[Rumour] Dell UltraSharp U2711 release soon?

[zalbard]

Source: http://vr-zone.com/ (http://vr-zone.com/articles/dell-ultrasharp-u2711-release-soon-/8173.html)

We found a driver released by Dell themselves (DELL_U2711-MONITOR_A00-00_R247058.exe) , dated 30th November 2009 on their own Support site.

Upon taking a look at the driver files, it is noted that the U2711 has:

- VGA output
- DVI output
- HDMI output
- DisplayPort output

And the resolutions of the panel:

[1920]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"1920,1080"

[2048]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"2048,1152"

[2560]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"2560,1440"


It's probably firm that the panel on the U2711 would be the same one found in the 27-inch iMac.


http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/15/154196.jpg

That display is a LG LM270WQ1 16:9 IPS panel with LED backlight, and has a massive 2560 x 1440 resolution.
Ooh, LED backlight, more affordable than 30 inchers, and a pretty high resolution - awesome! :D :up:

[Manicdan]

wheres the price?

[zalbard]

wheres the price?
It's not out yet, it's just a rumour. Wait for a few weeks I guess.

[Manicdan]

sofar only you seem to be calling it cheaper than other 30" monitors, where did you hear it from?

[Mad1723]

sofar only you seem to be calling it cheaper than other 30" monitors, where did you hear it from?

Laws of the market... they can't sell a 27" for a higher price than a 30" :D

[Manicdan]

when its led backlit they can
cheap samsung with backlit led go for 2x the price of ccfl

[Mabyboi]

my god, if it has the same screen as the mac 27", ill be ALL OVER IT!

[Cold Fussion]

I can't see dell going 16x9 for their top end monitor considering their top end is always 16x10

[cirthix]

blah, more 16*9 stuff :(

[Zaskar]

blah, more 16*9 stuff :(

Ehh I imagine at 27" or higher it begins to not be much of a downside.

How is the response time on that panel (assume its the same as the apple one)
Wonder if it has any overdrive in it, and how that functions. I have a HP LP2475w IPS monitor, great display, but their overdrive is overactive, which leaves a dark shadow in the wake of light objects on dark backgrounds instead of the standard light ghosting. It is actually worse.

[yaddam205]

blah, more 16*9 stuff :(

16:10 is dead, much like 4:3 passed away 3 years ago.


Long live 16:9 :) for now.

[003]

Laws of the market... they can't sell a 27" for a higher price than a 30" :D

They most certainly can depending on what type of panel is used, not to mention the LED backlight.

[Sly Fox]

They most certainly can depending on what type of panel is used, not to mention the LED backlight.

^^^^^THIS

I was looking at LED backlit monitors on Newegg just the other day and was kinda shocked at how expensive some of them were. :shocked:

[zanzabar]

16:10 is dead, much like 4:3 passed away 3 years ago.


Long live 16:9 :) for now.

yah, monitors just get worse and worse for desktop use and people just go with it, i want one that i can get with 120hrz native but that means that i have to wait till 1 or q2 but by then i dont really expect to get a 16x10 since they dont look like the new monitors are going to be 16x10 anymore.

so the choices are get one now that ghosts or get one later that has the wrong aspect ration, im just hoping that those e-IPS come out in q1 so we can get cheap ips panels

[lowfat]

my god, if it has the same screen as the mac 27", ill be ALL OVER IT!

If they can keep it reasonably priced yes. It better be more than a few hundred cheaper than the iMac.

[Monkeywoman]

my next upgrade for sure...whats the refresh rate? more then 60Hrz right...

[lowfat]

my next upgrade for sure...whats the refresh rate? more then 60Hz right...

I am pretty sure it is 60Hz if it uses the same panel as the iMac.

[turbox997]

Argh, I'm with the ones that are disheartened about the 16:9 ratio, I know it is quickly becoming the new standard, but much of us still prefer 16:10.

LED blacklight, 16:10 ratio, and 120hz on an IPS panel, and this monitor would be my friggin dream come true...oh and 24''+ -27'' with at least 1920x1200 res too.

[metachronos]

I've heard the U2410 is quite good so this sounds even better. This is a good day for news.

[Katanai]

Argh, I'm with the ones that are disheartened about the 16:9 ratio

I don't understand you people. So much talk about what? 120 lines on 1000+ lines monitors. What do those 120 lines give you? And what do you have against true 1080p fullscreen? For me that fact alone, that at least some content will run fullscreen on 16:9 monitors make them superior to that outdated format that can't run a single piece of video or input from a console fullscreen.

