Subjective Evaluation
As usual, we spent some time using the display both before and after calibration. Many users don't have access to color calibration tools, while for imaging professionals some form of hardware calibration is pretty much required. We will start with our subjective evaluation before getting to the actual quantitative results.
A funny thing happened during our testing of the HP w2207. We hooked it up to a laptop, since that was most convenient - a laptop we hadn't used with previous LCDs. Our initial impressions of the w2207 were, frankly, horrible! Colors were off, text didn't appear as clear as it should, and even after calibration we felt that the display really had nothing good to offer compared to previous LCDs that we've used. Using a VGA connection from the laptop was even worse. However, we noticed some distortion that was being caused by the laptop at that point, so we decided to go back and retest using a different laptop.
We've always felt that DVI connections are all basically the same - they're digital, so there shouldn't be any concern of signal degradation, right? That's the theory anyway. In practice, all we can say for certain is that the display outputs on the ASUS G2P laptop we were initially using apparently have serious problems. The difference between what the display looked like with that laptop and what it looked like when attached to a different laptop was astonishing! So, if you have an LCD and image quality/clarity isn't what you would expect (particularly with a DVI connection), you might want to try hooking it up to a different graphics card or computer before determining that the problem lies with the LCD.
Once things were running properly, we were quite happy with the w2207. Brightness, colors, contrast, and response times were all what we would expect to see in a modern LCD - particularly in a 22" LCD that costs almost 50% more than competing 22" models. Black levels and contrast ratios in particular are better than what we've seen in other LCDs. Was the LCD significantly better overall? Not to the point that we would immediately recommend it over competing offerings, but the construction of the stand and main panel is clearly an order of magnitude better than the cheap plastic used on the Acer AL2216W. Unfortunately, the propensity for dust and fingerprints to collect on the surface of the monitor was definitely a strike against it.
Another potential concern we noticed is that the ability of the display to scale non-native resolutions up to 1680x1050 wasn't all that great. Lower resolutions fared a bit better, but 1440x900 in particular looked very poor. We of course recommend that anyone using an LCD try to run at the native resolution if at all possible; for certain content (gaming or movies) the poor scaling was not as noticeable, but surfing the web or working in office applications is not something we would want to do at anything other than 1680x1050. Luckily, that shouldn't be a problem for any computer built in the past five years.
Except where noted, the remaining tests were run after calibrating the displays using Monaco Optix XR, both the professional version of the software as well as an XR (DTP-94) colorimeter. In some of the tests calibration can have a dramatic impact on the result, but viewing angles and response times remain largely unchanged. We also performed testing with ColorEyes Display Pro, although the overall results were better when using Monaco Optix XR - more on this in a moment.
As usual, we spent some time using the display both before and after calibration. Many users don't have access to color calibration tools, while for imaging professionals some form of hardware calibration is pretty much required. We will start with our subjective evaluation before getting to the actual quantitative results.
A funny thing happened during our testing of the HP w2207. We hooked it up to a laptop, since that was most convenient - a laptop we hadn't used with previous LCDs. Our initial impressions of the w2207 were, frankly, horrible! Colors were off, text didn't appear as clear as it should, and even after calibration we felt that the display really had nothing good to offer compared to previous LCDs that we've used. Using a VGA connection from the laptop was even worse. However, we noticed some distortion that was being caused by the laptop at that point, so we decided to go back and retest using a different laptop.
We've always felt that DVI connections are all basically the same - they're digital, so there shouldn't be any concern of signal degradation, right? That's the theory anyway. In practice, all we can say for certain is that the display outputs on the ASUS G2P laptop we were initially using apparently have serious problems. The difference between what the display looked like with that laptop and what it looked like when attached to a different laptop was astonishing! So, if you have an LCD and image quality/clarity isn't what you would expect (particularly with a DVI connection), you might want to try hooking it up to a different graphics card or computer before determining that the problem lies with the LCD.
Once things were running properly, we were quite happy with the w2207. Brightness, colors, contrast, and response times were all what we would expect to see in a modern LCD - particularly in a 22" LCD that costs almost 50% more than competing 22" models. Black levels and contrast ratios in particular are better than what we've seen in other LCDs. Was the LCD significantly better overall? Not to the point that we would immediately recommend it over competing offerings, but the construction of the stand and main panel is clearly an order of magnitude better than the cheap plastic used on the Acer AL2216W. Unfortunately, the propensity for dust and fingerprints to collect on the surface of the monitor was definitely a strike against it.
Another potential concern we noticed is that the ability of the display to scale non-native resolutions up to 1680x1050 wasn't all that great. Lower resolutions fared a bit better, but 1440x900 in particular looked very poor. We of course recommend that anyone using an LCD try to run at the native resolution if at all possible; for certain content (gaming or movies) the poor scaling was not as noticeable, but surfing the web or working in office applications is not something we would want to do at anything other than 1680x1050. Luckily, that shouldn't be a problem for any computer built in the past five years.
Except where noted, the remaining tests were run after calibrating the displays using Monaco Optix XR, both the professional version of the software as well as an XR (DTP-94) colorimeter. In some of the tests calibration can have a dramatic impact on the result, but viewing angles and response times remain largely unchanged. We also performed testing with ColorEyes Display Pro, although the overall results were better when using Monaco Optix XR - more on this in a moment.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
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.