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?
"History Fan" <UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote in message
news:2f46a$474decb5$483111ec$1228@FUSE.NET...
> 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?
>
Forgot to mention I use a DVI connection for both monitors.
History Fan, did transcribed the following::
> "History Fan" <UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote in message
> news:2f46a$474decb5$483111ec$1228@FUSE.NET...
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>
>
> Forgot to mention I use a DVI connection for both monitors.
>
>
>
I have the Dell 2007WFP running on a 256mb ATI Radeon X1300Pro and using
the DVI interface at 1680x1050 as well. Does not matter about the DVI
connection. You need a HI-Def source to really let DVI shine... DVI is
wasted on normal stuff like spreadsheets and documents let along normal
run of the mill web pages.
As to your resolution problem, You hit the nail on the head. Those
silly little extra 2 inches. Yes 22" is nice, but you need to add
distance between you and the LCD, that will help a little.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:33:21 -0500, "History Fan"
<UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote:
> 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?
Your experience doesn't match with mine, although I briefly had the
preceding 20" wide screen model for a while not the more up to date
one (I returned the 20" for a 24" -- definitely worth it).
I had the 22" wide screen for a while, and found it to be excellent in
terms of brightness and sharpness -- better than the 20" wide screen.
The main problem I could see with the 22" wide screen (the model you
mention) was that colors were not as accurate as they were on my 24".
The larger size of the 22" over the 20" wide screen though was
definitely a plus, and totally accurate color reproduction wasn't a
priority for me so I really liked the 22" (especially the price).
I too experienced the inaccurate colors on my 22" Dell monitor. The greys
were pinkish in color. It really made things look bad. Took the monitor
back thinking it was maybe just a defect. Second monitor did the exact same
thing. I put two of my other LCD monitors on and they looked fine. I just
took the 22" monitor back. I wish it would have been better, I really liked
the bigger screen.
"Journey" <journey@merr.com> wrote in message
news:fdksk39me3aup4sgk0o2hfebjd6aolpt97@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:33:21 -0500, "History Fan"
> <UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Your experience doesn't match with mine, although I briefly had the
> preceding 20" wide screen model for a while not the more up to date
> one (I returned the 20" for a 24" -- definitely worth it).
>
> I had the 22" wide screen for a while, and found it to be excellent in
> terms of brightness and sharpness -- better than the 20" wide screen.
>
> The main problem I could see with the 22" wide screen (the model you
> mention) was that colors were not as accurate as they were on my 24".
>
> The larger size of the 22" over the 20" wide screen though was
> definitely a plus, and totally accurate color reproduction wasn't a
> priority for me so I really liked the 22" (especially the price).
"Adman" <banditnospamdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2KA3j.204843$Xa3.149035@attbi_s22...
>I too experienced the inaccurate colors on my 22" Dell monitor. The greys
>were pinkish in color. It really made things look bad. Took the monitor
>back thinking it was maybe just a defect. Second monitor did the exact
>same thing. I put two of my other LCD monitors on and they looked fine. I
>just took the 22" monitor back. I wish it would have been better, I really
>liked the bigger screen.
>
Supposedly the 2208WFP has a feature called 'Dell True Color.'
According to Dell, this means..."Richer, life-like imagery that has accurate
color representation better tones and hues. Reds, greens and blues are
deeper and more vibrant." I have noticed at some websites that reds and
blues are more pronounced.
I've tinkered relentlessly with the Contrast and Brightness settings
(currently 47 and 68) on the 2208WFP, and have a decent picture quality now.
Nothing sensational, but good enough. I tried the Sharpness option, but
that made colors too faded. I went back to the default, 50.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:54:05 -0500, "History Fan"
<UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote:
>"Adman" <banditnospamdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2KA3j.204843$Xa3.149035@attbi_s22...
>>I too experienced the inaccurate colors on my 22" Dell monitor. The greys
>>were pinkish in color. It really made things look bad. Took the monitor
>>back thinking it was maybe just a defect. Second monitor did the exact
>>same thing. I put two of my other LCD monitors on and they looked fine. I
>>just took the 22" monitor back. I wish it would have been better, I really
>>liked the bigger screen.
>>
>
>
> Supposedly the 2208WFP has a feature called 'Dell True Color.'
>According to Dell, this means..."Richer, life-like imagery that has accurate
>color representation better tones and hues. Reds, greens and blues are
>deeper and more vibrant." I have noticed at some websites that reds and
>blues are more pronounced.
>
> I've tinkered relentlessly with the Contrast and Brightness settings
>(currently 47 and 68) on the 2208WFP, and have a decent picture quality now.
>Nothing sensational, but good enough. I tried the Sharpness option, but
>that made colors too faded. I went back to the default, 50.
I wasn't able to get accurate colors on the 22", but again it depends
on what's important to a person. I sold the 22" with one of my
laptops that I sold because I decided that I didn't really need 4
monitors hooked up to my desktop PC :-)
1680x1050 resolution on 20" & 22" monitors 
Linear Mode
