backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by darklight0tr.. on Jan 9 at 8:51 PM

Samsung's new SyncMaster 275T display
Samsung the first to publically announce a 27" LCD display

Not even a week after the Dell 27" display was serendipidously leaked onto the Dell.com website, Samsung announced another 27" display of its own, the SyncMaster 275T.

The Samsung 275T shares much in common with the unannounced Dell 27" display. Both displays use the same 8-bit widescreen S-PVA Samsung LTM270M1 panel.  The panel features a 1920x1200 resolution with 0.303 millimeter pixel pitch.  Samsung would not disclose which digital signal processor is embedded in the display, but a representative confirmed the monitor had interfaces for 15-pin D-sub, DVI-D CVBS, S-Video and Component inputs.

Samsung's new SyncMaster boasts a 6ms gray-to-gray response time, 500 cd/m^2 brightness and a 3000:1 constrast raito.  Samsung also claims the display has a 178/178 degree viewing angle -- meaning the image on the display is still visible at 89 degrees off-center left-to-right or up-and-down.

The 27" TFT node is an odd size for panel manufacturers.  Up until mid-June 2006 no major manufacturer had adopted the panel size, opting instead for 25" or 30" panels.  LCD panel manufacturers carefully chose the panel sizes in order to optimize the most displays out of glass substrates with as little waste as possible.  Samsung is currently the only panel manufacturers to produce this sort of panel.

Samsung claims the SyncMaster 275T will have a suggested retail price of $999 when it becomes commercially available in February 2007.  The display with come with a three-year warranty. By contrast, the Dell UltraSharp 30" display currently has a retail price of around $1,200. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not a good buy.
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 1/7/2007 7:19:13 PM , Rating: 4
0.303 millimeter pixel pitch. NO THANK YOU.
1920x1200 resolution on a 27 inch screen rather then 2560x1600? NO THANK YOU.




RE: Not a good buy.
By Zandros on 1/7/2007 7:46:41 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. And here I was thinking my Macbook's 110 pixels per inch was a bit too big, and now they release 84ppi displays... not a step forward, IMO.


RE: Not a good buy.
By codeThug on 1/7/2007 8:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Samsung 915n LCD. It's a 19" @ 1280x1024 with a dot pitch of .294 mm. I love it.

I don't see where a dot pitch of .303mm could be that much of a hindrance. Maybe my eyes are getting bad, but at 2560x1600 on a 27", I need a damn magnifying glass to use it.


RE: Not a good buy.
By darklight0tr on 1/7/2007 8:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Not everyone wants/needs tight pixel pitches. See my comment below.

I use a ViewSonic VP912b 19" 5:4 LCD currently, and I'm tempted by the 275T. I probably won't get it simply because it would probably be too big for my desk. A 24" LCD would fit better, and that's where i'm currently shopping.


RE: Not a good buy.
By Zandros on 1/8/2007 10:03:47 AM , Rating: 4
Of course I'm aware of that, and I really don't see why I got downmodded for wanting a higher resolution screen. All we see these days are lower resolution screens (22" with the traditional resolution of 20" displays for example, and now this, with a 23/24" resolution.), which is good for a lot of people with bad eyesight, but we see no options for people who want higher resolution displays. (That is, unless you feel the need to spend huge amounts of money on Eizo professional grade screens.)

As a matter of fact, I don't have anywhere near perfect eyesight but still want higher resolution displays.


RE: Not a good buy.
By darklight0tr on 1/9/2007 8:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
But there already is at least one higher resolution option. You could buy a 30" LCD monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1600.

If you were looking at this 27" and didn't like the higher pixel pitch, why not spring for the 30" with a much lower pixel pitch?


RE: Not a good buy.
By darklight0tr on 1/7/2007 8:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone has such wonderful eyesight, so high pixel pitch is a GOOD thing for them.

I work in IT and many LCDs, including 19" 5:4 LCDs (with one of the highest pixel pitches), are too hard to use for many people in their native resolutions because the text and icons are too small. Sure, you can increase the font size, but this isn't a universal effect in Windows. Not all programs follow the increased font size. The only solution for those individuals is to lower the resolution, which results in a less than optimal picture.

If pixel pitch is so important to you, simply ignore this monitor.


