Response Times
A topic that almost always comes up as a problem with LCDs is their slower response times relative to CRTs. There's no doubt that even the best LCDs still exhibit some slight pixel smearing, but the vast majority of users are okay with the level of performance we have available now. Image retention on your retinas also occurs to some extent, so even if you can completely eliminate the smearing effect at the display level you won't necessarily "see" a perfectly crisp transition.
Besides lag at the pixel level, there's also potential for buffering lag within the LCD's image processor before anything is ever sent to the panel for output. This can be particularly noticeable on some HDTVs when connected to a computer, as HDTVs will often do a significant amount of image processing. Whether or not delays are caused by the internal circuitry or by the LCD crystal matrix taking a moment to align itself isn't really important; the end result is what matters, so a display that updates quicker is usually preferred, especially by gamers. However, taking a picture of a display using a high shutter speed still isn't the same as looking at the display in person. LCDs run at a refresh rate of 60 Hz, and we use a shutter speed of 1/60s, the net result being that we will capture an image of the display as it appears over a short period of time as opposed to an instantaneous look at the state of the various pixels.
We have compared previous LCDs to the Dell 2407WFP to determine if there was any additional buffering taking place. Unfortunately, we were unable to perform the same testing with the HP w2207 at this time, so we will have to stick with a picture only showing that display without a baseline comparison to the 2407WFP. Links to previous response time images can be found below.
Acer AL2216W #1 Acer AL2216W #2
Dell 2405FPW #1 Dell 2405FPW #2
Dell 2707WFP #1 Dell 2707WFP #2
Dell 3007WFP #1 Dell 3007WFP #2
Gateway FPD2485W #1
HP LP3065 #1 HP LP3065 #2
The advertised response time of the HP w2207 is "5ms on/off", or if you prefer 10ms TrTf (Time rising/Time falling). HP doesn't specifically list a gray to gray response time, but as the figure is more marketing than anything we might as well call it 5ms GTG. Judging by the pictures that we captured, we can see portions of at least three frames. Accounting for shutter lag and pixel lag, the actual pixel response time is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16-25ms. While that might sound like a lot, for the vast majority of people it won't present any problem, and when actually using the w2207 we felt it was about the same as most of the other LCDs we've reviewed. As always, if you're one of those the people who feel more susceptible to noticing image lag, you might want to check out the display in person at one of the larger retailers before making a purchase.
A topic that almost always comes up as a problem with LCDs is their slower response times relative to CRTs. There's no doubt that even the best LCDs still exhibit some slight pixel smearing, but the vast majority of users are okay with the level of performance we have available now. Image retention on your retinas also occurs to some extent, so even if you can completely eliminate the smearing effect at the display level you won't necessarily "see" a perfectly crisp transition.
Besides lag at the pixel level, there's also potential for buffering lag within the LCD's image processor before anything is ever sent to the panel for output. This can be particularly noticeable on some HDTVs when connected to a computer, as HDTVs will often do a significant amount of image processing. Whether or not delays are caused by the internal circuitry or by the LCD crystal matrix taking a moment to align itself isn't really important; the end result is what matters, so a display that updates quicker is usually preferred, especially by gamers. However, taking a picture of a display using a high shutter speed still isn't the same as looking at the display in person. LCDs run at a refresh rate of 60 Hz, and we use a shutter speed of 1/60s, the net result being that we will capture an image of the display as it appears over a short period of time as opposed to an instantaneous look at the state of the various pixels.
We have compared previous LCDs to the Dell 2407WFP to determine if there was any additional buffering taking place. Unfortunately, we were unable to perform the same testing with the HP w2207 at this time, so we will have to stick with a picture only showing that display without a baseline comparison to the 2407WFP. Links to previous response time images can be found below.
