Print 56 comment(s) - last by averaesaveraes.. on Jan 5 at 2:11 AM

Dell's upcoming 27" display as leaked on the website
An inconspicuous typo reveals one of the most anticipated Dell displays to date

Earlier this year Dell was expected to release a 27" enthusiast display even though no manufacturer had announced plans to build on 27" LCD substrates. However, with Samsung's announcement earlier this month, it looks as though Dell's 27" plans are finally a go.

Yet late last week, the product page for the Dell 2007WFP was updated with a "new" image of the product.  Much to the confusion of enthusiasts everywhere, this was not the image for the 20" Dell display announced last year, but the image of a 27" display that has not been announced yet.

In a conversation to DailyTech, a Dell representative explained that the image came from a training manual for the upcoming W2707C display.  This was later confirmed by a forum post from a Dell employee on the same day. As far as Dell displays go, the "C" suffix denotes a consumer LCD TV.  Dell's W2607C, for example, is a 26" LCD TV.

Typically Dell announces its new displays and roadmaps at the Consumer Electronics Show: the 3007WFP, 2407WFP and 2007WFP were all highlights of CES 2006.  CES 2007 is scheduled to take place the second week of January.

Interestingly, Dell's other LCD TV models do not have USB inputs, even though those inputs are clearly visible in the leaked image.  The Samsung panel specifications claim a 1920x1200 resolution, which is a resolution typically reserved for desktop displays rather than LCD TVs.  Furthermore, this display lacks a coaxial input -- something most other Dell LCD TVs have.  Given just the specifications and ignoring Dell's comments, we would be apt to say this is a desktop display rather than a consumer LCD TV.

Whether or not the Dell representatives have misspoke seems moot: we will have a 27" high end display for 2007, and it will most certainly be introduced at CES next week.

Comments     Threshold

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

TV or Moniter
By L33tMasta on 12/30/2006 2:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
WHich is it? I'm kind of confused. is it a TV or a computer moniter? i would think moniter due to the lack of the co-axil input.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 2:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
Time to trade in my Dell 24"...this is the monitor I've been waiting for, ever since the rumors hit several months ago.

RE: TV or Moniter
By Chillin1248 on 12/30/2006 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
I personally would wait till there is a HDMI model availible. But with the near-future competition of Component vs. HDMI vs. Displayport, this may be moot.


RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 1
I don't watch video on my computer...certainly not HDCP-protected video, so an HDMI connector would be superfluous.

RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki on 12/30/2006 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need HDMI if you can do DVI-HDCP

RE: TV or Moniter
By Chillin1248 on 12/30/2006 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa, DVI-HDCP is a new one to my ears.

Doing some research on it, thanks for pointing it out. But not we have four or five competing standards for a computer moniter if my tracking is correct:

DVI-HDCP (not sure yet if this belongs above)

But thanks for informing me of yet another technical detail in the wonderful world of connections.


RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki on 12/30/2006 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, jsut to add what you have:

DVI is sort of the grandfather standard. DVI-HDCP, HDMI and UDI are all derivatives of DVI, and backwards compatible. You can use adaptors to interface between all of these standards, although you'll lose some functionality.

DisplayPort was originally to be intended to be compatible with DVI, but I think it no longer is.

And well, component is analog. I would not really lump it together with the rest.

RE: TV or Moniter
By hondaman on 12/30/2006 3:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why trade up? There is nothing to trade up to fi you already have a 240*. The resolution is the same, so its not like youre getting any more desktop space.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 3:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
If resolution was the only factor in a display, then a 60" TV would be no better than a 20". With the Dell 27", I'll have a slightly larger, clearer view. Well worth the upgrade in my opinion. I can sit a bit further away from it, and still see it clearly.

RE: TV or Moniter
By slashbinslashbash on 12/31/2006 1:46:57 AM , Rating: 3
Bigger TV's at the same resolution make sense because you watch them from across the room. Bigger monitors at the same resolution don't make sense because you're generally limited by your desk in terms of how far away you can sit from it. I really don't want to have to swivel my head to see other parts of the screen. The 30" Cinema Display is too big for me at common desk sizes.

I would be more than happy to see a 1920x1200 20" or 21" model. Maybe even 19". Denser pixels all the way! I can't believe they're making great hi-res screens for laptops and we're stuck with the same old crappy dot pitch for our desktop displays. It's almost enough to make me try to mod a 17" hi-res laptop screen.

RE: TV or Moniter
By Ringold on 12/31/2006 1:59:55 AM , Rating: 4
My eyes, sadly, arent what they used to be, and I'm not even that damned old. So... unfortunately... I too see the advantage of this huge screen with the same resolution. :)

1920x1200 on a 21" would kill me.

RE: TV or Moniter
By NoSoftwarePatents on 12/31/2006 11:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
1920X1200 on a 21 inch monitor is bordering on hard-to-see no matter what. There are simply some resolutions where you need a physically bigger screen. I run that resolution on my 24 inch Dell panel here at 60 Hz, and everything is just fine.

For the record I used to own a Sony 21 inch Trinitron and the max I could comfortably use was 1280X1024 at 85 Hz. Anything higher made my eyes swim.

RE: TV or Moniter
By TheMaster on 1/1/2007 10:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
You ran a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 display? weird.

RE: TV or Moniter
By saratoga on 1/2/2007 2:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
On a 21"? You kidding? Thats damn near perfect for LCDs.

RE: TV or Moniter
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/2/2007 9:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Change the Windows DPI setting, for gods sake

RE: TV or Moniter
By Johnmcl7 on 12/31/2006 5:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
I fully agree, I cannot understand why desktop monitors have such low resolutions compared to laptop screens - my 15.4 and 17 inch screens have a superb 1920x1200 resolution but to get that in a desktop resolution you have to go all the way up to 23 inches.

While there may be some compromises involved, there's clearly a demand for them otherwise no-one would be buying laptop models with these resolutions.


RE: TV or Moniter
By Hare on 12/31/2006 3:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly. I have a 17" laptop with 1440x900 and I would gladly take a much higher resolution. Resolution increases details , it doesn't have to make everything smaller! Take a look at Apples OSs. You can scale pretty much everything. Monitors with 1280x800 and 1600x1200 can show content with same actual size on the screen (webpages etc).

If monitors had a higher resolution text editing would be a joy. Nowadays monitors can't substitute prints because of the low resolution. Reading is just slower.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 on 12/31/2006 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 1
> "Bigger monitors at the same resolution don't make sense because you're generally limited by your desk in terms of how far away you can sit from it. I really don't want to have to swivel my head..."

A couple of points. At my viewing range, a 24" monitor occludes an angle of about 95-100 degrees. That's considerably less than the range of human peripheral vision.

As for head-swiveling, this point might be valid if you only watched movies and played games on your computer. But for multi-tasking text work, it doesn't. I already have 2 21" monitors on either side of my 24", so looking around from one to another is a normal part of my work routine. If I could get a 50" panel at a high enough resolution, I could put it to good use as well.

RE: TV or Moniter
By JeffDM on 1/1/2007 10:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
I would not mind the 27". Most user interfaces are designed for 72ppi, and my understanding is that 100ppi is the upper comfortable limit for most people. This is because it just makes text too small. Once resolution independent UIs are in more common use I would expect to see denser desktop monitors. I want sharper text and images, not just smaller text and images. Notebook computers have denser displays because that's what they need to remain portable.

I don't turn my head to use a 30" monitor. I would love to have this 27" so I can watch HD video at my desk while doing work on the 30".

Anyway, there is a trend for less dense computer displays, because that's what people are more comfortable with, i.e. the non-enthusiast. I've seen an SXGA+ 21" LCD, and the 22" displays are the same resolution offered on 20" widescreens.

RE: TV or Moniter
By paydirt on 1/3/2007 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
I gotta have a chuckle because I bought a 29" Samsung/Dell monitor a year ago for under $1000. You can't even get a 27" widescreen computer for less than $1300. You've been pwned!

RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki on 12/30/2006 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
It would be my analysis that this is a monitor given the specifications. Dell employees seem to think this is a display with an LCD TV name -- but then again someone at Dell also thought this was a 20" 1 year old monitor too.

RE: TV or Moniter
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 4
Is it just me, or is that "component connector" actually a SVideo can? And the "composite connector" looks more look component input also.

RE: TV or Moniter
By KristopherKubicki on 12/30/2006 2:57:16 PM , Rating: 4
Yep I agree. It looks like the component is in the lower left corner, and then the composite is in the same cutout. The S-Video is where the 6 is.

Hope someone is rewriting the training manual!!?

RE: TV or Moniter
By peternelson on 1/3/2007 11:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're ALMOST right.

The YELLOW is COMPOSITE (all luminance and chrominance on one signal lead). That is the one in the bottom left of the cutout.

The red, green, blue are COMPONENT ie made up of different colour parts where keeping them separate improves quality.

Don't mix them up!

And yes, the other connector is s-video AKA Y/C.

I don't want an analogue tuner in my screen, thanks. For uk use it means you need a tv license and pay extra import duty. Having composite and Y/C adds flexibility without the disadvantages of an inbuilt tuner. UK is fast moving to digital terrestrial so an analogue tuner will still be no use. Also digital tuners currently standard def are no use for high def digital terrestrial. Therefore having the dvd player, satellite/cable box or off air receiver/tuner OUTSIDE the screen is definitely the way to go.

Until now there have been few choices: flat TV with tuner and lame resolution. OR monitor with good res but inflexible inputs. In my view Dell has the right compromise here.

RE: TV or Moniter
By some1whoknows on 12/30/2006 2:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's a monitor hense the DVI/D-Sub connections and 1920x1200 resolution. Also no 'Full HD' Televeision would be allowed to not have any HDMI ports. It's a larger version of the infamous (but not that bad) 24" monitor 2407. Lets hope Dell improve the quality of this screen over it's little brother. Also Dell would be wise to keep up the panels they start with unlike the 2007 which they kept swpping for a lesser quality one after it had been reviewed which, if not illegal, can at least be described as evil.

why? 1920x1200
By nurbsenvi on 12/30/2006 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why not unify TV and monitor resolution to 1080p?

1920x1200 means your blu-ray disc won't be playing at 1:1 pixel on your PC right?

well that sucks.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By KristopherKubicki on 12/30/2006 2:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
It will play at 1:1, but you'll have letterboxed space that's not being used.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "1920x1200 means your blu-ray disc won't be playing at 1:1 pixel on your PC right?"

It'll play at 1:1, with a small border top and bottom. Not really a big deal.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By bunnyfubbles on 12/30/2006 3:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
As others have already mentioned, it will play 1:1, just with black borders on the top and bottom.

And considering you mentioned BluRay discs, are you not aware of the vast number of movies shot in widescreen ratios of 2.35:1? Those movies are going to have black bars on wide screen 1080p TVs as well.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By nurbsenvi on 12/30/2006 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they are "shot" in 2.35:1 but rather being converted(cropped) to 2.35:1 from 16:9 during telecine.

Anyway if it can do 1:1 pixel black boarders are fine for me too.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 3:51:15 PM , Rating: 1
Many films have been natively shot in 2.35. My copy of Ben-Hur was actually shot in 2.76:1...or nearly 3 times as wide as it is high.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By Lord 666 on 12/30/2006 6:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
Masher2, do you like movies about gladiators?

RE: why? 1920x1200
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 7:09:07 PM , Rating: 1
Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison...?

RE: why? 1920x1200
By nurbsenvi on 12/31/2006 10:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
How was the shower?

RE: why? 1920x1200
By ArneBjarne on 12/30/2006 6:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
The two common movie formats today are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By JeffDM on 12/30/2006 3:25:31 PM , Rating: 3
Not only does it not bring videou out of 1:1 pixel ratio, 16:10 is a common computer aspect ratio and I don't see the point in changing that. The computer or media player would have to screw up to distort the video like that.

The reason 16:10 came about is because it's basically the same aspect ratio as two standard sheets of paper set side-by-side. The little thin sliver of black when playing 16:9 video on 16:10 display is fine, it gives a little room for a media controller, task bar or what have you.

Personally, I wish the larger displays were 4:3. I use more vertical space than I do horizontal, and that would be more comfortable for dual-head use too, then it wouldn't be excessively wide. I don't want to tile 4:3 displays, I'd just like to have two 4:3 30" monitors over two 16:9 units.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By braytonak on 12/30/2006 3:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
So how about rotating your display image and then rotating the monitor to match? Then you have lots of vertical space.

RE: why? 1920x1200
By wien on 12/30/2006 4:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
Tried that with my 24" Dell (16:10), and it just doesn't work in my opinion. It just becomes too damn tall. It's impossible to get good color consistancy across the entire screen because of the varying angles you get. The extra vertical space is amazing, but the loss in IQ and my aching neck is enough for me to flip it back. :)

RE: why? 1920x1200
By JeffDM on 12/31/2006 10:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
I was aware of that, but I've seen them in use like that and I don't want it to be *that* narrow. 4:3 in portrait mode is comfortable, but I don't think 16:10 is at all. That, and some LCDs behave differently as many are made to be looked at from a certain orientation. When seen sideways, I've seen some LCDs show a different black level to each eye.

By Great Googly Moogly on 1/1/2007 5:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
Miserable resolution. 1920x1200 on a 24" is too low to begin with...
For the people here with medium to poor eyesight, raise the DPI settings. Why should everyone else suffer?

RE: Hrm
By Redfoot on 1/2/2007 9:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I run 1900x1200 on my Dell 9300 17 inch wide screen lcd, and it runs great. Turn up the DPI to 125% and image scaling in IE if you have an issue. BTW, this is the native res for the screen. It is odd how when 1900x1200 is mentioned on a screen smaller than 30 inches, many people seem to chime in about how small it is and how they cannot use it. No offense, but don't. The rest of us will reap the benefits of high res, and have our applications (i.e. games) scale the res with little loss.

RE: Hrm
By masher2 on 1/2/2007 11:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "It is odd how when 1900x1200 is mentioned on a screen smaller than 30 inches, many people seem to chime in about how small it is and how they cannot use it. No offense, but don't"

Actually, these threads invariably start (just as this one did) just the opposite. Someone chimes in that a larger panel is "useless" simply because its resolution is no higher than what may be available on a smaller panel.

The world is a big place. One size doesn't fit all...not in underwear, nor in monitor dot pitches.

Panel lottery?
By theslug on 12/30/2006 7:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm concerned with Dell using various panel types in the 2007wfp as many have reported. Let's hope all panels of this model are the same.

By nurbsenvi on 12/31/2006 11:03:40 AM , Rating: 2
I was trying to upgrade my 22" HP CRT to 24" Dell and I thought:
"hey I should wait until 36" Dell comes out, then 30" and 24" will get cheaper"

But than it got me thinking:
"would I seat 30cm away from 50 inch display in the future?"
hmm that would make me look like a creepy kid from that movie...

I just can't get my head around larger than 40inch computer monitor...

Is it gonna happen? or will it just get locked in 30 something inch and get Deeper colour instead? or will it get higher definition than the real life?

By tognoni on 12/31/2006 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
What can I tell you? I know the truth and even all the specs for upcoming Dell monitors for the next year. But obviously I will not disclose anything :)

In any case, it is unlikely that Dell posted the image of a new monitor weeks before its release, as these monitors normally become available as prototypes a few days before launch (hence it's not possible to photograph them well in advance...)

Am I Screwed?
By CSSCHNEIDER on 12/31/2006 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
I actually just bought the 20inch Dell monitor this photo was accidentally posted for last night, and I noticed something was wrong but bought it anyway. Am I screwed?

Stupid no HDMI input...
By Blood1 on 1/2/2007 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
They really should of added the HDMI input to this beast. Really stupid that they didn't as smaller LCD's have already added this. I mean why buy this now when Video cards will start to ship with HDMI outputs. Your going to buy this monster then in a few months/1year not have the correct input on this. Sorry but hold off buying this...

By averaesaveraesky on 1/5/2007 2:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
Tasty connectivity options :)

Dell isn't the only one who makes LCD monitors
By AdamK47 on 12/30/06, Rating: -1
By masher2 on 12/30/2006 4:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just in the past month, DT stories have covered monitors from Benq, Apple, Viewsonic, and NEC, and displays from Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung.

RE: Dell isn't the only one who makes LCD monitors
By TomZ on 12/30/2006 5:08:16 PM , Rating: 3
This web site is DailyTech, not AnandTech. They are different.

By ali 09 on 12/31/2006 1:06:21 AM , Rating: 1
lol lol and more lols. good one :D

RE: Dell isn't the only one who makes LCD monitors
By skyyspam on 12/30/2006 10:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, DT/AT (same difference) are biased somewhat, but for objective reasons. On topic, are we going to see 100hz LCDs hit the market anytime soon? I know the technology is just about ready, but when will Dell, HP, Samsung, etc. finally flood the market with them?

RE: Dell isn't the only one who makes LCD monitors
By mino on 1/1/2007 2:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
For what crazy reason does one _need_ an "100Hz" LCD ???

By skyyspam on 1/1/2007 4:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
So we can see more than 60 pictures per second on an LCD:

I find it really helpful in fast-twitch FPS games.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
Related Articles
27" Dell Display En Route
December 1, 2006, 2:01 AM
Dell 27" LCD Confirmed
March 27, 2006, 11:24 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki