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 beyond a 45° angle. The good news is we doubt that most people will 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 2707WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
HP LP3065
Before we get to comments on the w2207 viewing angles, we do need to make a note of the fact that we have adjusted the settings on our camera slightly in order to provide a more accurate rendition of what we see with our eyes when looking at the LCDs. The results are not exactly the same as in previous LCD reviews, but they are generally close. We recommend that you focus more on the LCD currently being reviewed, as the above images are not a strict apples-to-apples comparison.
Within our 60° viewing arc, the colors and image quality of the w2207 clearly betrays the use of a TN panel. There are differences between the Acer and HP, and we generally felt that the HP looked a bit better in vertical viewing while the Acer is better in the horizontal plane. Regardless, both are clearly behind any of the other LCDs that we've looked at so far. If you're concerned with viewing angles but you don't want to spend the money on a 24" or larger LCD, we would recommend dropping down to a 20" offering that uses an S-IPS or S-PVA panel. Both of those technologies provide much better viewing angles, as you can gather from the above images.
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 beyond a 45° angle. The good news is we doubt that most people will 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 2707WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
HP LP3065
 |
Before we get to comments on the w2207 viewing angles, we do need to make a note of the fact that we have adjusted the settings on our camera slightly in order to provide a more accurate rendition of what we see with our eyes when looking at the LCDs. The results are not exactly the same as in previous LCD reviews, but they are generally close. We recommend that you focus more on the LCD currently being reviewed, as the above images are not a strict apples-to-apples comparison.
Within our 60° viewing arc, the colors and image quality of the w2207 clearly betrays the use of a TN panel. There are differences between the Acer and HP, and we generally felt that the HP looked a bit better in vertical viewing while the Acer is better in the horizontal plane. Regardless, both are clearly behind any of the other LCDs that we've looked at so far. If you're concerned with viewing angles but you don't want to spend the money on a 24" or larger LCD, we would recommend dropping down to a 20" offering that uses an S-IPS or S-PVA panel. Both of those technologies provide much better viewing angles, as you can gather from the above images.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
jc44 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Initially that would have been the approx asking price (medical applicatinos I think). They got cheaper as time went on though they were never exactly cheap. The Viewsonic (VP2290B) and Iiyama badged versions got under ~$7000 I think (which was approx twice the price on an Apple 30" at the time). Currently a DG5 (the last iteration) goes for ~$3500 on ebay and a VP2290B is ~$1000.The T221 was the first monitor that made me think "The best LCDs are btter than the best CRTs - now they only have to get cheap enough".
I was really hoping that they would take off and the price would come down to something like the current ebay prices. (And yes I did buy off ebay in the end)
Great Googly Moogly - Friday, August 3, 2007 - link
Aye, they're pretty damn cool. I've yet to see one in the flesh though. You still have to have 2 dual-link cards with it though? Doesn't it use 4 single-link connectors?And isn't the 48 Hz data rate (all 4 links) OK enough? (Yeah yeah, TFTs don't have refresh rates, I know, but there are other ramifications of a slow data rate.)
yacoub - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Not sure why 22" is starting to become prominent over 20". Must be cheaper to produce because tolerances and processes don't have to be as tight, since they're the same resolution just a larger (and thus more visible) pixel pitch on the 22" (0.282mm). Would rather stick with a 20", or if I want bigger then I'd get a 23-24" with 1920x resolution.Jedi2155 - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
When comparing TN 20" versus a 22" panel with around $50 difference, i'd definitely go for the 22" mainly due to the larger screen space which makes games and movies more life-like.Sure the resolution hasn't changed, but why do people buy big screens with lower resolutions anyways? Just to get the bigger picture of course.
Oh, I also think there is a typo on Page 5 at the last paragraph.
You mentioned
But shouldn't it be
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I corrected the Acer/Acer sentence -- HP seemed to be a bit better in the vertical plane. Things for the comment.nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think the difference is that if you buy an 70" HDTV, you're not sitting as close as you are if you have a 42". Besides, a smaller TV with accurate colors trumps a big POS set with crap colors (and I've seen some awful HD monitors).
As a result, if the colors are better on the 20", I'd go with a 20".
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think a lot of the better 20" LCDs were IPS or PVA, which might account for the prices as well. Dell I'm pretty sure was IPS on the 2005FP (and FPW?). I think the cheaper 20" LCDs are now also using TN panels. Could be that they can only get the same amount of 22" or 20" panels out of a modern glass substrate, though... I haven't looked into it closely.Spoelie - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
P-MVA and A-MVA are disregarded in the article, even though they are among the best 'overal' monitor technologies, for 20" at least. Second fastest response time, 8 bit color, best movie picture quality, homogeneous viewing angles. It's superior to PVA anyway.JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I thought MVA and PVA were similar and only certain patents created separate names. Guess not. :) I have never actually tested an MVA panel to my knowledge, and most high-end panels use IPS these days. The next tier uses PVA, and then the lower quality stuff uses TN. The one of the days, though, I will hopefully get the chance to test an MVA panel in person.mostlyprudent - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I have been using an HP LP series LCD which uses (at least when I bought it) an S-IPS panel. I could never go back to a TN or other panel with less acurate color display.