backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by BansheeX.. on Mar 2 at 1:33 PM


Dell G2410  (Source: Dell)
Dell G2410 is aimed at multimedia enthusiasts looking for 1080p resolution

When it’s time to work on a PC or watch movies, a larger screen allows you to be more productive and makes movies more enjoyable. Dell makes a number of branded PC displays that support HD resolutions and the computer maker has announced a new large display that integrates energy saving features.

The display is called the Dell G2410 and has a 24-inch screen. Typically, a 24-inch PC monitor has a resolution of 1920 x 1200, but the new Dell unit has a 1920 x 1080 resolution. That means that gamers can’t get the highest resolution available in the size class, but movie fans can get full 1080p content.

Dell lists the response time of the panel at 5ms, which should provide for good gaming and movie watching performance. Integrated power saving features include Power Nap and Dynamic Dimming. It's easy enough to guess what these features do, which is all we can do since Dell didn't specify what exactly the features do.

Connectivity options include DVI-D and VGA, but HDMI is missing. On a display aimed at multimedia use the lack of HDMI may be an issue for some users. The screen has a contrast ratio of 1000:1 and a brightness of 250cd/m2. The monitor is capable of displaying 16.7 million colors and has viewing angles of 160 degrees vertical and 170 degrees horizontal.

Perhaps a reason Dell opted to include only basic connectivity options was to get the price to a more reasonable level. The G2410 retails for $349 and is available now.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why? And... green?
By bobsmith1492 on 2/26/2009 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 4
So... it's a monitor with less resolution. Why? When watching a movie, the only difference is the lack of small bars on the top and bottom. If it's dark, you can't see them anyway if you have a good contrast ratio. There's just less screen space for everything else.

And why is the title "Dell Launches Green 24-inch LCD" ? There's nothing green about it except that Dell says it has power-saving features. Please say that's not just a hook to get people to read this article...




RE: Why? And... green?
By Expunge on 2/26/2009 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
Your going to cater a monitor to the 1080p crowd and not provide an HDMI port. Is Dell now government owned? Because that is just stupid.

And BTW a couple of weeks ago I picked up a Viewsonic 28" from buy.com for $400 w/free shipping. It's bigger, has better colors, faster response, and oh yeah a HDMI port.(plus no bad pixels)


RE: Why? And... green?
By quiksilvr on 2/26/2009 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 5
DVI and HDMI are interchangeable. And also considering the fact that this monitor HAS NO AUDIO, it doesn't really make sense to have it. Besides, DVI to HDMI adapters are like $5 online after shipping.

One thing I was liking was that because its 16:9, you get more glass because TV screens are 16:9, and its LED backlit (I wonder why its not stated in this article) and only $350. Not bad.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Moishe on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why? And... green?
By Golgatha on 2/26/2009 1:51:32 PM , Rating: 5
Pretty much any modern LCD monitor built in say the last 3 years has HDCP over DVI. HDCP is absolutely not exclusive to HDMI connections.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Moishe on 2/26/2009 1:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
OK... so I'm reading that DVI-D will do HDCP... that's awesome. Getting an HDMI-to-DVI adapter would do the trick for the blu-ray player.

Nice screen. Still, it's too bad they didn't leave it at 1200 vert. res


RE: Why? And... green?
By deeznuts on 2/26/2009 3:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
You can also just get DVI to HDMI cables at monoprice cheap. Either way works fine.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Adul on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why? And... green?
By shucklak on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why? And... green?
By quiksilvr on 2/26/2009 6:55:09 PM , Rating: 5
Neither does the MONITOR! My God, you didn't even read the second sentence?


RE: Why? And... green?
By funduster on 2/26/2009 7:27:18 PM , Rating: 3
DVI-D is the standard for carrying video signals within HDMI. HDMI can also carry audio signals along with video. What is point of feeding the full HDMI (video+audio) signal to this monitor when it doesn't have any speakers to output the audio? It should be obvious now why Dell correctly designed in the DVI-D port.


RE: Why? And... green?
By mikeyD95125 on 2/26/2009 10:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt this is LED backlit. Those are still to expensive. The Viewsonic 22" LED is still over $600 :(


RE: Why? And... green?
By quiksilvr on 3/1/2009 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Why? And... green?
By theapparition on 2/26/2009 12:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
There's only one reason for this. Low cost. 1080i panels are so common since they are used in plenty of LCD TV's. I'm sure the break they get in the panel is directly translated into the lower price. Other than that, it should be quite similar in features than thier other 24" display.


RE: Why? And... green?
By hmurchison on 2/26/2009 12:33:14 PM , Rating: 5
Panels are progressive by design. Even if you
feed them a 1080i signal they will always de-interlace
into a progressive picture.