RE: Not a good buy.
By kmmatney on 1/8/2007 12:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
My dad bought a 17" laptop with 1920 x 1200 resolution and the pixels are way too small - no way he can use it at native setting. However, the great thing about tiny pixels is that it makes the screen scale much better. I have him at 1360 x 768 and it looks pretty good, as did all the settings in-between. In contrast, my larger pixeled 22" LCD doesn't scale that well (but with the larger pixels I don't need to scale).


RE: Not a good buy.
By ZoZo on 1/8/2007 2:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
1360x768 (16:9) is not the same ratio as 1920x1200 (16:10) which means the image is squashed a bit, squares will be tall rectangles for example.
Use 1280x800 if you want the same ratio.


RE: Not a good buy.
By CSMR on 1/8/2007 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
But vista is supposed to be able to work by dpi and be resolution independent. How well this works we'll have to see.


RE: Not a good buy.
By agent2099 on 1/7/2007 8:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Much like 19" monitors were a stop-gap between 17" and 20", it seems to be the same for 27" monitors being a stop-gap between 24" and 30"

17" monitors had displays that were 1280x1024, then came along 19" monitors which had no resolution advantage over their 17" counterparts.

Indeed the 27" monitors have the same resolution as the 24" monitors, while you have to go to 30" to get the huge jump in res. I assume the main function of these bigger size/same resolution monitors will be for people buying the displays for TV/DVD/HD viewing.


RE: Not a good buy.
By Ajax9000 on 1/7/2007 9:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on your eyesight. I want to use our Dell 24" with the Windows default setting of 96DPI, but my wife's eyesight isn't as good as mine and we have set it to large size (120DPI) which IMHO looks awful. I'd happily swap the 24" for a 27" just to avoid this compromise. (Swaping between users isn't an option as we often work on the computer together.)


RE: Not a good buy.
By R3MF on 1/8/2007 3:30:28 AM , Rating: 3
great news.

a 27" panel at 1920x1200 seems like a great compromise for a gaming PC that doubles up as a media centre PC.

i don't have hardware that can drive new games at 2560x1600.
more than 1920x1200 is a waste for HD DVD media duties.
27" is just about big enough to be sat in the living room.

sounds like a reasonable upgrade for my 2405.


RE: Not a good buy.
By Pythias on 1/8/2007 5:41:46 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know about not being a good buy, but I do notice the difference in pixel size. Picture looks all grainy. Maybe from 8 feet away...


RE: Not a good buy.
By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2007 8:55:06 AM , Rating: 4
This monitor hasn't even been released yet, and you're judging its picture as "grainy"? Quite a vivid imagination you have there...


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/8/2007 9:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the resolution is a disappointment.
However, 1920X1200 is the highest resolution that you can use with a single link DVI output. I think this is a major contributor of thier choice to use such a large resoultion.

Can you imagine how many people would buy (and return) this monitor when they found out that thier video card cannot use it?


RE: Not a good buy.
By Odeen on 1/8/2007 9:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
.303 dot pitch means more than just eagle-eyed 25-year-olds can use it.

Go into any office that uses LCD's. Chances are, the screens will be 17" or 19", and they will be running 1024x768, native rez be damned. 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD (.294 DPI) is too small for most people (they WILL turn the screen back to 1024x768 even if you demonstrate that 1280x1024 looks better) Font size controls don't always work (some applications even warn you that they won't display correctly) and lead to a lot of screen elements and web pages looking funny.

You can't compare a laptop LCD to a desktop LCD directly because of the distances involved. A typical desktop LCD is situated further from the user. This is actually a GOOD THING - the human eye focuses easier on objects further away and the relative thickness of the lines between the pixels (i.e. the "screen door" effect) is effectively reduced by larger pixels.


Staying with 24" dell ultrasharp
By kdog03 on 1/7/2007 11:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
My Dell 24" has the same resolution and going with a larger diameter at 27" means that I would have to use more antailiasing in games and the desktop itmes would not look as sharp. Anything larger than a 24" at 1920X1600 would begin to look sloppy; stick to a Dell 24" at same resloution and svae some money at $690.




By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2007 8:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
By that logic, the same resolution monitor at a 12" size would be even better for you. Why can't people realize that one size dot pitch does not fit all?


