please help me chose the right monitor, I don't know much about these things: currently I have two Dell's 20-inch ultra sharp monitors, and I want to add a third one. I'm thinking about getting a bigger one 22 inch, but I'm confused about the specs: the 20" Dell UltraSharp 2009W has the same max resolution (1680 x 1050) as the 22" DELL ULTRASHARP 2208WFP why is that? does it mean the 20" is actually much better quality? The contrast ratio for the 20" is also higher (2000:1 vs 1000:1 for the 22") . I want a big monitor, but I also want a sharp picture, is the 20" better? any other recommendations?
You can find a lot of threads on this topic, and lots of different opinions. The 20" will have a better picture relative to the 22", as you are correct - same number of lines in the 20", as in the 22". As for me, I wanted a bigger monitor than 20", but did not want to spend the extra money for the 24". I was initially worried about not being happy with the quality of the 22" monitor, as I am pretty particular about my electronics gear. But, I ended up with the model you mentioned and couldn't be happier. I purchased mine from the Dell website for $207 new. You may also want to look at their refurbished ones as well (to get more size for the dollar or just a cheaper price).
thanks for your input, yes, I just saw the prices are great! I might go with the 22", I'm just used to the super sharp 20" and I hope I won't be disappointed with the 22"...if anything I can always keep that one a little further away
The sharpest picture will generally be from the one with the smallest pixels. The 20", 1600x1200 UXGA has a pixel size of .255mm. The 22", 1680x1050 has .282mm. The 24", 1920x1200 has .270mm
well, I don't know...I use Dell's 20-inch ultra sharp monitors, and I'm very happy with them. I want the bigger one, but I also want it to be as sharp as the 20" unless I won't even see the difference?
You can see the difference.... I have 20", UXGA and 24". I'm not a fan of SXGA widescreen 19, 20, 22, but that's what most have these days because of lower cost.
If you view it from the same distance, the 22" won't seem quite as sharp... bigger pixels, you know. For "sharpness", the 20" widescreens are good... .258mm pixel size 24", 1920x1200 is a decent compromise of size and sharpness with a .270mm pixel size.
"Contrast ratio" is mostly marketing fluff. In real life, you generally don't encounter actual CR > 200:1. And this perception is influenced by ambient light. To actually see something like 500:1, you'd have to view the display in a dark closet. The best practical measure of Contrast potential is to find a review of your monitor where the "black" measure is indicated after calibrating the brightness to 100-120 nits. .20-.25 nits (black) is very good. At .60 nits or so, what's supposed to be black starts looking dark gray, but even that's not all that bad... you can get used to it. Poor black readings would be around .80 and greater... the worst I recall reading about were around 1.25 nits.... maybe 1.5. The measure of "blackness" isn't from the absence of light, but rather how effective the panel is at blocking light. Some panel types are inherently weaker about this than others.