BenQ E2200HD and E2400HD - 1080P FullHD LCDs
by Jarred Walton on November 4, 2008 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
BenQ E2400HD Specifications
| BenQ E2400HD Specifications | |
| Video Inputs | DVI with HDCP support HDMI Analog (VGA) |
| Panel Type | TN (Unknown Manufacturer) |
| Pixel Pitch | 0.276mm |
| Colors | 16.7 million (6-bit with dithering/interpolation) |
| Brightness | 300 cd/m2 |
| Contrast Ratio | 1000:1 10000:1 Dynamic |
| Response Time | 5ms, 2ms GTG |
| Viewable Size | 24" diagonal |
| Resolution | 1920x1080 (1080P) |
| Viewing Angle | 170 horizontal/160 vertical |
| Power Consumption | <57W max stated 43W max, 16W min measured |
| Power Savings | <2W |
| Screen Treatment | Matte (non-glossy) |
| Height-Adjustable | No |
| Tilt | Yes - 20 degrees back/5 degrees forward |
| Pivot | No |
| Swivel | No |
| VESA Wall Mounting | 100mm x 100mm |
| Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) | 22.94" x 17.76" x 7.77" (WxHxD) |
| Weight w/ Stand | 15.4 lbs. |
| Additional Features | None |
| Audio | 2 x 1W Speakers Audio in, Line out |
| Limited Warranty | 3-year limited warranty, M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM PST |
| Accessories | VGA cable, audio input cable, driver CD |
| Price | Online starting at ~$350 |
Déjà vu. Given the price, it should come as no surprise that this is also a 24" LCD with a TN panel. Once again, that means viewing angles are worse than other panel technologies, but with less input lag compared to S-PVA panels. The only difference other than price, size, and weight is power requirements, but that goes along with the larger backlight and panel.
The on-screen display (OSD) for the E2400HD is virtually the same as the E2200HD, with one or two minor differences. However, while most of the options are the same, the resulting functionality is different. Specifically, support for non-native resolutions was substantially better on the E2200HD for whatever reason. Perhaps the E2400HD we received didn't come with the latest firmware installed. Anyway, you get the same brightness, contrast, aspect ratio, color correction, and several preset viewing settings. Again we found that using the "Standard" viewing mode and "Normal" color gave the most pleasing experience, and we avoided using dynamic contrast. Let's look at the OSD menus.
All of the OSD functionality is the same, with only two changes we noticed. First, the E2200HD has a setting where you can enable/disable AMA (Advanced Motion Accelerator). AMA is supposed to improve pixel response times by overdriving state changes, resulting in a 2ms GTG (Grey to Grey) response time. We didn't notice any significant difference, but perhaps our eyes are just too old/slow [Ed: Go easy on him - he just turned 35 last week…]. The other change is in the scaling options, where the E2400HD offers "Full", "16:9", and "4:3" as well as the ability to enable an overscan mode on certain resolutions. Here is a summary of our resolution testing results for all three inputs:
| BenQ E2400HD Resolution and Input Notes | |||
| DVI | HDMI | VGA | |
| 800x600 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1024x768 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1152x864 | Yes | Wrong AR | Yes |
| 1280x720 | Wrong AR (Hor. Stretch), no Fill | Wrong AR (sometimes) | Always Fill |
| 1280x800 | Always Fill | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x960 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x1024 | 4:3 AR | 4:3 AR | 4:3 AR |
| 1440x900 | Always Fill | Hor. Stretch/Overscan | Always Fill |
| 1600x1200 | Interference / Non-functional | Yes | Yes |
| 1680x1050 | Always Fill | Hor. Stretch/Overscan | Always Fill |
| 1920x1080 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Clearly there are some differences in how the two LCDs handle non-native resolutions, and the E2200HD is by far superior. Native resolution worked without difficulty, naturally, but on the HDMI input quite a few of the resolutions were stretched horizontally. All the 16:10 AR resolutions would either fill the whole LCD or else overscan in the horizontal dimension -- so the left and right parts of the display weren't visible. Several other resolutions had an incorrect aspect ratio, for example 1280x1024 used a 4:3 ratio instead of 5:4, regardless of the choice of video input. On our DVI input, 1600x1200 failed to work properly on at least one system, with static and a message on the display indicating that the signal was out of range. Finally, quite a few resolutions didn't allow any changes to the aspect ratio setting, defaulting to filling the whole screen -- although that's not as bad as some of the other issues we encountered.
What's somewhat odd is that resolution support is dependent upon more than the LCD panel and scaler, and there were other systems where we encountered different resolution issues. For example, a couple laptops refused to support higher resolutions using HDMI. We're hesitant to blame BenQ on issues like that, but using the same test systems we did feel the E2200HD was the better option for resolution support.
