[Rumour] Dell UltraSharp U2711 release soon?

[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 For me that fact alone, that at least some content will run fullscreen on 16:9 monitors make them superior to that outdated format that can't run a single piece of video or input from a console fullscreen.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...

[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

[Katanai]

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.