All our monitor testing and calibration data is obtained using SpectraCal’s CalMAN 5.1.2 software. Meters used are a SpectraCal C6 colorimeter and an XRite i1Pro spectrometer.

There are many different preset modes on the MX299Q and for once, sRGB didn’t turn out to be the best option. sRGB is accurate but also cuts off access to brightness and all other adjustments. The Standard mode using the default User color setting (100, 100, 100) provided a more accurate mode out-of-box and more adjustments. Because of that it was utilized for all the pre- and post-calibration measurements.



200 cd/m^2

80 cd/m^2

White Level (cd/m^2)




Black Level (cd/m^2)




Contrast Ratio




Gamma (Average)




Color Temperature




Grayscale dE2000




Color Checker dE2000




Saturations dE2000




As of this review, I’m no longer including the standard Gamut chart. All of the data that gamut provides is available in the saturations chart, making the Gamut chart redundant. The Gamut error calculation also includes the white-point error in the data, making an accurate grayscale account for 25% of the gamut error. This is included in the Saturations data as well, but accounts for a far smaller amount (1%) of the overall total. I’m also testing a new Saturations error chart that includes far more readings and utilizes a line chart to show the error. The X-axis is missing, but left is 0% saturation and right is 100%.

The pre-calibration numbers are really quite good. The main issue on the ASUS MX299Q is that the gamma isn’t totally linear and there is a red-push that results in poor skin tones. The overall grayscale is good but has too little blue. None of the colors are truly egregious in their error levels but greens and yellows fare the worst overall.

Calibrate it to 200 cd/m^2 and these issues are gone. The gamma is perfectly linear now and the grayscale errors are missing. Skin tones are good and colors are better but green and yellow are a bit over-saturated. The contrast ratios remain incredibly high, and the overall image on-screen looks remarkable.

The sRGB gamma and 80 cd/m^2 calibration provides similar excellent results. There is a bit of a bump at 95% in the gamma but otherwise it is quite good. Green and Yellow maintain a bit of over-saturation but most colors are very accurate.

Looking at these before and after results the MX299Q starts out well but ends up even better. The 21:9 panels are being designed to be capable of incredibly strong overall performance.

Brightness and Contrast Display Uniformity
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • dylan522p - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    Strongly considering getting one of these and putting it in portrait as that would be much better for web content alongside my 2 1080p monitors. Anyone think that would be viable?
  • meacupla - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    I don't understand how 1080x2560 is better for web content, but I think your main problem would be getting this monitor in that orientation to begin with, since it doesn't look like it has any VESA mounting for an arm that can lift the screen off the table that high.

    Also, web content is now being made for 1280 width in mind, so wouldn't you be better off with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor in portrait mode?
  • peterfares - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    You would. These 2560x1080 monitors are basically ONLY good for movies and some games.
  • OscarGoldman - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link

    Except there's no delivery medium for 21:9 movies. Blu-Ray and streaming services put the image into a 16:9 frame anyway, so the only way you're going to fill a 21:9 frame is zoom into the 16:9 image. That's gonna look wonderful.
  • michaelheath - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link

    I wonder if you missed the first paragraph of the conclusion:

    "They’re also fantastic for watching movies on that are shot in scope format."

    Which I would presume means Chris actually watched a film in Cinemascope. Blu Ray supports anamorphic widescreen and can map a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1, so the only worry is Netflix.
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link

    Blu-ray does NOT support anamorphic encoding. Believe me, I would be ecstatic if that were true! 16:9 is all we get whether the content is scope (2.35/39/40), 1.78, or 4:3, wrapped up in letterbox or pillarbox black bars.

    An upscale for a typical scope Blu-ray (actual content is ~1920x810) to one of these screens (2560x1080) isn't so terrible, really. That's only a 33% upscale. With a good scaler or scaler software, it should look fine... but does anyone really care about black bars so much that they would buy this screen?

    I would buy this for gaming and that's about it, but only if it did 120Hz. Seriously, WhenTF are we going to get more 120Hz native displays?
  • RocketChild - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    Asus's other 29" model like this one has VESA mounts. Model PB298Q
  • JlHADJOE - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    longcat. 'nuff said.
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    I've rotated my 2560x1600 monitor a few times. It's too tall. Even with the stand at minimum the top of the screen was too high to look at without tilting my head. If you want a monitor for portrait use stick to a 20 or 22" model.
  • spacecadet34 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link

    You don't need this tall a monitor to do what you want; I'm currently running a triple monitor setup: two 1080P's and one (rotated) Dell @ 1200x1920. Thanks to the "keyhole problem" (, virtually *every* website works better in a vertical orientation. Just make sure the rotated display is an IPS, S-PVA, or similar panel that gives decent viewing angles. A TN panel would look horrible as you move your head side-to-side. Once you get used to this setup you'll never go back, unless you're into gaming.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now