Dell S2409W - It gets worse.

-=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...

I agree in general.
The Dell s2409W is little closer to a cinema proportion.
If it has proper scaling, the movie image will be a touch of a bit larger than on standard 24" ---- and still with "black bars for 1080p HD content anyway".
 
ToastyX said:
I don't understand why people focus on overscan so much.


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.


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.


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.
Click to expand...

People get panic of 1-2 dead pixels.
With 9% overscan on a 1920x1200 monitor they loose an equivalent of roughly 50.000 - 200.000 pixels and some "definition" quality.
May be that's why.

A cheap 16:9 TN monitor would be perfect for someone looking for a budget multimedia + gaming + general use monitor.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I am saying several posts above: "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."

There's a line of tearing that travels slowly up the screen every 5-10 minutes.The problem is repeatable on both the NEC 2490 and the NEC 2690 with any device that outputs 480p.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean.
Spent some time again in front of 480p. No tearing.
Sony BDP-S300
DVD "Desperado"
Blu-ray "Transporter 2"
The issue seems to be with the equipment other than monitor.
 
eh...i actually liked 16:10 for day-to-day use over 16:9. that and the fact that older games that only support 16:10 res for ws will probably need registry tweaking are my only grievances with the change
 
Why do people get so worked up about black bars? If your image is in a different format than your screen, you'll either have to stretch the image or cut part of it off to eliminate them. Is filling up your screen really worth screwing up the picture?




albovin said:
People get panic of 1-2 dead pixels.
With 9% overscan on a 1920x1200 monitor they loose an equivalent of roughly 50.000 - 200.000 pixels and some "definition" quality.
May be that's why.
Click to expand...

Huh? How are you losing definition and picture on a higher resolution screen?
 
turumbar said:
Huh? How are you losing definition and picture on a higher resolution screen?
Click to expand...

Not what he is saying. He is saying that overscan sucks.

This is where they do a small zoom on the screen and crop off a section all around. Something you only need on TVs with tuner signals to clean up some of the garbage, but you you don't want this on a computer, because of the crop and the small resize means you lose the 1:1 pixel sharpness because it is a slight scaling operation performed.
 
Eh, I've got a mildly decent gaming pc and a 360. At the sale price, I'm buying one. Fark it....
 
lhsa said:
dunno, doesn't appear to be worth the money
Click to expand...

I read a couple of reviews in which people compared it to the Ultrasharp model and they said it looked almost identical. Granted, if you tried to view at an angle it's shitty, but I sit right in front of my monitor, so for the price, DVI, VGA, and HDMI connections, what I think is a slick look, I think it's a good deal.

I was never much of a monitor snob anyway. I just want size and ports. (no offense to you monitor snobs out there ;) )
 
While I think it would suck if all 24" monitors went dropped to 1080 (from 1200), I recommended one of these to a friend of mine. It is a good price for 24" for someone who wants to hook up a console and computer.
 
I read a couple of reviews in which people compared it to the Ultrasharp model and they said it looked almost identical
Click to expand...

I would not put too much trust in those reviews.
The true test is comparing both models side to side after calibration.
 
ashmedai said:
1080 --> no black bars. Problem goes where?
Click to expand...

Running 1200p here with no black bars. The problem would be losing 230 000 pixels of my screen real estate for no good reason.

If you read the thread the pros/cons have already been discussed. If main usage will involve consoles this is a good choice, but for a computer monitor, why would you want LESS screen?
 
There's no such resolution as 1200p that I've ever heard of. It's very good for what it is - a monitor that runs at a native resolution of 1080p.
 
ashmedai said:
There's no such resolution as 1200p that I've ever heard of. It's very good for what it is - a monitor that runs at a native resolution of 1080p.
Click to expand...

We are discussing 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080... Unless you are using a console, 1200>1080 and gives you 230 000 more pixels of screen.
 
cannondale06 said:
for a shitty TN panel? no thanks.
Click to expand...
Not as shitty a TN as Dell usually offers. According to 10E on another thread, this has an AU Optronics panel similar to the BenQ 2400 with only the boring pixels removed.

