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

[nitromullet]

You can simply set the FOV on the 2001FP to match that when using 16:10 resolutions for games like HL2 and Doom 3. You'll get the same picture width wise and more information top and bottom.

That is the thing, with a 16:10 resolution, you don't get more on the top and bottom with a 1600x1200 monitor, you just get a stretched picture (at least with HL2). I know this for a fact, since I have a 1600x1200 monitor now. The only way from me to get a 16:10 ratio not stretched is to play in windowed mode.

Edit: For me at this point, I'm trying to decide where I have to compromise... I know games on a 4:3 monitor are cool, I've been playing that way for years, but 16:10 looks really sweet. Actually, if I could do wide screen in letterbox mode in a 1600x1200 I would go that way, but playing a game in windowed mode is the opposite of immersive IMO. I'm just concerned that I would be giving up too much height in for surfing etc in exchange for widescreen gaming. I even went so far as to check out the Apple 20" widescreen display at CompUsa to see how I felt about it, but after seeing the 32" widescreen display ($3200+) they had set up everything else looked tiny, so I wasn't really in the right environment to judge.

 

[kmmatney]

I have a 15.4" wide screen laptop as my work computer (1280 x 800). However I plug it into a Full screen 17" LCD at work at 1280 x 1024. If you place the side by side, the screen widths and pixel sizes are the same. In fact, using the NVidia video driver I can force the 17" LCD to display in the same aspect ratio as the widescreen on the laptop. They look identical! The 17" LCD goes into widescreen mode by not using the top and bottom portion of the screen. You lose 21% of the screen size, but it then becomes a widescreen display. I find it interesting that the monitor doesn't try to "stretch" the image to fit the screen, it just displays the widescreen format exactly as on my laptop screen.

So, a 17" full screen LCD is the equivalent to a 15.4" widescreen, went set to display in widescreen mode.

I don't see why the Dell 2001FP couldn't be set to run at 1600 x 1024 mode to get a widescreen display out of it for gaming. It would then only be slightly smaller than the 2005 for movies and games (and slightly off the 1.6 ratio). My Video card at home (GF4 Ti4200) supports both a 1600 x 900 and a 1600 x 1024 resolution. Provided that the monitor doesn't attempt to stretch the image, this would give a widescreen display similar to the 2005. But then you could switch it back to 1600 x 1200 for wathcing TV or other work.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
That is the thing, with a 16:10 resolution, you don't get more on the top and bottom with a 1600x1200 monitor, you just get a stretched picture (at least with HL2). I know this for a fact, since I have a 1600x1200 monitor now. The only way from me to get a 16:10 ratio not stretched is to play in windowed mode.

You don't set the resolution to 16:10, you set the FOV to roughly what it is for a 16:10 resolution. The default FOV is 75", seting it to around 90 will approximate the 16:10 width and give you more top/bottom information.

 

[kmmatney]

So, if you put the 2001FP in 1600 x 1050 mode, what does the diagonal measure? I could probably figure it out....

 

[Accord99]

18.94", though the resolution is for 1600x1000 to get the 16:10 AR.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: nitromullet
That is the thing, with a 16:10 resolution, you don't get more on the top and bottom with a 1600x1200 monitor, you just get a stretched picture (at least with HL2). I know this for a fact, since I have a 1600x1200 monitor now. The only way from me to get a 16:10 ratio not stretched is to play in windowed mode.

You don't set the resolution to 16:10, you set the FOV to roughly what it is for a 16:10 resolution. The default FOV is 75", seting it to around 90 will approximate the 16:10 width and give you more top/bottom information.

You got a screenshot of that?

 

[Urtho]

Ok, I'm about 95% convinced to switch to the 2005FPW now - those UT2K4 in-game shots just look too good in WS mode. Thanks a lot for the links nitromullet.

My only concern is normal desktop usage. Forget about not seeing certain things in games, does widescreen leave you feeling you're fighting your display? That is, is it so wide that you constantly have too much on screen when doing something simple like email or web browsing? Take CNN.com as an example - it's set for a standard resolution of 800 x 600 I believe and just adds whitespace for larger sizes, so how does this look on a WS display? I game a lot, but it's certainly not the only thing I do on my PC so normal everyday stuff has to look good as well. For reference, I'm currently using a KDS 19" CRT @ 1280 x 1024.

 

[kmmatney]

On my new widescreen laptop (1280 x 800), I do feel like I'm "fighting" the resolution sometimes while programming, expecially in VB.NET where there are docked windows on the bottom of the screen. Its not horrible, the the extra 250 pixels I get with the external monitor make a big difference

All other apps seem pretty natural, on the widescreen, though. Overall I like the widescreen display on my new laptop better than the 15" 1024 x 768 display on my old one. However in this case, I gained 20+% screen space by going to the widescreen, mainly from smaller pixel size. In the Dell monitor debate, however, you are losing screen real-estate by going widescreen. I think that's why the choice is so tough...They are both great monitors.

 

[housecat]

i thought about that as well, and all you need to do if it is a problem is rotate your LCD 90deg and you have a very tall 17.25" screen and about 10.75" wide (dimensions courtesy of sadhu).
So if you work more productively in that environment it'd be an easy swap.

I'd assume photo work would be much better in widescreen.. and rotated, I personally would think that a widescreen would be superior to a 4:3.

17inches of AT goodness... mmmmmm.......

eh, that sounded WAY to sexual.

 

[Urtho]

Ok, you guys got me. Switching my order now to the 2005FPW. 🙂

My reasoning is the time I NEED the most wide of a view is when playing games (FPS especially), where as desktop work isn't the same. I'm sure I can find some way to order my program windows, icons, and taskbars to get a setup that I'll be happy with. Not so sure I'll be able to dodge a 3 pack of rockets heading for me from "offscreen" that I never see coming while playing UT2K4 with a standard monitor.

The turning point for me is that even with the 2005FPW being shorter than the 2001FP, it's viewing area will still be significantly larger vertically and unbelievable larger horizontally then my current 19" KDS. This beast has some very large side panels surrounding the viewable area, so even the 2005FPW will be a huge upgrade vertically. Also, given my available desk area and setup, the extra height of the 2001FP would seem to make it tower over my sitting area where as the 2005FPW should be fairly close to what I have now in terms of positioning/angles which is good as I like how I've got things arranged right now. Believe me, I got out the tape measure and spent the better part of an hour playing around with setups in my mind for each model. Yes, I know that this is sad. *sigh*

Btw, for anyone else interested in changing your order who ordered online (presumably most of us), I'll save you a step. This is the "change order" page on the Dell website that I was given in an email to support:

http://support.dell.com/ChangeOrder/index.aspx

Thanks for all the ideas/comments/screenshots everyone. Really helped me out a lot with this very difficult decision. Now I just have to win the LCD lottery in terms of the backlight/dead pixel issues. Joy. :frown:

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: nitromullet
That is the thing, with a 16:10 resolution, you don't get more on the top and bottom with a 1600x1200 monitor, you just get a stretched picture (at least with HL2). I know this for a fact, since I have a 1600x1200 monitor now. The only way from me to get a 16:10 ratio not stretched is to play in windowed mode.

You don't set the resolution to 16:10, you set the FOV to roughly what it is for a 16:10 resolution. The default FOV is 75", seting it to around 90 will approximate the 16:10 width and give you more top/bottom information.

You got a screenshot of that?

I don't have HL2 available at the moment. But it takes only a few lines in the console to try it out. Just enable the cheat mode, type "default fov 90" and "fov 90" and compare it with the widescreen resolution.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: housecat
I'd assume photo work would be much better in widescreen.. and rotated, I personally would think that a widescreen would be superior to a 4:3.

Common digital camera picture ratios all work better on a 4:3 screen and rotated, you do gain 80 pixels in height but a 150 pixels is a lot to lose. And ClearType doesn't work as well rotated.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Urtho
Also, given my available desk area and setup, the extra height of the 2001FP would seem to make it tower over my sitting area where as the 2005FPW should be fairly close to what I have now in terms of positioning/angles which is good as I like how I've got things arranged right now. Believe me, I got out the tape measure and spent the better part of an hour playing around with setups in my mind for each model. Yes, I know that this is sad. *sigh*

Not really. I'm just the same. You made the right decision.. after seeing longhorn being designed for widescreens, and the WS gaming shots.. I havent had an ounce of doubt. Toss in the great response time and slightly better specs and its not much more of a debate for me.

The backlight issues and pixels are just what comes with the technology, but I've heard more ppl saying 0 dead pixels than otherwise on the 2005. So Im wagering mine (arriving monday) will be perfect. If not, dell is extremely good about stuff anyway.

Now I just need to find a use for all the extra desk space..

Cant wait to play UT04 (my favorite as well.. the game just has EVERYTHING).. I've waited to buy world of warcraft because I didnt have my flatscreen.. same for HL2.. I want to experience every new game like they are meant to be played.

note: should add teh FOV change will probably work in singleplayer, but prob not in multiplayer where it would matter.. because it technically is a cheat. i would like to see a screen shot of this being done anyway.

 

[imported_driver]

Here are a couple of shots that show what PS and C1DSLR look like on my desktop. These are the primary tools I use for photo editing. The widescreen aspect ratio gives me a lot more useable space than my old 4:3 aspect ratio display.

 

[termac50]

I've had the 2001fp for a year, and just got the 2005fpw today. Am using a dual monitor setup w/ the 9800pro. I've always thought my 2001fp was pretty good, until I hooked the 2005 up. The 2005 picture is so much better, regardless of dvi or vga hookup. The contrast is 600:1, whereas the 2001 has 400:1, and it makes a world of difference. I've been working on both for a few hours and there is no competition. After the first hour or so, I was checking ebay to see how much I could get for my 2001fp. And I'm not even comparing wide screen vs fullscreen here, this is just based on picture quality. Using the extended desktop, moving windows from one monitor to the other, you can absolutely see a huge difference.

As for widescreen considerations, I do play a lot of WoW, a little bit of HL2, and a lot of online poker. The extra width helps out, but not as much as you would think. You get an extra inch of view, that's it. It's really neat to play WoW in windowed mode 1680x1050 on the 2005fpw, and on the 2001fp & 1600x1200, have some poker tables and web pages going at the same time. Just move the mouse over to the other screen; seamless and perfect! Or you can have a widescreen movie going on the 2005 and work on the 2001, etc. Great stuff. For around $550 or so w/ all the coupons going, this is great. But if you have lots of dough, skip what I just said and get an Apple Cinema LCD. That line of lcd's piss all over everything else I've seen.

 

[Hikari]

I love my 2005fpw too. I agree on your comments in regards to it and how the screen compares to the 2001.

As for the Apple Cinema Display... The 20" one has the exact same panel as the Dell, but it does have a prettier bezel and all I guess. hehe

Originally posted by: termac50
I've had the 2001fp for a year, and just got the 2005fpw today. Am using a dual monitor setup w/ the 9800pro. I've always thought my 2001fp was pretty good, until I hooked the 2005 up. The 2005 picture is so much better, regardless of dvi or vga hookup. The contrast is 600:1, whereas the 2001 has 400:1, and it makes a world of difference. I've been working on both for a few hours and there is no competition. After the first hour or so, I was checking ebay to see how much I could get for my 2001fp. And I'm not even comparing wide screen vs fullscreen here, this is just based on picture quality. Using the extended desktop, moving windows from one monitor to the other, you can absolutely see a huge difference.

As for widescreen considerations, I do play a lot of WoW, a little bit of HL2, and a lot of online poker. The extra width helps out, but not as much as you would think. You get an extra inch of view, that's it. It's really neat to play WoW in windowed mode 1680x1050 on the 2005fpw, and on the 2001fp & 1600x1200, have some poker tables and web pages going at the same time. Just move the mouse over to the other screen; seamless and perfect! Or you can have a widescreen movie going on the 2005 and work on the 2001, etc. Great stuff. For around $550 or so w/ all the coupons going, this is great. But if you have lots of dough, skip what I just said and get an Apple Cinema LCD. That line of lcd's piss all over everything else I've seen.

 

[Peter]

... but for the Apple 20" CinemaDisplay, you need to buy that silly ADC-DVI converter box. (Or has it been changed to native-DVI since last time I handled one?)

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Peter
... but for the Apple 20" CinemaDisplay, you need to buy that silly ADC-DVI converter box. (Or has it been changed to native-DVI since last time I handled one?)

Yup, they now have DVI for their cinema displays.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Hikari
I love my 2005fpw too. I agree on your comments in regards to it and how the screen compares to the 2001.

As for the Apple Cinema Display... The 20" one has the exact same panel as the Dell, but it does have a prettier bezel and all I guess. hehe

Where did you find this info?

 

[Hikari]

Well, the specs are the same anyway, exactly. I know I've seen quite a few references to them being the same (LG I think) panel. Especially on arstechnica.

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Hikari
I love my 2005fpw too. I agree on your comments in regards to it and how the screen compares to the 2001.

As for the Apple Cinema Display... The 20" one has the exact same panel as the Dell, but it does have a prettier bezel and all I guess. hehe

Where did you find this info?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Hikari
I love my 2005fpw too. I agree on your comments in regards to it and how the screen compares to the 2001.

As for the Apple Cinema Display... The 20" one has the exact same panel as the Dell, but it does have a prettier bezel and all I guess. hehe

Where did you find this info?

There is another thread going on about this LCD that contains the links to regulatory notices for both the Apple Cinema display and the 2005FPW, which shows that the 2005FPW is built by LG, who supplies the panel for the 20" Cinema Display. I don't think that it is possible to tell from that data that the panels are the same ones, just from the same manufacturer.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...3149&enterthread=y

FCC Declaration of Conformity

According to 47 CFR, Part 15 of the FCC Rules

* For the following named product :

COLOR MONITOR
(Category Name)

2005FPW / DELL? - LG
(Model No / Brand Name) (Basic Model)

* Manufactured at :
LG Electronics, Inc.
We hereby declare that this device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules.
Operation is subject to the following two conditions :

1. This device may not cause harmful interference, and
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

* FCC Rules :
Tested to comply with FCC part 15, class B

* Test site at :
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc.

* Responsible Party for Product Compliance :
LG Electronics U.S.A Inc.
2000 Millbrook Dr. Lincolnshire, IL 60069, U.S.A
Tel)847-941-8373

* Manufacturer Information :

LG Electronics Inc.
642, Jinpyeong-dong, Gumi-city, GyeongBuk, 730-727 Korea.




Display Division
Engineering Department
Manager

Yeong Hur

(place and date of issue)


(name and signature of authorized person)

Edit... Although, if they both are LG panels, then they must be the LM201W01, since that appears to be the only 1680x1050 LCD LG manufactures.

A lnk to LG's product line:

http://global.lgphilips-lcd.com/en/product/monitor.html

Edit 2: Actually that thread deosn't link to Apple's reulatory statement, but I found it in the manual...

http://manuals.info.apple.com/...lays(30)_0342534UG.pdf

...no mention of who actually makes the panel

 

[imported_driver]

The Apple 20" Cinema display has a contrast ratio of 400:1, so it can't be the same panel.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: driver
The Apple 20" Cinema display has a contrast ratio of 400:1, so it can't be the same panel.

That is a good call. I have heard that they are the same panel, but I can't find any concrete information to support or refute the claim.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: driver
The Apple 20" Cinema display has a contrast ratio of 400:1, so it can't be the same panel.

Different contrast ratios doesn't mean anything. Different companies put different contrast ratios on same panels. Some companies like Samsung use inflated numbers. Others like Apple use modest numbers. Dell is usually in-between.

 

[Thor86]

Well, they are both 8bit panels as both at 16.7mill colours. Thanks for the info! :beer: