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

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.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

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

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki