I recently picked one of these up for $360 - 10% off coupon + tax at Circuit City. The final price was about $340 which I feel is very competitive when compared to the Samsung 226BW/CW. I could have purchased a 226BW for slightly less and had to wait for it to be shipped and played the panel lottery or spent more for the 226CW which doesn't have a high gloss screen and has an annoying silver bar on the bottom of the display frame.
It's just simply a beautiful monitor. I switched my home monitor from a Dell 2005FPW with an S-IPS panel to the HP and took the Dell to work. While I know that the HP uses a 6-bit panel, the colors look better to me than those of the 2005FPW. The different in response time is definitely noticeable while gaming and moving mouse pointers quickly around the screen.
If you're in the market for a 22" widescreen display with a TN panel, this is the one to get.
Consider the Acer AL2051W if you want to do a MVA panel review. I just bought one for $190 on Newegg and am very pleased so far. Fantastic viewing angle, stated at 176 degrees and from the looks of it, its not far off. A bit of backlight bleeding, but not out of the ordinary. This is an excellent panel for the price.
there are two nice 28" monitors at newegg, see models above
both are about $650 which is dirt cheap for 28"
could you guys do a review of one of those, or even both?
I'm sure EVERYBODY would be interested!
these two seem like a huge hit, they just BLOW dell's 27" panels
I asked for one from ViewSonic at one point. I don't recall why we didn't get one - we've been working on getting a ViewSonic contact. As far as quality, a few people are saying that they use a TN panel, so they certainly wouldn't be as good as stuff like the 27" Dell (which uses PVA). That would probably account for the lower price as well -- at least somewhat.
Thank you so much for including viewing angle pictures! I can't tell you how important this aspect of a monitor is to me. Doing graphics work, TN panels are simply unusable because of the vertical viewing angle issues. This is the first site I've seen do photographic comparisons and it's AWESOME! :)
We bought this w2207 a few weeks ago to replace 2 aging 21" Trinitron CRTs...one that has a "too bright" problem (despite brightness being 0) and another in which the red gun is going out (causing the monitor to have 'red seizures').
This monitor is great.
Originally I was going to get a 226BW but I didn't want to bother with getting one panel over another (ie trying to find an S panel but getting a C instead). The glossy coating on the w2207 makes it even better, even though (as mentioned) it's a PITA to keep it clean and clean it when it's dirty/dusty. Seems like it takes 5 minutes to completely clean the screen with a damp cloth and have it come out clean but without any dust at the same time.
That being said...I highly recommend this monitor. When we bought ours, it was on sale for $339 at Sears; a week later, it was down to $249 (and I called and got the $90 credit). Wish I would've had the money then to buy a 2nd for that price. =)
If you could find this on sale for $250, it would definitely be a no-brainer. At current prices, you'll have to think about it a bit more. It may very well be the best 22" monitor on the market, but I would take a 24" Gateway over it (even with the higher cost).
You'll find that Monitor to be very popular in Europe, specially Germany due to it's low price.
Well - low price compared to other monitors.
EG, the Dell 2407 WFP HC is supposed to cost around 1000$ here, the older version is on "sale" for about 850$. If i see the US-Prices for tfts...ouch. Same goes for a lot of other monitors. The HP is the first i noticed on the us markt which seem to be on a European price level, which, i assume, is at least 25% higher.
The one thing I immediately noticed from the review was the difference between the Gateway 24" and the Dell 24". I've never seen these ratings before -- it looks like in most catagories the Gateway is superior. Am I reading this right? I thought the Dell was the hands down 24" champion!
The Gateway has a brighter backlight, but in most other areas I felt the 2407WFP and the FPD2485W were about the same. I prefer the appearance of the Dell LCD over the Gateway LCD, and the extremely bright backlight on the Gateway means that you usually have to spend more time tuning things if you don't want to be blinded. If you had them both set to the same intensity, however, I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference between the panels.
I'm still using an old CRT, and I don't know why one would compare at a monitor with a max resolution of 1600x1050 to a CRT that was likely capable at least 1800x1440 and 1920x1440 was fairly common. Mine goes higher, but the refresh rate is too slow at that point.
