[Rumour] Dell UltraSharp U2711 release soon?

[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.

[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.

Here & here 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

[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

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

[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

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)