After 14 years I have decided it is time get rid of my trusty CRT. It still looks good but I want more real estate. My current monitor is a Hitachi CM751 which I run at 1600x1200. I want to at least maintain the 1200 vertical resolution. I have a wall mounted Sony TV setup as my second monitor which I use solely to play videos. So I can't use two monitors to increase my screen real estate. The two monitors are driven by two 8800GTX's in SLI, though I may build a new PC when (if) Diablo III comes out. My primary uses are: Games - Skyrim mostly at present, Starcraft 3, Dragon Age 2 Photo Editing - Adobe PhotoShop Video Editing - Adobe Premiere Pro CAD - SolidWorks It looks like a 24" would basically just expand my real estate sideways so I view that as a starting point. The Dell line - u2410, u2711, u3011 all look interesting but I am not sure if I want to spend $1300. Open to all suggestions. Thanks
If you can justify the price, I think the u3011 is worth it. Especially since you are doing photo and video editing, a very high resolution and good colour accuracy are important, not to mention it makes games look amazing I've got a WFP3008 and Skyrim is a lot of fun on it. Make sure to invest in a hardware colour calibration tool as well if you don't own one already - I got a Spyder 3 Pro (it looks like the Spyder 4 is out now), and the increase in colour quality over what I'd been able to achieve with manual attempts was really noticeable, especially on dark red tones for fire and the like.
16:9 is better for games these days. unless you wish to live with either zoomed in image or black borders. I bought the U2410 and it was pleasing. U2711 would be better for the bigger resolution + 16:9 aspect ratio.
U3011 all the way - it's the best (and biggest) 16:10 Dell you can get, and once you get one you will never look back. For things like photo editing, video editing, CAD etc, you will really appreciate the resolution and the extra vertical screen space.
As a CRT user myself, I can tell you the closest to a decent CRT monitor is the Dell U2410/U2711/U3011. What makes these monitor very close to a CRT, is are: -> They very good low back light bleeding (please note, that you will always have some, especially at the consumer range monitor... you are looking at the high-end consumer range monitor right now). If you work with a lot of dark pictures, than you need to look at a IPS panel with a polarized grid (A-TW) or a PVA monitor, as they are able to block better the blacks (but less so the white, but usually, with a good back light, it's not noticeable, and does a very good job). But with PVA's you have off-center contrast shift. (you can't have everything!) -> The high-grade CFL backlight provides you with fantastic whites, very close or just as good as your CRT (assuming it's well calibrated) -> True 8-bit panel per channel with 12-bit color processor, and 10-bit Look UP Table, making sure it can deliver true 8-bit colors. And support 10-bit colors via Display Port, using Advance Frame Rate Control (A-FRC), that is what 6-bit panels uses to emulator 8-bit colors per channel, where it takes 2 colors and switch them really fast to represent the missing color. Not ideal, but it's something. And At least the on the 8-bit colors spectrum, it doesn't need to do this (unlike 6-bit panels), as it natively support these colors. NOTE: The U3011 uses a true 10-bit color panel. -> What really makes this monitor shine, and convenient to setup, is the pre-calibrated color profile: sRGB and Adobe RGB. But I am sure you have your own calibration tool, and can perform a better calibration than the one provided.
Starcraft 2 is the only game that zooms in afaik, most of the others you get a little extra height. And no game I know has black borders, only films, most of which have them anyway.
Thanks for all the input. The 1200+ vertical is more important than the 16:10. I hate giving up real estate and anytime I have had to use 1920x1080 monitor i have noticed the lack of vertical resolution. I haven't really given myself a budget. I was originally going to buy a new laptop but have decided it wasn't worth it and am toying with a tablet, so there is more money available than I originally thought. Any monitor though is going require a new PC desk. Old one has a hutch and my next CAD project at home will be designing one out of aluminum framing (80/20). Almost everything I do at home is just for fun so I have never really bothered with calibration. Also I am partially red - green colorblind (shades not pure colors mess me up) so any calibration needs to be automated. I may look into what if anything our primary video guy does at work for calibration. We are under specific rules for what we can connect to the PCs and who we can buy it from. If I can get them to buy it for me though I can save some cash.
I agree with Deders, And even for games that "Zooms in" (mostly quick console ports), there is no content on the side that prevents you from playing. Your field of view which you actually focus is just a few degree. Whats on the left and right side of your field of view in real life is just there to notice anything income to attack your attention (hunting/defensive). Game developers know this, and this is how the game is made, so you lose nothing from the experience.
What kind of mediocre console ports are you playing? Any half decently programmed PC game should let you set a completely custom resolution. I know I run all my Source games at 1400x900 so I can see my taskbar. If not a custom resolution then it should at least let you pick 16:10 resolutions, it's just ridiculous when games don't accommodate anything but 16:9 and 4:3. Even if they don't play in 16:10, most high end monitors let you set it to either stretch, letterbox (the black side/top bars, but fits on one axis), or original size (real pixel size) if the input is anything but native resolution.
According to the OP: My primary uses are: Games - Skyrim mostly at present, Starcraft 3, Dragon Age 2 Photo Editing - Adobe PhotoShop Video Editing - Adobe Premiere Pro CAD - SolidWorks 16:10 is clearly what he needs, and probably why he asked for a 16:10 recommendation, as games are just one item on a list of 4 requirements, and the other three are vastly superior on a 16:10 screen.
NEC MultiSync 3090WQXi if money is no object, Dell U3011 if you're on a slightly tighter budget. If you can't stretch to a 30" monitor that, the Dell U2410 is no slouch at all. I vastly prefer 16:10 over 16:9, but they're getting rarer, which is a pity - the manufacturers seem to have told most people that 16:9 is what to buy, and like sheep, they follow. edit: Well, actually, if money is seriously no object, then Eizo do a 30" panel... but that is extortionate.
If by vastly, you mean a tiny amount then yes. I'm doubting he will play only those games for the rest of his days. Starcraft 2 is worse in 16:10 it's zoomed in. Don't know about the rest. I have a U2410 and a 24" 16:9 TN screen here but i can't be assed to go to the effort of checking. Chances are you lose screen on 16:10 in em all. You will see bellow 16:10 is not properly supported, and this is true in most modern titles now.
Am I missing something? I'm not seeing any information being lost in there, it's just a slightly narrower viewing area. My laptop has a 1440x900 native resolution and almost every game I play that's newer than '04 (or even older than that in some cases) supports 1440x900, a 16:10 resolution. I know for a fact that Skyrim supports 16:10, as does the Mass Effect series, so presumably Dragon Age 2 does (same engine IIRC). Don't know anyone who plays Starcraft so I can't check.
Running in that resolution does not = supporting it properly. If it was all right then with 16:10 1920 x 1200 you would get same width as 16:9 1920 x 1080 (same pixel count) but gain the added vertical resolution. This doesn't happen though as it's not properly supported with 16:9 being the mainstream. 16:9 is the better deal for games these days. sad but true.
So what, Slizza? If it is bothersome, then PLAY THE GAME at 1920x1080. The monitor he is aiming at, all have 1:1 pixel mapping, so no scaling. 2 small PITCH black lines at the top and bottom, which would make the "non viewable areas" like most 1080p monitor which needs super thick and large frames due to cost cutting measures. You can ALWAYS reduce resolution, but you can't increase it, if you have the the number of pixels to display it.
Those lines are annoying as hell on any monitor and a big do not want. You are kidding yourself if you think "it's ok because the black levels are good" I find it amusing how you can nit pick the smallest things in a screen and blow them up to be big issue then completely brush off a major annoyance like that.
They are not major annoyances, and issues I pick are big. Also, I don't know if you notice, but any game dev studios, and software companies, they pretty much all use 16:10 monitors. Usually a business line Samsung monitor, Dell, HP, or NEC. And maybe the graphic artist stations, an EIZO one.
If you are annoyed at two small black pitch lines at the top and bottom of your monitor I suggest you find a game which entertains you. Because you can't possibly be entertained by whats on the screen if you have the time to nitpick two small black borders.
You're still missing my point. He doesn't just play games. He has other, more serious uses for his screen where missing 160 pixels of vertical res makes a big difference. The area marked in red is what you will lose with a 16:9 screen. With productivity software losing screen real estate is a very bad thing. Losing a little peripheral vision on games is neither here nor there. Bang on about games all you want, but for the OP, games are only one small aspect of his computer usage it would seem. Plus... I've never seen black bars in games. When it comes to movies, they have them anyway, because movies aren't made in 16:9... only TV programmes. Movies still have black bars on a 16:9 screen. Let me guess.... you have a 16:9 screen Actually, Eizo no longer make 16:10 high end screens. It's for this reason when this screen goes bang finally, I'll be going to the dark side and replacing it with a NEC Spectraview.. as 16:9 is just a stupid resolution for a computer screen. The only people who will benefit from 16:9 are... well... actually, I was going to say anyone in video production, but actually, why would that be better for them? They may be shooting, editing and producing 16:9 footage, but it's still beneficial to have more vertical res than you need, as you can see on my screen grab. I'm using premiere to edit 16:9 footage... however, it's still obviously better to have more vertical res. The only thing that really needs to be 16:9 is a television, or a monitor who's sole purpose is playing back TV footage... or perhaps games... but you know what? I'd still rather lose a little lateral field of view and game on a bigger screen, and trust me, putting a 27" next to a 30" makes you realise just how much you lose. Unless you've tried both, be quiet. Using a 24" and then going up to a 27" isn't really that much of an upgrade. 16:9 sucks donkey balls
