Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Launches New UltraSharp 3008WFP 30-Inch LCD

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the shiny-new-toys dept.

Displays 143

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


so, how high? (0)

yagu (721525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916310)

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.

Re:so, how high? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916432)

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.

Re:so, how high? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916974)

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.

Re:so, how high? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917336)

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

Re:so, how high? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917160)

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

Re:so, how high? (0, Offtopic)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917618)

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.

Re:so, how high? (0, Offtopic)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918042)

'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.

Re:so, how high? (0, Offtopic)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918098)

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

Anything? (3, Funny)

darkhitman (939662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916316)

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?

Re:Anything? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920514)

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

Waiting for 24" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916330)

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 :)

I'd be happy with 12" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916418)

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

Re:Waiting for 24" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916912)

Dec 2006, I was looking at displays, at the time, I was leaning towards the BenQ FP241W [newegg.com], 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!

Re:Waiting for 24" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917164)

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.

Re:Waiting for 24" (2, Insightful)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918128)

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! >=|

Re:Waiting for 24" (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919480)

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.

Re:Waiting for 24" (1)

athdemo (1153305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917106)

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.

Re:Waiting for 24" (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920210)

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.

Does it hdcp? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916436)

if not then it is useless.

Re:Does it hdcp? (4, Informative)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916498)



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

Re:Does it hdcp? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917462)

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

30 in LCD monitor? (0, Troll)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916580)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916748)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918508)

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

And very few of them actually are... (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919790)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21920054)

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

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916772)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916864)

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

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917152)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21919148)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917850)

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

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916858)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

asc99c (938635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916990)

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.

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918204)

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

Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

sweepkick (531861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918896)

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.



Re:30 in LCD monitor? (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917044)


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

That is why.

No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916596)

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

"call for latest prices" (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916602)

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.

Re:"call for latest prices" (1)

karmatic (776420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918908)

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.

OK, now 120Hz? (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916608)

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

Re:OK, now 120Hz? (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916790)

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

Re:OK, now 120Hz? (1)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916856)

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.

Re:OK, now 120Hz? (5, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917016)

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.

Native 24Hz (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917740)

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

Of course... (2, Funny)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918272)

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.

Re:Of course... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919936)

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.

Re:OK, now 120Hz? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916906)

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.

Painful Typos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916614)

From the same last paragraph on page 3:

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

In addition, the inside edge of the arm comes with an integrated sheeth
OW! That one shouldn't have even passed their spelling checker!

I love the Dell WFP Series (3, Funny)

gsmalleus (886346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916756)

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.

Re:I love the Dell WFP Series (1)

CJ145 (1110297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917194)

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.

Re:I love the Dell WFP Series (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917342)

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).

Re:I love the Dell WFP Series (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918286)

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.

Beware: Some "WFP" models have 6-bit TN panels (2, Informative)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919778)

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.

yeah, but how much? (1)

40ozFreak (823002) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916818)

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.

Re:yeah, but how much? (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916888)

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.

Re:yeah, but how much? (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917114)

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.

Re:yeah, but how much? (1)

40ozFreak (823002) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917482)

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

Re:yeah, but how much? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917632)

How about 8 Grand [findarticles.com]? 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!

Re:yeah, but how much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21920340)

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

Re:yeah, but how much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917680)

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.

I'll wait for the behardware review. (4, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916846)

Happened across these guys [behardware.com] 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.

I'll wait for the 3D review. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21917200)

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

Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. (5, Informative)

Orphaze (243436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917800)

Unfortunately, Dell is well known for swapping panels. It's referred to as the Dell Panel Lottery [google.com] 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.

Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. (2, Interesting)

entrigant (233266) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920274)

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.

Re:I'll wait for the behardware review. (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917918)

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).

Widescreen? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916944)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917288)

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).

Re:Widescreen? (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920256)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917424)

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?

Re:Widescreen? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917686)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917590)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917864)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918436)

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.

Re:Widescreen? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919570)

...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.

3008? (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917170)

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

Don't buy the soundbar (2, Informative)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917212)

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.

3000:1 contrast ratio (1)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917224)

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.

Monitors can be too big (2, Interesting)

hirschma (187820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917248)

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.


Re:Monitors can be too big (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917644)

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.

Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917252)

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.

Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917744)

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.

Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. (1)

dusanv (256645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917762)

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.

Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918004)

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.

Re:Well a whole tonne of 3007 owners are pissed. (1)

dusanv (256645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918482)

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...

DisplayPort (3, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917984)

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.)

Re:DisplayPort (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918842)

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.

Re:DisplayPort (3, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919416)

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?

Size Matters (0)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21920414)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account