Why I'm choosing the 2001FP over the 2005FPW

[Novaoblivion]

Wow this was a interesting read I was about to order the 2001FP but thought I would come read here first. Good thing I did I think I am going to go with the 2005FPW now.

 

[ShockwaveVT]

just to clarify something Accord99,

In my extensive gaming experience, I have yet to come across a game that allows you to modify vertical FOV. Therefore your arguement that the 2001 > 2005 becuase you can run the same horizontal resolution and a bigger vertical resolution is not valid. And while you can usually adjust your FOV from the game's default value, this results in distorted image where terrain and players appear narrorer than intended. I know this first hand, because I used to play Quakeworld and Quake 3 with an FOV of 110 rather than the default 90.

My decision to purchase the 2005 FPW rather than the 2001 FP resulted from a number of factors..
1. I play computer games a lot and widescreen will come in handy.
2. I watch DVD's on my computer, see #1
3. I like my current screen size (19" CRT @ 1280x1024 w/ 10.75" vertical size) and the 10.7" height and 1050 pixel height of the 2005 will match up nicely for a 1680x1050 + 1280x1024 dual monitor setup.
4. Instead of playing DELLF over and over and over to get a 25% LCD coupon, I went ahead and took advantage of dell.com's 20% off sale on the 2005FPW. Combined with another $35 off coupon (basically cancels out sales tax), I'm paying $640 rather than $800.
5. The 2005 has a more advanced LCD panel, 12ms, 600:1, etc etc

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
just to clarify something Accord99,

In my extensive gaming experience, I have yet to come across a game that allows you to modify vertical FOV. Therefore your arguement that the 2001 > 2005 becuase you can run the same horizontal resolution and a bigger vertical resolution is not valid. And while you can usually adjust your FOV from the game's default value, this results in distorted image where terrain and players appear narrorer than intended. I know this first hand, because I used to play Quakeworld and Quake 3 with an FOV of 110 rather than the default 90.

The vertical FOV changes in relationship with the horizontal FOV. It's how it works with Doom 3 or HL2.

 

[trikster2]

Dang it

I had decided not to get the 2005FPW as my second monitor and now I read this thread

Reasons for not getting the 2005FPW
Less screen realestate at the same price as the 2001FP
Lot of people having problem with light leakage, lines and dead pixels.


Two questions for the 2005FPW/2001FP owners

How's the quality of your 2005FPW. For first time 2001FP owners: does the screen door effect bother you?

Part of my reluctance on getting either of these monitors is the size of text. 1280x1024 on my 19" LCD is just perfect. Jumping another 400 pixels and only adding another diagnol inch seems like the text would be pretty small. For 1600xwhatever it seems that 21" is a better size for 1600xwhatever?

One of the objectives of the second monitor is to let me run my 19" LCD in portrait mode full time. If you are writing papers, portrait mode rocks; it's great for web pages too as most pages are still designed for 800 or 1024 width, a lot less scrolling when browsing.

I'm thinking that the 2005FPW with the 19" in portrait mode will look pretty cool, sort of like a T laying on its side. Of course that's an argument for the 2001FP, as the vertical 1200 will more closely match the vertical 1280 on the 19" LCD.....

 

[Hikari]

I went from a nice 22" Iiyama CRT to the 2005fpw, and I'm quite happy... I think the picture is better, and it takes up a heck of a lot less desk space. Since I sold the old monitor on eBay, it isn't like it cost me too much money to get the 2005fpw. The people complaining about screen real estate are rather picky. I don't notice too much of a difference between the 1600x1200 I was running at and 1680x1050. However, the screen does seem really wide to me. :lol:

Gorgeous monitor anyway...

Originally posted by: trikster2


Dang it

I had decided not to get the 2005FPW as my second monitor and now I read this thread

Reasons for not getting the 2005FPW
Less screen realestate at the same price as the 2001FP
Lot of people having problem with light leakage, lines and dead pixels.


Two questions for the 2005FPW/2001FP owners

How's the quality of your 2005FPW. For first time 2001FP owners: does the screen door effect bother you?

Part of my reluctance on getting either of these monitors is the size of text. 1280x1024 on my 19" LCD is just perfect. Jumping another 400 pixels and only adding another diagnol inch seems like the text would be pretty small. For 1600xwhatever it seems that 21" is a better size for 1600xwhatever?

One of the objectives of the second monitor is to let me run my 19" LCD in portrait mode full time. If you are writing papers, portrait mode rocks; it's great for web pages too as most pages are still designed for 800 or 1024 width, a lot less scrolling when browsing.

I'm thinking that the 2005FPW with the 19" in portrait mode will look pretty cool, sort of like a T laying on its side. Of course that's an argument for the 2001FP, as the vertical 1200 will more closely match the vertical 1280 on the 19" LCD.....

 

[ShockwaveVT]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
just to clarify something Accord99,

In my extensive gaming experience, I have yet to come across a game that allows you to modify vertical FOV. Therefore your arguement that the 2001 > 2005 becuase you can run the same horizontal resolution and a bigger vertical resolution is not valid. And while you can usually adjust your FOV from the game's default value, this results in distorted image where terrain and players appear narrorer than intended. I know this first hand, because I used to play Quakeworld and Quake 3 with an FOV of 110 rather than the default 90.

The vertical FOV changes in relationship with the horizontal FOV. It's how it works with Doom 3 or HL2.

Can you back that up claim up with some screenshots?

When I get home from work tonight I'll test it out myself with Doom 3, but I do not believe that vertical FOV changes at all.

 

[five40]

Ok, so I've read most of this thread and what I got out of it was....if you are big gamer go with the 2005. I am a programmer who plays a decent amount of games (5-10 hours/week). Of course I spend about 60 hours/week coding. I don't do any photo/video stuff. I don't watch DVD's on my computer. I'm looking at getting 2 LCDs. Should I get two 2001's or two 2005's?

 

[housecat]

I'd think that a rotated 2005FPW would be excellent for seeing a lot of code onscreen at one time. Sometimes I rotate mine just for webpages, because its so wide that you can fit a whole lot of text that way. I mostly do that when im doing a major hunt for a product, such as reading multiple reviews.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: five40
Ok, so I've read most of this thread and what I got out of it was....if you are big gamer go with the 2005. I am a programmer who plays a decent amount of games (5-10 hours/week). Of course I spend about 60 hours/week coding. I don't do any photo/video stuff. I don't watch DVD's on my computer. I'm looking at getting 2 LCDs. Should I get two 2001's or two 2005's?

Why do they need to be the same? Get one of each.

Housecat is correct, the 2005 rotated in portrait mode will let you see an incredible ammount of code.

 

[five40]

Originally posted by: trikster2

Originally posted by: five40
Ok, so I've read most of this thread and what I got out of it was....if you are big gamer go with the 2005. I am a programmer who plays a decent amount of games (5-10 hours/week). Of course I spend about 60 hours/week coding. I don't do any photo/video stuff. I don't watch DVD's on my computer. I'm looking at getting 2 LCDs. Should I get two 2001's or two 2005's?

Why do they need to be the same? Get one of each.

Housecat is correct, the 2005 rotated in portrait mode will let you see an incredible ammount of code.

It would drive me nuts having two dif monitors. I'm just anal (I like everything to be uniform). Is it easy to rotoate the 2005?

 

[housecat]

its quite wide, so if you have it locked in landscape mode as low as it can go you have to raise it a little.. but essentially to rotate it all you have to do is grab it and rotate it.

i wouldnt recommend ordering two right off the bat, get one or the other and see what you think. if you end up not liking the 2005 then you can return it, instead of returning two.

but if you dont like the 2005 i dont think you'll like the 2001 either. or vice versa. they similar enough to make that statement. lets face it, they are both big and beautiful LCDs and probably some of the best, for the price or otherwise.
but i do think you would prefer the 2005 like most of us.

once u try the widescreen you wont feel comfortable looking at those old squares anylonger. it really does fit your field of vision like a glove.

 

[five40]

Originally posted by: housecat
its quite wide, so if you have it locked in landscape mode as low as it can go you have to raise it a little.. but essentially to rotate it all you have to do is grab it and rotate it.

i wouldnt recommend ordering two right off the bat, get one or the other and see what you think. if you end up not liking the 2005 then you can return it, instead of returning two.

but if you dont like the 2005 i dont think you'll like the 2001 either. or vice versa. they similar enough to make that statement. lets face it, they are both big and beautiful LCDs and probably some of the best, for the price or otherwise.
but i do think you would prefer the 2005 like most of us.

once u try the widescreen you wont feel comfortable looking at those old squares anylonger. it really does fit your field of vision like a glove.

Thanks for the info/advice. Looks like I'll be going with the 2005. I already have 3 LCD's and I love them so I know I'll like the 2005.

 

[imported_driver]

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
Can you back that up claim up with some screenshots?

When I get home from work tonight I'll test it out myself with Doom 3, but I do not believe that vertical FOV changes at all.

He posted a couple of screen shots of HL2 in a different thread:

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2.jpg
http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2B.jpg

It looks like vertical FOV changes as well, but the side effect is that the point of view looks to be a few feet back from where it should be. In the second screenshot, he should be up against the barrel, but it looks like he should be able to take a couple more steps at least. I suppose you could get used to it, but it can be quite frustrating in certain parts of the game -- the bridge scene immediately comes to mind. In that scene, you have to navigate really narrow beams while under intense pressure. 🙂 That was a harrowing experience by itself, I can't imagine playing that with the wrong point of view. And then there are other scenes in the game where you have to jump from one small safe patch to another smalll safe patch repeatedly. Take one step off of the small patch and bad things happen to you. 🙂 The patches are probably 4' x 4', so a point of view that is off by a few feet can be pretty bad.

 

[Earwax]

I'm a digital video editor and I just purchased the 2005 to replace a pair of 17" CRTs that were taking up all of my desk space. I think the 2005 is ideal for someone who is in my field, or trying to replace a two monitor setup. I think it would be overkill to buy 2 of the 2005 monitors. You'd be getting a 3:1 field of view. I contemplated buying two 2001s, but thought that was a bit too pricey.

But if you want to have two screens, I think you would find the 2001 much better suited for it. I think the 2005 is designed to stand by itself, and the 2001 would be much more asthetically pleasing if you had two of them.

That said, there is a coupon for $30 off a $300 purchase going on now, and if you play that "dellf" game you can get a 25% off coupon. I had to play the game about 20 times to get it, but I eventually did. I picked up the 2005 for $569. Free shipping too.

[EDIT] I meant to say that two 2001s would be better than two 2005s, not that two 2001s is better than a 2005...

 

[termac50]

The 2005 picture quality does look better than the 2001; I run them both on an extended desktop. I like the dual display thing too much. The contrast ratio on the 2005 really does help. I will agree that if you want a dual display setup, go w/ 2 of the same model because of the contrast differences. The 2001 looks dim compared to the 2005, and I think you will try to find a way to cram all your windows on the 2005! Plus, you can't adjust the 2 monitors to get them to match up to the same brightness/contrast level - the 2005 is just brighter. It's too bad they don't have these in Best Buy or similar stores. You really have to see it in person. Granted, some games are nice to play in widescreen mode, but I am impressed mostly by the improvement in picture quality over the 2001. Don't get me wrong, I loved my 2001 for a year and it's a great monitor, but the 2005 has me whipped at the moment.

Someone asked about text readability for 1600x1200 & 1680x1050. It is outstanding on both monitors. Absolutely crystal clear. I have a Samsung 900nf that I used for 2 years. The highest I could go w/out straining was 1024x768. The "ideal" setting for this monitor was 1280x1024, and some have suggested 1600x1200. I couldn't stand it on those resolutions for very long. Reading small text was a pain in the *ss. And I have 20/10 vision, so eyesight isn't a problem. Reading small text wasn't an issue for me. Reading small AND distorted text was.

 

[Pete]

It's possible your video card wasn't up to driving much higher than 10x7 without distortion, termac. Then again, it's also possible the CRT just didn't look as sharp at 12x10.

 

[ShockwaveVT]

Thanks, I didn't have time to play around with Doom 3.

Looks like I will have to stick with the "A wider screen is a more natural fit for our field of vision" arguement 😉

Originally posted by: driver

Originally posted by: ShockwaveVT
Can you back that up claim up with some screenshots?

When I get home from work tonight I'll test it out myself with Doom 3, but I do not believe that vertical FOV changes at all.

He posted a couple of screen shots of HL2 in a different thread:

http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2.jpg
http://www.telusplanet.net/~sulee/halflife2B.jpg

It looks like vertical FOV changes as well, but the side effect is that the point of view looks to be a few feet back from where it should be. In the second screenshot, he should be up against the barrel, but it looks like he should be able to take a couple more steps at least. I suppose you could get used to it, but it can be quite frustrating in certain parts of the game -- the bridge scene immediately comes to mind. In that scene, you have to navigate really narrow beams while under intense pressure. 🙂 That was a harrowing experience by itself, I can't imagine playing that with the wrong point of view. And then there are other scenes in the game where you have to jump from one small safe patch to another smalll safe patch repeatedly. Take one step off of the small patch and bad things happen to you. 🙂 The patches are probably 4' x 4', so a point of view that is off by a few feet can be pretty bad.

 

[seanp789]

IT really just boils down to do u like widescreen or old school.

I play all my games on my widescreen now and i love it.

I also have a trusty CRT 4:3 as my secondary (former primary) so the choice for me was simple. if u already have 4:3 , add a 16:10. if this will be your only monitor you will ahve to make a choice.

 

[trikster2]

good summary seanp789

Unless you ONLY do web browsing, or ONLY do movie viewing the best solution is a 4:3 AND a 16:10 monitor.

 

[Urtho]

Just to keep this one going, here's a follow up to an earlier post of mine in this thread: I got my 2005FPW yesterday and I already know that it will be going back for a replacement and/or refund if they hassle me.

Severe backlighting issues on this monitor in all four corners as many others have reported, especially the lower left where the white light extends fairly close to the middle of the screen if you can believe it. As a test, I ran the WinXP standard black screensaver and it is quite clear during this just how severe the problem is. Actually, the left side of this LCD in general is especially bad as in testing with UT2K4 on that side of the menu screen the colors appear all washed out and too bright. Feels like I have tunnel vision where the center is dark and the outer corners and edges nearly form a bright ring.

Real shame too, as without this issue it'd be a keeper - not a single dead pixel or other defect/problem that I can find. Just rediculous amounts of white light bleed-thru on any dark background. Definately some quality control issues going on with this model. Manufacturing date was November 2004 in Mexico for those curious.

Don't want to scare any of you off as it is a great looking display if you are in the market for one. I love the widescreen aspect ratio for most anything aside from a few websites that only support a fixed resolution (cnn.com, 1998 called - it wants it's video cards back). A few older games looked slightly squashed compared to a standard display (such as Civ3), but for the most part games look great.

And believe me when I say that I did hesitate quite a bit before deciding to email support but the white light bleed thru is just too annoying in dark photos/games/anything for me to stand. Best to take care of the problem now than have to live with it for years.

Good luck to the rest of you still waiting for your displays, as it looks like it's pretty random on whether or not you get a good one. Guess I crapped out this time.

 

[Rudee]

It seems that all the 2005's that are being sent back for backlighting issues are being reboxed and shipped out again to new owners. The 2005 is becoming a bit of a lemon in that respect.