The problem is that LCD screens have one resolution that is usable. When displaying 1680x resolution on a 19" screen it makes it so incredible tiny to read. You have to view it from 10cm to actually read text comfortably. Switching to a lower resolution will response in a pixel horror show. Normal "tv" lcd screens are now in full-HD resolutions in sizes from 26 to 50 inch. Now...that is excellent readability and you can hang back in your office chair and you can still read everything.
Hi. Most reviews of "bit-tech" is just great, in-depth, confident and etc.
But I have some complains about last monitor reviews.
I find part of article "Objective Image Quality Analysis" totaly useles without DeltaE measurments, before and after calibration, etc. This header just do not deserves word "Objective". Good example how to make monitor reviews:
1. Introduction
2. The tests
3. Ergonomics : Display Port, the base...
4. Color rendering
5. More concretely for grey renderingÂ…
6. After calibration
7. Homogeneity of colors
8. The reactivity test
9. Input lag in games
10. Viewing angles
11. Movie rendering
12. Energy consumption
13. Conclusion
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan The problem is that LCD screens have one resolution that is usable. When displaying 1680x resolution on a 19" screen it makes it so incredible tiny to read. You have to view it from 10cm to actually read text comfortably. Switching to a lower resolution will response in a pixel horror show. Normal "tv" lcd screens are now in full-HD resolutions in sizes from 26 to 50 inch. Now...that is excellent readability and you can hang back in your office chair and you can still read everything.
Quoted For Truth
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It always amazes me how many 17" & 19" monitors I see running at 800*600. I've convinced a few of those people to go to 1024*768 but all of them complain at 1280*1024: "It's too small. I can't read anything. The letters are tiny..." Yes, they could go to native resolution then set Windows to a larger font but 1) most of them don't even know how to change the resolution & 2) Windows scaling is, frankly, quite an atrocious mess.
As the article concludes: This is a product for a very niche market.
Why do you need to scale the desktop font size anyway? Its not like you are going to be reading large amounts in windows explorer. Browsers and word processors have their own scaling functionality which is more than sufficient. Games have massive fonts so it isn't an issue there and, lets face it, not much to read.
I've preferred 19" monitors for a long time and I don't find £150 for a monitor like this to be a bad price at all. Then again the last time I was looking for a monitor it was when a 1440*900 19" panel could go for £300 just because they had a 6ms response time.
Besides, what kind of niche is "people with reasonable eyesight who aren't stupid enough to assume that bigger is always better"?
Originally Posted by gmmail1980 Hi. Most reviews of "bit-tech" is just great, in-depth, confident and etc.
But I have some complains about last monitor reviews.
I find part of article "Objective Image Quality Analysis" totaly useles without DeltaE measurments, before and after calibration, etc. This header just do not deserves word "Objective". Good example how to make monitor reviews:
1. Introduction
2. The tests
3. Ergonomics : Display Port, the base...
4. Color rendering
5. More concretely for grey rendering…
6. After calibration
7. Homogeneity of colors
8. The reactivity test
9. Input lag in games
10. Viewing angles
11. Movie rendering
12. Energy consumption
13. Conclusion
............. :)
Hello, thanks for taking the time to register to pass your comments onto us.
One thing that concerns me about taking a format similar to the one linked is that this monitor costs less than the price of respectable monitor calibration tools and I don't see anyone purchasing this kind of monitor ever calibrating it. We've always tried to focus on user experience and in that respect that's what we're doing here. In fact, we have probably gone further than the user experience here by using a set of tests that enable us to get very good results and pretty accurate colour representation.
That's not to say that I'm poo-pooing calibration and saying it is completely pointless: if we were reviewing high-end displays for graphics professionals, calibration would be an essential part of the process, as the target market are very likely to calibrate their monitor(s).
With that said, we've always prided ourselves on making our review process as transparent and interactive as possible - we're open to feedback and constructive debate. After all, we're enthusiasts just like the many readers that read our content every week. :)
It will all make sense when you get to an office where the majority of the staff have no idea of how to change the resolution, no time / interest to learn even what you and I might consider the as basics of computer operation, and a mountain of paper between them and the monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article With pixel response, contrast ratio, screen diagonal and viewing angles being some of the most important considerations when you're buying a new LCD monitor, it's fair to say that the list of popularly scrutinised monitor specifications is long. But pixel pitch conspicuously isn't one of them.
The funny thing is that pixel pitch used to be a prominent part of CRT stats.
Personally I think any LCD of this size needs a tilt/swivel option.
