Dell S2409W - It gets worse.

But its "Full HD" man, FULL HD! :p
Notice that in the sales pitch, they make no mention what so ever of picture quality. :rolleyes:
 
I think you're overreacting. I'd rather see 16:9 monitors than 16:10 monitors that can't scale 16:9 resolutions correctly. Finally, there's a monitor where you don't have to worry about scaling 16:9 resolutions properly, and chances are, it can also do 480p at 16:9, something most monitors can't do. There'd also be no black bars. I don't understand why there are two aspect ratio standards anyway. I'd rather see one eliminated to get rid of scaling issues.

Also, if it will accept higher refresh rates without skipping frames, it'd be possible to squeeze up to 76 Hz at 1920x1080 with tight enough timings. That'd be nice for gaming, and 72 Hz would be nice for 24 fps movies. It's not possible to reach 72 Hz at 1920x1200.

The only drawback is it's a TN panel, but considering the price, it'd be a good value monitor, especially if you want to use it with cable boxes and game consoles.
 
ToastyX said:
I think you're overreacting. I'd rather see 16:9 monitors than 16:10 monitors that can't scale 16:9 resolutions correctly. Finally, there's a monitor where you don't have to worry about scaling 16:9 resolutions properly, and chances are, it can also do 480p at 16:9, something most monitors can't do. There'd also be no black bars. I don't understand why there are two aspect ratio standards anyway. I'd rather see one eliminated to get rid of scaling issues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if your main use is console gaming. Scaling is kind of red herring for computer monitors as you can have graphics card do it properly and faster.

Also for productivity application that vertical resolution loss is a significant one.

I have no idea what you are talking about scaling 480p, generally that is a 640x480 (4:3). It doesn't fit in either, better in 16:10 if anything.

As far as black borders. Depends on programming. Many older games are 4:3 which can have 1600x1200 which fits perfectly at 1:1 in 1920x1200 with side borders. Most good movies are in 2.39:1 which will have black bars on everything. Even the more narrow movie standard is 1.85:1, which is still wider than 16:9. 16:9 doesn't really fit anything except new HD TV standard broadcast.

Again I am thinking in terms of a computer monitor, where this seems like a pure loss of screen real estate with no offsetting gain.
 
ToastyX said:
You could argue the same about 1600x1200 vs. 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

Yes. I would much rather have a 20" 16x12 than 20"16:10.

But in this case it is even worse as you don't gain any horizontal resolution as part of the trade off. It is just a 120 line crop of the 1920x1200 monitor.

For productivity I prefer 4:3 and 16:10 monitors with a minimum of 1200 lines of resolution. I have been using 1600x1200 for 7 or 8 years. I shouldn't have to go backwards at this point.

For entertainment 16:9 is fine, but I would actually like 2.40:1 screen, so there will never be any vertical crops.Projector folks call it Constant Image Height and do it with anamorphic lenses. I would prefer a native 2592x1080p resolution panel/projector.
 
Perhaps if your main use is console gaming. Scaling is kind of red herring for computer monitors as you can have graphics card do it properly and faster.
Click to expand...
It would also be beneficial for cable boxes and Blu-ray players.

I have no idea what you are talking about scaling 480p, generally that is a 640x480 (4:3). It doesn't fit in either, better in 16:10 if anything.
Click to expand...
480p is 720x480 (3:2), but it's supposed to be displayed as 4:3 or 16:9. Because of that, almost no monitor gets the aspect ratio right. At least this monitor would be able to do 480p at 16:9, which would be especially good for the Wii when used with a Vdigi VGA cable.

Again I am thinking in terms of a computer monitor, where this seems like a pure loss of screen real estate with no offsetting gain.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking in terms of a multi-purpose multimedia + gaming + general use monitor, which very few monitors get right due to scaling issues.
 
I am surprised to hear so many people complaining about this monitor. There are a ton of people on this forum who use 32"-37" 1080P HDTVs as their monitors and love it. I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't mind having a smaller 1080P set. I am curious as to how the reviews will turn out on this.
 
hunterx280 said:
I am surprised to hear so many people complaining about this monitor.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that people can fall for the manufacturer giving them less and thinking it is better. This is a 1920x1200 monitor with a chunk (230 000 pixels) lopped off to become 1920x1080.