[Think]

I'm confused. If it's the same monitor as the LG LM270WQ1...then why not buy the LG LM270WQ1????

[zalbard]

1080p isn't enough for me for work.
But since this one is 1440p, I don't care if it's 16:9 or not, it'll rock either way. :D

I'm confused. If it's the same monitor as the LG LM270WQ1...then why not buy the LG LM270WQ1????
LG makes the panel, not the display. The only similar display is the one iMacs have.

[Blacky]

Dell should fix their damn dithering defect on their U2410 before thinking on launching more "U" series, though NEC also will have various displays like those for next year as well...interested to see the price of that 2560x1440

[Teemax]

16:9 gives you slightly less screen estate than 16:10 (cost saving for manufacturer), but I don't mind if it's 27". Less than 27", 16:9 doesn't make any sense IMHO.

The 27" version sounds promising, except that the pixel size is even smaller than on 30". I'll pass.

[osiris999]

Argh, I'm with the ones that are disheartened about the 16:9 ratio, I know it is quickly becoming the new standard, but much of us still prefer 16:10.

LED blacklight, 16:10 ratio, and 120hz on an IPS panel, and this monitor would be my friggin dream come true...oh and 24''+ -27'' with at least 1920x1200 res too.

so wait you want a -3" monitor?

[Think]

LG makes the panel, not the display. The only similar display is the one iMacs have.

oh, ok. Well I assume LG would come out with a competing product. :)

[AAbenson]

I don't understand you people. So much talk about what? 120 lines on 1000+ lines monitors. What do those 120 lines give you? And what do you have against true 1080p fullscreen? For me that fact alone, that at least some content will run fullscreen on 16:9 monitors make them superior to that outdated format that can't run a single piece of video or input from a console fullscreen.


...you know there are people whos usage is not limited to movie watching and playing games on the PC...:yepp:

[Particle]

I'm with the people who complain about 1080 displays. I've had 1200 lines of vertical resolution ever since I bought my first 21" CRT over 10 years ago. After having 1200 lines virtually forever, I'm not about to take a step backward. That's why I refused to buy a non-4:3 until I could afford a 24" WS. My previous LCD was a 20.1" Viewsonic P-MVA at 1600x1200.

This particular LCD would be fine since it isn't a step backwards in any virtual dimension.

[Tech Dav]

I could buy 4 megapixel screeen but I am really looking for a 8-10 megapixel screen. People who complain about resolution are simply ignorant, resolution involves density of pixels and the more pixels the better resolution. If pixels are smaller you put in more and sharper content and if pixels are bigger you have less content that you can't make sharper or make smaller

[Particle]

I could buy 4 megapixel screeen but I am really looking for a 8-10 megapixel screen. People who complain about resolution are simply ignorant, resolution involves density of pixels and the more pixels the better resolution. If pixels are smaller you put in more and sharper content and if pixels are bigger you have less content that you can't make sharper or make smaller

Screens are primarily useful because they have a certain amount of virtual real estate. The physical size is largely irrelevant as I'm just trying to see a certain amount of "stuff" and don't care much what size it is physically. A 1600x1200 screen could be 16" or 20" diagonally. I don't care. The only thing that matters is resolution. (That is, assuming you don't go all extreme and propose a 3" 1920x1200 display.)

[Manicdan]

Screens are primarily useful because they have a certain amount of virtual real estate. The physical size is largely irrelevant as I'm just trying to see a certain amount of "stuff" and don't care much what size it is physically. A 1600x1200 screen could be 16" or 20" diagonally. I don't care. The only thing that matters is resolution. (That is, assuming you don't go all extreme and propose a 3" 1920x1200 display.)

if you want HD glasses you better not call that extreme

[Nedjo]

my god, if it has the same screen as the mac 27", ill be ALL OVER IT!
+1!

[Particle]

if you want HD glasses you better not call that extreme

It's extreme if you're talking about a desktop monitor like we are.

[Mabyboi]

the 24" version was 800 when it came out... and is now 600... so we can guess that this will probly be about 1200? maybe 1000?

[Kallenator]

About time LED broadens among desktop screens!

Hoping for a LED matrix back lit LCD in the future :D

[Katanai]

...you know there are people whos usage is not limited to movie watching and playing games on the PC...:yepp:

...and some people, although they are not limiting themselves to that, enjoy those aspects best, so yeah stop whining... :yepp:

120 lines are nothing.

[Tomasis]

I've heard the U2410 is quite good so this sounds even better. This is a good day for news.

im using u2410.. pretty good! I have older s-ips 19" from nec..

I calibrated this with eye2display and got very good delta values .. just sligtly higher than the 19".. 19" got about 0,2 delta value.

BUT u2410 has 96% adobe rgb.. good for photographers and other artists like me. for gaming it works well too.

next better you want is REAL diod led available as hp, eizo, necm samsung at very high prices.$3000 or such :shakes:

edge led is just ok.

[Manicdan]

i personally dont think i could go back to anything with less than 1200 vertical lines. so 16x9 is ok, as long as its 2560x1440

[Kingcarcas]

16:10 is dead, time to get over it people.

[wez]

16:10 is dead, time to get over it people.

Nah, 16:10 wont completely go away. But will not come back to the mainstream market, that's for sure :)

[Helmore]

my god, if it has the same screen as the mac 27", ill be ALL OVER IT!

As long as it's not glossy :rolleyes:

[dstedman]

Those are gonna be some small pixels! The 3007 I have is tough enough to read without enlarging everything...

[Budwise]

eh, wake me up when we're hitting 120Hz+.

[turbox997]

so wait you want a -3" monitor?

Haha, no, I meant through. My bad, I meant 24'' to 27'' with that resolution.


I don't understand you people. So much talk about what? 120 lines on 1000+ lines monitors. What do those 120 lines give you? And what do you have against true 1080p fullscreen? For me that fact alone, that at least some content will run fullscreen on 16:9 monitors make them superior to that outdated format that can't run a single piece of video or input from a console fullscreen.


I understand if you watch a movies or such, but for productivity 16:10 gives you that much more height for browsing. I wouldn't say that the ratio is superior, to an "outdated format". It's just the new standard for monitors, simplifies manufacturing and processing(cutting substrates) since the majority of panels are 16:9 for multimedia(tv's), so I understand the eagerness to migrate computers over to 16:9, but I don't consider it superior, in fact I think it's inferior for productivity.

Besides 16:10 is closer to the golden ratio.

[Solus Corvus]

Portrait mode + the ability to rotate the display is better for browsing then a landscape 16:10 or 16:9 display in landscape mode.

[Serra]

I do hope they can do this right. For anyone who wants to jump the gun and run to LED backlit screens though, do yourself a favor and go compare high-end LED backlit screen to high-end CCFL screens somewhere reputable beforehand. You will see that while the LED screen do get better blacks, so far everyone has a problem with "inky" blotching, and in fact seem like they go too dark quite often, ruining dark scenes. It isn't so much an issue with the technology itself as it is with the fact that so far they have been recycling everything they can, and it wasn't all originally designed/calibrated with the enhanced brightness in mind.

Hopefully this will count as gen 2 or gen 3 and have been created properly. Dell usually does a pretty good job with monitors so I'm hopeful... just urging caution.

[Manicdan]

serra is the issue that some leds dont stay as bright?
is it possible for future TVs to be calibrated so each led can be tweaked until the unit is perfect?

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

For all the people who are saying 120 pixels is not relevant, have you run a 1920x1200 screen before? I have a friend who has a 24" 1080p screen. I own two 1920x1200, a 24" and a 25.5". Websites on his are a pita b/c there's a lot of extra scrolling to me. I need vertical real estate. 16:9 with a 27" is ok considering its 2560x1440 and not 1200. 1080p screens are simply too wide. I feel like I'm squinting every time I use one.

[D749]

I'm still waiting for Dell to "fix" their U2410. :rolleyes:

[N19h7m4r3]

i personally dont think i could go back to anything with less than 1200 vertical lines. so 16x9 is ok, as long as its 2560x1440

I completely agree.

I've tried using some normal 16:9 monitors and it's just weird compared to 16:10.

But this monitor does interest me, it all depends on price though.

I've been looking to move above 24" for quite some time, but the price of some 30" monitors is just outlandish in Ireland.

[Katanai]

Synthetickiller;4158730']For all the people who are saying 120 pixels is not relevant, have you run a 1920x1200 screen before?

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! :rofl: If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

[N19h7m4r3]

Surely if you're going to compare 16:10 to 16:9, you would use monitors of the same size?

Only then would you really notice the difference, or do you simply prefer the 1080p monitor because it's also 4" bigger?