RE: Why? And... green?
By deeznuts on 2/26/2009 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
Not true. For the most part true, but there are exceptions. THere is nothing written in stone that says a monitor has to refesh all the lines at once. Hitachi ALiS was one such example. It only refreshed half the lines on each turn.


RE: Why? And... green?
By theapparition on 2/26/2009 6:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant was 1920 x 1080 panels. Since that is the predominate resolution manufactured now, the LCD glass is cheaper.

Didn't mean to start an interlaced vs progressive debate.


RE: Why? And... green?
By ObiDon on 2/26/2009 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's only one reason for this. Low cost. 1080i panels are so common since they are used in plenty of LCD TV's.

there's 24" 1920x1080 tvs on the market? that seems like a pointlessly high resolution for something used as a tv...


RE: Why? And... green?
By Mr Perfect on 2/26/2009 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is irritating that manufacturers are chopping off pixels instead of leaving well enough alone. The 1920x1200 panels would be able to play both 16:9 movies and 16:10 games, but that's just to damn convenient!


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 2/26/2009 2:01:59 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, no, we want uniform framing standards between TV and Computers. One of the two sides had to give and that ended up being 16:10.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Shadowself on 2/26/2009 6:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
That is extremely unfortunate!


RE: Why? And... green?
By Howard on 2/27/2009 2:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Who is we? I do NOT want to lose vertical resolution, as do many people who actually use their monitors for work and not just for movie-watching.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Spuke on 2/26/2009 12:44:33 PM , Rating: 4
Don't all LCD's have power saving features? What's different about this one?


RE: Why? And... green?
By Suomynona on 2/26/2009 5:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's LED-backlit, uses only 20W under normal operation, and uses only 0.15W in sleep mode. I don't know what's up with the headline screaming "Green!" and then not explaining why, other than mentioning a couple of Dell's marketing buzzphrases. 20W is pretty good for a 24-inch monitor, though.


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 2/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why? And... green?
By strikeback03 on 2/26/2009 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Why would I care what TV resolutions are? And your last few sentences exactly illustrate the point. More resolution is needed, the more the better. So of course we would want whatever has the higher resolution.


RE: Why? And... green?
By artemicion on 2/26/2009 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
I think what he's trying to say is 1) higher resolution is always better for any monitor so there's no point in complaining. Complaining that a 1920x1080 should be 1920x1200 is as pointless as complaining that a 1920x1200 should be 1921x1201. You can ALWAYS demand higher resolution for ANY monitor, so what's the point in complaining?

2) his second point being that there's some value in developing standard resolutions that are consistent across TV and computing because a lot of computer monitors are mixed-used in that they are used for computing, gaming, media watching, etc.

So what it boils down to is that you have two avenues of complaining about this particular monitor 1) you can contend that Dell went with 1920x1080 without any cost savings - essentially arguing that they sacrificed pixels without saving money; or 2) you can complain that there's something inherently wrong with a 16:9 ratio for an LCD monitor.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Shadowself on 2/26/2009 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Saying the comparison between 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is the same as the comparison between 1920x1200 to 1920x1201 is ludicrous at best!

There are cases where you want to see the full 1920x1080 AND have room for menus/tools/buttons OUTSIDE of the image. If the screen is exactly that 1920x1080 the there is no where to put that stuff except on a second monitor.

The 1920x1080 is ONLY good for just simple viewing 1080i/p imagery. There is no other purpose for it. This is a computer monitor. Since it does not have HDMI it clearly is not a "TV Monitor". Computer monitors have other purposes than just watching movies. In a computer environment there is a use to having those missing pixels.


RE: Why? And... green?
By The0ne on 3/1/2009 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
For you two I suggest watching Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder. There's a small clip in there that shows the professor having the best monitor to date, with a screen size of 300"! As he's bragging about it, out comes a 302" screen and he shatters his own screen. Hilarious :)


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 3/1/2009 4:07:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why would I care what TV resolutions are?


You're kidding right? Which has better quality, running a 1080p image at 1080p or at 1200p? 1200p is higher but you can't create information that isn't there, you have to scale and dither the content, which reduces overall quality. Anyone with a brain and an LCD monitor already knows this and runs their desktop at a 1:1 scaling because anything else is a blurry mess. Adding a slither of resolution to all sides and having no 1080p monitors on the market makes no sense. None. Nada. Finito.

quote:
More resolution is needed, the more the better.


Great, what does the aspect have to do with this again? 16:9 is just a ratio between the quantity chosen. 1920x1080 exceeds 1680x1050, yet the latter is 16:10. And FYI, more is not always better. Bandwidth and graphical power is clearly not ready to run 8640p. In fact, there will come a point where your eyes won't even be able to see the pixel structure or benefits of higher densities, at which point increasing the density and incurring all the new bandwidth and artistic labor requirements makes about as much sense as DVD audio. But more is always better right?


RE: Why? And... green?
By jtemplin on 3/2/2009 12:33:48 AM , Rating: 3
Where to start with you Banshee? You talk a lot of big talk but I don't understand where you are coming from...

quote:
Which has better quality, running a 1080p image at 1080p or at 1200p? 1200p is higher but you can't create information that isn't there, you have to scale and dither the content, which reduces overall quality.


Nobody who cares about image quality is going to allow a video to stretch outside its native AR.

quote:
Adding a slither of resolution to all sides and having no 1080p monitors on the market makes no sense. None. Nada. Finito.


You are talking like one is FORCED to stretch the image and ruin image quality. Its just extra space. As another poster pointed out, you could have the remote control for your PowerDVD placed there.

quote:
1920x1080 exceeds 1680x1050, yet the latter is 16:10.


If you make a comparison with differing ratios, you do not pick arbitrary values. Stick with the first number. 16:9=1920x1080 or 16:10=1920x1200.

quote:
And FYI, more is not always better. Bandwidth and graphical power is clearly not ready to run 8640p. In fact, there will come a point where your eyes won't even be able to see the pixel structure or benefits of higher densities, at which point increasing the density and incurring all the new bandwidth and artistic labor requirements makes about as much sense as DVD audio. But more is always better right?


Bandwidth and graphical power are definitely able to handle 2560x1600. This isn't even an issue between 1080 and 1200p. Resolution and pixel density are not the same. See the following quote from the wikipedia page on display resolution:
quote:
Note that the use of the word resolution here is misleading. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions (e.g., 1280×1024), which does not tell anything about the resolution of the display on which the image is actually formed (which would typically be given in pixels per inch (digital) or number of lines measured horizontally, per picture height (analog))
As someone else mentioned and you later brushed off, DPI is a measure of density. Sure there is probably a limit. However, this isn't pertinent to the discussion. We are talking about MIDRANGE monitors today, not an exotic monitor of the future.

DVD audio wasn't popular but anyone who desires high quality lossless audio appreciates the idea and hopes for more lossless digital download releases in the future (I do anyway ^^).

In your posts, you shouldn't assume the reader is an idiot.


RE: Why? And... green?
By jtemplin on 3/2/2009 12:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
I know your point was "its just a ratio". Thing is, there is no reason to even make that point. We will know what a ratio is.

But a FAIR comparison must use a single referent, either the horizontal or vertical resolution. In this case the 16:10 always has more pixels.

To certain people, including me. This is ALMOST always desirable. As long as video games support the resolution, I want the higher one (between 1080 and 1200p or any other "fair comparison").


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 3/2/2009 1:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But a FAIR comparison must use a single referent, either the horizontal or vertical resolution. In this case the 16:10 always has more pixels.


How is this not sinking in yet!? Watch, I'll pick exactly as you say, vertical resolution, single referent of 1200.

16:9 = 2133x1200
16:10 = 1920x1200

The 16:9 ratio wins! But, but, but, you said 16:10 ALWAYS has more pixels! Impossible!


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 3/2/2009 1:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody who cares about image quality is going to allow a video to stretch outside its native AR.


Oh, I see, so you fully expect the internal scalar from China to be able to do 1:1 for any input resolution with black borders in the unused areas. Consumers shouldn't have to deal with that crap, and even if it's capable, you're talking about having a standard where black bars are unavoidable on EVERYTHING except your desktop and pc games. Why?

quote:
You are talking like one is FORCED to stretch the image and ruin image quality. Its just extra space. As another poster pointed out, you could have the remote control for your PowerDVD placed there.


If the internal scaling chip or firmware is cheap, yes, you could be forced to endure 16:9 stretched to a 16:10 frame. The alternative is unavoidable black bars on one or all sides of the image. That looks really snazzy.

quote:
Bandwidth and graphical power are definitely able to handle 2560x1600.


Nonsense, we only have enough bandwidth to do 720p or 1080i television. And just try running crysis at 2560x1600. Or how about double that? Triple that? Where does it end? How much will you keep increasing past an invisible pixel structure while incurring massive speed hits?

quote:
If you make a comparison with differing ratios, you do not pick arbitrary values. Stick with the first number. 16:9=1920x1080 or 16:10=1920x1200.


WHAT!? Horizontal and vertical values are no different in priority, who cares how we decided to order them in speech? If we had ordered them with vertical first, you'd be picking the second. Picking the first number is as arbitrary as picking the second. I could pick a vertical reference and best your real estate with a 2133x1200 16:9 resolution.

quote:
DVD audio wasn't popular but anyone who desires high quality lossless audio appreciates the idea and hopes for more lossless digital download releases in the future (I do anyway ^^).


DVD audio failed because the human ear PHYSICALLY, BIOLOGICALLY cannot hear past 16-bit 48khz. Take any DVD audio master, downsample it to 16/48, and give people an A/B test. They will guess right the same amount of times as a coinflip. In other words, they can't tell because their body is incapable of distinguishing the difference.

Increasing the resolution of audio past 16/48 just eats up more space and bandwidth without bringing any perceivable benefits. This range of perception argument has nothing to do with cleaning up the source material, using lossy or lossless compression. Cleaning up the source or not using lossy compression will yield the same perceivable result at 16/48 as 24/192, 32/384, 1024/12288, whatever. The same analogy will eventually be true of video.


RE: Why? And... green?
By inperfectdarkness on 2/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why? And... green?
By Fluppeteer on 2/27/2009 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, laptops are moving to 16:9 as well. See Dell's latest 1024x576 netbook, after lots of people complained that 600 vertical pixels on the other netbooks on the market was insufficient.

I, too, want more pixels. Bring back the T221.


RE: Why? And... green?
By BansheeX on 3/1/2009 3:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
because 16:10 is standard in all laptops.


Standard to whom? Who decided to create content for 16:10?

quote:
It's garbage like this that is moving the industry BACKWARDS. i want HIGHER DPI, not lower. this display isn't even at 100 DPI.


You and people like you have no idea what you're talking about. The aspect has NOTHING to do with the real estate. A 1920x1080 (16:9) monitor has MORE real estate than a 1650x1050 (16:10) monitor. Manufacturers could have released a 2133x1200 monitor (~16:9). The reason they didn't do it that way was because the content itself is being made for 1080p, not 1200p. 1080p content scaled to fit a 1200p fixed pixel screen creates scaling artifacts. Keep fighting me on this, even an idiot knows the quality advantage of 1:1 scaling on fixed pixel technology.


RE: Why? And... green?
By marvdmartian on 2/26/2009 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 3
But what if I want it in a different color than green??? ;)


RE: Why? And... green?
By TMV192 on 2/26/2009 6:54:34 PM , Rating: 3
A lot of you have got it wrong.

The resolution is smaller, no questions, but its not the same as just having a 24" LCD with the top and bottom clipped off because doing so would make the size smaller. So for people watching 1080P content for example the image will actually be larger than it would be on a 16:10 24" monitor.

Secondly, I hardly affects gamers, for most, the 1080P resolution is plenty, and most modern games take the resolution just fine and what usually happens is the wider aspect will actually give more viewable area than the 1920x1200 screen would, not less.

Also, many of us just want a bigger screen, doesn't have to be a resolution upgrade going all the way up, further more, not everyone has the PC to push that many pixels, so some might like that games will run slightly faster with the small decrease in resolution.


RE: Why? And... green?
By JoshuaBuss on 2/26/2009 9:58:34 PM , Rating: 1
well said, but I still would prefer teh extra piksulz myself ;)


RE: Why? And... green?
By LordanSS on 2/27/2009 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Right...

Sorry, but I need every vertical resolution I can get for my games, specially MMOs.

UIs and other things take too much screen space, and more vertical allows for better acomodation of hotbars, informational windows, etc.

Yes, it makes a difference. If it means one extra hotbar can fit without taking away my viewing area, that's good.


RE: Why? And... green?
By Fluppeteer on 2/27/2009 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 3
Also, some of us like to work on documents that need more height. Lines of code on a screen. Portrait format paper. 3:2 photos. This is why even 2048x1152 screens aren't very appealing to me, in spite of the higher-than-1920x1200 total resolution. Two 16:10 screens in portrait give you a 5:4 screen, like SXGA. I have more vertical room above my desk than I have horizontal room on it. 16:9 conveniences nobody but the manufacturers (and it was a silly idea for the TV industry, too). Frankly, I'd rather have a 2048x1536 20" monitor than a 1920x1200 24" one, but sometimes the display industry moves backwards.

By the way, someone mentioned that a 24" 16:9 display gives a bigger iamge than a 24" 16:10 display showing 16:9 content. True, but a 16:10 24" panel has more overall area than a 16:9 24" panel; take your pick. If you want your monitor to be ideal for playing HD content (or games if you value size over resolution), I suggest you buy an HDTV instead - I prefer a monitor to be better at being a monitor.

I could also mention that 16:9 is a bit of a pain of a scale factor mathematically.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki