Quoted from "Sailor Moon"

I haven't tested the DELL myself but the value of 2.2 was archived after calibration via "manipulation" of the videocard LUT. But I have read that with a contrast setting of 50% (standard: 75%) the gamma should be quite near to 2.2 (but that will at least reduce white level and introduce a little banding) which is good when working without color managament.

this does seem to be the case:-
Brightness 10%
Contrast 50%
gives a gamma of 2.2

I've also reduced the red as recommended in the review - the red @ 100% was definitely too high. (I realise that individual monitors will vary, and I'm afraid I dont have a calibrator - I did use QuickGamma (http://quickgamma.de/indexen.html) to check the gamma).

But subjectively, I find the resulting picture a bit dark and contrasty and a bit over-saturated even.
I'm wondering are there others out there with this model and what you think of the monitor at these settings (or similar).
I just want to be able to mess around with my photos (sRGB) a bit and be able to trust the screen image (I'm not looking for perfection, just to get in the ball park).

thanks for any help, Tom


[edit] anwsers here - auf deutsch aber [/edit]

What about the HP LP2065?
Its having tons of pixels (1600x1200 is more than the Dell), is fast for gaming, works great in pivot because of the IPS panel and has good sRGB display out of the box. Old is not always a bad thing. That's why they still make it I guess. You'll need a S-video-VGA converter for 19 euro though to connect your PS2, but you'll need it for the Dell too. And it is 4:3, PS2 games are meant to be 4:3.