HP LP3065: A new contender for the 30" throne
by Jarred Walton on March 22, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Color Gradients
Taking a look at the ability to reproduce a smooth color gradient on all of the displays, the HP display again does well, subjectively rating near the top of the charts. Those interested in comparing the HP LP3065 to previously tested displays can open their gradient images via the following links:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
It's difficult to say which display is the best when it comes to producing a smooth color gradient, and slight banding in the darker colors is present on almost all of the displays. We would actually rate the Dell 3007WFP slightly ahead of the HP LP3065, even though the HP uses a newer 30" panel, but it's still pretty close. The 2407WFP and Acer AL2216W come next, but despite using the same panel as the 2407WFP the Gateway FPD2485W doesn't do as well in the gradient tests. Depending on how you use a display, banding issues may or may not be a serious concern; we weren't particularly bothered by any of the monitors, but other users may be more demanding.
Prior to calibrating the displays, many of the results were quite a bit worse. The Gateway FPD2485W is almost unacceptable without calibration, although further tweaking of the display settings would probably improve matters somewhat. Trying to provide a good representation of what gradients look like is also quite difficult, as you can't take a normal screenshot and using a camera to photograph the display is like making a copy of a copy. After a bit of trial and error, we were able to get images that at least convey the general impression, but it's still no substitute for viewing a display in person.
Taking a look at the ability to reproduce a smooth color gradient on all of the displays, the HP display again does well, subjectively rating near the top of the charts. Those interested in comparing the HP LP3065 to previously tested displays can open their gradient images via the following links:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
 |
| HP LP3065 |
It's difficult to say which display is the best when it comes to producing a smooth color gradient, and slight banding in the darker colors is present on almost all of the displays. We would actually rate the Dell 3007WFP slightly ahead of the HP LP3065, even though the HP uses a newer 30" panel, but it's still pretty close. The 2407WFP and Acer AL2216W come next, but despite using the same panel as the 2407WFP the Gateway FPD2485W doesn't do as well in the gradient tests. Depending on how you use a display, banding issues may or may not be a serious concern; we weren't particularly bothered by any of the monitors, but other users may be more demanding.
Prior to calibrating the displays, many of the results were quite a bit worse. The Gateway FPD2485W is almost unacceptable without calibration, although further tweaking of the display settings would probably improve matters somewhat. Trying to provide a good representation of what gradients look like is also quite difficult, as you can't take a normal screenshot and using a camera to photograph the display is like making a copy of a copy. After a bit of trial and error, we were able to get images that at least convey the general impression, but it's still no substitute for viewing a display in person.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
gfisher - Sunday, July 26, 2009 - link
My HP machine has an NVIDIA 8500GT graphics card. I'm interested in buying a HP LP 3065 thirty inch monitor. Will the card drive the monitor at full speed?DaveJDSP - Sunday, December 30, 2007 - link
Jarred,I cannot possibly thank you enough for testing and posting photos of viewing angles. When doing critical photo/graphics work, it is essential that the top and bottom of the screen appear consistent from a fixed viewing point in the center of the screen. The larger the monitor, the more critical this becomes, as from a fixed point, the eyes scan over an arc of 10-20 degrees or greater.
Most monitors that I have seen at local stores have viewing angles that are totally unsatisfactory for critical work, even from a fixed eye point. And there are very few local stores that carry a sufficient selection of better and larger monitors, suitable for more critical work, so that the buyer can evaluate those monitors in person. Therefore, your complete and comprehensive reviews become even more critical.
Thank you again for your excellent reviews and for including such critical viewing angle information.
Dave
chakarov - Friday, March 23, 2007 - link
Contrast by specification shoud be 1000:1 but you measured it 585:1.It is interesting what to believe.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 24, 2007 - link
As I explained in the Gateway FPD2485W review, contrast ratios, brightness levels, response times, and various other "spec sheet items" are often seriously exaggerated. While technically a higher contrast ratio is better, a 500:1 or higher real value is generally more than sufficient. There's also a possibility that at some specific setting the HP would come closer to 1000:1 - doubtful, given the results on the three tested settings (uncalibrated, calibrated, and print calibrated), but still possible.The basic issue is with backlight bleed - i.e. blacks that aren't actually black. In theory, any proper display would have an infinite contrast ratio, as black would be 0 and anything divided by zero is infinity/undefined. Some displays (the Acer, for example) achieve higher contrast ratios by having blacker blacks; others like the Gateway get them by having insanely bright whites. Anyway, more is not always better, as the color accuracy of the middle tones isn't represented by contrast ratio.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
what about input lag vs a crt?crts should be the baseline since they seem to show close to 0 image lag.
lcd vs lcd is nice to, but if all lcds are off by a large number of frames from a crt, that will still suck
Souka - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
I feel a CRT vs LCD war thread starting..... ;)JarredWalton - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
LCDs are still slightly slower than CRTs, but we have abandoned the CRTs, or at least I have. I no longer have any for testing, and the last CRTs I purchased are now over two years old, the Samsung 997DF and the NEC FE991-SB. There hasn't been a new really high-end CRT released in upwards of five years, I don't think. Five or six year old 22" CRTs (with a 20" viewable diagonal) are better than the later 21/22" models in terms of features and performance. Then there's the whole geometry and signal adjustment that needs to be done on analog devices. Personally, I wouldn't even consider a CRT for my computer use anymore.Given that we have the 2407WFP for testing and it has been used already, we would prefer to continue with that trend. A baseline is just that: a reference point. Baseline doesn't have to be "best" - and obviously quite a few LCDs are better than the 2407WFP when it comes to input lag and response times. So far, however, we haven't seen more than a 1 frame (*maybe* two with the Acer AL2216W) difference in output. So the largest difference we've seen is currently less than 0.02 seconds.
Souka - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Why not get a 30" Apple Cinema Display?AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Let's see, $2000 for the Apple versus $1274 for the Dell. If you like being charged up the @$$, then be my guest.Now, the Apple is competing with the LP3065 and 3007WFP-HC; those panels are superior and $300 cheaper retail. Not to mention I just bought the HC from Dell for $1430+tax. Why would you pay $570 more for a worse product?
dcalfine - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
YeaApple made the first 30" dual-link LCD for consumers and is often considered better than the Dell. It would be wise to consider it a contender.