backtop

Hardware Dell 27" LCD Confirmed
Kristopher Kubicki (Blog) - March 27, 2006 11:24 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 33 comment(s) - last by Fnoob.. on Apr 2 at 7:02 PM
The Dell 2707WFP is a go

Our sources at Samsung LCD whispered to us a few weeks ago that Dell will feature a 27" LCD this fall with a 1920x1200 resolution. 

We got confirmation of this rumor earlier today from former Tom's Hardware editor Vincent Alzieu that Dell has also confirmed the upcoming display to him.  In a recent conversation, Alzieu claimed "the 2707WFP will be here in October."  Of course, he was talking about France in particular, and a US launch may be even closer.   You can find the rest of his thoughts about the upcoming display on his website, BeHardware.com. 

Samsung LCD is currently the only display manufacturer with plans for a 27" WUXGA LCD panel, the LTM270M1.  The S-PVA panel is a true 8-bit design with a claimed response time of 8ms gray to gray.  For all intents and purposes, the display is identical to the Dell 2407WFP now available via the Dell USA website -- Samsung makes the 24" WUXGA panel found in that display as well. However, the 27" panel has a less dense 0.303mm pixel pitch which is not the most attractive pixel width we've seen.    

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By d33pblue on 3/27/2006 12:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
...or blind.

But for the other 99% of us, we can only dream about this kind of monitor. Personally, I'd rather see lower prices than bigger screens. Give me a $200, 20" wide panel or a $350 24" wide panel, then we'll talk.




By bamacre on 3/27/2006 12:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, I'd like to see lower prices as well, not bigger screens. My 2001FP is big enough, but so was the price.


RE: Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By Methusela on 3/27/2006 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I got my 2005FPW for $350 delivered, and my 2405FPW for $426 delivered, both direct from Dell, brand new. I've convinced somewhere around 15 of my gamer buddies to hit up the 2005FPW in the last six months as well. If you can wait for the deals, it's an incredible value. It costs less than 19" CRTs from a mere three or four years ago. That's not lavish or excessive in my mind.

I'm not rich by any stretch ($28k/yr), and no, I don't live with my parents or leech off of anyone. Both LCDs have been great purchases and I would purchase more if I had the money.


RE: Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By d33pblue on 3/27/2006 4:44:38 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I was mainly talking about retail prices, not something purchased with multiple coupon codes, rebates, and special discounts. If you jump through enough hoops, you can get a sizable discount on most things these days.


By Methusela on 3/28/2006 11:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't have to jump through many hoops. I clicked a link, clicked "Add To Cart," added a single coupon code and clicked "Confirm Order." Also, there were no rebates and it was delivered to my door with no tax or charges for shipping.

I see no reason to disdain that simple procedure. It's not magic, nor is it rocket science.


RE: Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By k2005quark on 3/27/2006 7:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, you got me. How in the world did you get the 2405 for $426? Coupons or no coupons, I am very skeptical.


RE: Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By Methusela on 3/28/2006 11:04:40 PM , Rating: 1
A couple of months ago, Dell made a coupon error where a coupon for 55% off of their Laptop Covers was applying to everything on the site. I used that coupon, placed the order through my Dell Preferred Account line of credit for an additional 2% off, and the monitor was delivered two days later.

I got a lot more than just that 24" monitor with said coupon, *wink*


RE: Well, must be nice if youre rich.
By Fnoob on 3/29/2006 10:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
That coupon was where? Online? Could you forward your cached page to the rest of us plez? I would love to add a 2nd 2405 for ~$400. Then the only question is... what insane product goes in the middle between the 2? And what GPU? One of these days some developer somewhere is going to remember that flight sims where once profitable and cool. And now that the multi-pseudo-wraparound display is sorta-kinda-affordable, perhaps this is a good time to be working on a new realease (wink) especially if it doesnt suck (winkyer). I predict someone will develop the 'envelope' display here shortly... a 90" curved LCD display that just kinda, envelops you. What was the expiration date on that coupon? Id like to use it in Nov 07.



By Methusela on 3/30/2006 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
The coupon thread at slickdeals.net can be found by following this link:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showt hread.php?sduid=...

Plus juan for sarcasm.


By Trisped on 3/28/2006 10:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on what you use it for. I personally love the fact that they are getting bigger as even with my 23" CRT set to 2048x1528 I don't have enough room when programing or using Macromedia Studio products.


most attractive pixel width
By DarthPierce on 3/27/2006 12:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
So would a 0.173mm pixel pitch be the most attractive you've seen? (That's the size on my 15.4 inch WUXGA laptop.)




RE: most attractive pixel width
By TomZ on 3/27/2006 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that depends on your eyesight and/or age. For me, running 1600x1200 on my 20" gives features that are too large - I prefer 2048x1536 at that resolution. But my dad, who actually has eyesight that is not too bad, can't read my monitor at 1600x1200.

I don't even bother to show him my 15" 1600x1200 laptop!


RE: most attractive pixel width
By albundee on 3/27/2006 12:22:11 PM , Rating: 4
30" is way too pricey.

the 27" might not be that much cheaper.


CHEAPER PRICES DELL!!


RE: most attractive pixel width
By Methusela on 3/27/2006 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait for a deal. Sure, the 30" is expensive, but it was down to $1400ish USD on a deal a couple of months ago. For that resolution packed into that kind of real estate, I fail to see how that's too expensive. I may not be able to afford it, but I also don't need it.


RE: most attractive pixel width
By DarthPierce on 3/27/2006 12:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
I know resolution is in the eye of the beholder.... I like that everything is tiny on my laptop, but my parents and girlfriend can't read it/complain respectively.

I just thought saying it wasn't the "most attractive pixel width" was a humorously subjective thing to say, especially since it doesn't really even say whether the author thought that pixel pitch was too high or too low.

FWIW a 1920x1200 15.4 inch laptop has smaller pixel pitch than ay other I'm aware of:
15.4 1920x1200: 0.173mm
15 1600x1200: 0.191mm
14.1 1600x1200: 0.179mm

15 1024x768: 0.298mm

(which is the closest notebook pixel pitch to the aforementioned dell 27 incher)


RE: most attractive pixel width
By niknik on 3/27/2006 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
what about the VGA screens found on PocketPCs? Those surely have the smallest picel pitch available now...


RE: most attractive pixel width
By sxr7171 on 3/27/2006 3:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Nokia N90: 0.0979mm


I have never heard of better than that yet.


Boring
By lemonadesoda on 3/27/2006 7:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is just a 20inch TFT in 27inch clothes. What a pretender!

At this size, WQXGA 2560x1600 should be possible with 4.1M pixels. I can't believe they want to make a 27inch WUXGA 1920x1200 with only 2.3M pixels.

The dot pitch will be so large you will be able to see the gaps between the R/G/B/ sub-pixels.

If its a WUXGA screen, then the price will be sub USD 1000... Since you can buy a 24 inch WUXGA today at USD 800.




RE: Boring
By lemonadesoda on 3/27/2006 7:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Boring
By abhaxus on 3/27/2006 10:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
actually i WANT a monitor that is just around 1080p resolution. any moreso is basically useless to me. at 1920x1200 you can run just about any game with one video card at maximum settings (if you go 7900GT or better). and 1080p content on this will be around 26" in size, which is perfect for my bedroom.

but, i just hope this brings the price of the 2407 down a bit. because that is what i really want.


RE: Boring
By lemonadesoda on 3/28/2006 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Is that because you ONLY use your PC for gaming and movies from the comfort of your bedroom?

If you are interested in photography and use photoshop, or if you read a lot using the PC, then you will find a higher resolution screen really helps.

Try going to display/settings/advanced and set DPT to 120. Then turn on clear type. And you'll get the idea...



RE: Boring
By abhaxus on 3/29/2006 11:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
you are correct. my PC is an entertainment tool more than a productivity tool. the thing that frightens me most about getting a 2405/7 or higher is the fact that I would have to upgrade my video card substantially to get the same framerates I get now.


RE: Boring
By Fnoob on 4/2/2006 7:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
And substantially more than you would have imagined, I suspect.


How much does 3 inches cost?
By Xenoterranos on 3/27/2006 12:41:46 PM , Rating: 3
whats the price diff between this and the massive Dell 30in? Are those extra 3 inches worth the price? Will samsung continue to stun us with magnificent displays?! Will superman arrive in time??!?!! Stay tuned kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride!




RE: How much does 3 inches cost?
By DarthPierce on 3/27/2006 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an estimation:

Dell 24 inch widescreen (when on sale): $750
Dell 30 inch widescreen (lowest I've seen outside crazy canada deals): $1999

Reasonable price for 27 inch given above: $1400
That's my guess.


RE: How much does 3 inches cost?
By sxr7171 on 3/27/2006 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised to see it at $1099 honestly. Marginal increments of inches keep getting more expensive, so the difference between 27" and 30" will be the most expensive. Also it won't be long before the 30" hits $1500 in the US.


RE: How much does 3 inches cost?
By JoKeRr on 3/27/2006 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
hehehe I like how you said, crazy canada sale. hahaha I live in Canada, and those 12 days sales rocks! Especially rocks my cc bills.

I bet those can be had for like 1200 cdn when it's on sale considering 30'' was only 1500, but then again, tax in canada can be a b!+ch (15% in Ontario)


RE: How much does 3 inches cost?
By kmmatney on 3/27/2006 11:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Should be less than $1400, since the resolution is not any higher than the 24" display. I'm really hoping this will be around $1000. I've been waiting for a large LCD monitor with larger pixels and was giving up hope.


Likem big pixels
By kmmatney on 3/27/2006 11:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
Bigger pixel sizes!!! Woohoo!

I'm one of those who complains when the pixel size is too small. I was given a 17" LCD at work, but found it very uncomfortable to use. The 24" Dell has a better pixel size of 0.27 mm, but 0.3 is the sweet spot, at least for me.




RE: Likem big pixels
By R3MF on 3/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Likem big pixels
By lemonadesoda on 3/28/2006 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pixel size SHOULD be very very small. It makes for much clearer reading.

The problem you have with the 17inch is with your screen setup. You must activate a higher DPI (dots per inch) for your display.

Go display/settings/advanced/DPI=120 (and not 96). Also change effects to LARGE icons, and CLEARTYPE.

There you go...


By Odeen on 3/28/2006 5:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung makes the 24" WUXGA panel found in that display as well. However, the 27" panel has a less dense 0.303mm pixel pitch which is not the most attractive pixel width we've seen.


In the days of CRT panels, "dot pitch" was a measure of the quality of the display. A smaller dot pitch meant that an image of a given resolution, and on a given screen size would be SHARPER. Higher dot pitch meant that the image would be blurrier once the CRT ran out of "dots" to resolve image detail.

LCD's don't work that way. LCD's have one given resolution, and one given size - the number of dots doesn't dictate when the image gets blurry, it's perfectly sharp at max rez (and, as we all know, blurry when rez is too low, and nonexistent when rez is too high.) So, pixel pitch is a factor of size and resolution, not an indicator of image quality.

Let's do some math. For the 27" screen, 1920x1200:

Number of pixels along diagonal = square root of (1920^2 + 1200^2) = square root of 5126400 = 2264.16 pixels

Diagonal size = 27inch * 25.4mm/inch = 685.8mm

Pixel pitch = diagonal size in mm / pixels along diagonal (1)
685.8mm / 2264.16 dots = 0.303 DPI

You can't have any "wider" (or thinner) DPI without either changing the resolution, or changing the size of the display.


(1) Some CRT monitors quote a "horizontal" dot pitch. That number is lower, because you measure the side of the square pixel, not its diagonal, which is about 1.4 times (sqrt(2)) larger. Trinitron / Diamondtron CRT's have continuous "stripes" of phosphorus painted on, instead of traditional Invar shadow mask "triads". Those monitors have a stripe pitch, directly comparable to a horizontal dot pitch, because their vertical resolution is technically infinite.




By Visual on 3/30/2006 7:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
you're not making sense claiming that DPI calculated your way will be different than horizontal.

imagine a square screen, say 100x100 - how much pixels does it have along the diagonal? still 100, not 140 or any sqrts. so if you really calculate it properly along the diagonal, you'll get a lower DPI than horisontal. but your math is still correct in some way - if you assume (wrong) 140 pixels on the diagonal and calc the DPI, you infact will get the same result as calulating it horizontally.
my point is, the "horizontal" dpi is the same like what you calculated, and won't be lower. a "proper" diagonal calculation will actually result in a lower dpi but is quite useless.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki