Skip to main content
Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

L

lawnmowerguy

771 Posts

28231

December 1st, 2007 13:00

1680x1050 resolutions on 20" and 22" monitors

​ I recently received and have set up my Dell 2208WFP 22" widescreen monitor. It runs at a resolution of 1680x1050 pixels. The picture quality is nice, but it doesn't seem to be quite as sharp as my previous monitor, the Dell 2007WFP, a 20" widescreen monitor that also ran at 1680x1050. My first inclination was to assume the 2007WFP looked better because it has a higher quality panel. But then I had an idea. Perhaps the 1680x1050 resolution will always look slightly inferior on a 22" monitor as opposed to a 20" monitor because everything is stretched an extra two inches. Maybe 1680x1050 resolution will always look better on a 20" monitor. Could that be the reason for the slight difference in picture quality? I used a DVI connection for both monitors. ​


HiLine

169 Posts

December 1st, 2007 16:00

I think you are right. The 2208WFP have bigger pixels than the 2007WFP, which results in the less smoothness of pictures displayed on the 2208WFP. On the other hand, the bigger pixels also make the dithering technology on TN films panels look more obvious.

N0IDEA

5 Posts

December 1st, 2007 19:00

Lawnmowerguy,
 
How is your experience with the 2208WFP so far? 
 
Would you recommend the 2007WFP over the 2208WFP? 
 
Lastly, did you consider getting the SP2208WFP with comparision to the 2208WFP?

gpro

2K Posts

December 1st, 2007 21:00

Lawnmowerguy,
I think you have hit on the important differences between the 20" and 22" displays - pixel pitch AND panel type.

20" .258mm pixel pitch, S-PVA or S-IPS panel
22" .282mm pixel pitch, TN panel

As for 'Ultrasharp', it seems that the term has no relationship to panel quality:

'Ultrasharp in this case means height adjustable and swivel stand'.

lawnmowerguy

771 Posts

December 1st, 2007 21:00

     I like the extra two inches the 2208WFP offers over the 2007WFP.  There is plenty of screen space to use up. 
 
     On the other hand, the 2007WFP seems to have a slightly sharper picture quality.  I suspect because both monitors use the same resolution, and the extra two inches stretches everything a bit.  This results in a lesser image quality.  However, this difference is very, very slight.  The 2007WFP had more ports in the back, mostly stuff I would never use, such as S video connections.
The 2007WFP also has MUCH better viewing angles than the 2208WFP, I suspect because the latter uses a TN panel.
 
     I didn't purchase the SP2008WFP because I have no need or use for webcams.  Plus I didn't like the silver color, as frivolous as that may sound. 
 
     What really caught my eye about the 2208WFP was the word "UltraSharp."  I've bought that brand before and was always satisfied with it.  This includes the height-adjustable stand, which is very handy.  Plus the fact that it was cheaper than the 2007WFP.
 
**Would you recommend the 2007WFP over the 2208WFP?**
 
     Hard to say.  Someone in the graphic arts or a professional photographer would probably be better off with the 2007WFP because it has more advanced features and a slightly shaper image quality.  The average PC user might want to consider the 2208WFP.
 
   

lawnmowerguy

771 Posts

December 1st, 2007 21:00



Message Edited by Lawnmowerguy on 12-24-2007 11:45 AM

N0IDEA

5 Posts

December 1st, 2007 23:00

Thanks guys!
 
Quality over quantity or quantity over quality?... Either way I must upgrade my 17" Sony Trinitron CRT monitor.
 
Just wish Dell would release something more equivelent to how the 2007WFP was, in 22" form. 

HiLine

169 Posts

December 2nd, 2007 02:00

Well, the UltraSharp monitors are supposed unofficially to be better regarding image quality than their entry-level peers. They indeed are in reality.

lawnmowerguy

771 Posts

December 2nd, 2007 10:00



Message Edited by Lawnmowerguy on 12-24-2007 11:45 AM

lawnmowerguy

771 Posts

December 24th, 2007 14:00

**I think you have hit on the important differences between the 20" and 22" displays - pixel pitch AND panel type. 20" .258mm pixel pitch, S-PVA or S-IPS panel 22" .282mm pixel pitch, TN panel**

Pixel pitch is something I never considered in the past when buying LCD monitors. Now I know how important that is, and will pay close attention to it when considering future monitors. The lower the number, the better.

HiLine

169 Posts

December 26th, 2007 04:00

"The lower the number, the better."

Not necessarily. Texts will appear smaller.

View More

View All

No Events found!

Top