Acer AL2216W: a worthwhile compromise?
by Jarred Walton on March 10, 2007 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Viewing Angles
We mentioned earlier that we would revisit some of the aspects of the other displays, and viewing angles are one of those areas that several readers wanted us to explore further. We used our camera to take shots from head-on as well as from the left and right sides at ~30° angles, showing how brightness and contrast ratios can drop dramatically in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Here's the quick comparison of all the LCDs we have reviewed so far.
If it's not patently obvious from the above images (which we sorted in order of increasing quality), the viewing angle of the Acer's TN panel is much worse than any of the other tested displays. The Dell 3007WFP is in fourth place, which considering the use of an IPS panel was somewhat unexpected as IPS panels are known for providing a wide viewing angle. The sheer size of the panel may be partly to blame; getting accurate photos from the top and bottom angles was difficult, and subjectively we actually felt the 3007WFP was slightly better than the 2405FPW. The Dell 2405FPW places next, and considering that display is two years old it still makes a reasonable showing. The Gateway FPD2485W and Dell 2407WFP are basically tied for first, and while the placing was not a foregone conclusion their relative performance isn't at all surprising considering the two panels appear to be virtually identical.
We wouldn't be too concerned about viewing angles personally, as outside of the Acer display, all of the LCDs are generally acceptable for use within a 60° viewing arc, both horizontally and vertically. The Acer panel suffers mostly in the vertical viewing angle, so it can still be used within a 60° arc provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane. Beyond a 30° angle, the IPS panel on the 3007WFP does seem to have a slight edge; however, we don't generally think most people use their computers staring at the screen from an oblique angle.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about accurate colors is going to want to view pretty much any display from a direct front angle, and that tends to be the most comfortable position as well. That's one of the reasons we don't really worry too much about viewing angles. However, some people might work in environments where off-angle viewing is more important, so it's not entirely meaningless.
Unfortunately, the manufacturer viewing angles tend to be exaggerated to the point of being useless, as the standard requirement is that the perceived image only needs to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio. Even the extremely dark lower image on the Acer display above meets that requirement, but we can't imagine anyone would actually be able to use a display properly that way. When you have marketing material hyping 700:1 and even 1000:1 contrast ratios, it's ludicrous to even pretend that a 10:1 ratio is acceptable. 100:1 is good enough in a pinch, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
We mentioned earlier that we would revisit some of the aspects of the other displays, and viewing angles are one of those areas that several readers wanted us to explore further. We used our camera to take shots from head-on as well as from the left and right sides at ~30° angles, showing how brightness and contrast ratios can drop dramatically in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Here's the quick comparison of all the LCDs we have reviewed so far.
 Acer AL2216W |
 Dell 3007WFP |
 Dell 2405FPW |
 Dell 2407WFP |
 Gateway FPD2485W |
If it's not patently obvious from the above images (which we sorted in order of increasing quality), the viewing angle of the Acer's TN panel is much worse than any of the other tested displays. The Dell 3007WFP is in fourth place, which considering the use of an IPS panel was somewhat unexpected as IPS panels are known for providing a wide viewing angle. The sheer size of the panel may be partly to blame; getting accurate photos from the top and bottom angles was difficult, and subjectively we actually felt the 3007WFP was slightly better than the 2405FPW. The Dell 2405FPW places next, and considering that display is two years old it still makes a reasonable showing. The Gateway FPD2485W and Dell 2407WFP are basically tied for first, and while the placing was not a foregone conclusion their relative performance isn't at all surprising considering the two panels appear to be virtually identical.
We wouldn't be too concerned about viewing angles personally, as outside of the Acer display, all of the LCDs are generally acceptable for use within a 60° viewing arc, both horizontally and vertically. The Acer panel suffers mostly in the vertical viewing angle, so it can still be used within a 60° arc provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane. Beyond a 30° angle, the IPS panel on the 3007WFP does seem to have a slight edge; however, we don't generally think most people use their computers staring at the screen from an oblique angle.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about accurate colors is going to want to view pretty much any display from a direct front angle, and that tends to be the most comfortable position as well. That's one of the reasons we don't really worry too much about viewing angles. However, some people might work in environments where off-angle viewing is more important, so it's not entirely meaningless.
Unfortunately, the manufacturer viewing angles tend to be exaggerated to the point of being useless, as the standard requirement is that the perceived image only needs to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio. Even the extremely dark lower image on the Acer display above meets that requirement, but we can't imagine anyone would actually be able to use a display properly that way. When you have marketing material hyping 700:1 and even 1000:1 contrast ratios, it's ludicrous to even pretend that a 10:1 ratio is acceptable. 100:1 is good enough in a pinch, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
anandtech02148 - Sunday, March 11, 2007 - link
That viewing angle thing makes me proud of my 2yr old investment on the dell 2405fpw.Jarred when are they gonna give you a Dell 27inc 2707wfp to play?
27inc seems to be the right viewing angle for my future upgrade when price drop to 700usd or so.
BigDDesign - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
Great LCD reviews. Could you test some of the monitors that cater to graphic pros or photo pros like the Lacie 321 or NEC monitors. I currently am using a Lacie Electron Blue 22" and a Viewsonic 2050 LCDTV 20" for my workstation area. Every day I pray that my CRT will last forever. I know that someday that I'm going to have to replace my CRT with a LCD. Perfect color is top priority for some of us, over response times. With digital photography so mainstream, good color is very important to many. Perfect color is what I need.kmmatney - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
NewEgg has a new interesting monitor for sale, which I believe is an IPS panel, for $350. The link is here. Would be nice to review a monitor in the same price range which ay perform a lot better (with a slightly smaller screen and 4:3 aspect ratio).http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Bana - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
I'm glad to see that you tested the input lag (buffering) of the monitors this time around. I am unfortunate enough to be able to see and feel the difference on my mom's 2405fwp (hence why I haven't bought an LCD for myself). It would have been nice to see the monitors compared to a better baseline ie: a CRT monitor to get a more repeatable measurement. It'd also be nice to see get an actual response lag range like http://www.behardware.com/articles/647-4/which-22-...">BeHardware does.Thanks again Anandtech. :)
Chadder007 - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
On the color gradients....I don't understand how its supposed to look. It is supposed to look smooth throughout the colors going from dark to lighter? Or is it supposed to have a blocked look to the colors in sections?...or is that what is called banding?JarredWalton - Sunday, March 11, 2007 - link
It should be smooth, so the blocks are indeed banding. Without calibration, the banding tends to be a lot worse on some of the displays (particularly the Gateway FPD2485W).Den - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
What is interesting to me is that if you are not willing to spend an extra $200 on a color calibration device, the cheap Acer has FAR better colors than any of the more expensive panels that have been reviewed here so far. Indeed, since 99% plus of people don't have a calibration device, I think this should be weighed far more heavily than the calibrated values. (Obviously, professionals who do have a device will reverse this weighting, but for the rest of us...) Also, could AnandTech make their calibrated color profiles available for the rest of us to download? I realize there is some panel to panel variation so it would not be perfect for every owner of the same display, but for most I think it would be far better than the factory default.JarredWalton - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
I agree that the uncalibrated results are important, but at the same time I think most people will be okay with even Delta E of 6.0 if they don't know any better. Your eyes and brain are generally happy with what they see, whether or not it's 100% accurate. I've used a Dell 2405FPW for a long time without proper calibration and it never bothered me; now that I have a colorimeter, I suppose I'm seeing more "true" colors, but if I were to just walk up to a display and try to judge it it would be hard to say how it performs. For image professionals, a colorimeter should be standard equipment; for everyone else... unless the display is *really* bad, other aspects probably carry at least as much weight. The viewing angles, for example, normally don't bother us much, but the Acer panel clearly has a much narrower viewing arc.And since you asked, here's a link to the <a href="http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/monitor/2007/a...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mon...ndtechCo... profiles</a> for all of the monitors, including both the print and standard profiles. The settings used for calibration are listed in the file names. Obviously, these are targeted at the panels we have, but as a baseline others may find them somewhat helpful. Cheers.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 10, 2007 - link
Let me try that link again. :)http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/monitor/2007/a...">Downloadable Color Profiles
anandtech02148 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
This is very helpful Jarred, these files save us some time if we plan to invest in these monitors, it's already obnoxious to spend 600buxs on a monitor and another 1-2hr calibrating, such little details is mind boggling, and manufacture reset is not that great. Maybe they should hire a professional calibrator like yourself.