frame rate of such content certainly doesn’t let the monitor stretch its legs in the same way as higher frame rate content, but it’s still nice not to observe any real weakness from the monitor itself.

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade.

Whilst we didn’t observe static interlace patterns on this model, we did observe dynamic interlace pattern artifacts. When movement was observed on the screen, the image sometimes appeared to break up into an interference pattern composed of vertical pinstripes. We found it quite noticeable, although it didn’t really distract us when gaming. Sensitivity to this sort of thing varies, it also depends on eyesight and viewing distance – not everyone will notice them and not everyone who does will find them distracting. They manifested in a similar way regardless of refresh rate or whether G-SYNC was active. They were particularly easy to notice with ULMB active, as we explore shortly.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

Nvidia G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated when a compatible Nvidia GPU is connected to a compatible monitor (such as the Acer XN253Q X). Our article on the technology explores the principles behind the technology and its benefits, so we won’t be repeating too much of that. Essentially the technology allows the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate to match, where possible, the frame rate outputted by the GPU. When the two are in sync it gets rid of the tearing (VSync off) and stuttering (VSync on) that occurs when the two are unsynchronised. An additional benefit for those who hate tearing and usually like to use VSync is a reduction in latency compared to ‘VSync on’ in the variable frame rate environment. As noted in the responsiveness section, though, we don’t have a way to accurately measure this.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2 (DisplayPort), once connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU such as the GTX 1080 Ti used by our test system. Once connected up, G-SYNC should be automatically configured and ready to use. There’s usually even a little notification icon in the system tray telling you that a G-SYNC compatible display is detected. To check everything is configured correctly, open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Set Up G-SYNC’. Ensure that the checkbox for ‘Enable G-SYNC’ is checked, then select your preferred operating mode. As the image below shows, this technology works in both ‘Full Screen’ and ‘Window’ modes, provided the correct option is selected for this. If the G-SYNC options seem to be missing from Nvidia Control Panel, this may be remedied by reconnecting the GPU or possibly connecting the monitor to a different DP output if there’s one available. If the options are still missing, reinstalling the GPU driver or updating this is recommended.

Enable G-SYNC

Next you should navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’. Here there are a few settings of interest, the first of which is ‘Monitor Technology’. This should be set to ‘G-SYNC’ as shown below. Assuming this is all set up correctly, you should see ‘NVIDIA G-SYNC’ listed as ‘Mode’ in the ‘Information’ section of the OSD menu (press top menu button when in main menu). The refresh rate listed there just corresponds to the static refresh rate you’ve selected in Windows or your game (‘Max Refresh Rate’ as stated).

Set Monitor Technology to G-SYNC

The second setting of interest is VSync, which can be set to one of the following; ‘On’, ‘Use the 3D application setting’, ‘Off’ or ‘Fast’ (GPU dependent). The Acer supports a variable refresh rate range of 30 – 240Hz, with the maximum value (ceiling) corresponding to the refresh rate you’ve selected for the monitor in Windows. That means that if the game is running between 30fps and 240fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 240fps, the monitor will stay at 240Hz and the GPU will respect your VSync setting in the graphics driver. If you select ‘On’, VSync activates if the frame rate exceeds the static refresh rate that you’ve selected (e.g. 240Hz / 240fps) and the usual VSync latency penalty applies. If you select ‘Off’ then the frame rate is free to rise in an unrestricted way, but the monitor will only go as high as 240Hz – tearing and juddering will ensue if the frame rate rises above this. The ‘Use the 3D application setting’ largely works as you’d expect, but the general recommendation is to set VSync in the graphics driver if you wish to use it as in-game implementations can interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC. Some users prefer to leave VSync disabled and use a frame rate limiter set several frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 236fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate.

The ‘Fast’ option is available on some newer GPUs, such as the GTX 1080 Ti used in our test system. This enables a technology called ‘Fast Sync’, which only applies above the refresh rate and frame rate ceiling (>240Hz / 240fps). Below this G-SYNC operates as normal, whereas above this a special version of VSync called ‘Fast Sync’ is activated. This is a GPU rather than monitor feature so isn’t something we will explain in detail, but it is designed to reduce tearing at frame rates well above the refresh rate of the monitor. If you’re interested in this technology, which may be the case if you play older or less graphically demanding games at very high frame rates, you should watch this section of a video by Tom Petersen.

