Dell S2419H

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 or 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. We did not observe any such ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ on this model.

Some models display static interlace patterns, not linked to motion and observed when the monitor is simply displaying a static image as well. Some shades may appear as faint horizontal bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did observe static interlace patterns on this model, with some light and medium blue, yellow and orange shades in particular showing this. The horizontal bands were reasonably faint and not everyone would notice or find them bothersome. Curiously, if you reduced the refresh rate to 50Hz they became even more faint. Increasing the refresh rate much beyond 60Hz (refer to a note on ‘overclocking’ in the next section) made these extremely obvious.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to compare the latency of the Dell S2419H with various monitors of known input lag. We took over 30 repeat readings to maximise accuracy. Using this method, we measured 2.93ms (under 1/5 of a frame at 60Hz) of input lag. This value is influenced both by the element of input lag that you see (pixel responsiveness) and that which you feel (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay that even sensitive users shouldn’t find bothersome.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our responsiveness article we explore the factors influencing monitor responsiveness. One of the key concepts explored is ‘perceived blur’, caused predominantly by eye movement as motion is followed on a screen. Pixel responsiveness also contributes to this. We also explore a technique called ‘pursuit photography’, which uses a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion in a way that reflects both eye (camera) movement and pixel responsiveness. The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at the default speed of 960 pixels per second and the monitor set to 60Hz. This is a good practical speed for such photography, highlighting the key elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFO moves across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All background shade levels (dark, medium and light) were used and all three ‘Response Time’ settings tested; ‘Normal,’ Fast’ and ‘Super Fast’. The final image shows a reference monitor (Dell S2417DG), running at 60Hz and giving an indication of how things should look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor.



You can see that the UFO appears soft and unfocused in all cases, which reflects a moderate degree of perceived blur due to eye movement. This is closely tied in with the 60Hz refresh rate and appears much the same on the reference screen. There are also various degrees of trailing behind the object, caused by sub-optimal pixel responses. With ‘Response Time’ set to ‘Normal’ there is a slight ‘powdery’ trail behind the object for the dark background. This is there to a lesser extent for the medium background, with a small amount of overshoot (inverse ghosting). This is very faint, but if you look closely you can see a slight bright ‘halo’ tail behind the object. The light background doesn’t really show any conventional trail and again has a small amount of overshoot. The ‘Fast’ setting introduces far more noticeable overshoot, with colourful trailing behind the object in all cases. The ‘Super Fast’ setting intensifies this slightly. From this analysis it is clear that the ‘Normal’ setting is optimal – the overshoot with the ‘Fast’ and ‘Super Fast’ settings stands out in an unmistakable way in practice. Much more so than any weaknesses using the ‘Normal’ setting.

Note that we will not be including a section on overclocking. The monitor could be set to 71Hz using CVT Reduced Blank timing (66Hz with standard timing), above which it simply lost signal and refused to display an image. The interlace pattern artifacts noted earlier were very obvious at this refresh rate, however.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) the monitor provided a decent 60Hz performance overall. There was a moderate degree of perceived blur, particularly noticeable when moving your character relatively quickly such as performing snappy mouse movements. This was caused predominantly by eye movement – so, in other words, linked to the 60Hz refresh rate and something that would apply to even the fastest 60Hz LCDs. There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness in places, however. There was a touch of ‘powdery’ trailing in places, which was generally very light and added only slightly to overall perceived blur. Some of the slightly stronger examples of this could be observed for higher contrast transitions, for example where very light and significantly darker shades moved against one another. A dark wooden hut against a blue sky, for example. The ‘powdery’ trailing here was somewhat ‘heavier’ in appearance (less fine) and therefore added to perceived blur to a greater degree. But it was a far cry from what you’d see on most VA models and was not what we’d describe as ‘smeary’.

We made similar observations on Dirt Rally. There was a moderate amount of perceived blur, with the environment becoming noticeable unfocused even during fairly gentle cornering. This was predominantly caused by eye movement and something that would apply equally to even much faster 60Hz monitors. There were some weaknesses, but nothing extreme. When driving at night, for example, some of the slower than optimal transitions were apparent and there was some ‘powdery’ trailing in places. This increased perceived blur in places but was nowhere near as obvious as the ‘smeary’ trailing that some VA models provide. We also made observations using our Blu-ray film test titles and didn’t observe any weaknesses attributable to pixel responsiveness on the monitor. The fluidity of such content is limited by the ~24fps frame rate. Observing 60fps movie content revealed some of the slight weaknesses observed for our in-game testing, which was also performed at 60fps.

On both game titles (and other suitably high frame rate content) we also observed a small amount of overshoot in places. Darker trails could be seen behind some bright objects surrounded by darker shades, for example the moon in the night sky. This was restricted to a slim number of transitions and wasn’t universally observed with the moon in the night sky, only when the sky was certain shades. There were also a few brighter trails in places, between medium shades, but these were rather faint and unobtrusive. The responsiveness section of the video review below highlights some of these weaknesses, but also concludes that the monitor performs quite well within the confines of the 60Hz refresh rate. Most users will not find the weaknesses described here bothersome or necessarily even notice them, but it is still important to point them out.

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

A lot of focus and buzz currently surrounds HDR (High Dynamic Range) technology, high refresh rates, variable refresh rates and high resolutions. It’s often easy to forget that many users are after something a lot more basic. With its Full HD panel, budget price tag and 60Hz refresh rate, the Dell S2419H offers a simpler experience. The glossy (‘low haze’) panel is quite refreshing in a market dominated by matte anti-glare screen surfaces. It offered some clear (pun intended) benefits to perceived vibrancy and clarity, giving a relatively smooth and ‘pure’ look to the image. It also aided perceived contrast quite handily in the right lighting, although the static contrast of this model was quite good for the panel type anyway. There was ‘IPS glow’ as usual for the panel type, reduced slightly by the screen surface although not what we’d broadly classify as ‘low glow’. This is of course subjective and open to interpretation.

Colour reproduction was also pleasing, overall. The ‘out of the box’ performance was quite respectable already, with only slight changes to colour gamut and a slight brightness reduction required. The gamma strayed a bit from the ‘2.2’ target, averaging ‘2.3’ – but some users would quite like the slight extra edge in depth and vividness that this brings. It was not an extreme deviation by any means. The monitor also provided just a bit of extension beyond sRGB, but tracked the gamut quite closely really. It presented colours in a rich and varied way, with some good vibrant ‘pop’ in places aided by the screen surface. The IPS-type panel kept things very consistent, too, and with full calibration with a colorimeter or similar device the monitor would work nicely for colour-critical work on a budget. One thing we did notice, which is by no means exclusive to this model, is static interlace patterns on some solid shades. Not everybody notices this and in our correspondence with users over the users most don’t find it too bothersome. But it would have been nice if it were absent on this model.

As far as responsiveness goes the monitor performed reasonably well within the confines of its 60Hz refresh rate. It had very low input lag and pixel responsiveness which was good enough for a decent 60Hz experience. There were some weaknesses in terms of ‘powdery’ trailing and overshoot in places, but nothing extreme nor particularly unusual for the panel type. The monitor wasn’t comfortable running above 60Hz, with the aforementioned interlace patterns becoming far too pronounced and a limit of 71Hz on our unit (66Hz using the standard signal). It also doesn’t support FreeSync, which some models in the price range do. If you consider the feature-set of the monitor, fairly limited port selection and limited ergonomic flexibility – it’s very much a ‘no-frills’ product. But it does offer a solid all-round performance which is difficult to argue with at the price. The basic aesthetic and very slim bezels will also appeal to some users, so it’s definitely a strong contender in the budget Full HD monitor space.

The bottom line; a fairly pared-down product in terms of feature-set, but a solid all-round performance at an affordable price.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.