Acer AL2216W #1 Acer AL2216W #2
Dell 2405FPW #1 Dell 2405FPW #2
Dell 2707WFP #1 Dell 2707WFP #2
Dell 3007WFP #1 Dell 3007WFP #2
Gateway FPD2485W #1
HP LP3065 #1 HP LP3065 #2
 |
The advertised response time of the HP w2207 is "5ms on/off", or if you prefer 10ms TrTf (Time rising/Time falling). HP doesn't specifically list a gray to gray response time, but as the figure is more marketing than anything we might as well call it 5ms GTG. Judging by the pictures that we captured, we can see portions of at least three frames. Accounting for shutter lag and pixel lag, the actual pixel response time is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16-25ms. While that might sound like a lot, for the vast majority of people it won't present any problem, and when actually using the w2207 we felt it was about the same as most of the other LCDs we've reviewed. As always, if you're one of those the people who feel more susceptible to noticing image lag, you might want to check out the display in person at one of the larger retailers before making a purchase.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
Dantzig - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
I recently picked one of these up for $360 - 10% off coupon + tax at Circuit City. The final price was about $340 which I feel is very competitive when compared to the Samsung 226BW/CW. I could have purchased a 226BW for slightly less and had to wait for it to be shipped and played the panel lottery or spent more for the 226CW which doesn't have a high gloss screen and has an annoying silver bar on the bottom of the display frame.It's just simply a beautiful monitor. I switched my home monitor from a Dell 2005FPW with an S-IPS panel to the HP and took the Dell to work. While I know that the HP uses a 6-bit panel, the colors look better to me than those of the 2005FPW. The different in response time is definitely noticeable while gaming and moving mouse pointers quickly around the screen.
If you're in the market for a 22" widescreen display with a TN panel, this is the one to get.
zemane - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Isn't 4:3 the standard aspect ratio?
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
Yes, for everything but your typical 1280x1024 (5:4) 19" LCDs. There are some 4:3 19" displays (1400x1050 resolution), but most are 5:4.Bonesdad - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Consider the Acer AL2051W if you want to do a MVA panel review. I just bought one for $190 on Newegg and am very pleased so far. Fantastic viewing angle, stated at 176 degrees and from the looks of it, its not far off. A bit of backlight bleeding, but not out of the ordinary. This is an excellent panel for the price.Pirks - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
there are two nice 28" monitors at newegg, see models aboveboth are about $650 which is dirt cheap for 28"
could you guys do a review of one of those, or even both?
I'm sure EVERYBODY would be interested!
these two seem like a huge hit, they just BLOW dell's 27" panels
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I asked for one from ViewSonic at one point. I don't recall why we didn't get one - we've been working on getting a ViewSonic contact. As far as quality, a few people are saying that they use a TN panel, so they certainly wouldn't be as good as stuff like the 27" Dell (which uses PVA). That would probably account for the lower price as well -- at least somewhat.CSMR - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Great to have the detailed light/dark/contrast measurements at different brightness settings. Good work.augiem - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
Thank you so much for including viewing angle pictures! I can't tell you how important this aspect of a monitor is to me. Doing graphics work, TN panels are simply unusable because of the vertical viewing angle issues. This is the first site I've seen do photographic comparisons and it's AWESOME! :)zero2dash - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
We bought this w2207 a few weeks ago to replace 2 aging 21" Trinitron CRTs...one that has a "too bright" problem (despite brightness being 0) and another in which the red gun is going out (causing the monitor to have 'red seizures').This monitor is great.
Originally I was going to get a 226BW but I didn't want to bother with getting one panel over another (ie trying to find an S panel but getting a C instead). The glossy coating on the w2207 makes it even better, even though (as mentioned) it's a PITA to keep it clean and clean it when it's dirty/dusty. Seems like it takes 5 minutes to completely clean the screen with a damp cloth and have it come out clean but without any dust at the same time.
That being said...I highly recommend this monitor. When we bought ours, it was on sale for $339 at Sears; a week later, it was down to $249 (and I called and got the $90 credit). Wish I would've had the money then to buy a 2nd for that price. =)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
If you could find this on sale for $250, it would definitely be a no-brainer. At current prices, you'll have to think about it a bit more. It may very well be the best 22" monitor on the market, but I would take a 24" Gateway over it (even with the higher cost).