Slashdot Mirror


Dell Launches New UltraSharp 3008WFP 30-Inch LCD

MojoKid writes "Dell has taken the wraps off their new 30" LCD monitor today and launched the UltraSharp 3008WFP. You'll note that there are more than a few upgrades provided with this newer 3008 version. Specifically, the panel now has a 117% color gamut, in addition to having a 3000:1 contrast ratio, versus the 1000:1 performance of its predecessor, the 3007WFP. The panel also comes with the same pixel response time of 8ms but now has enhanced brightness capability at 370 nits. Also, Dell finally saw fit to add significantly more connectivity options to the panel, with not only two DVI-D inputs, but also HDMI, Composite, Component, S-Video and the new DisplayPort interface. In short, anything you could want to hook up now or in the future, can be hooked up to this new Dell 30" panel."

143 comments

  1. so, how high? by yagu · · Score: 0

    So, it has a color gamut of 117%! I just read the wikipedia description of color gamut and still can't figure how to apply this number. Anyone? Bueller? (Yeah, TFA article describes it, but I want an independent verification!)

    And, I suppose the volume on this puppy goes up to 11.

    I suppose if NASA's Space Shuttle can throttle up to 104% (it actually does), anything's possible.

    1. Re:so, how high? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well it says NTSC color gamut in the article but links to the wikipedia entry for RGB color gamut. RGB has a pretty poor color gamut. Yes it is better then most inkjet printers but it is worse then the printers used for photos printing which means sometimes you have to get a print to really see how a digital photo looks especially if you shoot it in RAW and allow the AdobeRGB gamut. If I read the article correctly, the monitor specifically allows for this wider Adobe gamut to be reproduced on screen.

    2. Re:so, how high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      With this new monitor, your computer can correctly display many new, previously unaccessible colors, such as bleenish-grue, hooloovoo, ultrabrown, octarine, light black, dark white, and none more black.

    3. Re:so, how high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not hard to believe that a retarded definition can give numbers higher than 100%. Why do you want an independent verification?

    4. Re:so, how high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "None more black" puts it over the top. Bravo, you anonymous bastard, bravo!

    5. Re:so, how high? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Fun other fact about the shuttle: The fuel sensors that NASA has been having problems with for the past month or so are absolutely critical. If the three main hydrogen-oxygen engines continue to run after the tanks are dry, they're damaged beyond repair.

      Offtopic? Yes. News for nerds? I think so.

    6. Re:so, how high? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      'Damaged beyond repair' is one way of saying it, since the engineers have said that the pumps will, IIRC, seize up, tear away from their mountings, and tear apart the local area, probably causing catastrophic damage to the orbiter and possibly outright destroying it, depending on where it is in flight.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:so, how high? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I guess, at least with regards to the SSMEs, it's a short path between "damaged beyond repair" and "loss of vehicle."

    8. Re:so, how high? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Sky blue pink?

  2. Anything? by darkhitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    In short, anything you could want to hook up now or in the future, can be hooked up to this new Dell 30" panel.
    So how many Slashvertisements can it be hooked up to?
    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
    1. Re:Anything? by tsa · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. This is the second Dell Slashvertisement in a week! Come on editors, enough is enough.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  3. Waiting for 24" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to get a 24" for a while, but i still haven't and now this... I going to wait for the price to come down and get this now :)

    1. Re:Waiting for 24" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dec 2006, I was looking at displays, at the time, I was leaning towards the BenQ FP241W, it's one of the better 24" displays. But since then several more have come on the market. The price has come down though. I ended up getting a 24" iMac. Pro's and con's. I'm not 100% satisfied with it, but it is pretty nice.

      I heard at one point when I was "researching" displays on various forums and review sites, that Dell will often introduce a new panel and put in very good parts, so that when review models go around, the reviewers are all wow'd and write good reviews about what a great display Dell put out. And then down the line they switch to cheaper parts and so people read these great reviews, and buy it, Dell gets higher profit margins, and people get a crappier display than what was sold in the early run... I have no proof, but it sounds like something a big corporation would to so it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

      I'd love to get one of these displays, especially for the Mac, where all the font sizes are defaulted to much larger, can't fit as much on the screen at 24" as you can in Windows or linux. $2000 is kind of steep but they say it's great so WTH... who wants to loan me $$$ ??? Oh well, maybe in the next round of upgrades I'll do 30". 24 is really nice too!

    2. Re:Waiting for 24" by athdemo · · Score: 1

      By the time this monitor comes down to the point that you could afford it (I'm assuming you don't have much more than about 700 to spend if you haven't nabbed a 24" by now) there will be something far newer and shinier available.

    3. Re:Waiting for 24" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Conspiracy theories sound great, but considering Big Corporation would probably still be offering the same warranty on the "crap" versions, it wouldn't be economically feasible in the long run even if it helped boost a particular quarter. Keep in mind that the cost of warranties is included in the price of the product, and (just like any insurance) is figured out by actuaries (who have access WAY more info than would be available to us as end-users) so that they're NOT a losing gamble for the company. With cheaper parts, it'd mean more support, more replacements, more service.... and it doesn't take many service calls answered by a human being to consume the $30 difference in cost for sourcing cheaper chips, even across a boatload of screens.

    4. Re:Waiting for 24" by Runefox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I demand to know why you posted as an anonymous coward. I have mod points, and if I were to use them on you now, that would be wasting them.

      Curse you, Red Baron! >=|

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    5. Re:Waiting for 24" by longacre · · Score: 1

      A cheaper part isn't necessarily more likely to break -- it could just be one that produces a slightly lower quality image. Dell has a big enough customer base that they'll sell hundreds of these to people who don't have a clue about differences in display quality but will just buy it because it's the biggest monitor Dell offers.

    6. Re:Waiting for 24" by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I was going to get a 24" for a while, but i still haven't and now this.
      1080p TVs make perfectly serviceable monitors, so you can get a lot bigger than that.

    7. Re:Waiting for 24" by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 2, Informative

      I demand to know why you posted as an anonymous coward. I have mod points, and if I were to use them on you now, that would be wasting them.

      I think you're misunderstanding what mod-points are for. Their main use is not to "reward" people - that is a secondary effect. The main use of mod points is to highlight a good comment, regardless of author. This will bring the comment up into the visibility of more viewers.

      For example anyone browsing at "1" and above will miss the comment you failed to moderate now, due to your failure to correctly moderate the comment up from 0 to 1. I personally only view comments rated "2" or higher, as there used to be (and I assume still is) a lot of junk at "1". There are one or two good posters who post without their karma bonus, and to avoid missing these people I try and friend them when I realise who they are, and grant friends an additional +1 to make them visible.

      If there's a good comment that you think more people shouuld see, mod it up - even if it is an anonymous coward.

      -- Pete.

    8. Re:Waiting for 24" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You definitely want to avoid the 24" version. It suffers from horrible ghosting issues caused by a buggy overdrive system, which Dell acknowledges but refuses to fix. I'd hold off a bit and wait and see if this 30" one also has the same problem. Or just avoid Dell like the plague, like any sane person would.

    9. Re:Waiting for 24" by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for someone, anyone to release a high DPI screen. 30" and only 2560 x 1600 resolution? I want that in a 20" screen. The only high resolution desktop screen I'm aware of is the really expensive and discontinued IBM T221, which is absolutely stunning.

    10. Re:Waiting for 24" by cnettel · · Score: 1
      Agreed, but the 30-inch screens are still among the smallest dot-pitch you get in any mainstream desktop LCD (compare to the madness of 27-inch 1920x1200, for example, or even a 19-inch 1280x1024). A quarter of 2560x1600 is after all 1280x800, and there are supposedly useful laptops sold with 14.1 or 15.4 screens that are still only WXGA.

      Long story short, I'm very happy with my dual 3007 setup. I'll probably hang on to them for 2-3 more years, hoping for OLED and/or higher DPI at the next iteration.

    11. Re:Waiting for 24" by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Higher DPI is the reason why I use a 20" 1600x1200 screen, which has a DPI only slightly lower than the 30" 2560x1600 screen. I find the 1400x1050 14.1" screen in my laptop a bit more to my liking though, as at that DPI the sub-pixel rendering of fonts start looking good, whereas the sub-pixel rendering on a 19" desktop LCD looks terrible.

  4. I'd be happy with 12" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh wait, we're talking about monitors...

  5. Does it hdcp? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    if not then it is useless.

    1. Re:Does it hdcp? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Informative

      YA RLY!

      FTA:

      Ports: Analog, DVI-D (dual link) with HDCP x2, S-Video, Composite, Component, HDMI, DisplayPort
      USB 2.0 (4), 9-in-2 Media Card Reader, Kensington security port

    2. Re:Does it hdcp? by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Both HDMI and DisplayPort support content encryption. DisplayPort has 128-bit AES DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP) support and support for 40-bit High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) from version 1.1 onwards.

      So you should be able to watch DRM'd content at the highest available resolution on this monitor assuming the rest of your system is DRM compliant.

    3. Re:Does it hdcp? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      if not then it is useless.

      No, that's just a Windows bug.

    4. Re:Does it hdcp? by Mr.+Ksoft · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug; it's a feature.

    5. Re:Does it hdcp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hardly useless, all my high definition movies come without DRM and free of charge. Bittorrent is great, isn't it?

  6. Synesthesia? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    "... audio signals with 16-bit color per channel"

    Man, give me some of what they are smoking.

    1. Re:Synesthesia? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Maybe they mean noise?

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  7. dell.... by emeraldfoxx · · Score: 1

    Bringing you porn thats inches closer to "life-sized"

    --
    We're in college now. There's girls here. They do stuff....
  8. 30 in LCD monitor? by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think at that point, where you are investing in a 30" LCD monitor for your PC, you might as well just buy an LCD HDTV. Most of them have all the ports this monitor has including VGA, DVI, and HDMI. Plus the bonus of a built in HD tuner. Many of them also look quite a deal slicker, and are easily wall mountable. I use my 32" Westinghouse LCD HDTV as a second monitor all the time, and it works a treat.

    1. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you wanted better than 1080p -- this thing has a resolution of 2560 x 1600, which is a non-trivial amount larger than the 1920 x 1080 that you'll find in TVs.

    2. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      HDTVs tend not to include Dual-link DVI and its resolution of 2560x1600.

      I already run my 21" VGA-connected 4:3 CRT at 2048x1536 (the limit supported by my KVM switch).

      What this Dell display is missing is a stand that supports easy switching to portrait mode.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by luc-fr · · Score: 1

      Resolution, resolution, resolution !!!

    4. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      There is a major resolution difference, even if you have a 1080p set.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    5. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, with the scaling and resolution of this screen, you might be better off buying this screen and use it as a television set together with a digital tuner and a good hifi set.

    6. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, your screen looks fuzzier than a dirty fish bole.

    7. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by asc99c · · Score: 1

      I've got the 3007WFP and it's substantially better than an LCD TV as a monitor. The resolution is just huge - 2560x1600 is almost twice as many pixels as 1920x1080 on even the top TVs. My media centre is connected up via HDMI to a Sharp 37" 1080p TV. It's a great TV - still gives the best picture quality I've seen from a Blu-Ray film, but as a monitor it's very sub-par. It does a poor job of small text, relative to monitors. My PS3 clearly does something to compensate this because the web browser on there gives a much nicer result on the TV than Firefox on the media centre.

      I think the big monitors have now caught up with TVs for displaying videos and pictures but TVs have remained well behind monitors for all other uses. i.e. you could probably now get away with using the Dell monitor as a TV, but I wouldn't suggest buying any TV to use as a monitor - just buy the cheapest 1920x1200 24" LCD monitor and it'll do a better job than any TV.

    8. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      ummm.....

      2560x1600 monitor vs. 1360x768 (cheaper) or 1920x1080 (about the same price) TV

      That is why.

    9. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is quite clear. The resolution is also explicitly supported, so it isn't a matter of my overdriving the display (as I had done with the Apple 21" Studio Display VGA CRT it replaced). And with better dots per inch than this 30" (122dpi vs 100dpi), deeper black level, and faster refresh rate, at less than a quarter of the price. (I have a 47" LCD HD Monitor for entertainment to compare against.)

      Still, I really like the interface choices on this Dell display. I've been meaning to replace the small LCD I'm using as a secondary display with a Dual-link DVI display, and the multiple inputs and Picture By Picture mode will simplify my workspace editing digital video as well as negate the need for a dual-link DVI KVM.

      Why not use the 47" display? Because it's all the way across the room behind me.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    10. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a 30" monitor in portrait mode? I put my apple 30" in portrait mode (obviously it doesn't swivel.. I picked the whole thing up and put it on its side). It was insane how tall it was. You don't want a 30" in portrait mode.

      Besides, it already has 1600 vertical resolution. That's sufficient for anything I've ever needed to do.

      If you REALLY need it in portrait mode, get an ANSI mount for it that is fully articulating. Dell is pretty good about being standard compliant

    11. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      2560x1600 is almost twice as many pixels as 1920x1080 on even the top TVs
      I would think that the resolution would have almost twice as many pixels as 1080p on any TV. =P
      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    12. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Most, if not all TVs under 40" seem to be 720p.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    13. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by sweepkick · · Score: 1

      I had this problem initially with my Samsung 1080p LCD set (text representation was poor... fuzzy and out of focus). What I found out is that the "sharpness" setting of the television, while helpful in some instances of video display, was actually causing the problems with text display. By setting the sharpness to zero, it eliminated the issues with text such that the display is on par and indistinguishable with my actual LCD monitors.

