Dell 2707WFP: Looking for the Middle Ground of Large LCDs
by Jarred Walton on April 4, 2007 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Subjective Evaluation
As usual, we spent some time using 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.
In daily use, we found the 2707WFP to be everything you would expect from a high-quality LCD. It's bright, clear, and offers all of the features you could want. Provided you have some way of getting audio, the display can easily function as a basic HDTV as well as a computer display, and you can even connect various gaming consoles should you so choose. However, while it can technically function in those capacities, for the price we would generally prefer to pick up a 1080p HDTV for TV/gaming console use if that's the primary intended role. On the other hand, if you need a high-quality computer display first and foremost and will only use the other functions less frequently, this might be a display worth considering.
The 2707WFP also offers a wide range of brightness levels, going from blindingly bright all the way down to suitable for print levels. As usual, the default brightness was more than we felt we needed, as we prefer something around 200 cd/m2 rather than 300-400 cd/m2. That's easy enough to fix, and users can basically choose whatever brightness level they find acceptable.
Like the HP LP3065 and the Dell 3007WFPHC, the 2707WFP is supposed to offer an improved color gamut. Dell provided the above image showing how the new CCFL is supposed to improve color quality. Subjectively, the 2707WFP might have been slightly better than the 2407WFP, but without staring at the two displays side-by-side it was almost impossible to notice any difference - at least for our eyes.
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 the XR (DTP-94) colorimeter. In some of the tests calibration can have a dramatic impact on the result, but certain aspects like viewing angles and response times remain largely unchanged.
As usual, we spent some time using 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.
In daily use, we found the 2707WFP to be everything you would expect from a high-quality LCD. It's bright, clear, and offers all of the features you could want. Provided you have some way of getting audio, the display can easily function as a basic HDTV as well as a computer display, and you can even connect various gaming consoles should you so choose. However, while it can technically function in those capacities, for the price we would generally prefer to pick up a 1080p HDTV for TV/gaming console use if that's the primary intended role. On the other hand, if you need a high-quality computer display first and foremost and will only use the other functions less frequently, this might be a display worth considering.
The 2707WFP also offers a wide range of brightness levels, going from blindingly bright all the way down to suitable for print levels. As usual, the default brightness was more than we felt we needed, as we prefer something around 200 cd/m2 rather than 300-400 cd/m2. That's easy enough to fix, and users can basically choose whatever brightness level they find acceptable.
Like the HP LP3065 and the Dell 3007WFPHC, the 2707WFP is supposed to offer an improved color gamut. Dell provided the above image showing how the new CCFL is supposed to improve color quality. Subjectively, the 2707WFP might have been slightly better than the 2407WFP, but without staring at the two displays side-by-side it was almost impossible to notice any difference - at least for our eyes.
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 the XR (DTP-94) colorimeter. In some of the tests calibration can have a dramatic impact on the result, but certain aspects like viewing angles and response times remain largely unchanged.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
A perfect example of stuff that doesn't look right with a higher DPI setting is anything that uses a bitmap. All of the icons at 120dpi tend to look like crud in XP. There are just far too many areas of Windows and the applications that run on it that are built around pixel sizes, so changing DPI settings only sort of affects them.Anyway, the point isn't whether or not higher DPI is good or bad. You like it, others don't. That's the main idea behind that introduction: an explanation of why higher pixel pitch can be a good thing. I really do have poor vision (an irregular astigmatism that can't be corrected without a retina transplant, so I live with slight double vision). I find many of the high DPI screens to be undesirable, although I do like higher resolutions for image work.
kalrith - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
Since we're discussing pixel pitch and poor eyesight, I thought I'd mention that one of my coworkers has such poor vision that he's using a 21" LCD at 800x600 resolution and thinks it's "just right".Also, out of the 10 19" LCDs we have, only one person runs hers at the native res. Everyone else uses 1024x768.
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
This is one reason why I "downgraded" (the rest of the specs are similar, other than that I also shaved 2 pounds of weight) from a laptop with a 15" 1600x1200 UXGA display to a 14" 1024x768 XGA display. At 15", picture detail was incredible, but text for web browsing was giving me sore eyes and headaches. I wouldn't mind having 1280x1024 at 14" or 15", but since I'm not paying for it, beggars can't be choosers.It's also why I returned my Dell 2007WFP and exchanged it for a 2407WFP. Higher resolution, but larger pixel pitch as well.
kmmatney - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
I'm another person who likes big pixels. Work tried to give me a 17" LCD, but I would have none of that. I then tried a 21" Samsung at 1600 x 1200, but it was still too small. Now I have a 20" LCD running native at 1400 x 1050 and its really nice. I have a laptop with small pixels that I use when I travel, but I'm much more productive when I can see everything clearly.I would love to have this display, but it really needs to come down in price.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
my vision is awful uncorrected - way beyond not being able to see the big "E". But since I'm always wearing glasses or contacts anyway I like high-DPI displays. Love my thinkpad with the SXGA 15" display. The UXGA 15" would probably be hard to read though.My boss has a ~20" CRT that he runs at either 800x600 or 1024x768.
jc44 - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
OK - I admit it - I'm stunned. With the exception of your colleague with the poor eyesight I find it hard to conceive how anyone would prefer (presumably) a slightly fuzzy (due to scaling artifacts) 1024x768 to a sharp 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD. I could simply not put enough information on the screen to be able to do my job at that resolution without resorting to a lot of printouts.Well horses for courses I guess - thanks
JC
xsilver - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link
lol - the amount of people that have their lcd monitors set to non native resolutions is insanely funny.but even more insanely funny is how many people say they cant see anything wrong with the scaling artifacts and fuzziness.
I haven't done much (any) testing on this in gaming though - is the distortion just as bad in gaming when running a non native res? getting a 20" lcd or above these days has pretty much required a high end graphics card to be purchased if any gaming wants to be done if you want to run native res.
still prefer crt atm myself but I realize it will be inevitable that i'll have to make the switch and need to figure out some options.
mitchell123 - Thursday, December 3, 2009 - link
hello FriendsThios is a nice article.......for everyone...........
==============
Mitchell
Tommyguns - Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - link
19" Viewsonic lcd here. you guessed it. 1024x768 and it suits me just fine. not that i have bad eyes at age 22 or anything, i just like being able to clearly see everything. I game hard as well and it works out just fine. i do have it in clone mode going to an aux 17inch crt thats about 20 feet away. higher res. is nice, but i prefer big letters, with out the squints sometimes.it would be nice to know what is around average in terms of gpu's, to be able to use these larger lcd's. average wasnt always a super highend 8xxx series card.