[Manicdan]

when i was using a 2560x1600 monitor, i was worried i would have to check myself into rehab when it was time to give it up (it was a gift to someone else and i was making sure it had no dead pixels)

[Zorlac]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming! :)

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell. ;)

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1260108113

[zanzabar]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming! :)

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell. ;)

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1260108113

thats not true at all, properly coded dose not mean that u have a FOV with static height, and 16x9 takes up more space and has less screen area for the same sized monitor

[TheCarLessDriven]

Actually, in a properly coded 3D game, 16:9 gives you more screen real estate than 16:10. See here: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

Now in a pixel perfect 2D environment (i.e. Windows desktop), then 16:10 would be better.

I am all for 16:9 as a standard for gaming! :)

...oh, and I am more excited for the new NEC PA271W than this Dell. ;)

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1260108113

Any word on how much the 24" version will cost? I've been waiting to get into an IPS panel at at least 24" for a while.

[Elitist]

They'll just put horrible anti-glare on it and ruin the whole thing..

[Helmore]

Any word on how much the 24" version will cost? I've been waiting to get into an IPS panel at at least 24" for a while.

I would like to know this as well. I'm on the lookout for a good 24" screen and would like to know if this NEC 24" screen would even come near my budget.

[Levish]

eh, wake me up when we're hitting 120Hz+.

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

[Helmore]

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

I don't think anything above 120 Hz will give you much of an improvement. You start to bump into the law of diminishing returns.

[Farinorco]

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! :rofl: If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

I don't agree with you on that. I'm currently running on an ancient, but good quality 1280x1024 Dell Ultrasharp monitor (which I want to change for a bigger one soon).

I currently rotate the monitor to portrait mode to read/write documents and so. I can tell you that I see a huge difference between the portrait mode and the landscape mode regarding document and web browsing, and even working with some IDEs (but I can't use it this way because of the tiny horizontal space left). When I upgrade my monitor to a bigger one, I wouldn't like to have less vertical resolution than that, because I would see that particular aspect of it as a downgrade.

And you know what? A 1080 resolution is closer to my 1024 landscape mode vertical resolution while a 1200 resolution is closer to the 1280 portrait mode one. Yes, 1200 lines would be lower than 1280, but I've used 1920x1200 monitors and I can tolerate the lose in exchange of the wider horizontal resolution. I would prefer 1280, but I can't get such a screen. On the other hand, a 1080 resolution leaves me with a screen heigth similar to my current monitor in landscape mode, and this is a no go for me.

A 1920x1200 gives me True Full HD resolution for watching movies or other multimedia uses (1920x1080 resolution, I don't mind if the top and bottom borders are of the same kind of plastic than side ones or not), while giving me nearly the same vertical resolution for desktop usage as my current monitor in portrait mode. A 1920x1080 monitor misses the second part of the deal, and since I use my computer as a workstation even more than a multimedia device, that's a pretty big deal to me.

It seems pretty clear that the way to go for me it's a monitor which can do Full HD (1920x1080) plus some vertical extensions that I could use for document and web browsing/editing, programming, and so. That's it, 1920x1200+. I don't need, not even want*, more than that horizontal resolution. So making that one constant, it seems pretty obvious that going wider and wider (or even better said, shorter and shorter...;)) is not exactly like a good thing to me.

*and why not? Either interpolating the Full HD content to a higher resolution, losing the True Full HD representation, or wasting my screen size by going with 1:1, is not the way that I want to take advantage of my investment in a screen.

[noXqzs]

YES! And I currently use a 1600/1200 20" monitor at work and a 1080p 24" at home. So I do this "adjustment" from 1200 to 1080 you people speak off every day. Guess what? 120 lines is absolutely nothing! :rofl: If I could have it my way I would use a 1080p monitor at work too. But, I'm outta this thread, I just remembered that it's no use trying to argue with people who think something is superior just because they own it.

Comparing a 20" to 24" monitors is not really a valid scenario. For me, the extra 120 lines is something. There are others here that share my oppinion.
Your last comment, reaks of hipocrisy. I read every post, and the only person using the word SUPERIOR is you. It has been stated by oppinion that some prefer the 16:10 layout and would rather use that. How can you consider that whining, and not include yourself in the list?

[Particle]

As a side note, the whole discounting of a person's opinion solely because they own it thing is a bit of a debate cop-out. Some people like to put their money where their mouth is and buy products they promote as being worthy of purchase. That doesn't invalidate their view. If anything, it should be seen as a credit. Instead, it's often a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation where if you don't buy what you say is good you're open to being labeled a hypocrite/non-genuine but if you do buy what you promote you're seen as being a fanboy or simply promoting what you own.

[iTravis]

I'm still waiting for Dell to "fix" their U2410. :rolleyes:

What's wrong with the U2410?

[trinibwoy]

Pink tinting, dithering, graininess....

[Kingcarcas]

Well for some the 16:10 Gateway i was looking at had higher TDP and was more expensive, i went with a 16:9 Samsung, they're all 60hz crappy TN panels anyway right:rofl:

[Salavat23]

If it is under $800, then I'd buy it.

[Helloworld_98]

If it is under $800, then I'd buy it.

it's a U series, so if you're lucky it will be $750, probably around $900 actually.

[LedHed]

blah, more 16*9 stuff :(

not for a gamer, almost every PC game supports 16x10. Now if you are using the display for a media display (Blu-Ray/HDTV Cable/Satellite/PS3/360/etc) then yes there is more 16x9 content. But I've even found some Blu-Rays in 16x10, for example Dr. Strangelove is in 16x10.

[Loque]

still waiting for a fast response ips panel or something with good quality and fast... :|

[LedHed]

still waiting for a fast response ips panel or something with good quality and fast... :|

I have been gaming on a 6ms GTG P-MVA panel for years and I never notice any quality or ghosting problems. The FP241W is an awesome monitor and so is the FP241WZ.

The new IPS monitors are better, but the cost difference levels them all out. The higher you pay the newer the technology.

[Manicdan]

whats good about new ips monitors? mine from early 2007 feels just fine

[LedHed]

whats good about new ips monitors? mine from early 2007 feels just fine

Deeper blacks, faster response, brighter, wider viewing angles, longer lasting back lighting, borderless, 3DTV, just to name a few (not only IPS of course).

But when you have a premium panel already the gains are small and not worth close to the cost.

[Loque]

I have been gaming on a 6ms GTG P-MVA panel for years and I never notice any quality or ghosting problems. The FP241W is an awesome monitor and so is the FP241WZ.

The new IPS monitors are better, but the cost difference levels them all out. The higher you pay the newer the technology.

Hope so ! I'll have to confirm that next time I go to a shop and see for myself :)

[zanzabar]

+1, personally i'm going to wait till 240hz native

are u being sarcastic, u can run 1920x1200 120hrz max on dvi and since we have nothing with more bandwidth for video than dvi until the new hdmi and DP are out but then they up the color to 10bit and do not up support for resolution or frequency

[Manicdan]

with some creativity it sounds possible. get 6 monitors with no bezel that can do 240fps at lower resolutions and use eyefinity

[TheCarLessDriven]

What's wrong with the U2410?


Pink tinting, dithering, graininess....

Never heard any of those complaints for the u2410. Its one of the highest rated 24" IPS panels there is. Nothing but good reviews on it.

[iTravis]

Never heard any of those complaints for the u2410. Its one of the highest rated 24" IPS panels there is. Nothing but good reviews on it.

That's why I'm wondering. :rolleyes:

[trinibwoy]

Never heard any of those complaints for the u2410. Its one of the highest rated 24" IPS panels there is. Nothing but good reviews on it.

That's weird. I was researching it last week and there are numerous reports. A quick google should attest to that. Dell has even acknowledged the issue and promised a fix in A2 firmware. It is a very nice monitor otherwise though.

[Blacky]

Never heard any of those complaints for the u2410. Its one of the highest rated 24" IPS panels there is. Nothing but good reviews on it.


That's why I'm wondering. :rolleyes:

Here (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1441159) & here (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1256560) theres people confirming those issues and seems dell has A01 rev running around now apparently.

[Mabyboi]

PLEASE GLOSSY SCREEN! please! please! please!!!

[mikeyakame]

Now that I've gone 2560x1600, I think 2560x1440 would be an inconvenience for me, the extra 160 horizontal lines make a huge difference for screen real estate. It's a shame that 16:9 is becoming standard, it's a step backwards from 16:10. I guess in the professional line of monitors though, 16:10 will be a standard for a while. I imagine the pixel pitch on a 27" panel might be a bit too small though at such a resolution, after all its about perfect on a 30" panel at 2560x1600.

[Mabyboi]

cant wait to see this thing get released. my co-workers friend works at dell and can get me anything i want for like 50% off.

[Xoulz]

I have a Dell 27" monitor @ 1900 X 1200... I bought it specifically because I dislike narrowness of HD. I also own a Dell 24" (st2410) thats 1080p, that I'm trying to like, but feel the lack of Z axis visibility is a disadvantage when browsing, or gaming.

[initialised]

I don't understand you people. So much talk about what? 120 lines on 1000+ lines monitors. What do those 120 lines give you? And what do you have against true 1080p fullscreen?It's called elitism.

[Hornet331]

blah, more 16*9 stuff :(

QFE,

I hated the step towards 16:10, for every step that ration goes up you need a bigger screen to maintain the same resolution.

And when you just sit 70cm away from the screen a 24" monitor already fills most of your vison field.

[tdream]

Never heard any of those complaints for the u2410. Its one of the highest rated 24" IPS panels there is. Nothing but good reviews on it.

You don't do much research do you? There are tonnes of reports of bad screens in the hardforum thread. It's also a H-IPS not IPS or S-IPS.

[3NZ0]

PLEASE GLOSSY SCREEN! please! please! please!!!

Being an ultrasharp, it won't be glossy. Why on earth you'd want a glossy finish on a top end desktop monitor is beyond me, as it's usually reserved for low quality/odd desktop screens or laptops.

[LedHed]

Now that I've gone 2560x1600, I think 2560x1440 would be an inconvenience for me, the extra 160 horizontal lines make a huge difference for screen real estate. It's a shame that 16:9 is becoming standard, it's a step backwards from 16:10. I guess in the professional line of monitors though, 16:10 will be a standard for a while. I imagine the pixel pitch on a 27" panel might be a bit too small though at such a resolution, after all its about perfect on a 30" panel at 2560x1600.

I love 16x10, I couldn't go back to 4:3 or even 16x9 (when I'm not forced). Also isn't 16x10 the same ratio as a cinema?

Both my laptop and desktop run at 1920x1200 :D

[lowfat]

I love 16x10, I couldn't go back to 4:3 or even 16x9 (when I'm not forced). Also isn't 16x10 the same ratio as a cinema?

Both my laptop and desktop run at 1920x1200 :D

Not even close. 16:10 = 1.6:1. Cinema is almost always 2.35:1.

[LedHed]

that would explain why Blu-Rays are in such weird formats anything from 1.55:1 to 2.75:1 (at least the ones I own). I wish they were all standard 16x9 so when purchasing you wouldn't have to look through the movies aspect ratio to get a full 1920x1080 picture.

[Helloworld_98]

that would explain why Blu-Rays are in such weird formats anything from 1.55:1 to 2.75:1 (at least the ones I own). I wish they were all standard 16x9 so when purchasing you wouldn't have to look through the movies aspect ratio to get a full 1920x1080 picture.

it's an editing thing, the camera's themselves are 16:9 but to save editing time they lower the ratio.

[Tech Dav]

Now that I've gone 2560x1600, I think 2560x1440 would be an inconvenience for me, the extra 160 horizontal lines make a huge difference for screen real estate. It's a shame that 16:9 is becoming standard, it's a step backwards from 16:10. I guess in the professional line of monitors though, 16:10 will be a standard for a while. I imagine the pixel pitch on a 27" panel might be a bit too small though at such a resolution, after all its about perfect on a 30" panel at 2560x1600.

It's much more relaxing and natural to watch from side to side than upside down, black bars notwithstanding . There is almost always more to see on the side than up high, hence the move toward wider screens :shrug:

[lowfat]

it's an editing thing, the camera's themselves are 16:9 but to save editing time they lower the ratio.
Not correct. Most cinema is still shot on 35mm anamorphic. Which is 2.35:1. Some digital cameras are 16:9, but digital is still far from being the standard.

[smdude]

^+1, I'd absolutely love to have a 2820*1200 screen.

[Helloworld_98]

^+1, I'd absolutely love to have a 2820*1200 screen.

I assume you mean 3840x1200 which is 1900(x2)x1200

[LedHed]

it's an editing thing, the camera's themselves are 16:9 but to save editing time they lower the ratio.

well why is almost every widescreen DVD in 16x9, but many Blu-Rays are far from 16x9 sometimes as high as 2.85:1

[smdude]

^^no, I meant what I typed. I want a cinema aspect ratio panel (2.35~2.39, whatever the standard currently is).

[Tenknics]

well why is almost every widescreen DVD in 16x9, but many Blu-Rays are far from 16x9 sometimes as high as 2.85:1

That is not true. Most major wide-screen dvds maintain their original aspect ratio and will even tell you on back what it is. And that is also why you still get blackbars even when you play a lot of "widescreen" movies on your widescreen tv. I used to laugh when people still didnt get why they had black bars when they got their first ws tv :rofl:

WidescreenTV and 16x9 became popular with advent and rise of HDTV and HD-consumder electronics. The 16x9 format was developed in mind for TVs. No movies that use standard film are shot in 16x9. If a movie comes out in 16x9 it was most likely shot digitally with the intended viewing to be shown on a TV/dvd first and movie theater second, aka a B movie . It was originally developed as a compromise between 4:3 and 2.35:1 and is actually a geometric mean of the two: 1.77:1/1.78:1. HDTV just took off and everyone associated HD as the next best thing and 16x9 piggytailed its way in.

For movies, I still prefer multiple aspect ratios and believe its the directors choice on which aspect ratio to use to best represent his vision. And I also believe movies should be watched the way they were intended, not because of some artificial consumer standard. Love 16x10. Keep 16x9 out of the computer industry. Computer monitors were HD before HD was HD so I dont understand why we need to drag HD and 16x9 into computing..

[SubZero.it]

I don't wanna go out of post...but can anyone post an image at 1920*1080 without AA?just wanna compare to a 1600*1200...thank you(not an old game please)

[Sumanji]

Yo,

So I'm still rolling with a Dell 2001FP (20" 1600x1200) that's like 5+ years old now, I think.

What I want/need is a widescreen (don't care about ratio, but needs at least H=1200), LED backlit, 120Hz, 3D capable monitor...

How long will I have to wait until something like this become available at a reasonable price? :p

Cheers,

Su

[Helloworld_98]

Yo,

So I'm still rolling with a Dell 2001FP (20" 1600x1200) that's like 5+ years old now, I think.

What I want/need is a widescreen (don't care about ratio, but needs at least H=1200), LED backlit, 120Hz, 3D capable monitor...

How long will I have to wait until something like this become available at a reasonable price? :p

Cheers,

Su

you might not see one until late next year since monitors are in the transition stage to LED.

[zalbard]

How long will I have to wait until something like this become available at a reasonable price? :p
A few years probably... Check back in mid-late 2011.

[WRC]

Not even close. 16:10 = 1.6:1. Cinema is almost always 2.35:1.

yes and after the 16:9 displays go away 21:9 ratio will probably be the new standard,because people want to watch bluray movies without the black bars. I know philips already makes a 56in 21:9 display but only for the european market.

[Sumanji]

Boo :(

[Kingcarcas]

Yep that's why i went to a cheap 24'', 120hz LED all that good stuff is probably years away.......

[azza21]

A few years probably... Check back in mid-late 2011.

And then if you wait another year OLED monitors will be just around the corner. There will always be something better around the corner.

[Sumanji]

What would be a good compromise? I need MOAR PIXELS, and I need them NAOW!!111

:p: :D

[mrcape]

I wonder how much the LED 27s will retail for. I'm loving my 30" LG with newer IPS panel. No dead pix, back light is perfectly uniform, response and input lag super fast and the resolution is mental. It was sorta hard to adapt to the huge res, but once you do it's awesome.

[Helloworld_98]

I wonder how much the LED 27s will retail for. I'm loving my 30" LG with newer IPS panel. No dead pix, back light is perfectly uniform, response and input lag super fast and the resolution is mental. It was sorta hard to adapt to the huge res, but once you do it's awesome.

probably about £550-650 because that's about what the current 27" costs

[zalbard]

Source: http://www.engadget.com/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/dell-goes-pro-with-27-inch-ultrasharp-u2711-wqhd-lcd-monitor-ha/)


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/12/dell-utrasharp-u2711_-(2).jpg

Dell's laptop and desktop lineups may hog all of the attention, but the company's range of LCDs have proven to be contenders over the years. Not one to shy away from the professionals in attendance, the company has today released its first-ever WQHD monitor: the 27-inch UltraSharp U2711. Boasting a native 2,560 x 1,440 resolution, this beast just may pack enough pixels to sway you back into the single-monitor camp. Dell's also trumpeting the unit's "billion-color depth and IPS technology," and the 6-millisecond response time, 1,000:1 contrast ratio, 350 nits of brightness and a 12-bit internal processing help to round things out. For the pros who make ends meet by editing photos or video, you'll probably enjoy knowing that this one boasts a 110 percent color gamut, factory-tuned Adobe RGB and sRGB modes (alongside a color calibration report), custom color adjustments and a smattering of mounting options.

You'll also find just about every port known to man: HDMI 1.3, DisplayPort, DVI-D (x2), VGA, composite, component, USB (x4) and an 8-in-1 multicard reader. 'Course, the actual aesthetics are nothing to write home about, but again, this one's being targeted at end users who care less about the bezel and more about true-to-life pixel performance. We had a chance to toy around with the new beast, and frankly, we were mesmerized. Without an in-house color calibrator, we can't speak for those who need oodles of numbers and bar charts to tell if a monitor is performing correctly, but we can say that the panel was remarkably sharp, crisp and accurate -- more so than our (much adored) 24-inch 2408WFP, that's for sure. Be prepared to catch this one next month with an MSRP of $1,049.
Pretty amazing, but no mention of LED? :confused:

[Helloworld_98]

price is too high, for $750 more you can get the 27" iMac and for about the same price you can get a 30" screen.

lower the price to $749 and I'll think about it.

[mikeyakame]

The build and design of the monitor looks really cheap and dull in comparison to my Dell 3008WFP. Even the monitor arm looks very cheap, albeit more functional than apples one. I wouldn't even consider paying $1K USD for this monitor, it just doesn't have anywhere near that kind of value. For $6-700USD it would be a good buy, but nothing more than that.

[Tomasis]

Source: http://www.engadget.com/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/dell-goes-pro-with-27-inch-ultrasharp-u2711-wqhd-lcd-monitor-ha/)

Pretty amazing, but no mention of LED? :confused:

why led? do you mean edge led? it just sucks.. if you want real diod led, there are monitors for 3000$ from eizo, nec, hp etc.

That S-IPS is good enough for those who care more about picture quality once it is calibrated. I used s-ips nec 19" almost 5 years now got dell little brother 24".

CCFL :up: .. edge led might be good for them who dont care about picture quality but space, watt saving etc.

I think Dell U serie is not everyone.. especially those have high Adobe RGB, NTSC color gamut, 12bits internal etc..

[zalbard]

why led? do you mean edge led?
I meant LED backlight originally proposed by the rumours in the OP.

[Nedjo]

price is too high, for $750 more you can get the 27" iMac and for about the same price you can get a 30" screen.

lower the price to $749 and I'll think about it.
amen!

[One_Hertz]

Pretty amazing, but no mention of LED? :confused:

Yeah and the contrast is kind of "normal" so I am not so sure its LED.

[lowfat]

Source: http://www.engadget.com/ (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/dell-goes-pro-with-27-inch-ultrasharp-u2711-wqhd-lcd-monitor-ha/)

Pretty amazing, but no mention of LED? :confused:


price is too high, for $750 more you can get the 27" iMac and for about the same price you can get a 30" screen.

lower the price to $749 and I'll think about it.

If it isn't LED then the display is pretty fail for the price. Guess I buy the iMac :shrug:

[Manicdan]

it better have LED backlit, sofar the best 30" i ever saw was the gateway one which could work as a tv and use PiP, and it was even down to 940$ before going away (which was a year ago)

[saaya]

unless you really need it, i wouldnt recommend anybody to buy such an expensive panel right now...
its not 3d... :D

[Helloworld_98]

It would appear that G series = LED, U series = CCFL

[SKYMTL]

I hate the new slab-like bases Dell is using. I much prefered the V-Shaped bases.

[zalbard]

I hate the new slab-like bases Dell is using. I much prefered the V-Shaped bases.
They are ugly, indeed.

[Tomasis]

I meant LED backlight originally proposed by the rumours in the OP.

ok interesting

it would raise price at least 2-3x compared with IPS.. I would love have a cheap diod screen .. (led backlighted) :)

I wonder what oled can do regarding picture quality..

[metachronos]

Not LED backlit? Lame.

[m.fox]

I think Dell U serie is not everyone.. especially those have high Adobe RGB, NTSC color gamut, 12bits internal etc..

What do you mean by "not everyone"?

[Blacky]

unless you really need it, i wouldnt recommend anybody to buy such an expensive panel right now...
its not 3d... :D

but seems we would not see an 3D IPS panel based monitor anytime soon though...just TN crap for now...

[Tomasis]

What do you mean by "not everyone"?

not for everyone..

does everyone use Adobe RGB? Some people consider that U serie as expensive and even complain that it is not LED backlighted.. LOL.. Led backlighted are even much more expensive..

Edge Led screen can be sold for larger audience as it was for TN panel. Maybe also PVA.. It depends how much people is hyped on size, watt :rofl:

3d, 120mhz :rolleyes:

[mikeyakame]

I love my monitors Adobe sRGB mode, the gamma and colours are nearly perfect. Dell monitors require colour calibration though none the less, and it makes the colours look really nice. You can pick up a Pantone Huey or Huey Pro to do this, and it works great for the price.