Perhaps we PC monitor geeks should be grateful the anamorphic 2:35 aspect ratio didn't catch on for consumer use. Otherwise we could be whining, reading and scrolling up and down about shitty TN panels on our shitty 2048 x 858 TN screens. :eek:
 
ashmedai said:
The sense, none that makes.
Click to expand...

If you can't grasp that some people want more screen resolution, not less, I will have to remember to not try to actually explain anything to you in the future, because it doesn't get much simpler than that.
 
I don't think anyone has purchased one. If they have, I've seen nothing about it here.

There are only three advantages I see with this monitor:

1) The ability to full screen 480p to an approximated resolution of 854x480 for those 16:9 movies played through a 480p DVD player. Most devices now do 480p at 720x480 now.
2) A slightly bigger 16:9 image than a 16:10 monitor
3) The ability to use VGA at 1920x1080 for analog 360 owners (which a few 16:10 monitors also do correctly)

Both have been mentioned above.

But as a MONITOR, it loses enough pixels around the vertical axis to make it less useful. Maybe 120 pixels doesn't seem much, but it might be a few lines of text, and it will also mean that when using a computer to show a DVD or video, the controls will eat into image display size and show a smaller picture unless you go full screen.

I prefer the black bars on a screen that properly scales HD content to 16:9 ratio and allows me to use my computer at full 1920x1200 resolution. This is almost a prerequisite for me, along with low or no overscan to prevent excessive image cropping, which can be very noticeable on the PS3 when certain things are displayed near the screen border. I see this more often on the PS3 than Xbox 360 for some reason.

Otherwise I'm sure for the people who want a more HDMI console-centric, but smaller screen it will be very good, as AUO is good at making decent "gamer friendly" panels in TN.

I'm sure BenQ will be following suit soon because they exclusively use AUO panels since their 23" S-IPS monitor line of years past.
 
I'd be fine with 16:9 if it became the standard across both, but they would have to up resolutions for current sizes.. 1080 vertical lines on a 24" isnt enough
 
The ideal would be to have 2200*1200 26" 16:9 or something like that in resolution. Then there would be no problem at all to have to Firefox windows between eachother.
 
When the first "HD" monitors were released, I wasn't thrilled of the thought of losing vertical lines. The first thing came to mind were the old Dell TN models that made me sick just looking at. Then flashbacks of TN panels that didn't do 1:1, had horrible lag and had glossy screens with saturated colors.

But then I realized where this "market" of 16.9 monitors are heading. We have to remember these aren't geared to people who do color critical work. Or those who need the extra vertical lines for work. These are geared as "multimedia" monitors as some have stated. They can and will do that sufficiently. These are to be sold to the masses. The masses aren't here on this forum or any other. They picked up their sunday paper and see a sale on a monitor and buy it.

You don't have to worry. 16.10 isn't going anywhere for a longtime.

Also, this thing goes for $350.00. You get what you pay for.
 
excuse me but I am not so good in english.

What does "16.10 isn't going anywhere for a longtime." mean?
- That 16:10 format isnt good?
- That it will remain the standard?


btw. does anybody own this monitor?
 
avec said:
What does "16.10 isn't going anywhere for a longtime." mean?
- That 16:10 format isnt good?
- That it will remain the standard?
Click to expand...

It means it will remain the standard (well, persisting1 thinks so, I don't know). I can see that it could possibly be read the other way, though (as in, it's outdated, it's "not going anywhere"), but that's the intended meaning.
 
What does "16.10 isn't going anywhere for a longtime." mean?
- That 16:10 format isnt good?
- That it will remain the standard?
Click to expand...

I meant you'll still be able to purchase a 16.10 in the years to come. I don't think all manufacturers will adopt the 16.9. For your run of the mill TN panel? Yes i think 16.9 will be the "norm". I don't think companies like NEC or Lacie will replace professional LCDs with 16.9.
 
i own one of these and this thing was only purchased by me as a stop gap. after i get what i really want it goes to my mother. so far it is a decent monitor and does what i need for now. i am actually trying to decide if i should buy a 32 inch 1080p tv or a 24 to 28 inch monitor. since i am using this for a monitor and have my directv hd dvr hooked up to it i really cant decide, i did find out the tv i am looking at has a dot to dot feature or i believe it is called 1 to 1 or something like that. but like i said this monitor is fine for people who want a big monitor without the big price considering i paid $329.99 for it.
 
329.99?? hope thats dollars and not pounds:eek:

for around £300 you could have got the new acer G24 which uses the newest just released tn+ panel

It lacks the lagginess of PVA screens while beating current TN and some PVA panels in terms vibrancy and vividness"

no lag ...whatsover
1:1 like the benq 24"
178' viewing angles
50,000 contrast
2ms

like a cheetah on hot coal stones:D

that would have been a better buy;)
 
rhino.software said:
329.99?? hope thats dollars and not pounds:eek:

for around £300 you could have got the new acer G24 which uses the newest just released tn+ panel

It lacks the lagginess of PVA screens while beating current TN and some PVA panels in terms vibrancy and vividness"

no lag ...whatsover
1:1 like the benq 24"
178' viewing angles
50,000 contrast
2ms

like a cheetah on hot coal stones:D

that would have been a better buy;)
Click to expand...

Where can I read about these new TN panels? I've never heard nothing about them. Are you sure you got your facts straight?
 
as far as im aware i read the web site acer.co.uk

tho i think i got the viewing angle incorrect as it stated 2 angles

i think its just a very top end TN, but i have read comments from users in other forums such as overclockers that have bought it and state its a lot better than the lower end pva's for angles including the hyundai W24OD-PVA and has very good colour reproduction.

as i said i can only go by what i read its upto experts such as 10e to correct us.

tech spec :

Display size-----------------------24" W (518 x 324 mm)
Panel Technology-------------- TN+ (Crystal Brite)
Resolution------------------------1920 x 1200 @ 60Hz
Pixel pitch------------------------ 0.270 mm
PPI---------------------------------- 90.2
Horizontal Frequency --------30-80KHz
Vertical Frequency------------ 55-75Hz
Contrast ratio------------------- 50'000:1 (ACM)
Brightness ----------------------- 400 cd/m2
Response rate----------------- 2 ms GTG
Colours--------------------------- 16.7M (6 bit + HiFRC)
NTSC Colour situation------ 92 %
Internal speakers--------------No
Viewing angle CR 5:1-------176°/176°
Viewing angle CR 10:1-----160°/160°
Tilt / Swivel / Pivot------------ Tilt. -5°/15°
Height Adjustment----------- No
Wall-mount---------------------- 100 mm x 100 mm
Kensington lock support----Supported
Connections---------------------Analog (D-sub), Digital (DVI-D), HDMI, Internal Power Supply
Weight---------------------------- 7.2 Kg
Dimensions-------------------- 574.5 x 445.7 x 253.5 mm
Power consumption-----------Energy Star On: <65W,
---------------------------------------Max On:<90W,
---------------------------------------Off: <1W,
---------------------------------------Standby: <2W
MTBF Hours--------------------50000hr/25°C
Certifications-------------------CE, TÜV GS, TCO03, ISO 13406-2
Warranty----------------------All of Acer Consumer LCDs support a two year carry-in warranty.
Free Accessories-----------European, UK or Swiss Power Cables, VGA cable, DVI & HDMI Cable

http://www.acer.co.uk/public/page9....en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=United+Kingdom&crc=4075598055
 
also uptill last night i had changed my mind on getting one of these screen and waiting another fortnight svings for a Hazro HZ24Wi 24" Black Aluminium panel which was looking good untill i was informed it was too heavy for the ergotron LX montor arm i have so i was upset about that.

i have 2 of the arms one on my laptop and the other for a screen.
with the cost i paid for them im not just going to bin one over a monitor.
 
Sorry to bump an old thread but:

I dont get why this monitor gets so much flak, so the aspect ratio is different, big woop.

I cant wait for mine to arrive, got it for about $180 US + a free $100US printer :D
 
Therk said:
Sorry to bump an old thread but:

I dont get why this monitor gets so much flak, so the aspect ratio is different, big woop.

I cant wait for mine to arrive, got it for about $180 US + a free $100US printer :D
Click to expand...
well if you actually read through the thread the cons are explained in detail. :confused:

if those cons dont bother you then by all means enjoy your monitor. you better post some pics though...
 
cannondale06 said:
well if you actually read through the thread the cons are explained in detail. :confused:

if those cons dont bother you then by all means enjoy your monitor. you better post some pics though...
Click to expand...

Yes I know, 120 pixels lost etc etc but its honestly not a very big problem at all. This seems to be more of a monitor for consolers or people who want to use it as a TV hence the 16:9 ratio.

At the Price of $180US it could have been 4:3 for all I care.
 
Therk said:
Yes I know, 120 pixels lost etc etc but its honestly not a very big problem at all. This seems to be more of a monitor for consolers or people who want to use it as a TV hence the 16:9 ratio.

At the Price of $180US it could have been 4:3 for all I care.
Click to expand...
yeah I dont really have a problem with it either. IMO the wider view will be pretty cool for games that support it. you will never be able to look at 4:3 or the even worse 5:4 again. lol
 
Haaaaaaaa, wow. I've posted here like 3 times, and already I'm laughing over the type of bickering that I've seen.

I dug this thread up because, *OGMOMGOMGOMGOMG* I own this monitor, and I was curious to see what some forum members thought of it so I was reading some past threads.

I got it for 279.99 at Staples, on sale from 349.99. As we all know, it's native resolution is 1920x1080 rendering it a "1080p" monitor.

Now, mind you, I don't have a 2,300 dollar 22" SIPS super duper zippity monitor next to it to compare it to. I just have my own two eyes and personal judgment to go on.

I really, really dig this monitor. I absolutely love 1080p resolutions for computer use. My old monitor, a 22 inch ViewSonic @ 1680x1050, wasn't bad... but when I got this Dell, it just seemed so much more practical. Granted, I watch a lot of movies (talk about sexy, by the way), and this monitor does great. I game, but basically CS: Source and when I wanna mix it up a little bit, I hop on Ultima Online. This monitor is bright and is decent with colors it displays. The viewing angles are typical of a TN panel. I wouldn't dare call this a "shitty" monitor, as some naive individuals have spouted their mouths off about already. I understand some of you want your full pixel landscape workspace whateverhthehell it is, but I'm just a typical computer technician who likes to play some games now and then. I ebay like no other, I type documents endlessly, and I'm always browsing forums such as these. I absolutely would not turn away from this monitor simply because it's 1080. Go look at it at Staples, play around with the demo model, then see if you like the layout. Personally, I love it.

Oh, and another thing... the build quality... some of you were saying how you think it looks cheap. It has the glossy iPhone style finish on it, which I personally cannot stand. I prefer matte finishes that don't leave my fingerprints everywhere. The stand is very stable and one of the best I've seen on a monitor. It doesn't have height adjustment, but the tilt adjustment just feels... nice... the way you twist it back and forth and how it just feels secure... I dig it.

So, there you have it. My 2 cents from an unbiased individual. Ironically, I am considering on returning this monitor. Not because I don't like it, I love the thing. But Best Buy has some killer deals on 32" LCD 1080 TV's and I've got some gift cards laying around, so I might scramble some $$'s together to grab one. Either that or return this and pick up a decent S-IPS panel or something, unless it costs an arm and a leg like I've been seeing (which, 99% of the time, I can't see how people can justify, but whatever).

At least I know if I decide to bail on the LCD TV idea, that I still have a decent 24" monitor sittin on my desk to use that serves my needs, in both a practical sense and a sexy smexy sense.
 
wow, so much hate about the vertical real estate lose.

seriously if that is the only negative about this monitor, it might just be the perfect 24" for me. I dont know what you Pro's monitor histories are. me, it's not long ago i was still using 1024x768, then 1280x1024, and finally a 20' 1680x1050. I did all my cegep papers on 1280x1024, im sure i can do better on a full HD ;)

what i like about it:
3 inputs, dvi, vga and hdmi, easy switch with two pc and a xbox
vesa compatible and under weight limit of the LX screen mount

what i dont like, is the placement of the pwr btn. very easy to hit it by accident, and i'd also prefer if there's an option to turn the btn lights off.

edit: sorry i just realized i pumped up a very old thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top