Viewsonic VP2330 vs Dell 2407 vs Samsung 244T - Help me

[althaz]

Hi guys, I"m looking at geting ~23" widescreen LCD and I'm having trouble finding one I like. I've heard some good things about the Dell, but I saw it and didn't think it was anything to write home about. Viewsonic are usually excellent so I've been trying to find out about there's as well, but there's sweet FA information around about it. Can anybody help me pick one out? If there's any other options I should consider, please let me know. I would prefer an 8-bit panel (the Dell is a six, don't know about the Viewsonic), response time's not really an issue as long as it's 16ms or under.

EDIT: I've just done some reading and the Samsung 244T seems to rock pretty hard. It's also within my price range (which is AUD$1500) and has an 8-bit panel.

I'd still appreciate the advice of anybdy who is in the know.

 

[GlimmerManFFS]

I took the plunge and ordered the 2407 (which does have an 8 bit panel btw), however it has now been returned for a refund because it was flawed in many areas:

1. Terrible banding.
2. Has 1:1 and 4:3 fixed aspect ratio options, which is good, however if you use them you get horrible horizontal tearing. Full screen mode never tears.
3. The fixed aspect ratio options are disabled at 1600x1200. So if your games don't support 1920x1200 you'll always get 1600x1200 stretched to 1920x1200, which makes everything/everyone look short and fat as the image is strecthed by 20% extra in the horizontal.
4. If you do set a fixed aspect ratio when you change resolution it is forgotten. E.g. I play a game at 1280x1024 set to 1:1, if I exit the game to windows at 1920x1200, the next time I go back to that game/resolution it's strechted to full screen again. This also applies to Alt-tabbing to windows, when you tab back in you're back in stretch to full screen mode and have to go through the menus and select 1:1 again!
5. The component inputs don't work.

None of the above were just issues with my screen, they are design flaws, check out the DELL online support forums for more information and many pi**ed off consumers!

From the investigations I've done and user feedback I've seen, the 244T looks the best option, however I'm holding off for a few more weeks until some reviews and user feedback of/for the new BenQ 241FPW surface. Also the 244T is apparently being replaced with a 245T model soon.

Time THG did a roundup review of 24" widescreen LCDs!

 

[darkstar782]

I hate widescreen monitors and wish they would review 20" 4:3 1600x1200 monitors!

 

[althaz]

Thanks for the reply Glimmerman.

1. I had heard about the banding, but I was told (although apparently not reliably) that that was due to the 6-bit panel (all 6-bit panels have noticable banding to my eyes).

2. The aspect ratio options were the main reason I was even thinking about the Dell. This info makes me not want it it .

3. PITA!

4. PITA!

5. Slightly annoying, I had considered an advantage of the Dell over some other monitors would be the ability to cart it into the next room for DVD-playback when I'm in bed (I've just got a little 21" CRT in there at the moment, which I'd like to move to the kitchen). Guess I'd be better off going for the Samsung and grabbing a DVD player with a DVI output.

Thanks for the info on the 245, I hadn't heard that. I might give my Samsung rep a call and see what he says. My CRT is on the blink, but it still goes (most of the time), but it's on its last legs.

darkstar: I suspect you hate widescreen because you haven't tried it. Widescreen conforms much better with the viewpoint normal humans get fromt heir eyes. That said, for working, in some cases widescreen offers no benefit, depending on your task. However I find the ability to do my work at 1300x1200 while I have a second window open to be invaluable

 

[Hose]

"... Widescreen conforms much better with the viewpoint normal humans get fromt heir eyes...."

*

I don't know if your statement is true, but when I've looked at conventional and widescreen monitors side-by-side in the computer store, the widescreen images still look stretched a bit.... especially something with a most familiar reference, like a person's face.

Maybe you're right. In that case "Widescreen = Normal" and "Conventional = Squished horizontally". Maybe I'm just conditioned to conventioal because that's all I've had, but I know I prefer it to widescreen.

I'm with you, darkstar. No widescreens for me any time soon....

*The makers didn't switch to widescreen format because it "conforms better with the viewpoint normal humans get...", they did it for economic reasons. And if that means the images are a little stretched, so what?

 

[althaz]

I don't know if your statement is true, but when I've looked at conventional and widescreen monitors side-by-side in the computer store, the widescreen images still look stretched a bit.... especially something with a most familiar reference, like a person's face.

