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

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.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











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