Dell's 27-Inch LCD Does 2560 x 1440 But No LEDs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]sliem[/nom]Ok not for me. I could get 22-24" for under $300 why would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?[/citation]

While I agree, I do not think we are the target market. That would explain why the pricing seems ridiculous to us.
 
[citation][nom]sliem[/nom]Ok not for me. I could get 22-24" for under $300 why would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?[/citation]

The size of the monitor is not the only factor that affects the price tag... have you forgot that the resolution is 2560x1440?
 
You guys could also buy a 30' diagonal monitor for $30. Of course, it's resolution is 1x1 with 1 bit color depth... It's called a floodlight.

Seriously, resolution makes a huge difference and if you don't understand that then you shouldn't get that monitor. Personally, I have a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 and the resolution is amazing... I wouldn't trade it for a 42" HDTV at close range.
 
[citation][nom]shmidlab[/nom]You can get a 28" monitor for $300 today.[/citation]

You say that as if size is the only determinative factor in pricing a monitor. You cannot buy a new 28" monitor with specs comparable to this one for anywhere near $300.

This has considerably higher resolution than your $300 monitor (which is likely to be 1920x1200 or 1920x1080, so it will have drastically higher pixel density), and is highly likely to have an IPS panel, so it will have infinitely better color gamut/reproduction and viewing angles than your budget 28" TN-panel.

You get what you pay for, and for $300, you won't get a monitor anywhere close to this. If you're a gamer or casual surfer, that's probably fine. If you do design work, however, that $300 28" won't cut it.
 
For those who might not know - This monitor as well as a matching 24 inch monitor and a 30 inch monitor have S-IPS panels made by LG Electonics. Dell, HP, NEC, and LG all use the same panels in their own versions of the 3 monitors. They are designed for professional photography and other high end graphics applications. They are not panels designed for gamers.

The monitors are actually entry level units for professionals. You should see what the high end monitors cost, especially the ones designed for medical scanners.
 
is there any lcd screen out there on which i can do video post processiong on my 16 bit renders. To the best of my knowledge the most a lcd screen support is 8 bit. I just asked as it is mentioned here that graphics pros will find this usefull. So does that mean that this can support true editing of 16 bit and 32 bit float files.....
 
well, for $2100 I can get an i7 iMac 27", well equipped, or for $1099 I can get this monitor from Dell, then for another $1549 add a i7 machine with lower specs, no webcam, no wireless keyboard, and no Mimo 5GHz adapter... Gee, $400 more for less machine, and not all-in-one, and with a Dell brand name, more expensive support contract, and support from india? no thanks...
 
[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]most men would spend a lot more then $1000 for 3 more inches[/citation]

your talking about the lcd... right? lol.
 
I'll wait for Samsung to give me a 30" bezel-free SPVA 4K (3840x2160) and link 5 together (all in portrait mode, of course).
=)

I see no reason to get this over a current 30" 2560x1600 monitors.
 
[citation][nom]Brother Shrike[/nom]6ms isn't that great for gaming. Just sayin'.[/citation]

That is 6ms GTG or gray to gray. The GTG response time tells you almost nothing. If the GTG response time is under 10ms then it is a fair bet that it is fast enough. It is the CTC or color to color response time that can cause problems, IE ghosting. This monitor uses an H-IPS panel, not a TN panel, and is 8-bit which has poor GTG speeds but good CTC speeds. A 6ms 8-bit panel is usually equal to a 2/3ms TN/6-bit panel in CTC.

As for this monitor, $1100 is a bargain for this thing, it is truly a masterpiece. My biggest complaint with 30" monitors was not the resolution, but the size of the monitor. I could likely live with a 27", but much more would be too big as even my current 24" monitor is pushing it.

This thing has a pixel density of 11845 per square inch! A 24" monitor with a 1920x1200 resolution has a pixel density of 8900 per square inch, that is 33% more pixels per square inch, that is MASSIVE!

If only I could afford this...
 
[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]well, for $2100 I can get an i7 iMac 27", well equipped, or for $1099 I can get this monitor from Dell, then for another $1549 add a i7 machine with lower specs, no webcam, no wireless keyboard, and no Mimo 5GHz adapter... Gee, $400 more for less machine, and not all-in-one, and with a Dell brand name, more expensive support contract, and support from india? no thanks...[/citation]
Might I point out that the iMac uses notebook components?

Therefore, you could build a faster desktop for much, much less than $1500. For $1000, you could build a desktop that would blow the 27" iMac away.
 
[citation][nom]AndrewCutter[/nom]is there any lcd screen out there on which i can do video post processiong on my 16 bit renders. To the best of my knowledge the most a lcd screen support is 8 bit. I just asked as it is mentioned here that graphics pros will find this usefull. So does that mean that this can support true editing of 16 bit and 32 bit float files.....[/citation]

There's a bit of a difference between the two values that you're talking about. 24-bit color, in the traditional sense (also known as "true color") can display just over 16.7 million distinct colors, all within the RGB color space.

An 8-bit monitor (usually with IPS panels) does display 24-bit "true" color (i.e., 16.7 million distinct colors). A 6-bit monitor (TN-panels, usually), however, can only display about 262,000 colors. It displays the rest of the color spectrum by effectively blending colors next to each other - so you can't get "true" color out of a 6-bit LCD.

When a monitor is labeled "8-bit", that doesn't mean that it can't display 24-bit color. An 8-bit monitor simply uses 8-bits to represent red, 8-bits for green, and 8-bits for blue (2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 16.7M). A 6-bit monitor, on the other hand, uses only 6-bits for each, and therefore produces far fewer distinct colors (2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 262,144).

And FYI, "32-bit color" doesn't *usually* refer to actual 32-bit color. It's usually 24-bit color with 8 bits of non-color data. However, there are some 10-bit LCDs showing up on the market these days that can display more colors (2^10 x 2^10 x 2^10 = over 1 billion distinct colors).

For most purposes, you shouldn't need more than an 8-bit LCD panel.
 
[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]well, for $2100 I can get an i7 iMac 27", well equipped, or for $1099 I can get this monitor from Dell, then for another $1549 add a i7 machine with lower specs, no webcam, no wireless keyboard, and no Mimo 5GHz adapter... Gee, $400 more for less machine, and not all-in-one, and with a Dell brand name, more expensive support contract, and support from india? no thanks...[/citation]

You'd have to be an idiot to spend $1500 on an i7 machine. Pick any of Tom's system builder marathons' machines plus this monitor and it'd be a better value than an iMac. And you can't upgrade an iMac worth squat. Good luck with that Radeon 4850 from 2 years ago.
 
[citation][nom]Restatement3dOfTed[/nom]There's a bit of a difference between the two values that you're talking about. 24-bit color, in the traditional sense (also known as "true color") can display just over 16.7 million distinct colors, all within the RGB color space.An 8-bit monitor (usually with IPS panels) does display 24-bit "true" color (i.e., 16.7 million distinct colors). A 6-bit monitor (TN-panels, usually), however, can only display about 262,000 colors. It displays the rest of the color spectrum by effectively blending colors next to each other - so you can't get "true" color out of a 6-bit LCD.When a monitor is labeled "8-bit", that doesn't mean that it can't display 24-bit color. An 8-bit monitor simply uses 8-bits to represent red, 8-bits for green, and 8-bits for blue (2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 16.7M). A 6-bit monitor, on the other hand, uses only 6-bits for each, and therefore produces far fewer distinct colors (2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 262,144).And FYI, "32-bit color" doesn't *usually* refer to actual 32-bit color. It's usually 24-bit color with 8 bits of non-color data. However, there are some 10-bit LCDs showing up on the market these days that can display more colors (2^10 x 2^10 x 2^10 = over 1 billion distinct colors).For most purposes, you shouldn't need more than an 8-bit LCD panel.[/citation]

I guess my question was not clear. When i said 16 bit i meant per channel not per pixel. So if a monitor can do 24 bit i need something that can do at least 16 X 3 that is 48 bit. 8 bit per channel ( 24 bit) is not enough for me sometimes. espacilly when i have to adjust the lighting if it is too low after i do my render. Here i am talking in trillions of colors or 48 bit.

Also 32 bit is not 24 bit plus 8 bit non color. Here i mean 32 bits per channel in float. THat is 32 bit float for each red blue and green.( not exactly needed. Just worst case). Also this is different form others in the sense color channel is not stored as bit like in 8 bit or 16 bit. it is stored as float value between 0 and 1. valuse above 1 and below 0 are also there.

so to rephrase my question is there a lcd monitor that can give me atleat 48 bit of rgb( 16 per channel) or 32 bit float per channel. This is a requirement for me to dump my old crt.
 
I've got the 24" predecessor to this display and it's flat out amazing. If this thing does all the same tricks as my 24" with a higher resolution and slightly larger panel size, I can see it easily being worth the price.

It comes color calibrated straight out of the box with a full factory calibration report, and has a conditioning function that can be used to recover dead or stuck pixels or slight burn in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom