NEC EA244UHD 24-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review

Results: Color Gamut And Performance

For details on our color gamut testing and volume calculations, please click here.

This was another test where we had to check ourselves multiple times. It’s rare to see any display of any type or price lay down such accurate gamut results. Even though NEC includes a full CMS, it’s obviously not needed (at least in our particular sample).

The EA244UHD renders the Adobe gamut with equal precision. Flaws? Alright, there’s one minor error in both charts. Look at 100-percent blue. It’s just a tad under-saturated. Now check out the corresponding bar in both luminance charts. It’s elevated a little to compensate. The end result is visually correct with an invisible Delta E error. It just can’t get much better.

Now we return to the comparison group:

The EA244UHD doesn’t win the day in our chart, but remember that the top two screens were carefully calibrated. The NEC posted those numbers with no adjustment other than a backlight reduction. It only misses the top spot by a negligible .15 Delta E.

Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998 And sRGB

Dell's UP2414Q remains our gamut volume champ. We’re not sure what the company did to render that extra few percent though, considering it employs the same panel used in NEC's EA244UHD. This isn't an error of consequence, however. NEC’s UHD screen is more than qualified for color-critical work. And it’s easier to recommend thanks to its phenomenal out-of-box performance.

This thread is closed for comments
16 comments
    Your comment
  • alidan
    48 inch, i can't imagine using a 4k at any less than 48 inches.
  • LiquidAMD
    SST or MST please for 60Hz??
  • LiquidAMD
    SST or MST please for 60Hz??
  • milkod2001
    @alidan

    That's no telly, it's professional desktop monitor, could be 27 or 30'' but would probably cost another 1000 or more extra.
  • vincent67
    Agree with alidan, at this density, pixels are wasted: you don't see more as you need to scale everything up.
    And, knowing the hardware you need to drive this resolution,, I don't see any interest except for some niches.
    You need at least 44'' to exploit 4K.
  • ribald86
    @vincent67

    UHD is 2560x1440/2560x1600 - not 4k. Even if it was 4k, I don't see how you can say it is wasted.
  • ribald86
    @myself - I was incorrect - I am a dumb ass.

    QHD = 2560x1440/2560x1600
    UHD = 4k
  • ribald86
    @myself - I was incorrect - I am a dumb ass.

    QHD = 2560x1440/2560x1600
    UHD = 4k
  • atwspoon
    @ribald86
    UHD = 3840x2160
    4k = 4096x2160
  • Textfield
    The problem with these high-DPI screens is that support for these displays is lacking in many modern OS's. Yes, support is getting better, as with Windows 8.1 and its better UI scaling, but even with good support in the OS's UI, you're still at the mercy of the apps you use, and many are terrible when it comes to high DPI, with some even failing to work properly.

    Retina is only useful when your programs provide good support for it. Otherwise it's just an annoyance. As an owner of a Yoga 2 Pro (13" 3200x1800), I can speak to this. I normally run my laptop in an upscaled 1920x1080 just to keep compatability.
  • atwspoon
    @vincent67
    So what about tablets and phones using UHD or 4k in the future?
    The Pixel Chromebook looks quite pretty with its 12" screen and 2560x1700 resolution. That's a small laptop, but moving in the right direction I think!
  • eklipz330
    yeah, i cant imagine widespread pc 4k adoption until we have video cards that can run it. i mean, we're still struggling with 2560x1440 resolution. there needs to be a massive improvement in gpu power in the next year
  • vincent67
    @atwspoon
    Of course, I also found these extra pixels, above 1920*1080, for tiny screens from phones or tablets superfluous and no less wasted! Everything is scaled up so you don't see more stuff!
    This is similar to digital cameras where the resolution becomes useless passed a certain point.
  • none12345
    "Agree with alidan, at this density, pixels are wasted: you don't see more as you need to scale everything up.
    And, knowing the hardware you need to drive this resolution,, I don't see any interest except for some niches.
    You need at least 44'' to exploit 4K. "

    While true of a TV at normal viewing distance. This is complete and utter BS for a desktop monitor. My eyesight is not that great and i can easily see the pixels(if i look for them) on the 1920x1080 monitor im staring at as i type this.

    The move to 3840 cant happen soon enough. If i had a spare 1,400 id be all over this monitor. But i dont, i have to wait till the price comes down. Also wait for the refresh rate to go up, 60 is too low.

    185ppi will be hard to see unless you really try hard. But sub 100 its pretty easy to see the pixels. The desktop world has been stuck with 90-110ppi for FAR FAR too long.
  • none12345
    As for scaling, apps designed for 1980 scale perfectly to 3840, you just double everything. The the image will look identical to what you have now.

    Granted there are some issues, like the windows app notification message that tells apps when they are being scaled. And some apps ignoring this message and telling windows back that it can handle the resoultion properly when it cant. Thats an issue. But for every app that doesnt cheat like that, and just renders itself, you can scale it easily.

    Its the wierd ppi monitors that have problems scaling. You cant scale an image designed for 90ppi to 150 without screwing up the image. You can scale 90 to 180 easily and it will look perfect.

    As far as games go. Just turn down the AA setting, and you achieve the same framerate with a better image on 4k then you do on 2k. With AA on youa re already rendering at the higher pixel density, then downscaling it to be displayed. Downscaling takes processing power, turn off the AA and its the same thing only faster. AA becomes unnecessary once you increase pixel density.
  • SpankyNek
    I am interested in further explanation of the Vincent67's assertion that digital camera resolution becomes useless.

    Like none12345 mentioned above, it is totally dependent upon the intended usage of the product.

    4K computer monitors are being viewed at extremely short distances.
    If a photographer wants to produce very large prints from a digital image, resolution becomes paramount.

    So, while there is certainly a point where the cost of increasing resolution capability becomes inverse to the need of a "typical" use, that point will not be the same for someone utilizing those higher resolutions for atypical applications.

    IMO, smaller 4K displays still provide a ton of utility. Whether or not that utility is something a typical user would benefit from is largely irrelevant when one considers that a typical user is not going to be in the market for a $1300 computer monitor.