Displays [update: Good news, everyone!] - New Dell U series coming Q3. A downgrade big time

Its not 1/2% of time I use the monitor for gaming - its much more than that so its definitely very important to me (and to others that use monitors for gaming on a console). But anyway, like I already said, if you have a specific need and like the extra 10% screen space, fine, but for most people losing it wont hurt because you get a lot of desktop space at 1080 AND for console gamers some would prefer it because of the lack of black bars or distorted picture (not that many console gamers would buy a 16:10 screen anyway). Thats the last im saying on it now

 

These dell monitors, no way in hell are they high end, even mid range is pushing it; this http://www.ebuyer.com/product/179939?utm_source=google&utm_medium=products is about as close to the lower end of the mid to high end monitor market as can really get away with counting in that heading , and the screen on that would blow those U2410's out of the water, they just don't compete.

 

giantKiwi, the Dell U series.. the current ones, can be classified as descent monitors in the realm of all monitors. They are mid range (well the U2311H is entry level IPS... so not really mid range).
The monitor you pointed out is part of the high end range ones. (1000$+ price range). Your standards are too high... and I don't think you saw how LOW LCD computer monitors can go.

In term of sub-1k$ monitor, the Dell U series is high-end, and that what many here refers.
The Dell U2410 is the best monitor for your money at the sub-1k market.

 

I use the dell ones, i have 1x UltraSharp 2405FPW and 3x UltraSharp 2408WFP-Hc, but having put one of the 2408's next to the LG 30 bit ones a few weeks ago, they really dont produce anywhere near the colour quality, in fact it looks dull next to the LG. I would much rather spend £1k+ on a decent screen with a lower resolution than spend more just to get a few extra pixels.

 

I lol'ed. Surely, all of us have 1k £ to spend -.-'

 

Well obviously.
But what you have is not descent... you are in the high. From where you are... there are so much more higher you can go.

Off topic:
Also, curiosity question. As you have a 30-bit panel display... What display color depth option you have? Does it stop at 32bit colors (8-bit for each channel, + 8-bit for transparency (OS thing)), or does it show a higher value? I don't know Radeon card well, do you know if your GPU can output 10-bit colors? I ask because based on the Geforce GTX 200 series technical documentation, it says that it can output 30-bit colors. And the Dell U2711, U3011 are 10-bit panels, as for the U2410 it's 8-bit + AFRC, all have a 10-bit look up table, and I don't have any options above 32-bit colors. I wonder if it's a DVI issue, or an error on Nvidia Geforce GTX tech doc, or something else.

 

There's no alpha (transparency) channel on monitors. I'm certain (and have confirmed it on the LG web site) that it's a 10 bit panel. What's special about the W2420R is that it's using an RGB LED backlight, which really sets the monitor apart from most others. Of course there hasn't been skimped on other parts of the electronics either. It's got 16 bit internal processing and a 12 bit LUT.

 

I do hope they keep making 16:10 screens. Not that I'm using one (I gained height going from 16:10 1680x1050 to 16:9 1920x1080) but just 'cos it would stop the madness.

You can buy a 22" flatscreen for less than £100! You're in the FUTURE people, let it go! If there's enough demand for 16:10 screens then people will keep making them, if there isn't then prices will rise as they become an esoteric luxury for people who really need them whilst masses all move to 16:9.

 

I never said on monitors... I said Windows. If you set the colors to 24-bit, you have the exact same result, but no shadows (well in Vista/Win7 you can't pick 24-bit)

 

Well, if we just had the bare minimum then we'd never need a new computer correct?

Saying that the majority does not need it does not necessitate it's extermination. Not to mention that 16:9 is far too wide for my tastes. If I had it my way, I'd still be using 4:3 or 5:4 montiors just because they are excellent in terms of proportions. IN this case though, they already charge a premium for 16:10, why eliminate it? Especially when there are people (yes people actually want it, go figure huh? ) who are willing to spend almost 3x as much money for the sake of those 120 extra lines (think Eizo monitors, NEC MultiSyncs), it makes very little sense to eliminate a market where people are still willing to buy from.

Admittedly retooling sucks. But hey, we vote with our wallets. To wrap this up, it's a case of why cut the nose to spite the face? there's no real point in eliminating 16:10 in the veiwpoint of the consumers, why do it anyways? If there's a market for it, people will buy it. By the way 10% screen space is quite large, 10% of 24" is...um...2.4" That's quite a bit if you think about it.

 

I highly doubt that the U2410 is not selling well. It might not sale as well as the U2311H, but it sales. It's the best sub-1k monitor, and the best for what you get for your money. Dell drops the price from 700$ down to 450$ easy (in Canada)... I highly doubt they still don't make money with the 450$ price tag. So imagine people not negotiating a price, how much money they make on the U2410.

What is happening, is manufactures becoming greedy, as they increase their profits (plus use white LED's)... but idiotic... you will have 1 company that will have a decent 16:10, and that company will grab the whole 16:10 market share.

 

But if they are the only one making 16:10 monitors they'll monopolize on that fact and charge more than it's worth. I hope that doesn't happen but it will


Doesn't LG make pretty much all the LCD panels? So if LG stops making them then who has the tools to make a 16:10 non-LG panels?

 

Technically Samsung and AUOptronics/Chungwa also make LCD panels, but LG makes the majority of the IPS panels, with Hitachi/Panasonic making the other IPS panels.

Sharp, Sony and Samsung make the majority of the S-PVA and MVA panels.

 

The reason you cannot choose 24 bit in Windows is because powers of 2 are easier handled by hard- and software (16 bit is 2^4 and 32 bit is 2^5, there's no power of 2 giving you 24 bit). 24 bit and 32 bit colours will give you the same amount of colours (16.7 million) because both "depths" actually use 8 bit shades for red, green and blue. You could argue, that the last 8 bit of the 32 bit is just wasted, but from a performance point 32 bit is just easier to handle that 24 bit.

Medium and high-end image applications like Photoshop use the "wasted" 8 bit for the socalled alpha channel. The alpha channel lets you define 256 nuances of transparency. Actually, Photoshop works with 16 bit channels inside, which will be the next logical step after 8 bit, if and when it comes. One might even say that before that occurs you won't really be able to appreciate higher colour depths on monitors using Windows unless you use special software (applications and also drivers) which talks to the monitor directly.

 

The fact is high end users need more space. You can argue about it all you want, but it's a fact

You can bang on about black bars when playing on a PS3 as much as you want too, and that's fine if only the low end of the market was hit by this. Mine, and everyone else's complaint in here is that before long there will be no such thing as a 1920x1200 screen, and 1080just doesn't cut it for high end work. This forces you to buy a larger screen. This is great if you can afford it, and even if you can, 27" screens are starting to replace 30" screens in the professional market too!

WHY? It's a professional market where people are not cost averse! I paid nearly £2k for my screen and if they feel they have to charge more for a 16:10 professional screen, then I'll pay more. I need it!

Losing 120 pixels at 1920 is bad, but losing 160 at 2560 is worse still.

this is 160 pixels



which means DOWNGRADING to a 16:9 screen would lose me the area marked in red.




And please stop using movie watching as a reason for supporting 16:9 as movies are rarely shot in 16:9. They're usually in 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.. both give black bars on a 16:9 screen.

16:9 on a computer screen sucks. It may be great for a PS3 or watching coronation street but this is a COMPUTER forum FFS.

 

Yes, I need 1200 vertical pixels to browse Bit Tech.

 

well said Pookey. it's about choices. why must people suffer at 24inch when 16:9 crowd can get 23inch monitors easily?

and why must 30inch users suffer when 27inch is the 16:9 alternative.

black bars are mute arguments, how often do you notice it? how often does people buy a computer monitor to use exclusively with consoles? what is wrong with buying 23 or 27inch instead?

 

So you're basically arguing that choice is good? That people should be able to chose whatever they want and whatever fits their needs? 16:9 or 16:10?

Then stop saying that only newbs want 16:9 and that for any 'real work' you need 16:10.

 

If screen space for high end users was 'really' an issue though, with 1080p screens being so cheap nowadays, why not dual screen if you do professional work etc? I still dont buy it that you lose that much space going from 1200 to 1080, and if you do have major multitasking needs, get a dual monitor setup or an even bigger res screen

 

yes. we are robbed of choices here. and no one is saying that.

problem with dual-screen is desktop space and budget. same problem exists for large monitors for some people. (eg, they want to fit it into a wardrobe workspace, it's not going to work with 27inch, yet they need 1200p for productivity) screens are NOT cheap if you are going for quality panels, we don't do TN junks.

you are not reading what pookey and goodbytes wrote. (posts with screenshots) those are a HUGE chunk of screen space. 11%. it doesn't matter in games since it's actually easier on graphics cards, but for productivity, every pixel is important.

it's like asking you to give up a space in your already small room to a wardrobe (you can't use), just so your room can be labelled as "full sized room", but in reality you got smaller living space. or a large swimming pool for kids swimming got a large chunk filled just so it can be labelled as "Olympic sized pool". all these are marketing decisions that ONLY makes sense for marketing monkeys.