BenQ E2200HDA Full HD 16:9

Nice Tzeh Pesh, I have couple questions for you regarding the monitor.

1) Are the movies you are showing Blu-Ray? If so aren't they supposed to not have black bars?

2) Are you connected via DVI?

3) How is the color reproduction, say from a photograph? I understand it is a TN-panel, and color reproduction is not great.

I am thinking of upgrading my 24-inch, due to desk space being so small to this monitor, and since I game and watch Blu-Ray movies I needed one that was exactly 1080p. Still not sure about the TN-panel though....

Dang, I have to decide soon if I want this since I am sure that BenQ sale won't last for long once it's release here in the U.S....
 
The reason I say 29ms as a worst case scenario is because the most that the E2200 is behind the CRT is (at one point) .02 seconds (or 20ms) behind, but because there is no third digit the most it could be is another .009 (or 9ms) equaling up to .029 seconds, or 29 ms in total. I doubt it's that high though, I'm just saying that is the absolute max. For another significant digit in the stop watch you can use the program at this link:

http://tft.vanity.dk/inputlag.exe

Concerning color settings I'll let you know in a couple of days once I get a calibrator on the E2200HD and post some improved RGB settings (hopefully).

It seems the "standard" picture mode and "normal" color setting works well with 50 brightness and 46 contrast to remove any light color wash out (where bright colors are shown as white). The colors seem pretty good from my point of view, maybe a little better than the V2400W concerning dark grey shades.

Your review post is great. Lotsa info in a short space..

Tzeh Pesh said:
I certainly hope not nandaman, my posts are quite amateur hour.
Wasn't aware it was all that early... they have been listed on some online Australian PC stores a little while now.

Thank you 10e! Though if anything I'm the one that should be saying much appreciated to you, as while debating which monitor to purchase had read a lot of the very useful information you post here and your monitor reviews, so thank you for taking the time out on all those and for setting me straight on input lag here. Though still a little confused though as to how you came to the figure 29ms, had thought it was showing 0, 10, and 20. Perhaps I need to look at getting a program with an extra significant figure for ms and further adjust the exposure to nail it down a little more precisely. Don't suppose I could possibly trouble you too, if its not too big an inconvenience, for how to most simply test/correct the factory colour settings? Please?

Sorry Mikerocks2112, but this is my first LCD. Only thing I have to compare it to is an old 17" CRT.
However, made this up from the specifications on the BenQ site - a 22" 16:9, 22" 16:10, and 24" 16:10. That help any?
Click to expand...
 
1) No if they are 16:9 movies like Sweeney Todd, yes if they are 2.4:1 width movies like Iron Man.

tronmaster said:
Nice Tzeh Pesh, I have couple questions for you regarding the monitor.

1) Are the movies you are showing Blu-Ray? If so aren't they supposed to not have black bars?

2) Are you connected via DVI?

3) How is the color reproduction, say from a photograph? I understand it is a TN-panel, and color reproduction is not great.

I am thinking of upgrading my 24-inch, due to desk space being so small to this monitor, and since I game and watch Blu-Ray movies I needed one that was exactly 1080p. Still not sure about the TN-panel though....

Dang, I have to decide soon if I want this since I am sure that BenQ sale won't last for long once it's release here in the U.S....
Click to expand...
 
Oh okay. Thanks for replying man. I was just wondering because I was wanting to get this monitor. I still think 24 in. would be too big and this would be a perfect 22in 1080p monitor. Please keep us updated will all the news. Thanks!
 
in case anyone was wondering,

the E2200HD has a screen area of 197.33 sq. in and the 24" model has a screen area of 246.02 sq. in.

so the 24" model gets you 24.6% more viewable area

pixel density is 10508 pixels / sq. in. for the E2200HD and 8428 pixels / sq. in. for the 24" model

These number are from http://www.tvcalculator.com/ using 21.5" and 24"

checked those numbers on the benQ website spec and the 22" model calculations are off just slightly.
 
Dang this monitor keeps getting smaller by the second. I'm wanting to get one to play xbox 360 on.
 
Yeah I'm seriously looking at this monitor for playing Halo 3 on. Are we getting some more precise input lag timings?
Thanks.
 
Yeah I'm going to try to get one before gears of war 2 comes out. Currently i'm using a 20.1" monitor that stretches the image a little bit (i don't really notice it much). But once I move to this e2200 monitor then I'll be able to run full 1080 and get better picture quality. I also watch quite a bit of movies on my computer so it'll seem a lot bigger.
 
Until I get my CRT upstairs I can't give more detailed information, but right now it doesn't seem to lag any more than my BenQ V2400W which is averaging around 8ms input lag with worst case scenario being 33ms, which happens about once every 20 frames. Generally it is 0 or 1 frame lag 95% of the time.

I don't think this will be anything less than nice and low in regards to input lag.

So far it seems like a good economy screen for the PC+HDMI or VGA console crowd, as well as for the fairly intense PC gamer.

I also have the M2400HD to test. This is the E2400HD with 2.0 mp web cam and three USB ports, two on the side and one on top. The M2400HD seems to have (to my eye) slightly better color calibration than the E2200HD out of the box, but both should still be above average.
 
10e said:
Until I get my CRT upstairs I can't give more detailed information, but right now it doesn't seem to lag any more than my BenQ V2400W which is averaging around 8ms input lag with worst case scenario being 33ms, which happens about once every 20 frames. Generally it is 0 or 1 frame lag 95% of the time.

I don't think this will be anything less than nice and low in regards to input lag.

So far it seems like a good economy screen for the PC+HDMI or VGA console crowd, as well as for the fairly intense PC gamer.

I also have the M2400HD to test. This is the E2400HD with 2.0 mp web cam and three USB ports, two on the side and one on top. The M2400HD seems to have (to my eye) slightly better color calibration than the E2200HD out of the box, but both should still be above average.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the great posts. So from what I am hearing the E2200HD is really almost just a 20in monitor? Can you confirm this please?
 
It has a similar, small dot pitch to a 20", as a 1680x1050 20" has .258 and this is .248 (if memory serves), so in that sense, it is quite similar, but it has higher resolution to allow for 1080p, which most 20" monitors do not. Compared to a 24" it is definitely "sharper" due to said small dot pitch.

The ratio is "wider" than a 16:10 20" and it has more horizontal pixels by a decent margin (1920 vs. 1680), but can still easily handle 1680x1050 for those cases when required because vertical resolution is 1080 vs. 1050 pixels.

So in a sense, it is similar, but has higher resolution in a slightly wider display.

nandaman said:
Thanks for all the great posts. So from what I am hearing the E2200HD is really almost just a 20in monitor? Can you confirm this please?
Click to expand...
 
10e said:
It has a similar, small dot pitch to a 20", as a 1680x1050 20" has .258 and this is .248 (if memory serves), so in that sense, it is quite similar, but it has higher resolution to allow for 1080p, which most 20" monitors do not. Compared to a 24" it is definitely "sharper" due to said small dot pitch.

The ratio is "wider" than a 16:10 20" and it has more horizontal pixels by a decent margin (1920 vs. 1680), but can still easily handle 1680x1050 for those cases when required because vertical resolution is 1080 vs. 1050 pixels.

So in a sense, it is similar, but has higher resolution in a slightly wider display.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response 10e, but I was actually referring to the actual, physical dimensions. It seems like it is the same size as a 20in monitor from what needmorecarnitine is saying a few posts up, right? Or maybe I am confused.
 
I am kind of curious as to why so many people are excited for this BenQ model, yet no one seems to be interested in the Dell s2409w model. It seems like in a previous thread ( http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330314 ) most of the posters were annoyed at the 16:9 resolution and loss of pixels which is understandable. But in this thread it seems like the new 16:9 resolution seems to be a selling point. Now I am looking for a secondary monitor for my computer that can also double as my ps3 monitor, so I am definitely quite interested in both this BenQ as well as that Dell s2409w.

So I guess my question is if there is anything different between the two that I should know about. Like if Dell monitor is not good for console gaming/computer use, or if it has some sort of crappy lifespan compared to BenQs. Or is this new BenQ model introducing something different from this Dell model that I just missed?

Thank you very much!
 
It's because the dell has a ridiculously slow output lag (according to digitalversus anyway.)

The basic problem is that the more a monitor does onboard to prettify things, the more time it takes to show us what it's done - and dell are notorious for being slow.

For online gaming .07 of a second is ridiculously slow. That's why we're all so keen to find the propper output lag figures on this one.
 
You know, I just decided that I will get the e2400hd model. Thanks to http://www.tvcalculator.com/ I realized how much I'm really gaining by upgrading to this from my 20.1" monitor. I mostly watch movies on my computer and game on my 360. So looking at that website i was impressed at how much more screen i'd get for watching movies that have a wide screen format but then I noticed that I'd gain no benefit with a non-widescreen video. The other thing I realized with gaming on the 360 I'd only be getting a wider image but using the same height i am now.. Also its only $108 dollars more. For sure I'd get the e2200hd and save my money if I didn't care about the extra couple inches and only gamed on the pc.
 
i got my shipping notification I will have my E2400HD next monday if all goes well
 
Luminare said:
I am kind of curious as to why so many people are excited for this BenQ model, yet no one seems to be interested in the Dell s2409w model. It seems like in a previous thread ( http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330314 ) most of the posters were annoyed at the 16:9 resolution and loss of pixels which is understandable. But in this thread it seems like the new 16:9 resolution seems to be a selling point. Now I am looking for a secondary monitor for my computer that can also double as my ps3 monitor, so I am definitely quite interested in both this BenQ as well as that Dell s2409w.