I personally think that the 24" displays are the first ones that are comparable to 21" monitors. The 22" monitors are more comparable to some of the better 19" monitors (though I suppose there may have been crappy 21" monitors with a max usable res of 16x12.
I personally wish I could justify the 30" monitors, but at current prices, I'd be better off going dual monitor with 2 24" models (desktop space is king :) )
I had a professional grade 21" CRT next to my 19" WS LCD, and I have to say that the LCD is much, MUCH better for vibrance/image sharpness. The LCD to boot was also 1/5th-1/6th the cost of the 21" CRT . . .
Probably not, given that most stores carry crappy monitors, but I'm really not willing give up real estate to move to a flat screen.
even at 1920x1440, I feel cramped if I'm I've got more than 2 instances of jedit open (and I'd really like to have 4, and occasionally more, in most cases).
24" monitors are the smallest monitors with sufficient resolution, although even then, my desktop shrink by almost 20%.
Well, it seems you're forgetting about pixel pitch. Those 1920x1200 24" have quite a high pixel pitch. Certainly a 20.1" LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution is better for you?
The only LCDs with a decent pixel pitch not stuck in 1991 (seriously) are the 1280x1024 17" (too small, physically, though), 1600x1200 20.1" and the 2560x1600 30".
The new 1920x1200 26-27" are really atrocious, and the most popular 1680x1050 22" is not up to my standards either--hence the main reason (out of many) why I'm still on an iiyama CRT. And if this trend is still going in a few years, we'll have 720p 40" computer monitors. And everyone will love them.
So sick and tired of computer display tech going steady backwards since the 90s.
To be fair 2001 was a good year for displays - IBM built the first T221s (24" 3840x2400) :-) 2006 was not such a good year - IBM ceased production of T221s with nothing even vaguely equivalent in sight from anybody :-(
Initially that would have been the approx asking price (medical applicatinos I think). They got cheaper as time went on though they were never exactly cheap. The Viewsonic (VP2290B) and Iiyama badged versions got under ~$7000 I think (which was approx twice the price on an Apple 30" at the time). Currently a DG5 (the last iteration) goes for ~$3500 on ebay and a VP2290B is ~$1000.
The T221 was the first monitor that made me think "The best LCDs are btter than the best CRTs - now they only have to get cheap enough".
I was really hoping that they would take off and the price would come down to something like the current ebay prices. (And yes I did buy off ebay in the end)
Aye, they're pretty damn cool. I've yet to see one in the flesh though. You still have to have 2 dual-link cards with it though? Doesn't it use 4 single-link connectors?
And isn't the 48 Hz data rate (all 4 links) OK enough? (Yeah yeah, TFTs don't have refresh rates, I know, but there are other ramifications of a slow data rate.)
Not sure why 22" is starting to become prominent over 20". Must be cheaper to produce because tolerances and processes don't have to be as tight, since they're the same resolution just a larger (and thus more visible) pixel pitch on the 22" (0.282mm). Would rather stick with a 20", or if I want bigger then I'd get a 23-24" with 1920x resolution.
When comparing TN 20" versus a 22" panel with around $50 difference, i'd definitely go for the 22" mainly due to the larger screen space which makes games and movies more life-like.
Sure the resolution hasn't changed, but why do people buy big screens with lower resolutions anyways? Just to get the bigger picture of course.
Oh, I also think there is a typo on Page 5 at the last paragraph.
You mentioned
quote: There are differences between the Acer and HP, and we generally felt that the Acer looked a bit better in vertical viewing while the Acer is better in the horizontal plane.
But shouldn't it be
quote: There are differences between the Acer and HP, and we generally felt that the HP looked a bit better in vertical viewing while the Acer is better in the horizontal plane.
quote: When comparing TN 20" versus a 22" panel with around $50 difference, i'd definitely go for the 22" mainly due to the larger screen space which makes games and movies more life-like.
I think the difference is that if you buy an 70" HDTV, you're not sitting as close as you are if you have a 42". Besides, a smaller TV with accurate colors trumps a big POS set with crap colors (and I've seen some awful HD monitors).
As a result, if the colors are better on the 20", I'd go with a 20".
I think a lot of the better 20" LCDs were IPS or PVA, which might account for the prices as well. Dell I'm pretty sure was IPS on the 2005FP (and FPW?). I think the cheaper 20" LCDs are now also using TN panels. Could be that they can only get the same amount of 22" or 20" panels out of a modern glass substrate, though... I haven't looked into it closely.
P-MVA and A-MVA are disregarded in the article, even though they are among the best 'overal' monitor technologies, for 20" at least. Second fastest response time, 8 bit color, best movie picture quality, homogeneous viewing angles. It's superior to PVA anyway.
I thought MVA and PVA were similar and only certain patents created separate names. Guess not. :) I have never actually tested an MVA panel to my knowledge, and most high-end panels use IPS these days. The next tier uses PVA, and then the lower quality stuff uses TN. The one of the days, though, I will hopefully get the chance to test an MVA panel in person.
I have been using an HP LP series LCD which uses (at least when I bought it) an S-IPS panel. I could never go back to a TN or other panel with less acurate color display.
Yes, the better ones were S-IPS panels, which it's a shame no longer seem to be used except in VERY expensive displays. They excel in several important areas over MVA/PVA panels. My first-run 2007WFP is indeed S-IPS and I love it, however they quickly switched over to some sort of MVA or PVA panel and I wouldn't go near those. :(
Maybe one day (supposed) costs will come down and we'll get S-IPS again on mainline displays. I did find one really nice panel in 24" size that was S-IPS but the MSRP was around $1200, IIRC. What a joke.
The HP LP2065 is relatively cheap but usually (not always, you have to check in a hidden menu option) uses an S-IPS panel, and better still there are next to no reports of anyone having even a single dead-subpixel.
I'd take a standard 20" 1600x1200 S-IPS display like the LP2065 over any wide-screen 22" 1680x1050 TN display (almost all 22" W are TN), as you get a much better picture with the S-IPS panel and you get more usable screen space because it has a tighter dot-pitch (so although it is smaller physically at 120 sq cm compared with 140 sq cm for a 22" W, the 20" actually has more pixels).
For general desktop use and with most games, standard 4:3 is preferable to a wide-screen 16:10 aspect-ratio; the wide-screen format's only big advantage is for watching movies, and for that you should really be connecting your computer to a large-screen TV.
I love widescreen for photo editing - rotate the display to vertical for portrait orientation shots, and you have a huge work area for either format. But I agree, I'd take an S-IPS 20" 4:3 over a 22" TN.
How many cameras have a widescreen format sensor? I know you agreed with most of what I said, but almost all cameras have a 4:3 sensor so a 4:3 display is optimal. This HP LP2065 monitor I have can be swiveled vertically very easily for those purposes, so unless you are taking widescreen format photos, I fail to see the advantage in a 16:10 widescreen display.
You're right when you say a 20" Standard S-IPS is better than a 22" Widescreen TN. I'd personally say the difference is like night or day; once you've used the higher-quality and tighter dot-pitch of the 20" S-IPS panel, you'd never want to use any of those 22" widescreens. Only 24" widescreen monitors are better without spending a lot more, but a significant price premium still needs to be paid (and it had better be S-IPS, not PVA/MVA, let alone TN, else I'm not interested).
When I chose my current 20" display, I could have instead saved about 30% of the cost and chosen a 22" widescreen TN display (when I was deciding what to choose, I compiled a spreadsheet of everything available and included panel types). Every 22" widescreen display used a TN panel and as I was used to the quality of a Mitsubishi DP2070SB CRT display, I decided TN panels would be unacceptable. Suffice to say that this display is everything I could have hoped for in a flat-panel and more, after seeing smaller diaplays (of indeterminate panel-type) in local high-street stores.
Are you sure? Every digital camera I've used seems to mimic 35mm cameras, which have an aspect ration of 1.5:1. Most widescreen monitors seem to have an aspect ration of 1.6:1, while standard monitors are 1.33:1.
That 1.5:1 or 1.3:1 ratio is specific to the relitive size of the sensor compared to a fullsized 35mm sensor that is in very few cameras. There are *some* wide aspect cameras, but it is mostly a new 'technology', and mainly implemented in P&S cameras.
My Nikon D40 for instance uses a 1.5:1 sensor. What this means is that if I use a 50mm focal length lens, the actual focal length I get with this lens on my camera is 75mm. Images produced with this camera are 3008x2000 which is actually 1.504:1, or more commonly called 3:2 by many. Canon cameras have a 1.3:1 sensor aspect, and I forget which other brand, and ratio, but there is one more 'common' manufactuer ratio. This is of course in the realm of DSLRs, but most P&S cameras use a standard sensor/lens ratio (for 'that' specific brand), with very few using the widescreen setup as I mentioned above.
Anyhow, for image editing, I prefer a widescreen monitor not because it 'matches' the image aspect ratio, but because it give me more realastate for toolbars etc while editing images, and giving me more visable image area to work on while these toolbars are visable. This is purly a matter of taste, and I *could* use the pallete well, or tab keys to hide the toolbars while not in use, but this is the way I have become accustomed to working(pen/tablet seems to work well with this setup as well).
Personally, I think a monitor that displays colors correctly is far more important, as well as contrast ratio, and monitor interface type.
Most DSLRs use sensors that have a 3:2 aspect ratio (or close enough) like 35mm film has. the Four-Thirds system (Olympus, Panasonic, "Leica") is, obviously, a 4:3 ratio sensor.
As far as "crop factors" go, Canon makes a full frame (same size as 35mm, 1:1) sensor, a 1.3:1 sensor, and a 1.6:1 sensor. Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Samsung all use 1.5:1 (since they all use Sony sensors), and Fugifilm uses 1.5:1 as well, possibly because the body comes from Nikon. Sigma uses 1.7:1, and Four-Thirds is 2:1.
Most P&S cameras use 4:3 ratio sensors, and most are made by Sony. Panasonic offers a wide-format sensor IIRC.
And yes, the toolbars are a good reason to have widescreen (or dual monitor).
Ooops, I meant 1200 sq cm for the 20" standard display compared with 1400 sq cm for the 22" widescreen. Heh, 120 sq cm would be a touch on the small side :)
I'm sure they're wonderful but for that price you can get a rather nice 42" LCD TV. Heh.
Then again I bet they don't have any input lag like the Dell 24" and other MVA or PVA panels tend to exhibit which can be very annoying in FPS games for folks who are used to the more immediate input reproduction of CRTs or S-IPS LCDs.
What makes this technology that much better? If I was spending that much money, I'd get a 30" Dell (or similar). At least I'd get 32% more desktop space than my CRT (and 44% more than the NEC).
Oh wait, this isn't really a business monitor, it's for color professionals (mostly those who work on photos, I suspect) and has lots of controls, I suspect, that most monitors don't have.
Out of my price range.....I wonder how it compares to a hardware calibrated Dell or HP. Of course for gaming and business use, it's almost certainly not worth the money.
For $1700, I would definitely pick up one of the HP 30 inch LCDs -- or the Dell that matter. Both of those used S-IPS panels and provide back lighting that has an improved color gamut. I certainly couldn't tell you what the NEC offers that would make it worth the price of entry, but unfortunately I have never been able to use one in person.
I think the difference is that the HP apparently has a lot of adjustments that you can make.
I'm just guessing, but it may be something like the the old Sony Artisan or Barco monitors, where you could make adjustments to many different areas of the screen, not just the usual 4 (or less) that most had.
IIRC some of the high-end Eizo and NEC displays can interface directly with color calibration equipment, and probably have better controls. Who knows, they migh hold their color longer or come with a calibration sheet from NIST or something too. Conceptually similar to the Artisans as a monitor designed to be very good for color-sensitive work.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
Back to Article
Dantzig - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
I recently picked one of these up for $360 - 10% off coupon + tax at Circuit City. The final price was about $340 which I feel is very competitive when compared to the Samsung 226BW/CW. I could have purchased a 226BW for slightly less and had to wait for it to be shipped and played the panel lottery or spent more for the 226CW which doesn't have a high gloss screen and has an annoying silver bar on the bottom of the display frame.It's just simply a beautiful monitor. I switched my home monitor from a Dell 2005FPW with an S-IPS panel to the HP and took the Dell to work. While I know that the HP uses a 6-bit panel, the colors look better to me than those of the 2005FPW. The different in response time is definitely noticeable while gaming and moving mouse pointers quickly around the screen.
If you're in the market for a 22" widescreen display with a TN panel, this is the one to get.
zemane - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Isn't 4:3 the standard aspect ratio?
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Yes, for everything but your typical 1280x1024 (5:4) 19" LCDs. There are some 4:3 19" displays (1400x1050 resolution), but most are 5:4.Bonesdad - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Consider the Acer AL2051W if you want to do a MVA panel review. I just bought one for $190 on Newegg and am very pleased so far. Fantastic viewing angle, stated at 176 degrees and from the looks of it, its not far off. A bit of backlight bleeding, but not out of the ordinary. This is an excellent panel for the price.Pirks - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
there are two nice 28" monitors at newegg, see models aboveboth are about $650 which is dirt cheap for 28"
could you guys do a review of one of those, or even both?
I'm sure EVERYBODY would be interested!
these two seem like a huge hit, they just BLOW dell's 27" panels
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I asked for one from ViewSonic at one point. I don't recall why we didn't get one - we've been working on getting a ViewSonic contact. As far as quality, a few people are saying that they use a TN panel, so they certainly wouldn't be as good as stuff like the 27" Dell (which uses PVA). That would probably account for the lower price as well -- at least somewhat.CSMR - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Great to have the detailed light/dark/contrast measurements at different brightness settings. Good work.augiem - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Thank you so much for including viewing angle pictures! I can't tell you how important this aspect of a monitor is to me. Doing graphics work, TN panels are simply unusable because of the vertical viewing angle issues. This is the first site I've seen do photographic comparisons and it's AWESOME! :)zero2dash - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
We bought this w2207 a few weeks ago to replace 2 aging 21" Trinitron CRTs...one that has a "too bright" problem (despite brightness being 0) and another in which the red gun is going out (causing the monitor to have 'red seizures').This monitor is great.
Originally I was going to get a 226BW but I didn't want to bother with getting one panel over another (ie trying to find an S panel but getting a C instead). The glossy coating on the w2207 makes it even better, even though (as mentioned) it's a PITA to keep it clean and clean it when it's dirty/dusty. Seems like it takes 5 minutes to completely clean the screen with a damp cloth and have it come out clean but without any dust at the same time.
That being said...I highly recommend this monitor. When we bought ours, it was on sale for $339 at Sears; a week later, it was down to $249 (and I called and got the $90 credit). Wish I would've had the money then to buy a 2nd for that price. =)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
If you could find this on sale for $250, it would definitely be a no-brainer. At current prices, you'll have to think about it a bit more. It may very well be the best 22" monitor on the market, but I would take a 24" Gateway over it (even with the higher cost).Bjoern77 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
You'll find that Monitor to be very popular in Europe, specially Germany due to it's low price.Well - low price compared to other monitors.
EG, the Dell 2407 WFP HC is supposed to cost around 1000$ here, the older version is on "sale" for about 850$. If i see the US-Prices for tfts...ouch. Same goes for a lot of other monitors. The HP is the first i noticed on the us markt which seem to be on a European price level, which, i assume, is at least 25% higher.
trajan - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
The one thing I immediately noticed from the review was the difference between the Gateway 24" and the Dell 24". I've never seen these ratings before -- it looks like in most catagories the Gateway is superior. Am I reading this right? I thought the Dell was the hands down 24" champion!JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
The Gateway has a brighter backlight, but in most other areas I felt the 2407WFP and the FPD2485W were about the same. I prefer the appearance of the Dell LCD over the Gateway LCD, and the extremely bright backlight on the Gateway means that you usually have to spend more time tuning things if you don't want to be blinded. If you had them both set to the same intensity, however, I don't think most people would be able to tell the difference between the panels.nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I'm still using an old CRT, and I don't know why one would compare at a monitor with a max resolution of 1600x1050 to a CRT that was likely capable at least 1800x1440 and 1920x1440 was fairly common. Mine goes higher, but the refresh rate is too slow at that point.I personally think that the 24" displays are the first ones that are comparable to 21" monitors. The 22" monitors are more comparable to some of the better 19" monitors (though I suppose there may have been crappy 21" monitors with a max usable res of 16x12.
I personally wish I could justify the 30" monitors, but at current prices, I'd be better off going dual monitor with 2 24" models (desktop space is king :) )
Jodiuh - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Have you seen a nice 20in S-IPS next to your old CRT? I have an older 19in CRT and it pales in comparison to the NEC or Dell panels.yyrkoon - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
I had a professional grade 21" CRT next to my 19" WS LCD, and I have to say that the LCD is much, MUCH better for vibrance/image sharpness. The LCD to boot was also 1/5th-1/6th the cost of the 21" CRT . . .nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Probably not, given that most stores carry crappy monitors, but I'm really not willing give up real estate to move to a flat screen.even at 1920x1440, I feel cramped if I'm I've got more than 2 instances of jedit open (and I'd really like to have 4, and occasionally more, in most cases).
24" monitors are the smallest monitors with sufficient resolution, although even then, my desktop shrink by almost 20%.
Great Googly Moogly - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Well, it seems you're forgetting about pixel pitch. Those 1920x1200 24" have quite a high pixel pitch. Certainly a 20.1" LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution is better for you?The only LCDs with a decent pixel pitch not stuck in 1991 (seriously) are the 1280x1024 17" (too small, physically, though), 1600x1200 20.1" and the 2560x1600 30".
The new 1920x1200 26-27" are really atrocious, and the most popular 1680x1050 22" is not up to my standards either--hence the main reason (out of many) why I'm still on an iiyama CRT. And if this trend is still going in a few years, we'll have 720p 40" computer monitors. And everyone will love them.
So sick and tired of computer display tech going steady backwards since the 90s.
jc44 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
To be fair 2001 was a good year for displays - IBM built the first T221s (24" 3840x2400) :-) 2006 was not such a good year - IBM ceased production of T221s with nothing even vaguely equivalent in sight from anybody :-(strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Didn't they cost somewhere around $30,000? no wonder they disappeared.jc44 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Initially that would have been the approx asking price (medical applicatinos I think). They got cheaper as time went on though they were never exactly cheap. The Viewsonic (VP2290B) and Iiyama badged versions got under ~$7000 I think (which was approx twice the price on an Apple 30" at the time). Currently a DG5 (the last iteration) goes for ~$3500 on ebay and a VP2290B is ~$1000.The T221 was the first monitor that made me think "The best LCDs are btter than the best CRTs - now they only have to get cheap enough".
I was really hoping that they would take off and the price would come down to something like the current ebay prices. (And yes I did buy off ebay in the end)
Great Googly Moogly - Friday, August 3, 2007 - link
Aye, they're pretty damn cool. I've yet to see one in the flesh though. You still have to have 2 dual-link cards with it though? Doesn't it use 4 single-link connectors?And isn't the 48 Hz data rate (all 4 links) OK enough? (Yeah yeah, TFTs don't have refresh rates, I know, but there are other ramifications of a slow data rate.)
yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Not sure why 22" is starting to become prominent over 20". Must be cheaper to produce because tolerances and processes don't have to be as tight, since they're the same resolution just a larger (and thus more visible) pixel pitch on the 22" (0.282mm). Would rather stick with a 20", or if I want bigger then I'd get a 23-24" with 1920x resolution.Jedi2155 - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
When comparing TN 20" versus a 22" panel with around $50 difference, i'd definitely go for the 22" mainly due to the larger screen space which makes games and movies more life-like.Sure the resolution hasn't changed, but why do people buy big screens with lower resolutions anyways? Just to get the bigger picture of course.
Oh, I also think there is a typo on Page 5 at the last paragraph.
You mentioned
But shouldn't it be
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I corrected the Acer/Acer sentence -- HP seemed to be a bit better in the vertical plane. Things for the comment.nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think the difference is that if you buy an 70" HDTV, you're not sitting as close as you are if you have a 42". Besides, a smaller TV with accurate colors trumps a big POS set with crap colors (and I've seen some awful HD monitors).
As a result, if the colors are better on the 20", I'd go with a 20".
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think a lot of the better 20" LCDs were IPS or PVA, which might account for the prices as well. Dell I'm pretty sure was IPS on the 2005FP (and FPW?). I think the cheaper 20" LCDs are now also using TN panels. Could be that they can only get the same amount of 22" or 20" panels out of a modern glass substrate, though... I haven't looked into it closely.Spoelie - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
P-MVA and A-MVA are disregarded in the article, even though they are among the best 'overal' monitor technologies, for 20" at least. Second fastest response time, 8 bit color, best movie picture quality, homogeneous viewing angles. It's superior to PVA anyway.JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I thought MVA and PVA were similar and only certain patents created separate names. Guess not. :) I have never actually tested an MVA panel to my knowledge, and most high-end panels use IPS these days. The next tier uses PVA, and then the lower quality stuff uses TN. The one of the days, though, I will hopefully get the chance to test an MVA panel in person.mostlyprudent - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I have been using an HP LP series LCD which uses (at least when I bought it) an S-IPS panel. I could never go back to a TN or other panel with less acurate color display.yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Yes, the better ones were S-IPS panels, which it's a shame no longer seem to be used except in VERY expensive displays. They excel in several important areas over MVA/PVA panels. My first-run 2007WFP is indeed S-IPS and I love it, however they quickly switched over to some sort of MVA or PVA panel and I wouldn't go near those. :(Maybe one day (supposed) costs will come down and we'll get S-IPS again on mainline displays. I did find one really nice panel in 24" size that was S-IPS but the MSRP was around $1200, IIRC. What a joke.
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
The HP LP2065 is relatively cheap but usually (not always, you have to check in a hidden menu option) uses an S-IPS panel, and better still there are next to no reports of anyone having even a single dead-subpixel.I'd take a standard 20" 1600x1200 S-IPS display like the LP2065 over any wide-screen 22" 1680x1050 TN display (almost all 22" W are TN), as you get a much better picture with the S-IPS panel and you get more usable screen space because it has a tighter dot-pitch (so although it is smaller physically at 120 sq cm compared with 140 sq cm for a 22" W, the 20" actually has more pixels).
For general desktop use and with most games, standard 4:3 is preferable to a wide-screen 16:10 aspect-ratio; the wide-screen format's only big advantage is for watching movies, and for that you should really be connecting your computer to a large-screen TV.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I love widescreen for photo editing - rotate the display to vertical for portrait orientation shots, and you have a huge work area for either format. But I agree, I'd take an S-IPS 20" 4:3 over a 22" TN.PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
How many cameras have a widescreen format sensor? I know you agreed with most of what I said, but almost all cameras have a 4:3 sensor so a 4:3 display is optimal. This HP LP2065 monitor I have can be swiveled vertically very easily for those purposes, so unless you are taking widescreen format photos, I fail to see the advantage in a 16:10 widescreen display.You're right when you say a 20" Standard S-IPS is better than a 22" Widescreen TN. I'd personally say the difference is like night or day; once you've used the higher-quality and tighter dot-pitch of the 20" S-IPS panel, you'd never want to use any of those 22" widescreens. Only 24" widescreen monitors are better without spending a lot more, but a significant price premium still needs to be paid (and it had better be S-IPS, not PVA/MVA, let alone TN, else I'm not interested).
When I chose my current 20" display, I could have instead saved about 30% of the cost and chosen a 22" widescreen TN display (when I was deciding what to choose, I compiled a spreadsheet of everything available and included panel types). Every 22" widescreen display used a TN panel and as I was used to the quality of a Mitsubishi DP2070SB CRT display, I decided TN panels would be unacceptable. Suffice to say that this display is everything I could have hoped for in a flat-panel and more, after seeing smaller diaplays (of indeterminate panel-type) in local high-street stores.
nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Are you sure? Every digital camera I've used seems to mimic 35mm cameras, which have an aspect ration of 1.5:1. Most widescreen monitors seem to have an aspect ration of 1.6:1, while standard monitors are 1.33:1.yyrkoon - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
That 1.5:1 or 1.3:1 ratio is specific to the relitive size of the sensor compared to a fullsized 35mm sensor that is in very few cameras. There are *some* wide aspect cameras, but it is mostly a new 'technology', and mainly implemented in P&S cameras.My Nikon D40 for instance uses a 1.5:1 sensor. What this means is that if I use a 50mm focal length lens, the actual focal length I get with this lens on my camera is 75mm. Images produced with this camera are 3008x2000 which is actually 1.504:1, or more commonly called 3:2 by many. Canon cameras have a 1.3:1 sensor aspect, and I forget which other brand, and ratio, but there is one more 'common' manufactuer ratio. This is of course in the realm of DSLRs, but most P&S cameras use a standard sensor/lens ratio (for 'that' specific brand), with very few using the widescreen setup as I mentioned above.
Anyhow, for image editing, I prefer a widescreen monitor not because it 'matches' the image aspect ratio, but because it give me more realastate for toolbars etc while editing images, and giving me more visable image area to work on while these toolbars are visable. This is purly a matter of taste, and I *could* use the pallete well, or tab keys to hide the toolbars while not in use, but this is the way I have become accustomed to working(pen/tablet seems to work well with this setup as well).
Personally, I think a monitor that displays colors correctly is far more important, as well as contrast ratio, and monitor interface type.
strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Most DSLRs use sensors that have a 3:2 aspect ratio (or close enough) like 35mm film has. the Four-Thirds system (Olympus, Panasonic, "Leica") is, obviously, a 4:3 ratio sensor.As far as "crop factors" go, Canon makes a full frame (same size as 35mm, 1:1) sensor, a 1.3:1 sensor, and a 1.6:1 sensor. Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Samsung all use 1.5:1 (since they all use Sony sensors), and Fugifilm uses 1.5:1 as well, possibly because the body comes from Nikon. Sigma uses 1.7:1, and Four-Thirds is 2:1.
Most P&S cameras use 4:3 ratio sensors, and most are made by Sony. Panasonic offers a wide-format sensor IIRC.
And yes, the toolbars are a good reason to have widescreen (or dual monitor).
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Ooops, I meant 1200 sq cm for the 20" standard display compared with 1400 sq cm for the 22" widescreen. Heh, 120 sq cm would be a touch on the small side :)yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Ah, here it is: NEC MultiSync LCD2490WUXi for $1449.99, or the high gamut extra precision model for $1749.99.http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?produc...">http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Prod...t=a46240...
I'm sure they're wonderful but for that price you can get a rather nice 42" LCD TV. Heh.
Then again I bet they don't have any input lag like the Dell 24" and other MVA or PVA panels tend to exhibit which can be very annoying in FPS games for folks who are used to the more immediate input reproduction of CRTs or S-IPS LCDs.
nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
What makes this technology that much better? If I was spending that much money, I'd get a 30" Dell (or similar). At least I'd get 32% more desktop space than my CRT (and 44% more than the NEC).Oh wait, this isn't really a business monitor, it's for color professionals (mostly those who work on photos, I suspect) and has lots of controls, I suspect, that most monitors don't have.
Out of my price range.....I wonder how it compares to a hardware calibrated Dell or HP. Of course for gaming and business use, it's almost certainly not worth the money.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
For $1700, I would definitely pick up one of the HP 30 inch LCDs -- or the Dell that matter. Both of those used S-IPS panels and provide back lighting that has an improved color gamut. I certainly couldn't tell you what the NEC offers that would make it worth the price of entry, but unfortunately I have never been able to use one in person.nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think the difference is that the HP apparently has a lot of adjustments that you can make.I'm just guessing, but it may be something like the the old Sony Artisan or Barco monitors, where you could make adjustments to many different areas of the screen, not just the usual 4 (or less) that most had.
strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
IIRC some of the high-end Eizo and NEC displays can interface directly with color calibration equipment, and probably have better controls. Who knows, they migh hold their color longer or come with a calibration sheet from NIST or something too. Conceptually similar to the Artisans as a monitor designed to be very good for color-sensitive work.