That's a problem with TVs that have been incorretly setup (one I've seen many times, including the store where I work, although it's reare nowadays). Obviously if you feed a square image to a wide display you'll get a distorted picture (or the black lines down the sides) - however, most modern recording is in widescreen and broadcast as that. Meaning if you feed it to a 4:3 display you'll lose the edges of the picture (or get horrible skinny-people distortion, but the default on 4:3 TVs is usually to trim rather than stretch). If you don't setup either one properly, they look horrible. If you do, Widescreen is superior. You cannot argue otherwise for tasks like viewing movies and playing games (although it depends on the type of game, for some types widescreen confers little advantage, but never a disadvantage either). Widescreen isn't just the future, it's now. Your eyes are widescreen, so why not get the monitor that fit them best?

 

[Hose]

I don't know if your statement is true, but when I've looked at conventional and widescreen monitors side-by-side in the computer store, the widescreen images still look stretched a bit.... especially something with a most familiar reference, like a person's face.

That's a problem with TVs that have been incorretly setup (one I've seen many times, including the store where I work, although it's reare nowadays). Obviously if you feed a square image to a wide display you'll get a distorted picture (or the black lines down the sides) - however, most modern recording is in widescreen and broadcast as that. Meaning if you feed it to a 4:3 display you'll lose the edges of the picture (or get horrible skinny-people distortion, but the default on 4:3 TVs is usually to trim rather than stretch). If you don't setup either one properly, they look horrible. If you do, Widescreen is superior. You cannot argue otherwise for tasks like viewing movies and playing games (although it depends on the type of game, for some types widescreen confers little advantage, but never a disadvantage either). Widescreen isn't just the future, it's now. Your eyes are widescreen, so why not get the monitor that fit them best?

I know what you're talking about with a stretched image like you see on a TV. I'm not talking about that; what I see in a properly set up widescreen monitor is still a mildly stretched image when next to a conventional display.

Widescreen monitors don't display "more" panorama unless they also have more horizontal resolution... and that begins with the 24" UXGA @1920x1200.

 

[althaz]

And I'm telling you ALL widescreen monitors have extra horizontal resolution. A widescreen monitor is not just 16:9 in inches, it's also 16:9 in pixels (although technically PC Monitors are usually 16:10) There is zero stretching on any propperly setup widescreen display. As an example, a 19" widescreen monitor has a resolution of 1440x900 vs the 1280x1024 resolution of a 19" LCD. If you've seen stretching, it wasn't setup properly, it really is that simple.

 

[Hose]

I understand what you're talking about... like a 4:3 signal which the monitor(or TV) stretches to 16x9 or 16x10. I'm still not not talking about that. And, there is the ever present vertical squishing common to all(?) widescreens. But, no sense in this discussion going further. You apparently are not very observant.

 

[Hose]

"... And I'm telling you ALL widescreen monitors have extra horizontal resolution. ..."

Depends on what is being compared. 20" has 1650 pixels while a 4:3 has 1600... not such a biggie. Still, with the larger pixels of the widescreen, faces still look overly wide.

 

[althaz]

It's obvious you haven't ever seen an actual widescreen monitor or know anything about them. There is ZERO distortion - this is 100% fact. You cannot argue with this, because it is FACT.

Seriously, mate, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you've seen stretching and/or squashing this is caused by an incorrect setup. Nothing else. 20" WS has a resolution of 1680x1050 vs 1600x1200 of a 4:3 monitor, this means you get a wider field of view because the ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels is larger.

To repeat, there is NO squashing, NO stretching and NO distortion with widescreen monitors - unless you stretch a 4:3 image to fit it.

Widescreen monitors have a different arrangement of pixels, they don't have differently shaped pixels.

If this is to much for you, lie down and have a think about it tomorrow when you're feeling a bit sharper.

 

[Hose]

OK, OK, I get it. You LOVE the widescreen. You ignore its faults (or maybe you can't see them because you are not very observant.) None is so blind as one who will not see.

 

[althaz]

It's becoming clear to me that you have never actually seen a widescreen monitor, so I won't be arguing with you any more. It's a fact that there's no distortion, if you choose to blame an incorrect setup on an imaginary problem, then go ahead and do that.

I read somewhere that you should never argue with an idiot, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. So goodbye moron, I'm not going to burden myself any more with your ignorance.

 

[GlimmerManFFS]

Turns out the BenQ 241FPW has no fixed scaling options at all!
Guess I now I either go for the 244T, wait for the 245T and see what it's like or wait and see if DELL will one day fix the issues with the 2407 with yet another model revision.

 

[Hose]

It's becoming clear to me that you have never actually seen a widescreen monitor, so I won't be arguing with you any more. It's a fact that there's no distortion, if you choose to blame an incorrect setup on an imaginary problem, then go ahead and do that.

I read somewhere that you should never argue with an idiot, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. So goodbye moron, I'm not going to burden myself any more with your ignorance.

Obviously, you weren't trained in the sciences. Otherwise you'd have a sense of observation. Convinced as you are, you really don't know what you're protesting against.

 

[dannyaa]

For anyone who owns the 244t...

Everything looks great on this but I have just a few main concerns:

- GAMING ~ I want the big widescreen resolution for my work tasks, but I'd like to continue playing games at 1280x1024 resolution. Is this possible on this monitor, to play it in 4:3 aspect ratio? I read that it is not supported in the monitor controls, but I was wondering if there was a way to do it through graphics card control panel or something, and have it with black bars of the sides of the screen?

If not, will the 245t address this?

Also, for those that have it, how is the ghosting? I have a 19" Viewsonic vp930b LCD - can anyone make a comparison? Or compared to the 19" SyncMaster?


- HEIGHT ~ I know the new 245t will have the ability to swivel/drop lower; how bad is it on the 244t? Can I get it close to the base of the monitor, like on the viewsonic vp930b?

- Someone said you cannot give this monitor a 1080p input? Is this true? It seems it should be able to take it; if not, will the 245t have it?

- Just to confirm - this is HDCP compliant (or whatever the acronym is, so you can play protected HD content on VISTA)

- Any news on the release for the 245t or other new features? I hear its basically the same thing with some new swivel/height adjustments and a cosmetic update...

 

[dannyaa]

PLEASE - anyone with the Samsung 244t - can you comment on the above questions (my post right before this one)??


THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

 

[lschiedel]

Did you two ever think you might BOTH be right?

1) a properly configured widescreen, fed proper widescreen data, will suffer zero measurable (ie with a ruler) distortion.

2) the widescreen often is not configured in a widescreen mode, or is being fed a signal that it stretches to fit. this is based on the signal fed to it. the problem is that in many stores its a signal that is shared by all the tvs, widescreen and 4:3, so the image appears stretched in the widescreen. Also many games still default to a 4:3 mode such as 1600 x 1200 even if the monitor is widescreen. Also a 16:9 screen fed 16:10 resolution will still be distorted and vice-versa.

3) the problem can also be an OPTICAL ILLUSION. The widescreen fools the eye into seeing the image as squashed vertically and/or stretched horizontally since the eye expects a screen to be in a certain ratio.
This also happens to CRTs. Flat screen CRTs appear to bow IN, since the eye is used to a tube the bows out, so one that is flat appears to bow in.

So yes a good widescreen with a proper signal will not be distorted.
You may have observed a distorted image, but dont assume that this isnt due to the signal or configuration or just your eye being fooled.

If you want to test this right, take the widescreen, hook it up to a SINGLE pc with the resolution that the monitor expects, and display a circle on the screen.
If its not round visually, rotate your head to see if its an optical illusion.
And get out a ruler to test.

 

[althaz]

It never occurred to me that Hose may have been correct, simply because I knew he was not. As you succcinctly pointed out, a properly configured widescreen offers zero distortion. Hose was intent on insisting that the screens he saw were propperly configured and there was still distortion - an obviously incorect assumption. I also don't think he'd take kindly to what I'm sure he'd interpret as "your observation is at fault" He would have assumed if I told him it may have been an optical illusion that I was merely responding to his insults in kind.

Dannyaa: The monitor looks absolutely terrible if you put 1280x1024 through it - this is the case with all LCDs above 19" in size and all widescreen monitors. That said, if you're using a nVidia graphics card I believe there is a way to operate at any unstretched (such as 1600x1200 with black bars to the left and right). I don't know how to do it, only that you can (or so I am informed). http://www.widescreengamingforum.com is your best friend if you own a widescreen monitor Also, as to what improvements the 245 offers over the 244 - you'll have to wait and see until it is released, as anything you find out now is probably no more than speculation.

EDIT: The 244T is HDCP compliant

EDIT2:

For the record, I've done a heap more research and my current choice is the 244T from Samsung. I actually almost bought the Dell, then I heard about the banding issues (along with about five hundred other issues) and it scared me off. After a heap of research, I've come to the conclusion that the Dell 2407 A02 revision monitor (the only one available in Australia) is very ordinary. Some people don't notice the banding, but I am not one of those people. Especially once I know it's there

 

[GlimmerManFFS]

- GAMING ~ I want the big widescreen resolution for my work tasks, but I'd like to continue playing games at 1280x1024 resolution. Is this possible on this monitor, to play it in 4:3 aspect ratio? I read that it is not supported in the monitor controls, but I was wondering if there was a way to do it through graphics card control panel or something, and have it with black bars of the sides of the screen?

The 244T does 4:3 from what I've read (Doesn't do 1:1), but 1280x1024 is actually 5:4. If you run 1280x1024 in 4:3 on that monitor it'll render strechted to 1600x1200, where 5:4 would be 1500x1200, so any image will appear to be slightly (6.67%) streched in the horizontal.