Features and Specifications

For those who are unfamiliar with some of the jargon we'll be using, we put together a short glossary of terms that we use in our display reviews. Manufacturer specifications can sometimes overstate the importance of certain factors, while at the same time omitting other important information, but we will do our best to separate the reality from the hype in our reviews.

HP w2207 Specifications
Video Inputs Analog (VGA)
DVI with HDCP support
Panel Type LCD Active Matrix TFT TN+film
Pixel Pitch 0.282mm
Colors 16.2 million (6-bit)
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1 (typical)
Response Time 5ms Tr/Tf
Viewable Size 22" diagonal
Resolution 1680x1050
Viewing Angle 160 vertical/horizontal
Power Consumption <52W max
Power Savings <2W
Power Supply Built-in
Screen Treatment BrightView (Glossy)
Height-Adjustable Yes - 4.25 inches
Tilt Yes - 25 degrees back/5 degrees forward
Pivot Yes
Swivel No
VESA Wall Mounting 100mmx100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 20.61"x14.60"x11.38" (lowered)
20.61"x18.95"x11.38" (raised)
Weight w/ Stand 19.8 lbs.
Additional Features (2) USB 2.0 (USB connection to PC required)
Audio Two 2W rear-facing speakers
Limited Warranty 1 year parts/labor warranty standard
3 year extended warranty optional ($110)
Pixel Defect Policy 0 bright dot standard
60 day 100% satisfaction guarantee

Two years ago, 22" LCDs didn't even exist on the market. Today, just about every major display manufacturer has one available. That should be a pretty clear indication of how important they consider this particular market, the $250-$350 midrange display. There's only one real problem with all of these 22" displays: the designs and appearance may be different, and certain features may be present or lacking depending on what model you're looking at, but invariably they all use TN panels. The TN (twisted nematic) LCD panel is one of the oldest and most common designs, and while that may be good for prices the reality is that other aspects of these panels tend to be behind the times. Viewing angles in particular are not as good as other LCD panel technologies, and TN panels only provide 6-bit (with dithering) rather than true 8-bit color.

Like many other 22" LCDs, HP uses an LG.Philips panel. The technologies used to approximate 16.2 million colors are quite good these days; nevertheless, there were times during testing where we noticed some minor artifacts that made the 6-bit nature apparent. This is not something that most people would notice during typically use, and we certainly don't consider this to be a problem limited to the HP w2207 - all 22" LCDs at present have similar difficulties. The bottom line, however, is that in terms of quality we feel most of the 24" LCD panels are superior to the 22" panels. That might also explain why they cost quite a bit more.

In the features department, HP does add a few things to put this particular LCD above most of the entry level 22" offerings on the market. One of the major differences between the HP w2207 and panels like the Acer AL2216W is that the HP has a glossy finish on the panel. This does tend to make colors look more vibrant and the contrast ratio is higher than other 22" models, but it has the drawback of making the panel more reflective as well. The other major feature is that the display supports portrait mode, something missing from many inexpensive LCDs. Going along with the pivot function, you also get a high-quality stand that provides over 4" of vertical travel. Compared to something like the Acer AL2216W, the stand makes a significant difference, though it also has a larger footprint than some competing LCDs. You also get two USB 2.0 connections that are easily accessed on the left side of the display.

We have previously covered HP's warranty and support options, and our experience when reviewing the w2207 was similar to what we encountered in our review of the LP3065. HP informed us that all of their products come with a 60 day satisfaction guarantee, so at least in terms of pixel defects customer should not have any difficulties. Beyond the first 60 days, you might need to make a bit more noise if you encounter any pixel defects and you want a new display, but it seems that if you squeak enough HP's customer service may be willing to lend you some oil. As one of the largest computer equipment manufacturers in the world, you also get the benefit of 24/7 technical support, although it can sometimes take a bit of effort to get to the right department if you don't buy the display as part of a computer package.

As one of HP's consumer/home office offerings, the w2207 comes with a standard one-year warranty. You can purchase a three-year extended warranty for an additional $110, although at that price we would seriously recommend looking at some of the 24" offerings on the market that come with three-year warranties. It will still be $100 more to move from a 22" w2207 with a three-year warranty to just about any of the 24" LCDs, but we think the use of S-PVA (Super Patterned Vertical Alignment) panels and additional features tips the scale in their favor.

Index Appearance and Design


View All Comments

  • yacoub - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    Yes, the better ones were S-IPS panels, which it's a shame no longer seem to be used except in VERY expensive displays. They excel in several important areas over MVA/PVA panels. My first-run 2007WFP is indeed S-IPS and I love it, however they quickly switched over to some sort of MVA or PVA panel and I wouldn't go near those. :(
    Maybe one day (supposed) costs will come down and we'll get S-IPS again on mainline displays. I did find one really nice panel in 24" size that was S-IPS but the MSRP was around $1200, IIRC. What a joke.
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    The HP LP2065 is relatively cheap but usually (not always, you have to check in a hidden menu option) uses an S-IPS panel, and better still there are next to no reports of anyone having even a single dead-subpixel.

    I'd take a standard 20" 1600x1200 S-IPS display like the LP2065 over any wide-screen 22" 1680x1050 TN display (almost all 22" W are TN), as you get a much better picture with the S-IPS panel and you get more usable screen space because it has a tighter dot-pitch (so although it is smaller physically at 120 sq cm compared with 140 sq cm for a 22" W, the 20" actually has more pixels).

    For general desktop use and with most games, standard 4:3 is preferable to a wide-screen 16:10 aspect-ratio; the wide-screen format's only big advantage is for watching movies, and for that you should really be connecting your computer to a large-screen TV.
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    I love widescreen for photo editing - rotate the display to vertical for portrait orientation shots, and you have a huge work area for either format. But I agree, I'd take an S-IPS 20" 4:3 over a 22" TN. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    How many cameras have a widescreen format sensor? I know you agreed with most of what I said, but almost all cameras have a 4:3 sensor so a 4:3 display is optimal. This HP LP2065 monitor I have can be swiveled vertically very easily for those purposes, so unless you are taking widescreen format photos, I fail to see the advantage in a 16:10 widescreen display.

    You're right when you say a 20" Standard S-IPS is better than a 22" Widescreen TN. I'd personally say the difference is like night or day; once you've used the higher-quality and tighter dot-pitch of the 20" S-IPS panel, you'd never want to use any of those 22" widescreens. Only 24" widescreen monitors are better without spending a lot more, but a significant price premium still needs to be paid (and it had better be S-IPS, not PVA/MVA, let alone TN, else I'm not interested).

    When I chose my current 20" display, I could have instead saved about 30% of the cost and chosen a 22" widescreen TN display (when I was deciding what to choose, I compiled a spreadsheet of everything available and included panel types). Every 22" widescreen display used a TN panel and as I was used to the quality of a Mitsubishi DP2070SB CRT display, I decided TN panels would be unacceptable. Suffice to say that this display is everything I could have hoped for in a flat-panel and more, after seeing smaller diaplays (of indeterminate panel-type) in local high-street stores.
  • nilepez - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    Are you sure? Every digital camera I've used seems to mimic 35mm cameras, which have an aspect ration of 1.5:1. Most widescreen monitors seem to have an aspect ration of 1.6:1, while standard monitors are 1.33:1.

  • yyrkoon - Thursday, August 02, 2007 - link

    That 1.5:1 or 1.3:1 ratio is specific to the relitive size of the sensor compared to a fullsized 35mm sensor that is in very few cameras. There are *some* wide aspect cameras, but it is mostly a new 'technology', and mainly implemented in P&S cameras.

    My Nikon D40 for instance uses a 1.5:1 sensor. What this means is that if I use a 50mm focal length lens, the actual focal length I get with this lens on my camera is 75mm. Images produced with this camera are 3008x2000 which is actually 1.504:1, or more commonly called 3:2 by many. Canon cameras have a 1.3:1 sensor aspect, and I forget which other brand, and ratio, but there is one more 'common' manufactuer ratio. This is of course in the realm of DSLRs, but most P&S cameras use a standard sensor/lens ratio (for 'that' specific brand), with very few using the widescreen setup as I mentioned above.

    Anyhow, for image editing, I prefer a widescreen monitor not because it 'matches' the image aspect ratio, but because it give me more realastate for toolbars etc while editing images, and giving me more visable image area to work on while these toolbars are visable. This is purly a matter of taste, and I *could* use the pallete well, or tab keys to hide the toolbars while not in use, but this is the way I have become accustomed to working(pen/tablet seems to work well with this setup as well).

    Personally, I think a monitor that displays colors correctly is far more important, as well as contrast ratio, and monitor interface type.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, August 02, 2007 - link

    Most DSLRs use sensors that have a 3:2 aspect ratio (or close enough) like 35mm film has. the Four-Thirds system (Olympus, Panasonic, "Leica") is, obviously, a 4:3 ratio sensor.

    As far as "crop factors" go, Canon makes a full frame (same size as 35mm, 1:1) sensor, a 1.3:1 sensor, and a 1.6:1 sensor. Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Samsung all use 1.5:1 (since they all use Sony sensors), and Fugifilm uses 1.5:1 as well, possibly because the body comes from Nikon. Sigma uses 1.7:1, and Four-Thirds is 2:1.

    Most P&S cameras use 4:3 ratio sensors, and most are made by Sony. Panasonic offers a wide-format sensor IIRC.

    And yes, the toolbars are a good reason to have widescreen (or dual monitor).
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    Ooops, I meant 1200 sq cm for the 20" standard display compared with 1400 sq cm for the 22" widescreen. Heh, 120 sq cm would be a touch on the small side :) Reply
  • yacoub - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    Ah, here it is: NEC MultiSync LCD2490WUXi for $1449.99, or the high gamut extra precision model for $1749.99.

    I'm sure they're wonderful but for that price you can get a rather nice 42" LCD TV. Heh.
    Then again I bet they don't have any input lag like the Dell 24" and other MVA or PVA panels tend to exhibit which can be very annoying in FPS games for folks who are used to the more immediate input reproduction of CRTs or S-IPS LCDs.
  • nilepez - Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - link

    What makes this technology that much better? If I was spending that much money, I'd get a 30" Dell (or similar). At least I'd get 32% more desktop space than my CRT (and 44% more than the NEC).

    Oh wait, this isn't really a business monitor, it's for color professionals (mostly those who work on photos, I suspect) and has lots of controls, I suspect, that most monitors don't have.

    Out of my price range.....I wonder how it compares to a hardware calibrated Dell or HP. Of course for gaming and business use, it's almost certainly not worth the money.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now