Set VSync according to preferences

If the frame rate drops below the lowest refresh rate supported by the monitor (i.e. the G-SYNC floor of 30Hz / 30fps) then the monitor sets its refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate. This occurs regardless of VSync setting. If for example the game ran at 20fps, the monitor would set itself to 40Hz. This keeps stuttering and tearing from the usual frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. As we explore shortly, though, low frame rates are low frame rates regardless of the technology. So whilst it is always beneficial to have stuttering and tearing removed, it’s also beneficial to have an elevated frame rate where possible. It’s also worth remembering that G-SYNC can’t eliminate stuttering caused by other issues on the system or game environment such as insufficient RAM or network latency. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

G-SYNC – the experience

We used various game titles to test G-SYNC on the monitor, with the technology working consistently well on all of these. Because of this, we’ll simply focus on a single title rather than repeating observations over a spread of titles. Battlefield V offers a good level of flexibility in its graphics options and shows a range of scenes which stress the PC to various degrees, allowing the full range of refresh rates to be explored. Getting close to 240fps for much of the time required considerable visual sacrifices, and even then there were inevitable dips below that. Without G-SYNC active, these dips would lead to a frame rate and refresh rate mismatch that would cause obvious tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). Even with the slightest drop down from 240fps, these imperfections in motion performance and the loss of ‘flow’ that it gave were obvious to us – although individual sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies.

As frame rate dropped further, perhaps aided by more generous graphics settings, the level of perceived blur increased, and ‘connected feel’ dropped off. As frame rates in the 200s became a distant memory and things dropped firmly into the 100s, this was certainly noticeable. Although the overall perceived blur levels and ‘connected feel’ were quite good – certainly compared to much lower frame rates. The lack of tearing and stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches was something we very much appreciated. Further drops in frame rate yielded further loss of ‘connected feel’ and an increase in perceived blur. Regardless of how low the frame rate dipped, though, the lack of tearing and stuttering was a nice thing – even if significantly higher frame rates were preferable for other reasons. Below 30fps the technology worked as intended as well, keeping tearing and stuttering at bay by sticking to a multiple of the frame rate with the monitor’s refresh rate. To us, though, the ‘connected feel’ was horrendous and level of perceived blur massively increased compared to significantly higher frame rates – making such low frame rates a very uncomfortable place to be, even without additional tearing or stuttering.

The use of ‘Variable Overdrive’ ensured that the pixel overdrive was not simply tuned to the highest refresh rate (240Hz) but was re-tuned to fit a broad range of refresh rates below this. By lowering the voltage surges and hence acceleration levels suitably for lower refresh rates, the experience was free from increasingly strong overshoot as frame rate (and hence refresh rate) dipped with G-SYNC active. This is in stark contrast to typical Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) models where the pixel overdrive is tuned for the peak refresh rate. And using the optimal pixel response time setting for this peak refresh rate will nearly always lead to increasingly noticeable and potentially very eye-catching overshoot as frame rate dips and refresh rate does alongside it.

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur)

We introduced ULMB earlier, including its principles of operation and its effect on perceived blur using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. In this section we’ll explore how to activate the technology and also provide some subjective analysis of the experience when gaming. ULMB can be enabled by first setting the monitor to a supported refresh rate (120Hz or 144Hz – 100Hz also supported but note earlier issues with strobe frequency). The next step is to navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’ in the Nvidia Control Panel and select ‘ULMB’ for ‘Monitor Technology’ as shown in the image below. There is also a ‘ULMB’ setting in the ‘Gsync Setting’ section of the OSD for the monitor, which should be enabled – this generally happens automatically if the monitor is set to an appropriate refresh rate and driver option anyway. An additional setting called ‘ULMB Pulse width’ can be configured in the OSD, which adjusts the length of the ‘on phase’. A lower setting reduces the length of the ‘on phase’, resulting in a dimmer image but potentially offering further improvement in motion clarity. Most users will find that a high ‘Pulse Width’ setting delivers a nice low level of perceived blur and won’t find the slight benefits of lowering this much noticeable. Although many will also find a setting of ‘100’ too bright (with default monitor brightness) so might prefer lowering this a bit according to preferences, perhaps to around ’60 or ‘70’.

