HP LP3065: A new contender for the 30" throne
by Jarred Walton on March 22, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Viewing Angles
Viewing angles are one of those specifications that have become very inflated by the manufacturers. The basic requirement is that the display has to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio in order to qualify as "viewable". The reality is that most LCDs are unfit for viewing outside of about a 45° arc. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more then a 45° angle. We used our camera to take shots from head-on as well as from the left and right sides at ~30° angles, showing how brightness and contrast ratios are affected in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Links to the viewing angle images of previously reviewed LCDs are available for comparison below:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
The HP LP3065 comes in first place when it comes to viewing angles. Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors remain very true. This is one instance where the updated panel on the HP LP3065 clearly ranks ahead of the Dell 3007WFP. Meanwhile, the TN panel on the Acer AL2216W offers an extremely limited viewing arc, especially in the vertical plane. We wouldn't be too concerned about viewing angles personally, as outside of the Acer display all of the LCDs are generally acceptable for use within a 60° viewing arc, both horizontally and vertically. Even the Acer panel is usable provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane, as it suffers mostly in the vertical viewing angle.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about accurate colors is going to want to view pretty much any display from a direct front angle, and that tends to be the most comfortable position as well. That's one of the reasons we don't really worry too much about viewing angles. However, some people might work in environments where off-angle viewing is more important, so it's not entirely meaningless. Unfortunately, the manufacturer viewing angles tend to be exaggerated to the point of being useless, as the standard 10:1 contrast ratio is not acceptable for actual use. 100:1 is good enough, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
Viewing angles are one of those specifications that have become very inflated by the manufacturers. The basic requirement is that the display has to maintain a 10:1 contrast ratio in order to qualify as "viewable". The reality is that most LCDs are unfit for viewing outside of about a 45° arc. The good news is we really doubt that most people would want to view a display from anything more then a 45° angle. We used our camera to take shots from head-on as well as from the left and right sides at ~30° angles, showing how brightness and contrast ratios are affected in off-angle viewing. We also took pictures from above and below at ~30° angles. Links to the viewing angle images of previously reviewed LCDs are available for comparison below:
Acer AL2216W
Dell 2405FPW
Dell 2407WFP
Dell 3007WFP
Gateway FPD2485W
 |
| HP LP3065 |
The HP LP3065 comes in first place when it comes to viewing angles. Within a 60° viewing arc, the colors remain very true. This is one instance where the updated panel on the HP LP3065 clearly ranks ahead of the Dell 3007WFP. Meanwhile, the TN panel on the Acer AL2216W offers an extremely limited viewing arc, especially in the vertical plane. We wouldn't be too concerned about viewing angles personally, as outside of the Acer display all of the LCDs are generally acceptable for use within a 60° viewing arc, both horizontally and vertically. Even the Acer panel is usable provided your eyes are in roughly the same vertical plane, as it suffers mostly in the vertical viewing angle.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about accurate colors is going to want to view pretty much any display from a direct front angle, and that tends to be the most comfortable position as well. That's one of the reasons we don't really worry too much about viewing angles. However, some people might work in environments where off-angle viewing is more important, so it's not entirely meaningless. Unfortunately, the manufacturer viewing angles tend to be exaggerated to the point of being useless, as the standard 10:1 contrast ratio is not acceptable for actual use. 100:1 is good enough, and maybe even a bit lower, but a 10:1 ratio is not at all practical.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
gfisher - Sunday, July 26, 2009 - link
My HP machine has an NVIDIA 8500GT graphics card. I'm interested in buying a HP LP 3065 thirty inch monitor. Will the card drive the monitor at full speed?DaveJDSP - Sunday, December 30, 2007 - link
Jarred,I cannot possibly thank you enough for testing and posting photos of viewing angles. When doing critical photo/graphics work, it is essential that the top and bottom of the screen appear consistent from a fixed viewing point in the center of the screen. The larger the monitor, the more critical this becomes, as from a fixed point, the eyes scan over an arc of 10-20 degrees or greater.
Most monitors that I have seen at local stores have viewing angles that are totally unsatisfactory for critical work, even from a fixed eye point. And there are very few local stores that carry a sufficient selection of better and larger monitors, suitable for more critical work, so that the buyer can evaluate those monitors in person. Therefore, your complete and comprehensive reviews become even more critical.
Thank you again for your excellent reviews and for including such critical viewing angle information.
Dave
chakarov - Friday, March 23, 2007 - link
Contrast by specification shoud be 1000:1 but you measured it 585:1.It is interesting what to believe.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 24, 2007 - link
As I explained in the Gateway FPD2485W review, contrast ratios, brightness levels, response times, and various other "spec sheet items" are often seriously exaggerated. While technically a higher contrast ratio is better, a 500:1 or higher real value is generally more than sufficient. There's also a possibility that at some specific setting the HP would come closer to 1000:1 - doubtful, given the results on the three tested settings (uncalibrated, calibrated, and print calibrated), but still possible.The basic issue is with backlight bleed - i.e. blacks that aren't actually black. In theory, any proper display would have an infinite contrast ratio, as black would be 0 and anything divided by zero is infinity/undefined. Some displays (the Acer, for example) achieve higher contrast ratios by having blacker blacks; others like the Gateway get them by having insanely bright whites. Anyway, more is not always better, as the color accuracy of the middle tones isn't represented by contrast ratio.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
what about input lag vs a crt?crts should be the baseline since they seem to show close to 0 image lag.
lcd vs lcd is nice to, but if all lcds are off by a large number of frames from a crt, that will still suck
Souka - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
I feel a CRT vs LCD war thread starting..... ;)JarredWalton - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
LCDs are still slightly slower than CRTs, but we have abandoned the CRTs, or at least I have. I no longer have any for testing, and the last CRTs I purchased are now over two years old, the Samsung 997DF and the NEC FE991-SB. There hasn't been a new really high-end CRT released in upwards of five years, I don't think. Five or six year old 22" CRTs (with a 20" viewable diagonal) are better than the later 21/22" models in terms of features and performance. Then there's the whole geometry and signal adjustment that needs to be done on analog devices. Personally, I wouldn't even consider a CRT for my computer use anymore.Given that we have the 2407WFP for testing and it has been used already, we would prefer to continue with that trend. A baseline is just that: a reference point. Baseline doesn't have to be "best" - and obviously quite a few LCDs are better than the 2407WFP when it comes to input lag and response times. So far, however, we haven't seen more than a 1 frame (*maybe* two with the Acer AL2216W) difference in output. So the largest difference we've seen is currently less than 0.02 seconds.
Souka - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Why not get a 30" Apple Cinema Display?AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
Let's see, $2000 for the Apple versus $1274 for the Dell. If you like being charged up the @$$, then be my guest.Now, the Apple is competing with the LP3065 and 3007WFP-HC; those panels are superior and $300 cheaper retail. Not to mention I just bought the HC from Dell for $1430+tax. Why would you pay $570 more for a worse product?
dcalfine - Thursday, March 22, 2007 - link
YeaApple made the first 30" dual-link LCD for consumers and is often considered better than the Dell. It would be wise to consider it a contender.