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
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.