backtop


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


Dell's upcoming 27" display as leaked on the Dell.com 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

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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles
27" Dell Display En Route
December 1, 2006, 2:01 AM
Dell 27" LCD Confirmed
March 27, 2006, 11:24 AM













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