Most people using TVs probably wanted either the bigger size 32"+ or the greater connectivity. Not less resolution.
 
I find this not progress at all,

A 16:9 monitor does not guarantee that a screen will properly scale 480p. Nor does it mean that monitors will get cheaper in economies of scale due to "synchronization" between monitor and TV product lines.

If that's the case, doesn't this mean that we will start seeing 24" and 26" TVs based on TN? No thanks. As much as I actually prefer TN for text viewing over PVA/MVA, for most other things involving digital content like movies and games, I reverse that especially if off-angle viewing is required. This is why there are no true TVs based on TNs (just hybrids).

The only guarantee here is that 1080p and (hopefully 1920x1080 over VGA) will be pixel mapped perfectly with no overscan by this monitor. That's It. It doesn't mean that 480p and 720p will be properly scaled or displayed without overscan.

There are a number of monitors that can do 480p properly scaled without overscan: BenQ FP241W/VW (June 2007 and later), NEC LCDXXWUXI-BK, Westinghouse L2410NM, so manufacturers "claiming" that HD content will be improved on this screen are full of it, and just trying to push more marketing up our respective colons.

Also we do lose popular PC resolutions like 1680x1050 and 1600x1200, so one must weigh that vs. the whole "true 1080p" resolution factor.

I'd prefer 16:10 monitors that can do 16:9 properly and 3:2 (or 15:10) properly as well over cheapened 16:9 panels like this.

That being said, if it ever appears at Best Buy, I might go for their 14 day "test drive" program to see if this thing does anything right, just in case people want a half-decent console monitor.
 
ZeroH said:
I read somewhere a while back that there's a move towards 16:9 monitors... to make all screens (tv and computer) to match the same ratio so panel makers won't have to make different ratio screens. Maybe it'll give them more time to focus on better quality screens. I guess Dell is moving forward with that faster than others.

Found the link... http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/02/widescreen-lcds-going-widescreen-by-2010/
Click to expand...

That did come to my mind when i saw this LCD, its a way for these companies to cut costs.
 
My guess is Dell did extensive data mining for this monitor. My guess is that when they put two monitors in front of consumers and one said 1920x1200p and the other being 1920x1080p Full HD, my guess is the average person thought that the 1080p was better because that is what they know to be "HD".

Never underestimate the power of perception when it comes influence of produt design.
 
Snowdog said:
I am surprised that people can fall for the manufacturer giving them less and thinking it is better. This is a 1920x1200 monitor with a chunk (230 000 pixels) lopped off to become 1920x1080.

Most people using TVs probably wanted either the bigger size 32"+ or the greater connectivity. Not less resolution.
Click to expand...

I've put your quote in red for everyone to learn and remember.

But this format is a good additional choice for the huge number of users concentrating on staring at games and motion pictures for less.
For that group a "Chunky HD" monitor is a bargain. Marketing people know that and they will eat the ground to make this innovation popular.

No doubt - this format is inferior to 1920x1200 and it decreases monitor productivity.

You are right - vertical resolution is the rank of the panel.
 
albovin said:
I've put your quote in red for everyone to learn and remember.

But this format is a good additional choise for the huge number of users concentrating on staring at games and motion pictures for less.
For that group a "Chunky HD" monitor is a bargain. Marketing people know that and they will eat the ground to make this innovation popular.

No doubt - this format is inferior to 1920x1200 and it decreases monitor productivity.

You are right - vertical resolution is the rank of the panel.
Click to expand...
If I had a widescreen monitor at a resolution of 1920*1200, I'd be inclined to rotate it into portrait mode. I work vertically... additional horizontal screenspace doesn't help me much.
 
ToastyX said:
You could argue the same about 1600x1200 vs. 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

There is no argument here.

"1600x1200 is 20" and 1680x1050 is 20"W " - this marketing trick is so old that we've already forgotten it is a trick.

So-called 20"W has never been 20"

When you make 20" wide you get format AKA 23".
20"W = 23"

So-called 20"W is in fact 17"W.
So to choose between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050 means to choose between 20" and 17"W.

When things are named properly (without marketing dirt) the sense becomes clearer.
 
ToastyX said:
I think you're overreacting. I'd rather see 16:9 monitors than 16:10 monitors that can't scale 16:9 resolutions correctly. Finally, there's a monitor where you don't have to worry about scaling 16:9 resolutions properly, and chances are, it can also do 480p at 16:9, something most monitors can't do. There'd also be no black bars. I don't understand why there are two aspect ratio standards anyway. I'd rather see one eliminated to get rid of scaling issues.

Also, if it will accept higher refresh rates without skipping frames, it'd be possible to squeeze up to 76 Hz at 1920x1080 with tight enough timings. That'd be nice for gaming, and 72 Hz would be nice for 24 fps movies. It's not possible to reach 72 Hz at 1920x1200.

The only drawback is it's a TN panel, but considering the price, it'd be a good value monitor, especially if you want to use it with cable boxes and game consoles.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much point in having the monitor run any higher than 60hz.

"Some monitors lead us to believe they function at 75 Hz. All that we have tested maintain this speed for 5/6 images and then skip the following one. In the end, we have an irregular rate and remain at speed of around 60 images per second."

http://www.behardware.com/articles/689-8/22-inch-lcd-monitors-the-3rd-wave.html
 
If it handled TV frequencies better than other LCDs which drop frames and have deinterlating issues, I'd sacrifice the 120 vertical lines (not happily :p but at the price point I would).

I usually find I dont need more vertical space (currently using a 20" wide), but a bit more width would be useful as then I could more easily fit 2 windows next to each other. Thats my main use of the widescreen at the moment, use the extra width to tile windows better.

I'd love a monitor that handled TV better. However if its just like any other PC monitor, except running 1080 instead of 1200, then I agree, its a waste.
 
I see it being appropriate for certain uses. I find 16:10 much more useful for all computing applications.
Whoever said you work vertiacally, you should really try a 1920*1200 with everything on two page mode. Its almost as much resolution and space as two old 4:3s next to each other!
 
I'm in the market for a 24" and this doesn't look too bad. It's a tad over priced but that's a given because it was just released. If it drops to 350$ I'd buy one in a heart beat.

I don't see what all the fuzz is about. I game on 1920x1080 and it's completely fine. I also surf and occasionally do some autocad.

Between this and the Benq 2400wd, at 350$ I'd buy this one. It looks much, much, much sexier. Right now it's overpriced because the other monitors in it's price range offer higher (not that much) resolution.

You gotta remember 1080p is no slouch.
 
I think I'm changing my mind on this.

It's plain and simply more concentrated HD. No more fat from the bars top and bottom to deal with.

:)
 
Same. This almost seams like a case of "jumping on the bandwagon." One guy makes a thread about how horrible and useless this product is even though it's only been on the market for one whole day and everyone instantly agrees with him because of "false-advertisement" and "getting less for more."

This is 1920x1080. Connect it through the 360 or ps3 and it will look brilliant. Play Crysis through it and it will still look brilliant.

Oh and don't bring all that crap about TN panels. Higher the quality, higher the price. This is 370$ what do you expect.
 
10e said:
The only guarantee here is that 1080p and (hopefully 1920x1080 over VGA) will be pixel mapped perfectly with no overscan by this monitor. That's It. It doesn't mean that 480p and 720p will be properly scaled or displayed without overscan.
Click to expand...
Considering almost every monitor has the ability to stretch the image to fill the screen, that would cause 720p and 480p 16:9 to be scaled properly on a 16:9 monitor.

10e said:
There are a number of monitors that can do 480p properly scaled without overscan: BenQ FP241W/VW (June 2007 and later), NEC LCDXXWUXI-BK, Westinghouse L2410NM, so manufacturers "claiming" that HD content will be improved on this screen are full of it, and just trying to push more marketing up our respective colons.
Click to expand...
The BenQ monitors treat 480p as 3:2 regardless of the firmware revision, so the aspect ratio is never correct. The NEC monitors have custom scaling, but they have tearing at 480p, so it's not displayed properly regardless. They also can't do 1080i, which is useful for cable boxes. I have not found any information on whether the Westinghouse can do 480p at 4:3, but it can't do 480p at 16:9, and neither can most other monitors.

I don't understand why so many monitors have trouble with basic aspect ratios. All I want is a monitor that can scale 16:9 resolutions properly and doesn't lag. Name one 16:10 monitor that can do that.

I'm surprised so many people are oblivious to the obvious benefit of a 16:9 monitor.
 
Yep, it's kinda good that they do have a 16:9 lcd for those who plan on connecting a PS3 or Xbox 360. At least you don't have to worry about stretching or monitors that having or not having 1:1 pixel mapping. I have a Gateway 17" 16:9 lcd and although I don't have as much height, I like the fact that I can watch some movies and watch my video clips I take with my digital camera in 16:9 format with no black bars on the top and bottom.
 
I really wouldn't mind seeing displays (both TV and computer) to go to a single standard aspect ratio. 16:9 would probably be the winner.
 
I prefer the extra real estate with the 16:10 format but if it helps move the costs down for consumers by going with 16:9 only, then by all means...
 
ToastyX said:
Considering almost every monitor has the ability to stretch the image to fill the screen, that would cause 720p and 480p 16:9 to be scaled properly on a 16:9 monitor.


The BenQ monitors treat 480p as 3:2 regardless of the firmware revision, so the aspect ratio is never correct. The NEC monitors have custom scaling, but they have tearing at 480p, so it's not displayed properly regardless. They also can't do 1080i, which is useful for cable boxes. I have not found any information on whether the Westinghouse can do 480p at 4:3, but it can't do 480p at 16:9, and neither can most other monitors.

I don't understand why so many monitors have trouble with basic aspect ratios. All I want is a monitor that can scale 16:9 resolutions properly and doesn't lag. Name one 16:10 monitor that can do that.

I'm surprised so many people are oblivious to the obvious benefit of a 16:9 monitor.
Click to expand...

Considering almost every monitor has the ability to stretch the image to fill the screen, that would cause 720p and 480p 16:9 to be scaled properly on a 16:9 monitor.
Click to expand...

This ability does not guarantee that 16:9 monitor has no overscan.

The NEC monitors have custom scaling, but they have tearing at 480p, so it's not displayed properly regardless.
Click to expand...

At this point I started a movie on the NEC 2490.
I see NO tearing at 480p.
Excellent 1080p/60.
Wonderful 24p mode.
It DOES display 480p. BTW who on Earth cares about 480p???

can't do 1080i, which is useful for cable boxes
Click to expand...

The funniest thing I have ever read about NECs.
As my grandma says, let it be the worst problem in your life!

Gentlemen, let's put NECs aside to fully enjoy this cheap TN opera.


I'm surprised so many people are oblivious to the obvious benefit of a 16:9 monitor
Click to expand...

This is not a revolution. Just another option - a new panel format 16:9.
Many will find it useful. As always, the decisive thing is behind the screen - the monitor. We have to get a monitor first. Then we can judge if it has any benefits.
Potential benefits mean little: you can get another "frozen fish" or a fully equipped universal workhorse.


Closer to reality, thus more interesting - the Dell s2409W format has larger than a standard 24" dot pitch.
Focusing on that, it can be a good alternative to 22" TNs for office use.
Also it may be interesting for people with less sharp vision.
 
HardwareGuru said:
I like the fact that I can watch some movies ... with no black bars on the top and bottom.
Click to expand...



"Some movies" means that the rest of them still have black bars on the top and bottom.

What facts do you have about 1.85:1 movies playback?
 
This ability does not guarantee that 16:9 monitor has no overscan.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why people focus on overscan so much. Overscan is not a problem unless it's excessive. Overscan is needed for cable boxes to eliminate the junk around the edges of many channels. The problem is a few monitors managed to cut off way too much, causing problems for some users, so now there's mass hysteria against overscan.

The only time overscan would be a problem is for computer use or if you want perfect 1:1 mapping, but since this is a computer monitor, 1080p over DVI shouldn't have overscan, which eliminates both problems. 720p and 480p have to be scaled up anyway, so overscan wouldn't be a big deal with those resolutions as long as it's not excessive. Maintaining the aspect ratio is more important.

At this point I started a movie on the NEC 2490.
I see NO tearing at 480p.
Excellent 1080p/60.
Wonderful 24p mode.
It DOES display 480p. BTW who on Earth cares about 480p???
Click to expand...
It's obvious you never use 480p, or you'd know what I'm talking about. It's not like I'm making this up. There's a line of tearing that travels slowly up the screen every 5-10 minutes. It's quite annoying. The problem is repeatable on both the NEC 2490 and the NEC 2690 with any device that outputs 480p.

Who cares about 480p? Maybe you don't, but widescreen 480p is useful for the Wii, and it's also useful if you want to watch standard-definition channels with a cable box on a 16:10 monitor without having black bars on all four sides. That's another problem eliminated with 16:9 monitors since 1080p/1080i/720p won't have black bars at the top and bottom, so upscaling to those resolutions won't be an issue anymore.

The funniest thing I have ever read about NECs.
As my grandma says, let it be the worst problem in your life!

Gentlemen, let's put NECs aside to fully enjoy this cheap TN opera.
Click to expand...
Why are you comparing a color-critical monitor to a cheap TN monitor? People looking for a budget multimedia monitor aren't going to get the NEC, and many 16:10 monitors have trouble maintaining the proper aspect ratio, especially with 480p. A cheap 16:9 TN monitor would be perfect for someone looking for a budget multimedia + gaming + general use monitor.

Another thing to consider: The size of a 16:9 image on a 24" 16:10 monitor is 23.3". If your primary use is console gaming and watching movies, the size of a 16:9 image is actually larger on a 24" 16:9 monitor than it is on a 24" 16:10 monitor. It would be the same size as a 16:9 image on a 24.68" 16:10 monitor. Also, for computer games, the field of view would be wider.

Yet another thing to consider: Considering TN panels have poor vertical viewing angles but decent horizontal viewing angles, viewing angles would actually be less of a problem on a shorter but wider screen.

Closer to reality, thus more interesting - the Dell s2409W format has larger than a standard 24" dot pitch.
Focusing on that, it can be a good alternative to 22" TNs for office use.
Also it may be interesting for people with less sharp vision.
Click to expand...
It's strange that you would focus on something so insignificant. For someone with vision problems, a 0.006 mm difference in dot pitch isn't going to make a difference.

I presented real-world problems that would be solved with a 16:9 monitor. If those problems are not significant to you, then this monitor is not for you.

I realize switching to 16:9 is a cost-cutting measure, but this is one case where such measures have accidental real-world benefits.
 
Essentially this is a monitor for people who really want a small TV to hook up to their gaming consoles. That is the "benefit" people keep mentioning.

As a multi-use computer monitor, it would be better off 1920x1200 and proper scaling.

Simply hacking off 120 pixels is no guarantee they got the scaling right for anything other than 1920x1080p native size. Interlace scaling issues that someone else mentioned, still plague TVs so again no guarantees it was solved here.

On wii support. That is the wii that is screwed up, not computer monitors. It outputs 640x480 wether it is in 4:3 mode or widescreen mode, the signal out is the same 640x480. The user needs a device capably of anamorphic stretch to properly display the output. I wouldn't expect a computer monitor to have this. There is NO guarantee this monitor has it either. Some wii games are only 4:3, if stretched they will have the wrong aspect. You need manual aspect controls to get around this.

Hey maybe they could get more benefit by setting the resolution at 1280x720, since most games are really 720p or less anyway. Or maybe 480p to support wii. That would be real progress. :rolleyes:

Strange git that I am, I actually want more resolution, not less. But then I use mine for watching movies, playing games and working on my COMPUTER. I don't own a console so handling of console resolution (720p scaled that can be scaled to 1080) is kind of irrelevant to me.
 
Snowdog said:
As a multi-use computer monitor, it would be better off 1920x1200 and proper scaling.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that 1920x1200 with proper scaling would give you black bars for 1080p HD content anyway, and therefore you might be getting a 23" image displayed onscreen rather than a true 16:9 24" image. This monitor fills an important gap in the market. There will always be a demand for higher-resolution screens for productivity purposes, but if your main computer use is HD gaming or native 16:9 video, then this is a big plus.
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
The issue here is that 1920x1200 with proper scaling would give you black bars for 1080p HD content anyway, and therefore you might be getting a 23" image displayed onscreen rather than a true 16:9 24" image. This monitor fills an important gap in the market. There will always be a demand for higher-resolution screens for productivity purposes, but if your main computer use is HD gaming or native 16:9 video, then this is a big plus.
Click to expand...

What 1080p content? Movies are either 1.85 or 2.39 to 1. Neither is 16:9. You still get black bars. There is no other 1080p content on a Computer that couldn't be 1920x1200 content.

Note I said for a computer. If you primary use is consoles, this may be the panel for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top