Just ordered the Dell UltraSharp 2209WA

Wow I'm really tempted to buy this monitor, but does anyone know if/when Dell will release a 24 inch version? This is very nice, but I think I'd rather have something with full 1080p, and HDMI would be nice too. :)
 
along those lines...

this thread was first started (all things considered) a good while ago. Is there any recent news of other e-IPS monitors coming out over these next few months? Especially by Dell?

I'm thinking about picking up this 2209WA either way. But it stinks, just last September I got a 20" from Dell, (junky by comparison) TN panel, for almost $300.
 
Peter949 said:
What brightness setting are you guys running with this monitor?
Click to expand...

Think I eventually set it at high teens low 20's. Still not sure about the contrast, right now I've got it set at 75, but there's a BIG difference between 74 and 75 and I'm not sure which I prefer.
 
BlueMan said:
1) my original pic was too dark and not representative, but these 2 show how bad it really is (and, thus, maybe this LCD should still go back for a replacement 2209WA, which should be a better unit?)

OR

2) these 2 new pix are just over exposed (and, thus, not showing reality, this LCD is just fine relative to other 2209WAs and it should stay).

Thanks all for your thoughts on this!
Click to expand...

You're taking these pictures with the monitor in full blackness. Do you use your computer in a completely dark room? There will always be a little bit of backlight bleed in a 100% dark room. But if you are like normal people and use your computer in a properly lit environment this really isn't an issue. Looking at the black background of this forum, I cannot tell any difference between the brightness of the black background and the screen when the monitor is off. Long exposure photos of a monitor in 100% black environment will always show backlighting. Even with CRTs!

kapeks said:
10e:

does this all mean your profile is useless for all other 2209wa monitors out there (from diff. batches and so on) but yours? sorry, you got me confused now..

and, was it confirmed by now whether 2209wa is 6-bit or 8-bit (if 8-bit then why there's banding on some webpages??)
Click to expand...

IMO yes the profiles from other people's monitors are useless for you. I would even argue that using another person's profile is worse than just using the factory default, or using a free software "eyeball" based calibration. The reason is that by using someone else's profile, since you do not know the characteristic of their screen compared to yours, it is completely random if it will improve the color, or make it worse. With an eyeball profiler, at least you will be making adjustments to the screen in an attempt to correct towards a known target, not just randomly installing profiles that have no correlation to your individual display whatsoever. If you're careful, the eyeball adjusting can be pretty good, certainly "good enough" because if you are unwilling to invest in a colorimeter for yourself- your color needs must not be that high!

Just my $0.02. Rant over.

Ruahrc
 
kapeks said:
10e:

1 more thing:

by R99,G98,B100 you mean "upper" or "lower" levels of each. It seems you need 2 presses of a key to get +/- 1.

so R99 - 1 or 2 presses (-) from 100
G98 - 1 or 2 presses (-) from 99
B100 - 1 or 2 presses (+) from 99
Click to expand...

Upper on all of them. I don't fiddle with going lower because that's confusing :)
 
I don't know about everyone else's screen but mine was pretty darn good without a profile at 50% contrast. While it is only 500:1 contrast, mine was a DE94 of under 2 at just 50%, and gamma was bang on at that level without correction too, and that's half the battle.

I agree it's best to get your own colorimeter, but I don't agree that it will be worse than factory in most cases, but in some yes it probably won't be better than factory.

I would recommend either of the Eye One Display product (2 or LT), and maybe the color spyder 3 because it's a standard gamut screen, and the ColorSpyder products have issues with wide gamut.

Ruahrc said:
You're taking these pictures with the monitor in full blackness. Do you use your computer in a completely dark room? There will always be a little bit of backlight bleed in a 100% dark room. But if you are like normal people and use your computer in a properly lit environment this really isn't an issue. Looking at the black background of this forum, I cannot tell any difference between the brightness of the black background and the screen when the monitor is off. Long exposure photos of a monitor in 100% black environment will always show backlighting. Even with CRTs!



IMO yes the profiles from other people's monitors are useless for you. I would even argue that using another person's profile is worse than just using the factory default, or using a free software "eyeball" based calibration. The reason is that by using someone else's profile, since you do not know the characteristic of their screen compared to yours, it is completely random if it will improve the color, or make it worse. With an eyeball profiler, at least you will be making adjustments to the screen in an attempt to correct towards a known target, not just randomly installing profiles that have no correlation to your individual display whatsoever. If you're careful, the eyeball adjusting can be pretty good, certainly "good enough" because if you are unwilling to invest in a colorimeter for yourself- your color needs must not be that high!

Just my $0.02. Rant over.

Ruahrc
Click to expand...
 
hey guys,
please excuse my n00bness :) theres a lot of info on this forum and its hard to take it all in at them moment!

I'm looking for a monitor to go with my new macbook pro ( its one of the new displayport ones). I wanted an IPS panel as I am a photographer so color accuracy is pretty important!

I have however been somewhat pleased with results from my macbook screen and prints look similar , so far no complaints from clients either. Am I right in thinking though that I will get a better, more accurate picture with this monitor?

At first I was looking at the NEC 2490wuxi but realistically thats right up there on my budget and I have other things I would rather do with the money.

If i get the Dell, and a color calibration device of some sort, do you think I will be happy? Or will I always be wandering if i should have gone for the NEC? Coming from just using the macbook pro screen i think I will be happy with the Dell? But i'm not 100% convinced. Here in canada we are looking at $1400 for the NEC and $360 for the Dell. Clearly the NEC is far superior but will the Dell do the trick to compliment my mac screen?
 
Thanks to the guy who posted the guide on how to push this display to 75hz, very useful and very noticeable difference, appreciate it a lot :)

whistlerdan said:
hey guys,
please excuse my n00bness :) theres a lot of info on this forum and its hard to take it all in at them moment!

I'm looking for a monitor to go with my new macbook pro ( its one of the new displayport ones). I wanted an IPS panel as I am a photographer so color accuracy is pretty important!

I have however been somewhat pleased with results from my macbook screen and prints look similar , so far no complaints from clients either. Am I right in thinking though that I will get a better, more accurate picture with this monitor?

At first I was looking at the NEC 2490wuxi but realistically thats right up there on my budget and I have other things I would rather do with the money.

If i get the Dell, and a color calibration device of some sort, do you think I will be happy? Or will I always be wandering if i should have gone for the NEC? Coming from just using the macbook pro screen i think I will be happy with the Dell? But i'm not 100% convinced. Here in canada we are looking at $1400 for the NEC and $360 for the Dell. Clearly the NEC is far superior but will the Dell do the trick to compliment my mac screen?
Click to expand...

It'll be way better than your MBP, but not as good as the NEC, no. I think it's a wonderful display for the price though and I don't believe the NEC is worth the money for 99% of users, although I'm sure it's an incredible display. But yeah, much, much more accurate than your MBP, no doubt about that.
 
It's no NEC, but if you are just looking for an accurate, standard gamut IPS monitor, this one should do you quite well.

You can get excellent color accuracy on this screen with a good calibration package like Lacie Blue Eye Pro. I was able to get less than DE94 0.28 with it, which is pretty amazing.


whistlerdan said:
hey guys,
please excuse my n00bness :) theres a lot of info on this forum and its hard to take it all in at them moment!

I'm looking for a monitor to go with my new macbook pro ( its one of the new displayport ones). I wanted an IPS panel as I am a photographer so color accuracy is pretty important!

I have however been somewhat pleased with results from my macbook screen and prints look similar , so far no complaints from clients either. Am I right in thinking though that I will get a better, more accurate picture with this monitor?

At first I was looking at the NEC 2490wuxi but realistically thats right up there on my budget and I have other things I would rather do with the money.

If i get the Dell, and a color calibration device of some sort, do you think I will be happy? Or will I always be wandering if i should have gone for the NEC? Coming from just using the macbook pro screen i think I will be happy with the Dell? But i'm not 100% convinced. Here in canada we are looking at $1400 for the NEC and $360 for the Dell. Clearly the NEC is far superior but will the Dell do the trick to compliment my mac screen?
Click to expand...
 
ToastyX said:
That isn't how to test if it's really 75 Hz. There wouldn't be tearing with vsync regardless.

The best way to tell is to move a window around or even just the mouse cursor and see if it's smoother or if it judders. If it's smoother, it's doing 75 Hz. If it judders, it's skipping every 5th frame.

I haven't seen any IPS panel that can do 75 Hz at the native resolution without skipping frames, so if someone can verify this, I might be interested in getting one.

Also, does the "4:3" scaling option scale to 4:3 or is it really aspect scaling? It doesn't have 1:1 mapping, but most people want aspect scaling, not 1:1 mapping.
Click to expand...

Yep, it works. 1680x1050@75hz reported by video card, monitor, and eyes. No herky jerky mouse and movements like I've seen on other screens.
 
Chat works.. I specifically asked "Is the special deal for the 2209WA LCD still going on? ($212 with free ship). Ready to buy if so.". Provided cell phone with fake company name, address, card, etc, no problems. Was a little slow, took about 30 minutes, otherwise all good. Order is in place.
 
I finally received my monitor early this morning. I'm a very picky person when it comes to dead pixels/back light bleed and I must say I'm absolutely blown away by this monitor. This is my second stab at a lcd monitor after my crt just went out recently. My first one I tried 2 months ago was a LG Flatron L227WTG-PF

I had it for less than a week because it had horrible back light bleed, the TN problem of the top and bottom of the screen never being the same looks wise. I couldn't use it for more than 20 minutes before starting to feel sick and get a headache.

The build quality of this monitor and stand blows that LG out of the sky. There is some minor back light bleed on the top right of the screen, but it's a white instead of a blue like the LG was and it's not noticeable unless it's a full black screen. While it does bug me a little bit, I'm guessing there is little chance of getting a new one with no bleed/no dead pixels or any other number of problems, plus I can barely notice it. The sides of the monitor *might* be a little dimmer but that may be caused by how deep the monitor is inside the frame.

I'll never use a TN panel again after seeing the difference between this one and the LG. Dell has earned a new customer for a long time if they can keep this type of quality in future products.
 
Last edited:
GIven that so many people have chimed in with calibrated RGB and brigtness/contrast settings, is there anything to be said for buying your own calibration device?

Or is is just going to give the same results?

Do individual panels vary enough that you should still buy your own calibrator?

thanks!
 
In order to properly calibrate the 2209WA, you must enter the service menu and adjust the RGB Gain (especially for VGA). And yes, heaving a color meter and a software will yield the most accurate picture. However, if you're not using the monitor for image critical work, it's better to use someones else's settings and manually fine tune it to your preference.

You can find all the info on the link below. The target brightness is 150cmd2. To lower it, just lower the backlight (brightness).

http://cid-9c09d09ec80b78d1.skydriv...Hosting/2209WA Color Profile and Settings.zip
 
whistlerdan said:
GIven that so many people have chimed in with calibrated RGB and brigtness/contrast settings, is there anything to be said for buying your own calibration device?

Or is is just going to give the same results?

Do individual panels vary enough that you should still buy your own calibrator?

thanks!
Click to expand...

The best way would be to have your own calibration device, but the profiles could still help. I don't think the panels could vary so much that it would be completely useless, but your mileage may vary.

Nielo TM said:
In order to properly calibrate the 2209WA, you must enter the service menu and adjust the RGB Gain (especially for VGA). And yes, heaving a color meter and a software will yield the most accurate picture. However, if you're not using the monitor for image critical work, it's better to use someones else's settings and manually fine tune it to your preference.

You can find all the info on the link below. The target brightness is 150cmd2. To lower it, just lower the backlight (brightness).

http://cid-9c09d09ec80b78d1.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/Temp%20File%20Hosting/2209WA%20Color%20Profile%20and%20Settings.zip
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's a good idea to enter the service menu. You can do a lot of damage in there. My opinion is that it's best to use a custom RGB mode and change the RGB values in there.

Playing with the gain could make mid tones become more "color dominant" where red, green, or blue becomes more dominant compared to the other colors in how much it gets amplified, because its "ramp" is altered, so be very careful.

At the very least, ENSURE you write down your original settings first to avoid disaster. Same advice as TVs.
 
@rtheb:

could you upload your icc profile file, please? I'm interested in C=73 profile. What's the gamma level/target brightness in cd/m2 (120?) of your profile?

also, are your (R 100, G 97, B 99) in "upper" or "lower" positions?

why you settled on sharpness 40 instead of 50 - is it down to personal pref.?

I settled on
Brightness 3
Contrast 73
Sharpness 40

After Calibrating with Spyder2 PRO used these RGB settings
R 100
G 97
B 99
Click to expand...


@all: which sharpness setting (default: 50, 40 etc) do you use and why?
 
Last edited:
10e said:
I don't know if it's a good idea to enter the service menu. You can do a lot of damage in there. My opinion is that it's best to use a custom RGB mode and change the RGB values in there.

Playing with the gain could make mid tones become more "color dominant" where red, green, or blue becomes more dominant compared to the other colors in how much it gets amplified, because its "ramp" is altered, so be very careful.

At the very least, ENSURE you write down your original settings first to avoid disaster. Same advice as TVs.
Click to expand...

I couldn't stabilize the RGB level using the end-user interface. In order to preform full gray-scale calibration, both sections/ends of the RGB range must be configured. Altering the gain not only allowed me to get the gamma spot on, I was also able to get the RGBs perfectly balanced.

Also, the Dell's Service Menu is far more user friendly than the ones typically found in MP3/MP4 players. However, when it comes to HDTVs, it's a big no-no.

PS: I included all the default settings in the link. So the user shouldn't have any problem.

PPS: I also managed to stabilize the image via VGA (without the use of color profiles).
 
@10e:

I don't know about everyone else's screen but mine was pretty darn good without a profile at 50% contrast. While it is only 500:1 contrast, mine was a DE94 of under 2 at just 50%, and gamma was bang on at that level without correction too, and that's half the battle.
Click to expand...

that's interesting.. so C was 50 and brightness was ?? 0? By "without a profile" you mean Dell supplied .icm file or default Windows one? Was were R, G, B values? What is gamma level and brigtness in cd/2 with such settings?

Asking becuase I find your profile and C=74, Br=0 to bright at night (during the day it's ok). What about making some nice "night" profile for this monitor (maybe with targer brightness at 90-100 cd/m2 instead of 120 as with your current profile if I'm not mistaken), easy/easier for the eyes. What can I do (in terms of changing monitor settings etc) to make working with this monitor at night easier for the eyes (esp. light backgrounds/whites are tiring right now) - I've heard about installing some lamp etc (?). Br=0 ATM so can't lower it further, and by lowering C from 74 I'll probably destroy... yes, what exactly (I know contast ratio will go lower but will color reproduction/fidelity get worse)?
 
Last edited:
Seems a little dull and dark at those settings. Must be mine won't work with those settings too well.

rtheb said:
I settled on
Brightness 3
Contrast 73
Sharpness 40

After Calibrating with Spyder2 PRO used these RGB settings
R 100
G 97
B 99
Click to expand...
 
Just got an e-mail from Dell. There adding another week to the shipping time. That'll be 3 weeks from order date to delivery. Maybe they're having trouble substituting the cheap TN panels in the new stock of monitors. ;)
 
kapeks said:
@rtheb:

could you upload your icc profile file, please? I'm interested in C=73 profile. What's the gamma level/target brightness in cd/m2 (120?) of your profile?

also, are your (R 100, G 97, B 99) in "upper" or "lower" positions?

why you settled on sharpness 40 instead of 50 - is it down to personal pref.?




@all: which sharpness setting (default: 50, 40 etc) do you use and why?
Click to expand...

Use http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php

Sharpness @ 40 seems to be the best result for most if not all owners though I haven't read through every page of this thread.
 
desertjedi said:
Just got an e-mail from Dell. There adding another week to the shipping time. That'll be 3 weeks from order date to delivery. Maybe they're having trouble substituting the cheap TN panels in the new stock of monitors. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it deserjedi, they did the same to me and its supposed to arrive on the original Estimated Delivery Date, tomorrow :D:D:D..
 
kapeks said:
@rtheb:

could you upload your icc profile file, pleaseof your profile?
Click to expand...
My Dell 2209WA(Digital).icm profile, my Dell 2209WA(Digital).icc profile, Dell 2209WA OEM Monitor Manual (use index.htm to open in browser), and set-up .pdf can be downloaded here
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about it deserjedi, they did the same to me and its supposed to arrive on the original Estimated Delivery Date, tomorrow
Click to expand...
I'm just wondering what takes them so long to get a monitor shipped out?
 
first of all, hello, that's my first post here :cool:

second, i bought a 2209wa lcd 2 days ago, i'm very satisfied with it, except a little thing: backlight bleeding. i've noticed this today, after a couple days of using it :)

i know every lcd suffers from backlight bleeding, but seeing that here are people that know their way with lcd, i want to ask your opinion, especially the right upper part of the screen is brighter - suffering more from bb.

i attached 2 pictures, the second one being taken with other settings to highlight the effect.

img15771.jpg

By boogdann1989 at 2009-04-14

img157611.jpg

By boogdann1989, shot with Canon PowerShot A550 at 2009-04-14


thanks
 
Herculane,

Take a picture with the camera further back, or just look at it from a bit further away and straight-on. eIPS is like all "standard" polarized H-IPS in regards to a white shimmery glow to blacks that can be seen off-angle or if you are very close up to it. I bet if you put up a black screen and move side to side the silvery shimmer will follow you. Check it out.

If your first picture is accurate, then I don't see anything you have to worry about. The second picture can't be accurate :)
 
I recently received this monitor and it looks good except one spot that's bugging me. I don't know if it's a dead or stuck pixel or something else, but the problem is that there is one tiny speck near the center that's constantly ever so slightly darker than the rest of the screen except when the area around the speck is all black, in which case the speck isn't visible. I can't even pinpoint the exact location because if I move my head around, the speck moves around a little too, like the Mona Lisa.

On an all white screen, it looks like a very light, hazy gray speck. So when the screen is any other color except black, the one spot is just ever so slightly darker than what it should be. It's like if your shirt was pixelated, and you dropped a pixel of water on it, that one spot would be pretty much the same color as the rest of your shirt but it's slightly darker. It's not very obvious like a distinctive dead pixel that's black, but I definitely notice this spot as I stare at the screen. It's almost like seeing a floater in your eye, except it's in the monitor.

I don't know how many pixels are causing this, maybe 1, 2, 3 or 4. Hard to tell because it's a tiny spec and it's kind of blurry so the border is hard to pin point. Any idea what's wrong and should I get it replaced?

Also about backlight bleeding, in a pitch dark room, my black screen looks something like in between the 2 pictures herculane posted on top. So not completely black like the 1st photo, but not as bright as the 2nd one. Is that normal or is it supposed to look like the 1st photo?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top