Outside of resolution support problems, the built-in resolution scaler works well, just like the E2200HD. Again, results are better for resolutions that are at least 33% lower than the native resolution -- so 1440x900 and lower look decent. Overall, the VGA input offered the best support for non-native resolutions, but that's the least desirable input choice for signal quality. Whatever the cause, BenQ should look into applying some of the firmware microcode from the E2200HD to the E2400HD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
10e - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Keep in mind, that if you set 1:1 pixel mapping on your video card whether ATI or nVidia, both of these monitors will display 1:1 with black borders. 1680x1050 works perfectly as do other resolutions. To me this is the only reason you need 1:1 pixel mapping, and if the monitor supports it, it's not a big issue if it is not explicitly stated in the menus.A PS3 is a good benchmark here, and if the monitor was set to 1:1 you would get a full screen XMB/dashboard, and most games, running at 720p would display a tiny image with large black borders elsewhere. This is why proper aspect ratio scaling is important.
Additionally, for the seldomly used 480p resolution, the monitor can simply be set to stretch to full screen so that this content is displayed at proper aspect ratio.
I would say 1:1 pixel mapping in all cases is more useful for 16:10 monitors as opposed to 16:9.
wicko - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
One problem I've had with TN panels is that under certain conditions in a game I've noticed a strange artifacting appear. It is most obvious under Source engine games, like Lost Coast, HL2, CS:S, but also noticeable in other games and even in movies. In the game, to reproduce it all you have to do is look at the sky and move the mouse around at varying speeds, and pay attention to the clouds. I noticed this magenta colouring appear in the silhouette of the cloud in the position it used to be, and then it will quickly disappear. Sometimes its other colours, it depends on whats being displayed. I've noticed this in movies (in the latest Bourne movie with the fight where he pistol whips the guy in the end) and in games. I think it was really bad in Quake 4, the part where you're launched into the air in a pod, and fog is rushing past, you can see a strange discolouring going on. Not sure what this is called, I haven't been able to find any info about this. I've noticed it with 3 different monitors with TN panels (a year or two ago) and since I've bought an LG panel with 5ms response time (not sure which panel) I haven't been able to reproduce it. Can anyone tell me what that artifacting is called, and do these new BenQ monitors have the same issue?JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
It may have simply been an issue where the transitions between colors ended up with some image persistence that looked weird. You can see in the lag/response time images that there's an afterimage on moving objects, which ends up being half way between what was there last frame and what will be there in the next frame. It's likely that in some instances the half way point looks magenta.Some people call this "smearing", others "ghosting", or "motion blur". I call it image persistence I guess.
wicko - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I think this is a little different. I've seen ghosting before, and I was under the impression that low response time monitors don't have that issue. You only see this situation occur with certain colours, otherwise its completely unnoticeable.JonnyDough - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
Whatever you choose to call it, in my experience 5ms or < = none of it. On 8ms monitors it is still noticeable. My advice when buying a monitor is to shoot for integrated no speakers, HDMI, 1080P, matte finish on the screen and bezel, and at a 2ms response time. Also, anything under 21.5" is a waste of time in my opinion. A 19" or 20" monitor will suit many people just fine. I use Samsung Monitors and I think they're fantastic. I have the 204B and the 215tw, both of which have served me well with only one dead pixel in 4 yrs. I got the 20" for gaming with a 2ms response time, and the 22" (8ms response time) because it has component jacks. The only downsides are that I bought them as HDCP and HDMI were just coming into fruition, and that the 215tw has some worthless speakers which not only contribute to a rise in the cost of the product, but the weight and size of it too.wicko - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
Like i said, I've only seen this occur with 2ms panels. 2 of them were samsung (I can't remember what the models were) and another was the Viewsonic Vx922 (although there was considerably less of that happening to the VX922, a much higher end panel than the samsungs). On the LG, a 5ms panel, I haven't noticed this problem, which leads me to believe that its *not* ghosting. I've seen ghosting before. The whole screen kind of slides around, and its more obvious in darker areas. However, this only happens with certain colors, as far as I could tell, and they were all light colours.MadMan007 - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
The ms ratings of monitors is pretty often bs anyway. The overdrive required to get the fast speeds you mentioned can be done well or poorly, it sounds like the ones that had the problem were done poorly.Gizmonty - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I bought an E2400HD about a month ago (in Australia) and it came with a DVI cable as well as a VGA cable. I've been very happy with it.Slash3 - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Regarding the lack of 1:1 mapping, it can still come in quite handy for people who sometimes play older games, which commonly supported resolutions no higher than 1280x1024. With 1:1 mapping, this would result in a very close vertical fit, as intended (albeit with the unavoidable black bars on the left and right). Having to stretch the image to what amounts to 28 pixels in each direction (up and down) will result in reduced image quality with no perceived gain in size. This won't affect all users, but it is certainly a feature which separates the quality displays from the budget models.For 1280x720 content, scaling to fit is the obvious solution, as the aspect ratio is unchanged. That said, it's always nice to have the option. Sometimes, the pixels should only go where they're intended to be.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Agreed... which is why I list it, but at the same time it's not quite as critical as getting the AR correct with stretching (at least if the user asks for it). 1:1 is just a nice extra, which is becoming less necessary as time goes by. If it's there, though, bonus points. :)