Dell 2707WFP: Looking for the Middle Ground of Large LCDs
by Jarred Walton on April 4, 2007 10:00 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 a 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 beyond a 45° angle. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more than a 45° angle, and typically a lot less. For that reason, 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
Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors and image quality of the 2707WFP are very good, but we can say the same about most of the other LCDs. We would rate the 2707WFP as being slightly ahead within a 60° arc, but it's when you move beyond a 30° angle that it begins to pull ahead of the other displays. We would put this display right up there with the HP LP3065 for having the best overall viewing angle. Certainly, it's more than sufficient for use from any reasonable viewing position - after all, we doubt that anyone would really want to look at a display from an oblique 80° angle.
Color Gradients
Taking a look at the ability to reproduce a smooth color gradient on all of the displays, the 2707WFP again does very well, subjectively ranking at the top of our charts. Those interested in comparing the display to previously tested LCDs 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, but the 2707WFP appeared to be just slightly better than the 3007WFP and LP3065. Prior to calibration, many of the results were worse, with clear banding visible in various portions of Futuremark's 3DMark benchmarks. Using a camera to photograph each display is not a perfect way to convey color accuracy or many other aspects of a display, so the above images should merely be taken as a rough estimate, and our evaluation is based on what we could actually see with our eyes. If you're concerned about color and image quality, the only real way to see the difference is to view a display in person.
Viewing angles are one of those specifications that have become very inflated by the manufacturers. The basic requirement is that a 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 beyond a 45° angle. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more than a 45° angle, and typically a lot less. For that reason, 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
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors and image quality of the 2707WFP are very good, but we can say the same about most of the other LCDs. We would rate the 2707WFP as being slightly ahead within a 60° arc, but it's when you move beyond a 30° angle that it begins to pull ahead of the other displays. We would put this display right up there with the HP LP3065 for having the best overall viewing angle. Certainly, it's more than sufficient for use from any reasonable viewing position - after all, we doubt that anyone would really want to look at a display from an oblique 80° angle.
Color Gradients
Taking a look at the ability to reproduce a smooth color gradient on all of the displays, the 2707WFP again does very well, subjectively ranking at the top of our charts. Those interested in comparing the display to previously tested LCDs can open their gradient images via the following links:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
HP LP3065
 |
| Click to enlarge |
It's difficult to say which display is the best, but the 2707WFP appeared to be just slightly better than the 3007WFP and LP3065. Prior to calibration, many of the results were worse, with clear banding visible in various portions of Futuremark's 3DMark benchmarks. Using a camera to photograph each display is not a perfect way to convey color accuracy or many other aspects of a display, so the above images should merely be taken as a rough estimate, and our evaluation is based on what we could actually see with our eyes. If you're concerned about color and image quality, the only real way to see the difference is to view a display in person.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
A perfect example of stuff that doesn't look right with a higher DPI setting is anything that uses a bitmap. All of the icons at 120dpi tend to look like crud in XP. There are just far too many areas of Windows and the applications that run on it that are built around pixel sizes, so changing DPI settings only sort of affects them.Anyway, the point isn't whether or not higher DPI is good or bad. You like it, others don't. That's the main idea behind that introduction: an explanation of why higher pixel pitch can be a good thing. I really do have poor vision (an irregular astigmatism that can't be corrected without a retina transplant, so I live with slight double vision). I find many of the high DPI screens to be undesirable, although I do like higher resolutions for image work.
kalrith - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
Since we're discussing pixel pitch and poor eyesight, I thought I'd mention that one of my coworkers has such poor vision that he's using a 21" LCD at 800x600 resolution and thinks it's "just right".Also, out of the 10 19" LCDs we have, only one person runs hers at the native res. Everyone else uses 1024x768.
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
This is one reason why I "downgraded" (the rest of the specs are similar, other than that I also shaved 2 pounds of weight) from a laptop with a 15" 1600x1200 UXGA display to a 14" 1024x768 XGA display. At 15", picture detail was incredible, but text for web browsing was giving me sore eyes and headaches. I wouldn't mind having 1280x1024 at 14" or 15", but since I'm not paying for it, beggars can't be choosers.It's also why I returned my Dell 2007WFP and exchanged it for a 2407WFP. Higher resolution, but larger pixel pitch as well.
kmmatney - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
I'm another person who likes big pixels. Work tried to give me a 17" LCD, but I would have none of that. I then tried a 21" Samsung at 1600 x 1200, but it was still too small. Now I have a 20" LCD running native at 1400 x 1050 and its really nice. I have a laptop with small pixels that I use when I travel, but I'm much more productive when I can see everything clearly.I would love to have this display, but it really needs to come down in price.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
my vision is awful uncorrected - way beyond not being able to see the big "E". But since I'm always wearing glasses or contacts anyway I like high-DPI displays. Love my thinkpad with the SXGA 15" display. The UXGA 15" would probably be hard to read though.My boss has a ~20" CRT that he runs at either 800x600 or 1024x768.
jc44 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
OK - I admit it - I'm stunned. With the exception of your colleague with the poor eyesight I find it hard to conceive how anyone would prefer (presumably) a slightly fuzzy (due to scaling artifacts) 1024x768 to a sharp 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD. I could simply not put enough information on the screen to be able to do my job at that resolution without resorting to a lot of printouts.Well horses for courses I guess - thanks
JC
xsilver - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link
lol - the amount of people that have their lcd monitors set to non native resolutions is insanely funny.but even more insanely funny is how many people say they cant see anything wrong with the scaling artifacts and fuzziness.
I haven't done much (any) testing on this in gaming though - is the distortion just as bad in gaming when running a non native res? getting a 20" lcd or above these days has pretty much required a high end graphics card to be purchased if any gaming wants to be done if you want to run native res.
still prefer crt atm myself but I realize it will be inevitable that i'll have to make the switch and need to figure out some options.
mitchell123 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link
hello FriendsThios is a nice article.......for everyone...........
==============
Mitchell
Tommyguns - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
19" Viewsonic lcd here. you guessed it. 1024x768 and it suits me just fine. not that i have bad eyes at age 22 or anything, i just like being able to clearly see everything. I game hard as well and it works out just fine. i do have it in clone mode going to an aux 17inch crt thats about 20 feet away. higher res. is nice, but i prefer big letters, with out the squints sometimes.it would be nice to know what is around average in terms of gpu's, to be able to use these larger lcd's. average wasnt always a super highend 8xxx series card.