HP LP3065: A new contender for the 30" throne
by Jarred Walton on March 22, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Viewing Angles
Viewing angles are one of those specifications that have become very inflated by the manufacturers. The basic requirement is that the display has to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio in order to qualify as "viewable". The reality is that most LCDs are unfit for viewing outside of about a 45° arc. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more then a 45° angle. 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 are affected in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Links to the viewing angle images of previously reviewed LCDs are available for comparison below:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
The HP LP3065 comes in first place when it comes to viewing angles. Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors remain very true. This is one instance where the updated panel on the HP LP3065 clearly ranks ahead of the Dell 3007WFP. Meanwhile, the TN panel on the Acer AL2216W offers an extremely limited viewing arc, especially in the vertical plane. 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. Even the Acer panel is usable provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane, as it suffers mostly in the vertical viewing 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 10:1 contrast ratio is not acceptable for actual use. 100:1 is good enough, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
Viewing angles are one of those specifications that have become very inflated by the manufacturers. The basic requirement is that the display has to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio in order to qualify as "viewable". The reality is that most LCDs are unfit for viewing outside of about a 45° arc. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more then a 45° angle. 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 are affected in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Links to the viewing angle images of previously reviewed LCDs are available for comparison below:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
 |
| HP LP3065 |
The HP LP3065 comes in first place when it comes to viewing angles. Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors remain very true. This is one instance where the updated panel on the HP LP3065 clearly ranks ahead of the Dell 3007WFP. Meanwhile, the TN panel on the Acer AL2216W offers an extremely limited viewing arc, especially in the vertical plane. 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. Even the Acer panel is usable provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane, as it suffers mostly in the vertical viewing 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 10:1 contrast ratio is not acceptable for actual use. 100:1 is good enough, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
I tried to get one and Apple declined. I think Anand has their original version, but that has been outdated by newer releases. If Apple updates their 30" display again, I will see if they're interested in sending one for review.FXi - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
The brightness is too low. And the benefit (the wider gamut) is harder to gain the advantage of visually than losing the brightness. In fact it is likely the older 3007FP is a better screen in practical use than the 3007FPHC.I'm not talking TV levels here like 500-550 cd/m2, but rather that 400-450 wasn't bad, and as the backlights degrade slowly over time, effectively give a nice lifespan if you aren't using them in bright environments.
The cost of adding a few extra DVI-D inputs is so cheap it's a travesty they weren't included in every 30" model. PIP might be genuinely useful on a screen this size, so there's another area where the scaling and picture circuitry would be useful. In fact, skip the USB bus entirely and at least give me two, or three DVI-D ports instead.
Probably I missed how you approached it but I saw no direct mention of screen uniformity, which has been a bother in earlier 30" models.
I would add the Samsung 305T and XL30 (when it arrives) to show the full gamut of these size screens. A LOT of folks are commenting that the increased color gamut isn't all that noticeable or useful due partially to a lack of good standards on the pc side to utilize that gamut. 120hz is going to happen faster to smaller displays (sorry) because a DVI-D might have enough bandwidth to drive lower res at double the refresh. I'm not perfectly familiary with the overhead needs, but the bandwidth will be there first, not first in larger displays and moving down. This again points to the use of a 32" 1080P 120hz screen utilizing a card that had HDMI 1.3 output as your fastest way of getting to the 120hz goodness if that is what you seek. Otherwise you'll have to wait a few years.
Core things that need to happen to 30" in general:
400-450 brightness
OSD's
Scaling chips and alternate/multiple inputs
LED backlights (as practical - and not for the gamut increased but the better contrast ratio, screen uniformity and lifespan)
Faster and more consistent (better profiled acceleration) TrTf and GtG speeds
Color accuracy and grey accuracy put ahead of gamut changes. Meaning gamut is useful to a small degree, but the end user is going to appreciate careful color filters and lcd pixel (gray) accuracy more than just increased gamut.
Loved reading these article, because you don't just cover the 30's or the newest 2407 but also the older models, so people can see if the "switch up" is worth the $$.
Thanks!
AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Thanks so much for the review. But I gotta give criticism on the timing, since this is perhaps the best computer display ever, and you waited over 4 months after it came out to review it. Yet when it comes to video cards or CPUs, you review them immediately, sometimes before they're even released! A display is equally important to those components.JarredWalton - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
If you look at our display reviews, you'll notice that we only recently started doing these again. The first recent display review was in late February, and since then we've been trying to grow the display reviews section aggressively. Hopefully we will get future displays around launch time, now that we're recommitted to the section. Not surprisingly, HP wasn't really pushing to get us a 30" LCD for a launch-date review when we hadn't covered any LCDs recently. :)chakarov - Friday, March 23, 2007 - link
In your review you say that there isn't much difference between HP's LP3065 and old Dell 3007 WFP. While this would be very informative for some people a few weeks ago now this information is of no value any more because now Dell is selling only their new model 3007 WFP-HC which is comparative in price to LP3065.Now people should decide between support, design, one or three DVI connectors and price.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 24, 2007 - link
I thought that was the point I made (second paragraph, page 2) - that the new 3007WFP-HC is basically the same panel as the HP model. It's also why I recommend the HP over the Dell, as the multiple inputs seems like a lot more value added than a flash reader, and the price is now the same. (If you can find the older 3007WFP for less money, that's definitely a good choice as well!)AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, March 24, 2007 - link
chakarov's point is that the late-ness of this review is especially critical because there's apparently not much difference between the LP3065 ($1700) and the original 3007WFP ($1274); but a week ago Dell stopped selling that and now only offers a $1700 30" model. It would have been nice to know there's hardly any difference between 11/1/06 and 3/20/07.But again, thanks for doing the review and it's great =)
Oh btw, the HC can be had for $1430+tax if you buy through Dell's small business outlet.
Sceptor - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Buy this and use three 19" or 20" LCD's and get surround gaming and multi monitor support for almost the same price...now DVI.http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/products/th2...">Multi LCD Goodness!!
Just my 2 cents...
AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Here's 3 more reasons: watching movies, Photoshopping in full screen, and having 1600 vertical pixels to view webpages or write code with.JarredWalton - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
There are several reasons to get a single large LCD instead of multiple smaller LCDs. First, panel quality is going to be a factor, although you should be able to find very good quality 19" LCDs. Second, some people just hate having a black "gap" in their display area. Third, widescreen gaming has become more common, but there are still plenty of games that don't properly support widescreen resolutions. Consider DICE's Battlefield series -- all of them -- where they crop the resolution on widescreen outputs. If you were to run Battlefield 2 at 3840x1024 (assuming it would even work at all), you would probably end up with 3840x2880 and the game would crop the top and bottom 928 pixels!Matrox has a list of http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/products/th2...">supported games, and not surprisingly none of the Battlefield games show up. In fact, there are a whole lot of games that aren't listed. Personal preference obviously plays a part, but I would rather have one large LCD than three smaller LCDs. If you disagree and are interested in surround gaming, by all means consider the Matrox TripleHead2Go.