Set Monitor Technology to ULMB

When ULMB is enabled, you should notice a change in image brightness and you may notice some flickering, especially when you first activate it. You can also confirm that it is activated by navigating to the ‘Information’ section of the OSD and seeing whether ‘Mode’ is listed as ‘ULMB’. It’s very important to understand that, as typical for a strobe backlight feature, ULMB will only work properly if your frame rate is able to consistently match the refresh rate of the display. Without this, you’ve got very little perceived blur (due to eye movement) to mask stuttering or juddering. This is very obvious indeed and it just doesn’t look pleasant at all. With Battlefield V running at a solid 144fps (monitor set to 144Hz with ULMB), we noticed a significant decrease in overall perceived blur. Certainly when comparing to 144Hz @ 144fps with ULMB disabled, but also comparing to 240Hz @ 240fps. Indeed the technology lived up to its name, delivering exceptionally (ultra) low levels of (motion) blur. Regardless of how rapidly you were moving in the game, be it on foot or in an agile vehicle, it was very easy to track and engage enemies. Whilst the environment remained relatively sharply focused as well. The ‘connected feel’ was naturally not quite as good as at 240Hz and 240fps, but was very similar to 144Hz and 144fps with ULMB deactivated. So very good, really.

There was a moderate amount of overshoot, though, as demonstrated with ‘Test UFO’ earlier. Most notably some quite bright ‘halo’ trailing in places as well as some dirty-looking ‘shadowy’ trailing. This wasn’t detrimental to overall perceived blur levels as it was significantly fainter than and altogether distinct from the main objects that were moving. But if you’re sensitive to this sort of thing you could find it unsightly or potentially a bit distracting. We also found the ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ noted earlier a lot easier to notice with ULMB active, with what we’d describe as ‘dancing lines’ greeting you as you moved your eyes. This, again, wouldn’t distract everyone and doesn’t necessarily detract from the potential competitive advantage from using ULMB. It’s also worth noting that we observed video content with ULMB active and also noticed a reduction in perceived blur (due to reduced eye movement). This was naturally more noticeable for 60fps content than 24 – 30fps content, with rapid pans showing the clearest edge (pun intended). For 60fps content we’d recommend setting the monitor to 120Hz if you wish to use ULMB due to the even division of frame rate into that and reduced juddering. Having said that, we feel most users would find the benefits of ULMB for this sort of content outweighed by the more comfortable and more visually stable flicker-free operation of the monitor without ULMB.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness

Conclusion

High refresh rate monitors are favoured by gamers looking for a responsive experience at high frame rates, particularly fast TN models like the Acer XN253Q X. The Full HD resolution on this 24.5” model doesn’t deliver a particularly impressive pixel density or as much desktop real-estate as higher resolutions, but it’s certainly relatively easy to drive at decent frame rates. And being a 240Hz monitor, that’s really where this model truly shines. By coupling this high refresh rate with very well-tuned and rapid pixel responses and support for Nvidia G-SYNC, the monitor performed very nicely across a broad range of frame rates and refresh rates. There was a little overshoot in places, but nothing extreme and overly eye-catching – whilst this model was free from some of the weaknesses (‘powdery’ trailing) we observed in places on earlier generation 240Hz models. Input lag was also low, whilst ULMB worked as intended to give users exceptionally low levels of motion blur at a solid 120fps (at 120Hz) or 144fps (at 144Hz) if they favour strobe backlight operation over G-SYNC. There were some strobe frequency mismatch issues that made ULMB ineffective at 100Hz, but this is a minor point really.

In terms of contrast the monitor was much in-line with our expectations for the panel type. Reasonable static contrast and no ‘IPS glow’ to contend with provided a decent but not particularly noteworthy experience for darker content. As typical for a TN panel, there were also perceived gamma shifts when comparing the top and bottom of the screen. These were less pronounced than on some TN models, but were still a feature. Detail in darker scenes was more heavily masked than ideal higher up the screen and more distinct than it should be lower down. The screen surface was also far from the smoothest and lightest we’ve seen, imparting a bit of a grainy look to the image. But this was not a course, ‘smeary’ or ‘sandy’ graininess, thankfully. The perceived gamma shifts also affected colour saturation levels – things appeared deeper further up the screen and more muted lower down. Overall the image appeared rich, especially following appropriate tweaking (and ideally following full calibration and profiling). Certainly better than models with much lower than intended central gamma.

The monitor was also well-built overall, with a decent premium feel. The powder-coated metal elements and otherwise quite robust (and fully adjustable) stand certainly helped give this impression. The design was very familiar amongst modern models in the Acer Predator series, with sharp lines but a fairly muted appearance overall. No bright or gimmicky aesthetic features, which could be particularly divisive. This monitor certainly won’t be cheap for a Full HD model and it won’t wow most users with its image quality. But it’s certainly passable in that respect. And when it comes to responsiveness, it’s truly a beastly monitor. For competitive gaming at high frame rates or simply for users who prioritise responsiveness above all else, this model should certainly warrant careful consideration.

The bottom line; a solidly built monitor that comes at quite a premium for a Full HD model. But it offers reasonable contrast, decent colour reproduction and exceptional responsiveness.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.