ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

HP L2335: Low Response Time and High Resolution LCD

 by Kristopher Kubicki on July 8, 2005 7:00 AM EST
49 Comments | Add A Comment
49 Comments

Final Words

Spending $1000 on a computer component is often hard to swallow. Although, if you're going to spend that much, in our opinion, a display is the only component that could justify the cost. Gaming at 1920x1200, watching native 1080p, or PIP a native 480p component signal with a Word document are just phenomenal reasons to use a widescreen display like the HP L2335. Try to do any of those things with your $1000 CPU and $50 17" CRT.

HP brought a lot to the table today. Virtually all of the features from the Dell 2005FPW also show up in this display, but unlike the Dell 2405FPW, HP uses a SIPS LG.Philips LCD panel. Picture in Picture, multiple inputs and signal zoom are all features on Dell's enthusiast displays right now, so the fact that HP included them in their 23" model puts both the 2405FPW and the L2335 on the same page at least - with the exception of split screen. However, the Dell 2405FPW has two major differences; first, it only costs $840 on sale (usually) and second, it uses a slightly larger, but slower response time panel (Samsung claims 8ms transient response time, but occasionally, this is just clever marketing rather than a true TrTf or Gray to Gray number). While the price difference may not be warranted, anyone who has compared a display like the Samsung 213T versus the Dell 2005FPW should be able to tell the difference between a PVA and a SIPS panel; and if you happen to not feel comfortable with PVA displays, HP has the best option between 20" and 30" displays.

Overall, great work by HP for picking up the LG.Philips LCD lineup when Dell did not. The HP L2335 is more expensive than Dell's larger 2405FPW offering, but HP packs the same features with a SIPS panel. If you want something a little bigger than the 2005FPW yet don't want to compromise display mode, the HP L2335 is really the best ultra enthusiast display out there.

Subjective Analysis
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

49 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gatak - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link

    #32

    You are still wrong. A TFT need 12-14bits resolution per colour channel to be able to resolve the same levels as a CRT monitor.

    The reason is simply because a TFT is linear in its response whereas a CRT is not (Gamma). The TFT must compensate for the gamma curve, which requires up to 14bits resolution (or more if you use higher gamma than 2.2).

    So, these 14 bit LCDs/TFTs are the only ones getting _CLOSE_ to CRT native colour resolution. A CRT is inherently analogue too, which means it can utilize the 10bit resolution per channel that many modern graphics cards can produce (Matrox, ATi). Remember this is 10bit is with the gamma compensation already applied. For a TFT to reach the same resolution they would need much more than 14bits!

  • Therms - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Just wanted to add that one of the biggest games of the summer, Battlefield 2, does not properly support widescreen.

    The best it can do is basically a zoomed 4:3 image which results in a display with the top and bottom parts of the picture chopped off. This means that widescreen users actually see less than standard 4:3 screen users.

  • semo - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    is there a big problem right now with all those different aspect ratios out there?

    i hear that 16:9, 16:10 and 15:9 are pretty much the same/compatible. why all the standards in the first place anyway?

  • DragonReborn - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Hmm...interesting. I was definitely ready to buy the 2405...no way to really compare the two, huh? I game, but nothing crazy, and just want a nice big screen. Probably save the $300 and get a nvidia 7800 instead of the 6800... =)

  • Gioron - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    "Also keep in mind that a 21" Trinitron has about the same viewable area of a 19" or 20" LCD."

    Mostly true, but you need to specify whether its widescreen or not, since you lose a bit of area on a widescreen display.

    Screen area on a standard 4:3 display with a 20" viewable diagonal is 192 in^2.
    Screen area on a widescreen 16:10 display with a 20" viewable diagonal is only 180 in^2. (If I haven't managed to screw up the math...)

    If I were being pessimistic on your statement, a 19" widescreen would have a bit over 160 in^2, while a CRT with a 20" viewable diagonal would have 192 in^2. I wouldn't consider that "about the same".

    The other thing that some people need to consider is whether you'll be displaying a lot of 4:3 content, in which case you throw away annother 20% of your viewable area to black bars along the side (unless you fill it out and distort the image). Admittedly, this isn't a huge factor for computer use, since most gaming and desktop resolutions can be adjusted to be correct, but its something to consider if you know you're going to be doing a lot of picture viewing or have video sources that are fixed at 4:3.

  • Pastuch - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    29 - Posted on Jul 8, 2005 at 5:59 PM by svi

    But most engines stretch or clip a 4:3 picture to produce widescreen output. Source is an exception, and a big one, but you can't make a generalization like that based on a single case where widescreens are better.

    Rebuttal:

    I wont be buying BF2 until they add Widescreen support. EA WAKE UP! All of the following games have official support for widescreen: Halflife 2, CS Source, World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, GTA: San Andreas PC, and I've heard Dungeon Seige 2 will be fully compatable as well.

  • KristopherKubicki - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    SilthDraeth: Icecrown Alliance. Biggest waste of money and time grumble grumble... ... er... Yeah I mean it's a fun game!

    kmmatney: Supposedly. Somehow I got suckered into an NEC NDA over a *year* ago which I may even still be bound to. NEC had some neat stuff to show me concerning LED backlit LCDs and medical-grade LCD monitors, but unfortunately NEC also has an elitist mentality that has completely barred them from competing on a retail level with anyone. 10-bit panels are not new, I actually saw my first one at *Comdex 2002*. Fortunately I just made a friend at Eizo and I will definitely be asking them for this display.

    Thanks!

    Kristopher

  • kmmatney - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    There are LCD panels out now that surpass CRTs in image quality and color reproduction. See the links:


    http://www.warehouseexpress.com/news/digpop/698.ht...

    NOte the spec: 16.77 million from a palette of 1.06 billion

    Also see:

    http://www.nec-lcd.com/english/whatsnew/press05030...

    These are the real enthusiast monitors for graphic artists.


  • MrEMan - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know if either HP or Dell has anything involvement at all with the design of their respective monitors?

    If they don't then I believe the credit should go to the monitor manufacturers and not the companies whose only involvement is to slap their name on the case.

  • SilthDraeth - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    Kris what server on WOW do you play on? I play Deathwing, a pvp server, Alliance side.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now