So I guess my question is if there is anything different between the two that I should know about. Like if Dell monitor is not good for console gaming/computer use, or if it has some sort of crappy lifespan compared to BenQs. Or is this new BenQ model introducing something different from this Dell model that I just missed?

Thank you very much!
Click to expand...
It is the same format 16:9 and it will be just as annoying on this monitor as on the Dell. But 10e seems to only think that things are annoying as long as we are not talking about BenQ monitors.

This forum is very BenQ biased and thats the biggest reason why I visit this place less. You simply cant trust what you read because poeople run their own agendas here. I wouldnt be surprised if 10e is employed by BenQ to market their products. He probably is. He is always very positive towards benQ models, write in a way that serve their purpose and he always recommend BenQ no matter what.

In the Dell 16:9 monitor topic 10e writes this about 16:9 monitors:
"I find this not progress at all,

A 16:9 monitor does not guarantee that a screen will properly scale 480p. Nor does it mean that monitors will get cheaper in economies of scale due to 'synchronization' between monitor and TV product lines.

If that's the case, doesn't this mean that we will start seeing 24" and 26" TVs based on TN? No thanks. As much as I actually prefer TN for text viewing over PVA/MVA, for most other things involving digital content like movies and games, I reverse that especially if off-angle viewing is required. This is why there are no true TVs based on TNs (just hybrids).

Also we do lose popular PC resolutions like 1680x1050 and 1600x1200, so one must weigh that vs. the whole "true 1080p" resolution factor.

I'd prefer 16:10 monitors that can do 16:9 properly and 3:2 (or 15:10) properly as well over cheapened 16:9 panels like this." /10e
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330314

And look in this topic. As always 10e praising BenQ and he isnt negative towards 16:9. Is it a coincidence that we are in a BenQ topic this time. Not a chance.

Thread if you are intrested in the Dell which obviosly at least look much better.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17921737

E2200HD may be good monitor but I wouldnt trust 10e:s comments on it.
 
Can anyone answer my question please? My question was: So in reality this is closer to a 20in monitor more so than a 22in, correct?
 
list which monitors

it may make a difference if you were to compare it to a 20" 5:4 monitor or a widescreen model

This is listed as 21.5" so I think it would be closer to a 22" if you were to compare it to a 20" widescreen of 16:9 ratio (which I don't think exists). You can use that site I posted above to do the calculations if you don't have a specific 20" in mind.
 
The E2200HD is pretty much a 20" WS with an extra inch on each side of horizontal space. Seems kinda small although you do get decent working realestate.
 
nandaman said:
Can anyone answer my question please? My question was: So in reality this is closer to a 20in monitor more so than a 22in, correct?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty vague statement that you would like answered but I think I can answer it. The 21.5" screen is as high as a 20" but of course wider. The tiny pixel pitch makes things a little smaller than a 20" which is much smaller than a 22". So I think it is more like a 20" assuming one can say that.
 
Armatoste said:
The E2200HD is pretty much a 20" WS with an extra inch on each side of horizontal space. Seems kinda small although you do get decent working realestate.
Click to expand...

No, it's an 24"WS with some vertical pixels cut off.

Really, this isn't progress in any way.

1600x1200 > 1920x1200 (way more expensive) > no progress
1600x1200 > 1680x1050 (loss of vertical pixels) > no progress

I hate 16:10 for having not enough vertical spave. Every document you view is based vertically. I have a 14" wide 1440x900 on my laptop and still blame myself that I didn't wait that a month and got the 14" 4:3 1400x1050.

I want two 1920x1440 monitors with the same pixelpitch as 1600x1200 20" and then in the middle a 2560x1600.

How far is this going? Till we have 16:5 or so?

I hope that at the time we can't get anything else I have the fortune to order a special batch of 4:3 :eek:
 
Just buy a 2560 x 1600 monitor and set it to portrait mode.

Problem solved for your vertical space.
 
Luminare said:
I am kind of curious as to why so many people are excited for this BenQ model, yet no one seems to be interested in the Dell s2409w model. It seems like in a previous thread ( http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330314 ) most of the posters were annoyed at the 16:9 resolution and loss of pixels which is understandable. But in this thread it seems like the new 16:9 resolution seems to be a selling point. Now I am looking for a secondary monitor for my computer that can also double as my ps3 monitor, so I am definitely quite interested in both this BenQ as well as that Dell s2409w.

So I guess my question is if there is anything different between the two that I should know about. Like if Dell monitor is not good for console gaming/computer use, or if it has some sort of crappy lifespan compared to BenQs. Or is this new BenQ model introducing something different from this Dell model that I just missed?

Thank you very much!
Click to expand...

No one is interested in the Dell S2409W because it has no Aspect Ratio Setting.

Every resolution is stretched to Fullscreen.
 
Some points:

- I don't work for BenQ, and am no BenQ fanboy. If they put out something horrible, and I see it firsthand, I will indicate as much, or reference reviews indicating this.

- Just because I prefer 16:10 to 16:9 it doesn't mean I will piss on everyone's parade on this thread with my repeated opinion. I expressed it, and it is done. No reason to beat a dead horse.

- My BenQ V2400W may have been an exemplary unit, and I have said this. I purchased it for $149.00 US. This was the only benefit I gained from my review and I did not indicate different back then nor lied about it.

- You purchased a G2400WD and 2493HM earlier this year and this was your post (and my response):

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032851564&postcount=721

I didn't try and sway you to the BenQ, I simply pointed out what I found. The G2400W/V2400W/G2400WD have better color calibration than the Samsung 2493HM, but you preferred the look of that panel, so I just said "enjoy".

- I recommend BenQ monitors when people are looking for good standard gamut gaming screens. My preference has been (of late) the FP241VW because it has a nicer image than the V2400W and similarly low input lag. I have said that the color calibration is not as good on the FP241VW, and the panel is not quite as responsive in dark-to-dark transitions.

- I have two new 16:9 monitors from BenQ: M2400HD and E2200HD. I will review them even if I don't buy them at the "half MSRP" price. I will still review them to no potential personal benefit and this will not change my opinion. I probably will not buy either because I already have too many screens (2 Dells, 1 Westinghouse, 1 NEC, 1 BenQ)

- No one asked you not to post concerning your dislike of BenQ monitors. Please feel free to express your opinion, but if you are going to indicate that I'm a BenQ employee or have some personal agenda to benefit them you need to make more convincing arguments to explain this. Check the G2400W or FP241W threads and you'll see that I have criticized them for certain issues.

- The Dell S2409W uses the same panel as the E2400HD but Dell, of late has not put out "gamer friendly" screens and [H]ardForum enthusiasts are fairly gamer-centric possibly explaining the lack of attention to the Dell.

- To give you a bit of a preview, I'll likely recommend the M2400HD I received over the E2200HD. I will later explain why unless something changes over the next few days.

avec said:
It is the same format 16:9 and it will be just as annoying on this monitor as on the Dell. But 10e seems to only think that things are annoying as long as we are not talking about BenQ monitors.

This forum is very BenQ biased and thats the biggest reason why I visit this place less. You simply cant trust what you read because poeople run their own agendas here. I wouldnt be surprised if 10e is employed by BenQ to market their products. He probably is. He is always very positive towards benQ models, write in a way that serve their purpose and he always recommend BenQ no matter what.

In the Dell 16:9 monitor topic 10e writes this about 16:9 monitors:
"I find this not progress at all,

A 16:9 monitor does not guarantee that a screen will properly scale 480p. Nor does it mean that monitors will get cheaper in economies of scale due to 'synchronization' between monitor and TV product lines.

If that's the case, doesn't this mean that we will start seeing 24" and 26" TVs based on TN? No thanks. As much as I actually prefer TN for text viewing over PVA/MVA, for most other things involving digital content like movies and games, I reverse that especially if off-angle viewing is required. This is why there are no true TVs based on TNs (just hybrids).

Also we do lose popular PC resolutions like 1680x1050 and 1600x1200, so one must weigh that vs. the whole "true 1080p" resolution factor.

I'd prefer 16:10 monitors that can do 16:9 properly and 3:2 (or 15:10) properly as well over cheapened 16:9 panels like this." /10e
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330314

And look in this topic. As always 10e praising BenQ and he isnt negative towards 16:9. Is it a coincidence that we are in a BenQ topic this time. Not a chance.

Thread if you are intrested in the Dell which obviosly at least look much better.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17921737

E2200HD may be good monitor but I wouldnt trust 10e:s comments on it.
Click to expand...
 
I ordered a E2200HD from NCIX canada since they are so cheap. It will probaly take a while before I receive it but will post some impressions.
 
10e said:
- To give you a bit of a preview, I'll likely recommend the M2400HD I received over the E2200HD. I will later explain why unless something changes over the next few days.
Click to expand...

Could you give us more info about this? :)
 
nandaman said:
Same here 10e. I was going to jump on the E2200HD while I could get the 'pre-order discount', but now I'm trying to wait. Hopefully you'll post something soon. :)
Click to expand...
well funny thing is, I pre-ordered mine and for whatever reason if you purchase it now with the $40 coupon it comes out to $8 or so dollars less. My guess is the shipping might have been less. But its certainly not more expensive then the pre-order price



Speaking of, I will have my E2400HD tomorrow around noon. Ill take some pictures for you guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top