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
JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
For $1700, I would definitely pick up one of the HP 30 inch LCDs -- or the Dell that matter. Both of those used S-IPS panels and provide back lighting that has an improved color gamut. I certainly couldn't tell you what the NEC offers that would make it worth the price of entry, but unfortunately I have never been able to use one in person.nilepez - Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - link
I think the difference is that the HP apparently has a lot of adjustments that you can make.I'm just guessing, but it may be something like the the old Sony Artisan or Barco monitors, where you could make adjustments to many different areas of the screen, not just the usual 4 (or less) that most had.
strikeback03 - Thursday, August 2, 2007 - link
IIRC some of the high-end Eizo and NEC displays can interface directly with color calibration equipment, and probably have better controls. Who knows, they migh hold their color longer or come with a calibration sheet from NIST or something too. Conceptually similar to the Artisans as a monitor designed to be very good for color-sensitive work.