Originally Posted by article Similarly, the gamma is a little wonky out of the box. That's an issue which must be addressed via the driver control panel – there's no gamma control in the OSD.
I own the monitor in question, and maybe you mean something else, but it does give you "user color" in the list of color options among the different temperature settings.
Nice step, but I am still waiting on the 1920x1200 panels that are so common on laptops to finally make it into a desktop monitor at a sensible size before I let go of my CRT's - 2 of these would almost be the same, but no real gain other then power savings and a little desktop space back.
Originally Posted by article Similarly, the gamma is a little wonky out of the box. That's an issue which must be addressed via the driver control panel – there's no gamma control in the OSD.
I own the monitor in question, and maybe you mean something else, but it does give you "user color" in the list of color options among the different temperature settings.
Jeremy mentioned that he also had to adjust the colour temperature as well - gamma is something different. :)
"...I don't see anyone purchasing this kind of monitor ever calibrating it"
Correct, most people use their monitor as it is ou-of-the-box.
Using some software-setup is the max the casual user will get to, as actual "measuring" calibration is too expensive.
We have about 25 of these in a computer lab at work (i work in a school). we haven't had a problem with any of them so far, and student seem to like them more than the old CRT's we had :D
No thanks, I'll take real estate over resolution any day.
I've got a 19" CRT and the widescreen 19" LCDs always feel a little, well, smallish and insignificant to me. Granted it may be because they lack the physical bulk of my current monitor (and the 78 pound weight), but it seems like it takes a 20 or 21" to match my 19" CRT.
In any case, I think my next monitor will be a 2407WFP, unless I find a steal on a 2707 :D
Comments 1 to 17 of 17
But I have some complains about last monitor reviews.
I find part of article "Objective Image Quality Analysis" totaly useles without DeltaE measurments, before and after calibration, etc. This header just do not deserves word "Objective". Good example how to make monitor reviews:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/703-1/dell-3008wfp-hc.html
Entirely the content of this review says a lot:
1. Introduction
2. The tests
3. Ergonomics : Display Port, the base...
4. Color rendering
5. More concretely for grey renderingÂ…
6. After calibration
7. Homogeneity of colors
8. The reactivity test
9. Input lag in games
10. Viewing angles
11. Movie rendering
12. Energy consumption
13. Conclusion
............. :)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It always amazes me how many 17" & 19" monitors I see running at 800*600. I've convinced a few of those people to go to 1024*768 but all of them complain at 1280*1024: "It's too small. I can't read anything. The letters are tiny..." Yes, they could go to native resolution then set Windows to a larger font but 1) most of them don't even know how to change the resolution & 2) Windows scaling is, frankly, quite an atrocious mess.
As the article concludes: This is a product for a very niche market.
I've preferred 19" monitors for a long time and I don't find £150 for a monitor like this to be a bad price at all. Then again the last time I was looking for a monitor it was when a 1440*900 19" panel could go for £300 just because they had a 6ms response time.
Besides, what kind of niche is "people with reasonable eyesight who aren't stupid enough to assume that bigger is always better"?
Hello, thanks for taking the time to register to pass your comments onto us.
One thing that concerns me about taking a format similar to the one linked is that this monitor costs less than the price of respectable monitor calibration tools and I don't see anyone purchasing this kind of monitor ever calibrating it. We've always tried to focus on user experience and in that respect that's what we're doing here. In fact, we have probably gone further than the user experience here by using a set of tests that enable us to get very good results and pretty accurate colour representation.
That's not to say that I'm poo-pooing calibration and saying it is completely pointless: if we were reviewing high-end displays for graphics professionals, calibration would be an essential part of the process, as the target market are very likely to calibrate their monitor(s).
With that said, we've always prided ourselves on making our review process as transparent and interactive as possible - we're open to feedback and constructive debate. After all, we're enthusiasts just like the many readers that read our content every week. :)
Personally I think any LCD of this size needs a tilt/swivel option.
Jeremy mentioned that he also had to adjust the colour temperature as well - gamma is something different. :)
Correct, most people use their monitor as it is ou-of-the-box.
Using some software-setup is the max the casual user will get to, as actual "measuring" calibration is too expensive.
Xir
I've got a 19" CRT and the widescreen 19" LCDs always feel a little, well, smallish and insignificant to me. Granted it may be because they lack the physical bulk of my current monitor (and the 78 pound weight), but it seems like it takes a 20 or 21" to match my 19" CRT.
In any case, I think my next monitor will be a 2407WFP, unless I find a steal on a 2707 :D
Why are you spamming the thread pimping this monitor?