      HTH,

      SweepK

    14. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever even seen a nice CRT? They are much easier to read than one of the new crappy LCD's. They can also display black unlike a LCD so it really helps to make text look much sharper. That's some of the reasons why real graphic artists still use real CRT's.

    15. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true - there are a number of 37" 1080p monitors.

    16. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      My TV is a 32" 1080p TV, and NewEgg has 24" and 28" monitors that look to really be TVs.

    17. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem with HDTVs as monitors is that most 30-32" models only support 1330x720, which is too low on such a large display. 30" computer monitors run at 2560x1600, to keep the pixel size roughly the same as on a 17/19/20/24". On a TV, text is going to be huge, like 15mm high.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:30 in LCD monitor? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      You don't want a 30" in portrait mode. Well, probably not with the base at desktop height, but maybe with mid-line at eye level and base slightly below desktop height, it might be useful. Far enough away on a shallow desk won't obscure the view.

      But then I'd only have it that way for coding and browsing. For video work, 1600 wide isn't enough for 1920x1080 HD video. That's one of the reasons why I wish my Matrox TripleHead2Go box (older VGA edition) allowed its three 1280x1024 displays to be stitched together for 3072x1280. Even for gaming, there can be such a thing as too much peripheral vision.

      Besides, it already has 1600 vertical resolution. That's sufficient for anything I've ever needed to do. Well, sometimes you have to deal with code written by someone who doesn't know how to break a function into smaller logical segments.

      What would be nice is to have the 30" landscape and then two portrait 1200x1600 displays at the same dpi flanking it, bezels removed. Saves a bit on the display costs on a multi-head setup going with the lower-res displays. Too bad I can't find any cables to split a dual-link DVI port to drive two separate displays (I guess it's a problem of two displays having to share the same clock signal), let alone a single card that would drive it that way.

      If you REALLY need it in portrait mode, get an ANSI mount for it that is fully articulating. ANSI? I thought VESA was the standard for such things.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  9. No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dell's previous large WFPs have been great, great monitors that break just outside the warranty period.

  10. "call for latest prices" by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    Ok then. I hope the backlight has a wider range as well. I'm OK with my LCDs at minimal brightness, some screens are even too bright for me at their dimmest setting, even with all the room lights on at max. It's as if the panels were intended to be used outdoors in daylight. If your town's lighthouse searchlight fails, then you can probably replace it with a 3008WFP.

    1. Re:"call for latest prices" by karmatic · · Score: 1

      It's funny - I use the 2405FPW for the exact opposite reason. Few panels are bright enough for me to be comfortable, and it's been a long time since I had a monitor (other than this one) that I didn't perpetually have as bright as it could go. (Stupid OS X "I'm going to adjust your brightness for you unless you stop me" aside). I also like to replace all my lights with 100W equivalant "daylight" CFLs.

      As a nice bonus, it keeps other people off my systems and out of my work space.

  11. OK, now 120Hz? by Besna · · Score: 1

    Displayport can't handle the bandwidth at this resolution, but it would be nice. Some LCD TVs do 120Hz, but only through internal interpolation.

    1. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by modecx · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but where can I get my eyes upgraded to 150Hz, so that I can complain about the refresh rate?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    2. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      It's an LCD. You don't need a high refresh rate (unless I'm misunderstanding your comment). The pixels stay on; they don't fade like phosphor.

    3. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it matters a lot less for LCD screens since the pixels (or more accurately, the dots) will stay on until they get their new value. Interpolation is a nice feature and there are some LCD's that can do 100 Hz, which is great for moving pictures (action movies, sport games). But I read the December issue of the C'T (German/Dutch computer magazine) and all implementations of the interpolation were pretty bad. So even if interpolation is interesting, I would wait a bit.

    4. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

      120 HZ is good because of the whole video vs film thing.

      Film (movies) is usually done at 24 fps (23.976).
      Video (tv, some movies) is usually done at 30 fps (29.97).

      So if you've got a 60 Hz display, you're getting 2 frames of display per frame of video.
      With film, half of the frames of film will be displayed for 2 frames, and half will bd displayed for 3 frames.

      This causes a jerky display.

      With a 120 Hz display, each frame of video can be displayed for 4 frames (4 * 30 = 120).
      Each frame of film can be displayed for 5 frames (5 * 24 = 120).

      It also allows us to drive our computers at 120 Hz, which is good if you want to play Quake II.

    5. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that most 120Hz sets can do 100Hz PAL as well, so you get all the benefits mentioned in the parent and 5x25=125Hz for PAL.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:OK, now 120Hz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my 60hz panel is very bad for games, coming from 120hz CRT video modes.
      120hz sounds great. if only i could afford the 2 9600GTs to run that size panel :s

  12. Painful Typos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the same last paragraph on page 3:

    This new arm not only looks nicer and is built from a sturdier steal, Ow.

    In addition, the inside edge of the arm comes with an integrated sheeth OW! That one shouldn't have even passed their spelling checker!
    1. Re:Painful Typos by kcbanner · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the script to a bad porno!

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  13. I love the Dell WFP Series by gsmalleus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've got two 2007WFP (20") monitors and they are awesome. If I had the money I would probably upgrade to the 3007WFP. The only complaint I have with the 2007WFP is that when the monitor goes to sleep, the USB ports lose power. The USB ports on the side of the monitor are very convenient. Last night I was copying some large files to my thumb drive and turned off the monitor so I could go to bed. I forgot that the files wouldn't copy if the monitor was off.

    1. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by CJ145 · · Score: 1

      I have a 2007WFP as well. The USB ports work fine in power saving mode (sleep). They only die when you turn the monitor off as it contains a powered USB hub.

    2. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Don't know about that. I got one too and it works brilliantly, but my USB keyboard and mouse won't work after going into suspend. So there are definitely some issues there. I was about to add that the USB ports are useful only for USB thumb drives in another reply (on the crappy sound bar). I do hope that the back-lighting issues are gone in the 3008 30", because that was one of the other spites I have (you get used to it though).

    3. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by MaineCoon · · Score: 1

      I have the 2407 WFP (the pre-HC, they released the wider color gamut HC model two months later). Best monitor I have ever used. However, I will say for gaming, I could never go beyond 24". It's at the edge of affecting my reaction times in FPS games like Team Fortress 2.

      The 2407 doesnt kill power to USB when it goes to sleep, but it does if you turn the monitor off entirely.

      Dell makes some of the best LCD displays, in my experience.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    4. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have the 2407 WFP (the pre-HC, they released the wider color gamut HC model two months later). Best monitor I have ever used.
      You got lucky. The HC model has nasty issues. I had one briefly. Even after calibration, the ghosting was incredibly distracting just dragging icons across my desktop, and games were all but unplayable.

      (And frankly I was glad I had the ghosting as an obvious reason to return it. It also suffered badly from the colour shifting problem that all PVA displays have: the contrast decreases where you're looking at the display head-on, so there's a kind of circle in the centre of the screen where you can't see any detail in dark pictures. Not a problem for office work, but very annoying in games and movies. The 30" models have generally used IPS panels which don't suffer from this problem.)
    5. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You got lucky. The HC model has nasty issues. I had one briefly. Even after calibration, the ghosting was incredibly distracting just dragging icons across my desktop, and games were all but unplayable.

      Maybe he was using the DVI port? I skimmed that link and really couldn't tell if the ghosting was just over VGA or not. I've seen some pretty terrible artifacts when using the VGA input with a crappy video card, with probably the worst I've seen on a Radeon 7000 recently. Why anyone would spent the money on a 24" monitor and not buy a DVI capable graphics card is beyond me.

    6. Re:I love the Dell WFP Series by MaineCoon · · Score: 1

      I've seen bad ghosting on monitors using crappy VGA cables, but haven't had any problem with any of several 2405s and 2407s (pre-HC though). I must say the 2407s are a good sight better than the 2405, and the original 2407 release and first revision have acknowledge serious issues. After a couple revs though, they can be really good.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  14. yeah, but how much? by 40ozFreak · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to know how much this thing is gonna cost. It's like trying to solve a cryptex looking for a price tag anywhere.

    1. Re:yeah, but how much? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd really like to know how much this thing is gonna cost. It's like trying to solve a cryptex looking for a price tag anywhere. Last page says MSRP US$1999.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:yeah, but how much? by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      WTF, my TV cost half that. I realize it's not "the same thing," but you're going to have a hard time squeezing 2k out of me for a monitor, even I were going to use it as a tiny TV. I guess it's priced competitively with the Apple Cinema Display.

    3. Re:yeah, but how much? by 40ozFreak · · Score: 1

      Somehow I missed that entirely, silly me. That is a ridiculous price tag. You can get an HDTV twice the size for half the price. I know it isn't the same type of product, but who wants to spend 2 G's on a monitor? :o

    4. Re:yeah, but how much? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      How about 8 Grand? 200 dpi, 4x the resolution of HD, in only 22.2". Now that's what I want to edit HD video on! Two source clips up at full HD res, a third for the mix, and still lots of room for the timeline, palette, and asset list. Throw in a 120 Hz refresh rate for working in both 24 and 30 fps and it's golden!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:yeah, but how much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering this thing has twice as many pixels as 1080p HDTV (2560x1600 vs. 1920x1080), I don't think the target market is people who just want to watch movies. It's definitely overkill for that.

    6. Re:yeah, but how much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That story is from 2002! Shouldn't this monitor be $150 by now?

  15. I'll wait for the behardware review. by eddy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Happened across these guys a few days ago while hunting for a clue on what LCD to get in the 22-24" range. I was very impressed by their deep analysis of different monitors; actual measurements of color gamut, response times (ghosting), etc. Good shit. Yes, you'll have to 'suffer' their english. Big deal.

    The first thing I learned was that it's like that old saying of "Fast, Good, Cheap -- Pick two", only with "colors, response, ergonomics". Secondly: It's hell to actually be able to know what the hell monitor you're getting since producers swap in different quality panels under the exact same model. Typically the good panels go out in the first batch (which reviewers will get), and then if there's high demand, or in other territories, they'll put in the cheaper panels instead. Their flippant attitude about it makes me not want to buy a monitor at all. Maybe with Dell this isn't a problem, but on the other hand, they're not cheap, as measured globally.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by CJ145 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by Orphaze · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, Dell is well known for swapping panels. It's referred to as the Dell Panel Lottery on forums across the internet.

      In short, Dell has been known to swap S-IPS panels (a kind of TFT technology known for particularly accurate color representation) with various other kinds of cheaper panel technologies, all within the same model number. This is why many manufacturers, including Dell, refuse to list what technology they're using in the monitor specs, in order to reserve the right to use whatever cheapest panel they can find as they become available.

      I purchased a Dell 2001FP a few years back that had a genuine S-IPS panel. When it started to have problems (specifically, a piece of tape or insulation began migrating onto the screen underneath the plastic of the panel) they sent me the newer model of the same line. It looked awful in comparison, despite having virtually the same specs. (It was a PVA panel, from what I found out later.) Luckily, after spending 2.5 hours (persistence is key in these situations; eventually it's cheaper to give in than to continue dealing with you) in a chat with a Dell support tech, and her manager, I eventually convinced them to refund my money in its entirety, despite the fact I had purchased the monitor about 5 months ago.

      In any case, it pays to do a fair amount of research on a monitor before making a purchase. In the end, I ended up going with an HP LP2065, another S-IPS based monitor, which I have been very happy with. Things may have improved more recently though, so it may not be such a big deal these days.

    3. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Not cheap? Depends on how you measure I suppose. My Dell 21" display has got the exact same screen as an Apple screen, and it was a hell of a lot cheaper, and it has got additional features to boot. Of course, it has got that bit less style, but its ergonomics beat most Apple screens. And I like their dithered dark gray finish a lot, doesn't distract at all. Most Dell screens seem to have pretty good value/performance. Of course, I live in the Netherlands, where pricing is a bit screwed up anyway (it's screwed up anywhere in Europe really).

    4. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by entrigant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny you mention that. I'm not sure about PVA, but if I got S-IPS instead of S-PVA I'd be pissed. The original S-IPS is worse at color reproduction, has over twice the black level, and much smaller viewing angles than a S-PVA or S-MVA screen. Some of the extremely high end IPS types (AS-IPS and H-IPS) come pretty close to a good S-PVA/MVA in black level and color gamut, but still not quite there. You also still get bad viewing angles.

      A great S-PVA w/ led back lighting will exceed sRGB with near perfect color fidelity down to the point where the typical LCD black level interferes, and with such a panel that is as low as 0.24 lumens (some even lower with specialized filters). They do as well with CCFL's within the limitations of a CCFL. The viewing angle is so good you can hit 170 degrees and still get great color both horizontally AND vertically.

      Perhaps you had an old school non S PVA (those aren't quite as nice), perhaps dell didn't bother to calibrate it, or perhaps your subjective definition of good differs with the quantitative definition (hey, some people prefer some things that aren't technically accurate, and that's cool with me). I own a Samsung 204t which is a 20" S-PVA that I calibrated with a colorvision spyder, and I am extremely pleased with it.

    5. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, these guys look a lot more knowledgable. And despite your comment about English it seems to be more correct than the hothardware one. I'm amazed they include a detailed delay analysis, which is a huge issue in games but seems not to be noticed by most reviewers.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    6. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      It's funny you mention that. I'm not sure about PVA, but if I got S-IPS instead of S-PVA I'd be pissed. The original S-IPS is worse at color reproduction, has over twice the black level, and much smaller viewing angles than a S-PVA or S-MVA screen. Some of the extremely high end IPS types (AS-IPS and H-IPS) come pretty close to a good S-PVA/MVA in black level and color gamut, but still not quite there. You also still get bad viewing angles. Sort of. It's true that IPS is worse when it comes to black level and contrast (gamut is irrelevant for anyone but photo professionals), but the viewing angles are much better than on VA panels.

      TN panels mostly suffer from vertical shift. Even when you look at the monitor dead-on, the top of the screen is darker, and the bottom is lighter. You cannot move your head in such a way to prevent it from happening.

      VA panels have horizontal color shifting. When you look at the monitor dead-on, the sides will be coloured differently (the right is usually OK, but the left is washed out - you won't notice it THAT much on a 20", but go 24" or larger, and it's always there). There is another problem with VA, and that's the disappearance of dark details at the part of the screen you are looking at perpendicularly.

      Someone uploaded four videos about PVA color shifting to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pva+color+shifting&search=Search
      Dell 2007FP S-PVA (look at the left): http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/59768645.PVA_Shadow.jpg
      More S-PVA: http://www.charmainemk.com/Testing/dellCenter.jpg
      2007WFP S-PVA: http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/9021/dell2007wfpwithspvapanesu5.jpg
      PVA left, S-IPS right: http://www.albedo-cg.de/Monitore/dell-3007wfp-vs-eizo-s2410w-k.jpg
      2007WFP S-IPS left, 2007WFP S-PVA right: http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8641/032007wfpx2tb7.jpg

      Apple displays are all IPS. The older ones are S-IPS, the newer ones are H-IPS.
    7. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by Orphaze · · Score: 1

      Well, if what you're saying is true, it runs contrary to what I've read in the past, and every bit of info that I just found via a quick Google search on the matter. Also, you'll find that many high end LCDs for graphics work are S-IPS, or some variant there of, such as the LaCie 319.

      Do you have any sources to back up your claims? If not, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original statement.

    8. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by entrigant · · Score: 1

      You are correct about the shifting and loss of detail when viewing at a perpendicular angle. I have personally noticed it on my own monitor. The effect is subtle, and I don't mind it myself, but others may disagree. However, beyond the very slight shift when viewing from a perpendicular angle the viewing angle is superb as the shift only happens in that small area. Even up to extreme angles in both directions the image is still very clear. Even so, with both types of panels the angle has gotten good enough that the image will be distorted by the severe angle enough to prevent any meaningful use of the display before color shifting becomes a serious issue.

      The newest IPS panels that can finally match the spva black level I would probably enjoy as you get the best of both worlds, but if it comes to dealing with that slight shift in order to achieve half the black level (the last series of reviews I read with black level measurements showed IPS having on average 0.5 lumen as opposed to the SPVA typical 0.25 lumen, but that was some time ago) I'll deal with it. I like using my monitor at night with the lights off, and the glow of the back light can get irritating.

    9. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      The effect is subtle, and I don't mind it myself, but others may disagree.
      Subtle? Last time I tried an S-PVA monitor I found the effect too distracting for words. Any darkish shade of grey, anywhere on the screen, seemed to shimmer, because each of my eyes perceived it as a slightly different shade. Games were a particular nightmare -- the smooth motion you get in games made the "sphere of darkness" effect painfully obvious in any game that used darker colours. Clearly either you sit on the other side of the room from your screen, or I'm more sensitive to the effect than you are...

      Still, if it comes to dealing with that slightly worse black level in order to get consistent colours, I'll deal with it. I don't use my monitor at night with the lights off. To each his own, and I hope you enjoy having got a monitor you love for half the price I had to pay, you bastard. :)
    10. Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. by entrigant · · Score: 1

      It's also very possible the effect varies between different panels based on any number of things. I'm usually rather critical of my display considering how much time I have to spend looking at it. I have to really be looking for the effect to see it even when playing dark games such as doom3 sitting 2 feet away from the display. I've only ever had a chance to see one S-IPS (dell 2007fpw) and one S-PVA (samsung 204t) up close and personal for some time. The rest I've seen are cheap crap TN panels. Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to compare differences inside the same panel type or even between different panels of the same model.

  16. Widescreen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    By the resolution numbers I see that this new thingy is a widescreen. Needless to mention that 16:10 monitor has 7% less space than standard 4:3 screen with the same diagonal, plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.

    1. Re:Widescreen? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Wide Screen may be less useful for "programming/web& graphic design work", but I think you are forgetting the 2560x1600 pixels here. Screw that 7% less space, look at the number of pixels. I'm having no problem at all programming on my 21" 1680x1050, nice long 120 character screen when the side bars are in use. For GUI design it beats the dual 1280x1024 (5:4) screens at work hands down (for debugging and multi-application use I prefer the dual setup).

    2. Re:Widescreen? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work. Isn't that what portrait mode is for?

      Or just don't run your ocde editor maximized all the time. In my work environment with a 1600x1200 display I run xemacs in three 80-column buffers for referencing multiple source files at once. With a QXVGA display at 1600x2560 portrait, that's a lot of code I could see all at once! Get me that in a 25" display (120 dpi instead of 30" at 100 dpi) and I'd be very happy code monkey!

      Really, 100 dpi they call UltraSharp?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:Widescreen? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.

      I think your empty hyperbole is useless.

      There are no 30" 4:3 displays or anything close to that size, so it's kind of a moot complaint. 16:10 is optimized to let you fill the screen with two full pages side-by-side, with a little room for a menu bar too. If it has to be 4:3 to be useful, you may stick with a 21" display. I think it's less useful than a 30" widescreen for programming & web.

    4. Re:Widescreen? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Ultrasharp is the brand Dell uses for monitors with 8bit panels. It doesn't use 6 bit panels with temporal dithering to fake 8 bits. So yeah, it's sharper because of that. There aren't any affordable high resolution desktop panels. Just like I don't think there would be a whole lot of sales of 15" or 17" 1920x1200 desktop displays, there probably wouldn't be so many sales of the equivalent pitches for 2560x1600.

      I'm not sure why you have to have a smaller display with the same number of pixels. It allows you to sit farther away from the screen. And that makes it easier to share a screen with a coworker.

    5. Re:Widescreen? by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      And it's already 1600 pixels tall. That's the same as taking your 1600x1200 monitor and putting it in portrait mode.

      I have a 30" monitor and am a professional programmer. It has plenty of vertical resolution in landscape mode.

    6. Re:Widescreen? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      While I word certainly love to have a 24 inch 4:3 trinitron there is a limit to how far I'm looking to tilt my head up and down to use a monitor. The sheer width of a 24 incher is already past my comfort point.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    7. Re:Widescreen? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      ...plus the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work. If these were the DOS days where your apps always filled the screen, I might be inclined to agree. With graphic work, you have more room on the sides for palettes. (That's why I don't rotate my display for vertical stuff.) With scripting, you can have your code in one window with the documentation or the application to test the code in another side by side and it'll work reasonably well. The same is true for web development as well.

      I can understand some preferring portrait mode with widescreen LCDs, but I wouldn't describe landscape is 'fairly useless'. I was actually surprised that I prefer my widescreen to the two CRTs I had, even though I had more pixel real-estate there.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Widescreen? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      nice long 120 character screen
      Then you're stuck printing in landscape, though. I always set the little marker bar around 94-97 characters to let me print nicely in portrait. Monitors are just about getting big enough, though, that we should think about two-column displays for programming.

    9. Re:Widescreen? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Widescreen is actually really good for programming and document/web editing. You can have two windows open at once and large enough to show an A4 page actual size, or maybe two source windows, or web editor and browser, or blog edit window and news item etc.

      In fact you only need a 24" monitor to do that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Widescreen? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      the widescreen layout is fairly useless for any programming/web&graphics design work.
      You think so? I find it rather useful to be able to have my HTML source, my CSS source, and the final web page, all displayed side by side, maximised vertically, on a single monitor.
    11. Re:Widescreen? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      The sheer width of a 24 incher is already past my comfort point.

      Talk about opening yourself up for a goatse joke...

    12. Re:Widescreen? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      ...opening yourself up Indeed.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    13. Re:Widescreen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think about two columns?! I already use three side-by-side windows of 100 columns x 90 lines on a 1920x1200 screen.

    14. Re:Widescreen? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Do those three show the same source file?

  17. 3008? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

    Dang I knew car companies were bad by selling there next year model a 1/2 year early.... but DAMN a whole millennium??

  18. I'll wait for the 3D review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's one downside to LCD monitors. You can't use polarized 3D glasses with them.

  19. Don't buy the soundbar by owlstead · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've got a 21" Wide Screen Dell display. It took some getting used to (about 5 days) before I came to terms with some back-lighting issues. But I also bought the sound-bar. What a piece of crap that is. I should have returned it just after testing it, but I thought it would be a nice addition to the otherwise feature packed screen. Even the connectors to the headphones were junk, no one should do that to a couple a pair of Sennheiser headphones.

    After a while I have fallen in love with the screen. It's got *very* good scaling and the VGA connector performs brilliantly. Very good value for money. But, as said, DON'T BUY THE FREAKIN SOUNDBAR.

  20. 3000:1 contrast ratio by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

    What's the contrast ratio with the dynamic contrast turned off? It's not just that I see it as a cheap gimmick to boost the specs, it bugs the heck out of me to have the contrast change drastically when what's on the screen changes. I always turn it off.

    1. Re:3000:1 contrast ratio by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Since contrast is measured black to white, there wouldn't be a difference with dynamic on or off.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    2. Re:3000:1 contrast ratio by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Dell has stated "dynamic" before the contrast number in the specs, so I think they reference the temporal contrast between the brightest white and the darkest black ever to be shown by the same monitor. Two pixels shown at the same time will always be in a narrower range.

  21. Monitors can be too big by hirschma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just upgraded to two Gateway 24" displays (BTW, they're great for the money. I got two for under $800).

    The truth is that once you get past this size, monitors become un-ergonomic. Bigger monitors make you have to swivel your head up and down; they also will exceed the limits of your non-peripheral vision if you sit at a "normal" viewing distance.

    My $.02.

    jh

    1. Re:Monitors can be too big by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Bigger monitors make you have to swivel your head up and down;

      I just change where eyes are looking. A 30" is perfectly fine for me. I think it's better than two 24" displays because it gives you more height without being so wide.

    2. Re:Monitors can be too big by generic-nickname596 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I own a 30" 3007WFP, and it is a wonderful monitor. Perhaps swiveling of heads will be a problem if you have poor eyesight, as the gargantuous resolution comes with a rather high DPI-factor. I just move my eyes when I need to, and use a good chair with a headrest. Ergonomics couldn't be better, as there is far less mouse-wrestling to shuffle windows around. You can easily have an IDE or two open on the left half of the screen, with a whole page of a PDF spec on the right. And you will still have more pixels in each window than if you did full-screen with a smaller monitor. More space is good. How does four Firefox windows at once sound? I would like a monitor with three times the horizontal dimensions of this one. Except then it would have to curve around my chair. A 30" monitor beats two 24" monitors any day.

    3. Re:Monitors can be too big by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Where did you find them for that price?

  22. Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    The 3007 was always an odd one, unlike the 2407 it was lacking those other inputs and being the premium model, no one could figure out why.
    Some people bought them anyway and coupled it with a monster video card but I know at least one poor sap who didn't do his research and purchased one, only to find it had no component ports (admitedly you should check but he just assumed on a display that large)

    He's since spent hundreds trying to plug a DVD player and regular VGA laptop into it by purchasing component / vga to DVI converters etc (not cheap) and still having issues.

    The 3007 might be a good monitor but with only a single input on a display that large, it really was overpriced, you'll see it absoloutely tumble on ebay in the coming months, if you own one, sell it now while you can.

    1. Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The 3007 might be a good monitor but with only a single input on a display that large, it really was overpriced, you'll see it absoloutely tumble on ebay in the coming months, if you own one, sell it now while you can.

      I thought it was a fine price, wasn't it the cheapest display of the 30" monitor class?

      Why one would hook up a DVD player to it is beyond me, one should be able to do it all in the computer itself. Maybe if you had an XBox 360 or PS3.

      There aren't any 3007's on eBay right now, I certainly wouldn't mind picking one up, though LCDs aren't something I buy used if I can avoid it.

    2. Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. by dusanv · · Score: 1

      The 3007 isn't a TV. I'd be nice if it had extra inputs but not essential.

      It's not meant to be hooked up to DVD players because the resolution is too high (2560x1600) and the size is too small (30''). You get no advantage from hooking up a 3007 to a DVD player versus a 30'' 1900x1200 TV except that the 3007 is a lot more expensive than a TV. In fact, you can get a 1200p 42'' LCD TV for less than the 3007.

      I love my 3007 (SIPS display at 2560x1600 is just gorgeous, 2407 is a PVA monitor so it simply doesn't compare) and I won't be selling it just yet.

    3. Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I totally agree that it's not a TV, also yes the native resolution is 'too high'
      That's not to say however it's not perfectly usable as an SD or HD TV if you're sitting 5-10' away based on it's size - at least as a basic alternative, the non native resolutions isn't going to totally destroy the image (that's more for text)

      Also yes I do realise you can get a cheaper and larger TV for less, the fellow who purchased this isn't too bright - but the poor sap just wanted to output 1280x800 or 1680x1050 from his laptop to it, via VGA - of course he couldn't - as it simply doesn't have a VGA port (his fault for buying but I mean cmon - it should've been there in the first place)

      The 3008 is definately a far far superior product with the addition of those ports.

    4. Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. by dusanv · · Score: 1

      He should be able to output 1280x800 (I can, I hooked up a mini to it and that's what it ran at). I don't get that part. But I agree, it'd be nice if it could natively display something other than 2560x1600 & 1280x800.

      3008 is a better monitor to be sure, at least on paper. Now if it only had an LED backlight...

  23. Native 24Hz by Besna · · Score: 1

    Native 24Hz on both the player and TV are out now. Sony advertises this feature.

    1. Re:Native 24Hz by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's been out on Mitsubishi since at least 2000.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  24. DisplayPort by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do we really need another video interface? How many does that make now?

    There's wireless NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and ATSC.
    There's RF cabling to carry those as well.
    There's RCA-composite and S-Video. (Let's not get into all the audio options.)
    You can get composite and audio on a 4-conductor headphone jack too on portable DVD players and some SlingBoxes.
    IIRC Betamax had a monaural 3-conductor version too.
    There's SCART.
    There's component video.
    There's VGA as well as 5-BNC (R,G,B,H,V).
    There's ADC for Apple users, and that DB15F connector Apple used to use.
    There's Sun's 13W3.
    There's DVI-A (also carries VGA), DVI-D (digital-only), and Dual-link DVI.
    There's HDMI, latest version being 1.3b (follows 1.3 and 1.3a, not "beta").
    There's Firewire 400, and even USB 2.0 gets used for video. Multiple sizes too.
    There's Unified Display Interface (UDI).
    And now there's DisplayPort.

    Did I miss anything? I'm sure there's lots more in just the streaming video area.

    Makes HD DVD vs. Blu-ray seem like nothing, doesn't it?

    Oh yeah, there's the TVs with players built into them too, so you could add VHS and DVD to the list so far. (UMD is opening that window too far.)

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:DisplayPort by atamido · · Score: 1

      Pretty much everyone except for consumers are excited about using DisplayPort. The reason is that there are lots of licensing fees assorted with DVI, whereas DisplayPort was basically designed as DVI without licensing fees. So in theory, if everyone adopts DisplayPort, displays become cheaper to produce and to buy, volume goes up, and people make more money. At least, that's the theory.

      Personally, I wish they would have designed a standard that can transmit reliably over 15ft.

    2. Re:DisplayPort by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but most of those are terrible for displaying computer output - most of what you listed are analog, which we obviously used for a long time, but analog video is obsolete now, so when you ask "do we need another interface?", if you're suggesting the analog methods are suffient, i'd say you're on crack. As for the new digital methods, i really only see DVI-D, HDMI, UDI, and DisplayPort for the dedicated display connections (sure there's USB and firewire, but until we get a universal connection method that is truly fast enough, and create video cards that can crunch high quality video while relaying it to said universal ports, i don't count those as viable formats for mainstream display connections). There's also wireless methods, but they're not there yet either.
      My point is this: Do we need another format? Well, unless there is a current method that is sufficient for every possible current and forseeable future use, then the answer is yes, yes we do need another format. Since the analog ones are all terrible for today's digital displays and pixel-perfect (compared to analog) world, they're useless. Since the dell 30 incher's at least used to require TWO dvi connections, it seems like that's not good enough. I don't know enough about HDMI, UDI, or DisplayPort to judge between them, but if we've only got 3 possible connection methods that MIGHT even be ideal for today's technology, do we really have too many connection possibilities as you implied?
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    3. Re:DisplayPort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dual-link DVI is not, and has never been, two DVI connections. Dual-link DVI is a single connector that has two digital buses (utilizing the full original potential of the DVI interface). Most decent graphics cards today support dual-link DVI, usually having two dual-link DVI ports on the same card. Why does everybody (including most of the IT staff I work with) think that dual-link DVI requires two cables, both DVI ports on a card or two graphics cards?

    4. Re:DisplayPort by Something+Witty+Here · · Score: 1

      > Did I miss anything?

      DVB-T (said to work better than ATSC)

      Although, ATSC and DVB-T (or NTSC, PAL, SECAM) aren't connectors.
      If you're talking formats you can get into the virtually
      endless list of mpeg 1,2,4, h.264, DV ... and
      4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0, 4:1:1, ...

      > There's RF cabling to carry those as well.

      300 Ohm twinlead
            plain
            shielded (rare)
      75 Ohm coax
            RG59
            RG6
            RG11
            probably others
            and F connector vs BNC

      > You can get composite and audio on a 4-conductor headphone
      > jack too on portable DVD players and some SlingBoxes.

      This is the 3.5mm mini phone plug? Also found on some camcorders.

      > There's VGA as well as 5-BNC (R,G,B,H,V).

      also 4-BNC (composite sync)
      and 3-BNC (sync-on-green)

      Didn't older pee-cees have different pre-VGA D-sub connectors? (not HD-15)

      > There's DVI-A (also carries VGA), DVI-D (digital-only), and Dual-link DVI.

      DVI-A is analog only (rare?)
      DVI-D is digital only
      DVI-I has both analog and digital
      and yes, dual-link

      And Ethernet.

      And the propritary connectors. Tektronix had at least one (digital ribbon
      connector). NCD had various D-sub connectors on X terminals. I'm
      sure there are others.

    5. Re:DisplayPort by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Analog, obsolete?

      Guess you forget that the very electrical current carrying your digital data down the copper wire is an ANALOG WAVEFORM?

      Analog is not, has never been, and never will be obsolete, as it's what makes digital even possible in the first place. Without that analog wave making a crest or trough to signify a 1 or 0 for digital information, there would be no digital.

      I forgive you, your UID tells all.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:DisplayPort by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      Is there arbitrary limit on how many video interfaces we should have?

      As technology moves forward, we will need new ones.

      I think display connecters are in quite a good state, we have DVI and VGA, and almost all monitors sold these days have support for both. HDMI will sort out any confusion of analog formats once everyone gets LCD or plasma tvs.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    7. Re:DisplayPort by nullchar · · Score: 1

      I forgive you, your UID tells all. What? The parent's UID is only 100k more than yours -- you are practically neighbors on the UID scale.

      Also, the parent only said "analog video for displaying computer output is obsolete" and mentioned nothing about signals.

      I wouldn't say analog video is obsolete as new computer displays will probably support it for some time, but it sure is deprecated. The monitor the article describes can only utilize the maximum resolution of 2560 x 1600 via dual-link DVI-D.

      A link to the 3007WFP model: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175
      (see the 'note' at the right side of the page)
    8. Re:DisplayPort by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Even if you just look at what has the capability of carrying HD quality signals, it's still a long list. They can broadcast it wirelessly (as long as you have a broadcaster's license; any chance low-power in-home transmitters will be legal?), they can put in on RF cabling (crazy number of channels on one cable), component video, VGA, Firewire 400, DVI, HDMI, UDI, and DisplayPort, with the last five offering from optional to mandatory encryption. The last three only get us more signals bundled into a single cable, probably just as encrypted. The next one will probably throw in use as an AM/FM antenna and carrying encrypted XM Radio signals from your roof antenna/dish. And still some formats seem to demand separate audio paths in order to frustrate attempts to capture it (SACD using 6 analog RCA cables and prohibiting Toslink or any outside-the-box access to the digital stream).

      Sure, RF (wired or cabled) and Firewire carry compressed data streams(*) while the rest carry uncompressed video, and it isn't feasible yet to real-time encode a 1920x1200 display signal into an MPEG-2 transport stream with enough quality to satisfy everyone (though we seem more tolerant of audio infidelity, re MP3). But can't they just let it rest for awhile and let the market decide rather than putting out options rivaling in number the candidates of a California ballot?

      IMO, it's too many changes too fast for reasons not driven by consumer demand.

      (*) Given enough channels though, you can put out multiple uncompressed SD video signals and combine them to create an HD image. Redundant signals could be used for error correction. If you can get tuners small enough.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:DisplayPort by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Dual-link DVI is a single cable, true, but I have seen monitors in the past that used two single-link hookups. Apple's 30" display was the first wide-selling monitor that I know of that used a dual-dvi connection.

      It also really didn't help that various video card manufacturers didn't know the difference between dual-link DVI and dual-DVI (I had to return one nvidia card from MSI once because the phrase "dual-link dvi" was printed on the box, and I was told by a representative that it was dual-link dvi, even though the card had two single-link DVI ports).

    10. Re:DisplayPort by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Aargh. I misspoke as well. I should have said "Apple's 30" display was the first wide-selling monitor that I know of that used a dual-link dvi connection."

    11. Re:DisplayPort by CodyRazor · · Score: 0

      99% of consumers wont ever have to worry about all those things you just listed tho, all they need to do is buy a monitor for your pc, and buy a tv you can hook your game console up to. Its simple enough that even a walmart assistant cant explain it to you. If video work is your thing, then you cant really complain... but from a conusmer point of view i think its a lot better than most other areas of technology.

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
  25. Of course... by Runefox · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before a less restricted version of this native 24Hz mode is made by a standards body and everyone's favourite whipping boy goes into marketing mode. I can see it now:

    TruSpeed, Sony's 24Hz mode found on Sony TV's and those of several other licensees, offers superior image quality than the industry standard High-Definition Synchronization, or HDSync because its name also functions as a market buzzword. Both standards provide perfect film-quality frame-by-frame synchronization of the display, but only TruSpeed offers a two-syllable solution, making it faster and lighter than its tri-syllabic competition.

    --
    Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    1. Re:Of course... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh? HDMI 1.3 already has 1080p24 as a standard and it's been available for months on production panels. I know the high end Toshiba Cinema display for 2007 support that mode and they came out last summer. Of course even though I'm using it for mixed uses I couldn't justify a 75% increase in price from the 42HL167 to the 42LX177.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Of course... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That's the signal.
      The physical display is what we're talking about.

      120 Hz LCDs are around, and have been around for a while, but are still rare.

      Also - most of the earlier 120 Hz displays were actually 60 Hz of video, and 60 Hz of blank frames.
      The result was that in each second, you would have VideoFrame1, BlankFrame1, VideoFrame2, BlankFrame2, ..., VideoFrame60, BlankFrame60.

      The idea was that interpolating a blank frame (much like what they do at the movie theaters) helps our eyes and brain fill in the gaps between frames, resulting in a smoother looking picture. The problem is that without controlled lighting, and with the varying contrast ratios and brightnesses of displays, it wasn't exactly a feature you could slap on to every set. It quickly became a niche feature that was nearly impossible to market to the uninformed masses.

      You can still find this feature, but anyone in the market for something like that would be better off looking for a true 120 Hz display.

      I

  26. Crystal Clear Monitor fro Dell by happyhangone · · Score: 1

    For a better looking monitor from Dell, try this one http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2243334,00.asp

  27. Beware: Some "WFP" models have 6-bit TN panels by MojoStan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Subject: I love the Dell WFP Series

    Comment:I've got two 2007WFP (20") monitors and they are awesome.[snip]

    Buyer beware: not all "WFP" models are created equal. The WFP models that have an 'E' or 'SP' before the number (e.g. E207WFP and SP2008WFP, both 20") use inferior 6-bit TN panels. TN panels can only display 262,144 colors and only "support" "16 million+" colors through dithering. A TN panel's viewing angles are also inferior. (I wish manufacturers would make this information more clear for their TN panels.)

    In contrast, the UltraSharp 2007WFP models you've got are awesome. They are true 8-bit panels that can display 16,777,216 colors and have superior viewing angles. They either use S-IPS or S-PVA panels. Of course, they are also significantly more expensive than the 6-bit TN models (but good value for 8-bit).

    Just yesterday, I noticed a disturbing new (to me) model name for a Dell LCD. Dell recently released a 22" model called the "UltraSharp 2208WFP." In the past, having "UltraSharp" in the model name and no 'E' or 'SP' before the model number hinted that it was an "awesome" 8-bit panel. Not anymore. It's a freakin' 6-bit TN panel.

    That said, TN models are probably good enough for most buyers. Most of today's 6-bit panels probably look better than 8-bit panels from 5 years ago. I just wish manufacturers were required to disclose the type of panel in their specs.

    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    1. Re:Beware: Some "WFP" models have 6-bit TN panels by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I think that even rececnt 6-bit panels really tend to negate the pros of subpixel rendering (ClearType). I've mostly seen it on cheapo Dell laptops and the MacBook, but also on some desktop displays. I know that there are different opinions of ClearType out there, but I really, really like it -- on a good display. It's one of the first things to suffer if you use VGA or a self-dithering monitor, as that will disturb the very fine balance between fake resolution and blur...

  28. And very few of them actually are... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Most (if not all maybe?) 720p TVs are this weird 1366x768 resolution, so even if you had a pure 720 signal, there would be scaling happening.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  29. Size Matters by pipingguy · · Score: 0

    I have a 30 incher for my Windows desktop and a 17" MacBook Pro. I bought these to overcompensate for my extremely small penis. I currently masturbate using a microscope and tweezers. Wait, did I just say that last part out loud?

    1. Re:Size Matters by Bitmanhome · · Score: 0

      No, you typed it into your computer, carefully, with good spelling and grammar. It's apparently an attempt to score some +1 Humor points. I wish you well, so that I may score some points too.

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
    2. Re:Size Matters by pipingguy · · Score: 0

      I have more humour points here than I know what to do with. Some people say that laughter is a sign of an advanced society.

      I tend to agree with this assessment. Hey, look, I wrote 'ass'!