RE: Staying with 24" dell ultrasharp
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 1/8/2007 9:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
That is exactly my point to why I think this is not a good buy if you're a gamer or even enjoying watching movies on your pc monitor. I believe a 24" PC monitor is a perfect size and design-(res,pixel pitch) for everyday use and i just cant see myself having anything bigger on my desk while I be surfing or playing games, etc. Now, dont get me wrong , Iam planning getting something bigger in the near future , something like a 30 incher, either a dell or HP model which are designed to display a fine image quality due to their high resolution which is 2560x1600,92% color gamma(saturation) and most imporantly the dell's pixel pitch is 0.250 mm . That is simply amazing to say the least.

Someone mentioned games not running well at high resolution displays, well , those who can invest in a such big display should also invest in a high power video card. I own a 1900xt which is probably 5th fastest card followed by a 7950GTX, 1950xtx, 8800gts and its bigger brother 8800gtx. Even with my video card I can play all my games; BF2, CS source, American army at a native resolution of 1920x1200 via BenQ FP241W very smoothly at 80-100fps. But, something like a 30 inch dell that comes with 2560x1600 res, a singel 8800gtx should be just fine as long as you dont overuse AA and AF.

Besides, why not invest another 200$ for a 30" Dell and you'll have yourself a much future proof product.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/8/2007 9:25:34 AM , Rating: 3
> "this is not a good buy if you're a gamer or even enjoying watching movies on your pc monitor..."

I watch movies on a 102" screen, and the resolution on most of them is only 720x480. The apparent dot pitch (taking into account my increased viewing distance) is still a few times larger than would be this 27" monitor at 1920x1200.

> "I believe a 24" PC monitor is a perfect size..."

It might be...if everyone used their monitor exactly as you do, sat at the same distance from their monitor as you do, had your eyeballs as well.

In the real world, one size does not fit all.


By hstewarth on 1/8/2007 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
I have both a Dell 2405 and Dell 3007 LCD's. One thing about the 3007 (30in) dell doesn't have and the 24in and 27in have is HDTV input. The 30in is special monitor for graphics on computer and only has a dual-DVI input - but it does have the advantage of 2560x1600 display.

I believe that Samsung makes the LCD's for Dell, so that is why there is Dell 27in. I am curious how much the 24in will drop in price.


Specs
By Shark Tek on 1/7/2007 6:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung's new SyncMaster boasts a 6ms gray-to-gray response time, 500 cd/m^2 brightness and a 3000:1 constrast raito.


If those specs are true $1200 is a fair price.




RE: Specs
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2007 6:47:58 PM , Rating: 5
> "If those specs are true $1200 is a fair price..."

Then $999-- the price listed in the article-- will be an even better one.


Article says 1900x1200...
By MrBungle on 1/7/2007 8:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that's meant to say 1920x1200? I can't imagine they'd make it an even 1900 just to spite 1080i/p users?




RE: Article says 1900x1200...
By Zurtex on 1/7/2007 8:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well 1920 x 1200 is an aspect ratio of 16:10

And 1900 x 1200 is an aspect ratio of 19:12

So you're probably right :P


why the low rez
By Pwnt Soup on 1/7/2007 10:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
one thing i have not seen mentioned here is GAMEING, and when you start talking real high rez, there goes your frame rate, not everyone has the hardware too get playable frame rates at those higher rez. granted this is not an entry level peice, but you would need some uber hardware too play even basic games at high rez. its not such a bad compromise for a home user i think. and that is the target buyer correct?




RE: why the low rez
By maevinj on 1/8/2007 9:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think more people are mentioning Gaming. I'm not sure GAMEING has caught on yet ')


somewhere between a good tv and a crappy monitor
By Samus on 1/7/2007 9:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
basically the pixel pitch pits this thing between a good tv and a crummy monitor. either way, $1200 is way to expensive. you can get a 32" 1080P TV for that with close to the same resolution, bigger size, ATSC tuner, more inputs, etc.




By slickr on 1/7/2007 9:40:40 PM , Rating: 1
it's 999


Good News...
By phaxmohdem on 1/7/2007 8:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
The way I see it, this is all around good news for everyone. People with non-perfect eyes can have a monitor with the resoultion they want/need... all the while this helps push higher res widescreens even more mainstream, resulting in lower prices all around in the future (perhaps near future) for people like me who'd rather stick to the 24 inch models for desk space sake.




works for me
By randomlinh on 1/7/2007 11:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
as my iMac's 2nd output maxes at 19x12... heh. But I'd rather just get a 24" then instead. I'm waiting for those to dip below $400 (a decent one anyway).




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki