Funny Ksp Width 2048 Pexils by 1152 Px
| | |
| Seriously, Dell? Where's my 3840x2400 monitor... If it isn't a laptop, it shouldn't be 16:9. That aspect ratio is just so wrong for non-movie content. For a computer, it always feels like I'm missing 200 px or more. Why should laptops be stuck with 16:9? |
| | |
| And yet none of them are Thunderbolt 3. *sigh* EDIT: oh wait, only the most expensive one is at 5000$. Thank you Dell. What exactly can a Thunderbolt-3 monitor do that a USB-C monitor can't? Thunderbolt works with an external GPU, allows for daisy chaining devices, has double the data rate, and works with 2 4K monitors instead of just one. I've never heard of monitors with built-in GPU, so I assume the eGPU issue is irrelevant for a monitor? And my understanding is that DP 1.4 alt mode over USB-C allows for two 4K monitors, is that not correct? But OK, I guess the extra bandwidth can be useful if you connect external storage to the downstream ports on the monitor. I believe they are referring to using an eGPU TB can send the video signal and then daisy chain out to another TB device. TBF, I don't think it's a BIG deal except they are probably saving like $3 and making me have to run another long cable from my MBP16 to my PCIE Expansion box. |
| | |
| Still rocking a 30" Dell 3008WFP at 2560x1600 as my primary work monitor, with the 1920*1080 (yuck) laptop on the side. The productivity is so much better with the extra height, even vs previous 1920*1200. Spreadsheets, CAD, and ballistics analysis video are all easier. It's easier to compose documents in Word when you have a full sheet of paper. The lap top is basically just for email, file management and chat on the side, or to cut and paste from into a document on the main screen. Dell nerf'd their laptops hard going from 16:10 to 16:9 a couple generations ago. I'm actually thinking of shelling out for a 30" 4k for home, to get more vertical pixels. More productive at home, and can take the work monitor back to work for when I'm in the office. I've previously used three monitors, with a third old one for chat. It's not really that much more helpful. Two 30" with 4k or better, preferably in a 16:10, would be near ideal. Some co-workers have the curved monitors, and they are hideous because they are vertically so short. |
| | |
| At my company, they roll out pretty much commodity monitors everywhere, unless the user has some particular use-case for more (in which case, it comes out of your department budget which is separate from the "corporate" computer budget). One big bunch of monitors taken out of service (while they were still perfectly functional) was pulling out Dell 1907fp and 1908fp LCDs (that used ~75 watts) for some Samsung LEDs that consumed just 25 watts (while being bigger, 22" v 19", and having ~30% more pixels). 1000 computer users in the org, saving 50 watts, times 8 hours per day, times 250 work days a year, times ~1.5 monitors per desk, that is a savings of 150,000 kwh per year. Plus about another 10 kwh for the difference in stand-by draw... Does it make sense to spend ~$200k on new monitors to save $16k in electricity per year. Nope. Does it make sense when corporate has some unreasonable goals for reducing energy usage? Apparently. If that business is in a warm climate, you also have to factor in air conditioning costs. So the electricity savings may be higher than 160 MWh/yr. If enough equipment is replaced with newer energy-efficient units, it may change the cooling load to such a degree that the company can go with a cheaper, lower capacity HVAC unit when one needs replacing. So that's another potential savings. The accountants will likely claim the depreciation of the new equipment on their taxes, so there's another cost savings. Lastly, the newer monitors may reduce toil for the IT department and improve productivity and morale for the drones, so you have another figure to consider. It may still end up being a loss, but it may be smaller than you think. |
| | |
| Still rocking my 2560x1600 30" 3007WFP-HC from 2007 and a 27" whose model escapes me. As much as I'd love two 4K monitors, can't justify it until one of them die. Heck yeah. I'm also still rocking my 10+ year old Dell 3007WFP-HC. It's ridiculous how well that thing was made and even though I had to buy an active dport to dual-link dvi adapter to use it with modern video cards, I expect to keep using this thing until actual better monitors come along. I was another of the 3007WFP-HC happy owners. Unfortunately, it died in a fire (not its fault), else I'd still be using it and singing it's praises. I know I took a picture of its carcass, but can't seem to find it. The modern equivalent would be the U3219Q, which didn't get an update yet. They updated the U24 and the UP32 and the P32, but not the U32. When they do, I might be in the market for a pair. Been using a 39" Seiki 4K TV, and it's obviously on the cheap end. The biggest annoyance is that being a TV, it doesn't sleep like a computer monitor, where it still reports that it exists. Laptop reshifts the whole topology every time it goes off. |
| | |
| Dell has been on point with their monitors for a long while now. I'm on a tight low end budget, and I'm running an SE2717H $170 27" as my side monitor to my main ViewSonic VP2768 1440p editing monitor, and I'm still impressed with what it can do color reproduction wise. 96% sRGB and 1.50dE Color Gamut are nothing to sneeze at in a budget 27" IPS monitor. Keep it up Dell! (Note: I get to work with MUCH better monitors at work occasionally as a professional AV tech not at a fixed worksite, but for myself, I can't afford them.) |
| | |
| What the hell form of storage media does a 12K camera shoot onto? Hardly going onto CF cards or whatever. 12K videos will make any GPU work hard, even those monster new Nvidia cards. You're gonna need a giant pipe to your SAN for editing too! Aggregation is your friend. If one slot isn't enough... use two. The Blackmagic 12k camera has FOUR card slots - 2 super-mega-hyper SD, and 2 CFast. It can hit 500GB/sec by aggregating the SD - but this still isn't enough for 12k @ 60fps, hence the CFast/CompactFast. CFast supports SATA-III. (Before you ask, there is a CFExpress in the works, in an NVMe style.) The camera also has powered USB-C, so you can just strap on your favourite external storage too. I don't know if you can shoot 12k@30 if you're using the paired SD cards - the bandwidth is just about there. You might want to upgrade even if you're going to just shoot at 8k or 6k anyway, because the dynamic range is FOURTEEN STOPS (bigger than many physical film formats.) |
| | |
| Still rocking a 30" Dell 3008WFP at 2560x1600 as my primary work monitor, with the 1920*1080 (yuck) laptop on the side. The productivity is so much better with the extra height, even vs previous 1920*1200. Spreadsheets, CAD, and ballistics analysis video are all easier. It's easier to compose documents in Word when you have a full sheet of paper. The lap top is basically just for email, file management and chat on the side, or to cut and paste from into a document on the main screen. Dell nerf'd their laptops hard going from 16:10 to 16:9 a couple generations ago. I really liked that Dell included component and composite inputs on their Ultrasharp monitors from that era. I had my C128 attached to my U2410 at one point using a component Y/C to Y/Pb/Pr adapter. Your 3008WFP has a component Y/C input, so you could attach one directly. I mention it given your username. |
| | |
| 16:10 had disappeared from their offerings for a few years. Nice to see it return. It's very useful for programming as many IDEs place debug tools at the bottom of the screen, so the extra height helps tremendously. Is it 2002 again? Sometimes image quality is more than big specs. Dell ultrasharps are known for image quality, and are worth the price premium. I have two 30" ultrasharps at work. Probably cost $1000 a piece? Please now tell me you work in print. |
| | |
| 16:10 had disappeared from their offerings for a few years. Nice to see it return. It's very useful for programming as many IDEs place debug tools at the bottom of the screen, so the extra height helps tremendously. You can get extra height by simply going to 32" size and 4K resolution. In fact, at 32", I'm able to get 3 browser windows open after tweaking the DPI settings. |
| | |
| Still rocking my 2560x1600 30" 3007WFP-HC from 2007 and a 27" whose model escapes me. As much as I'd love two 4K monitors, can't justify it until one of them die. Heck yeah. I'm also still rocking my 10+ year old Dell 3007WFP-HC. It's ridiculous how well that thing was made and even though I had to buy an active dport to dual-link dvi adapter to use it with modern video cards, I expect to keep using this thing until actual better monitors come along. I was another of the 3007WFP-HC happy owners. Unfortunately, it died in a fire (not its fault), else I'd still be using it and singing it's praises. I know I took a picture of its carcass, but can't seem to find it. The modern equivalent would be the U3219Q, which didn't get an update yet. They updated the U24 and the UP32 and the P32, but not the U32. When they do, I might be in the market for a pair. Been using a 39" Seiki 4K TV, and it's obviously on the cheap end. The biggest annoyance is that being a TV, it doesn't sleep like a computer monitor, where it still reports that it exists. Laptop reshifts the whole topology every time it goes off. Yeah, it's a good monitor, except the "HC" part. There was no way that I could find to properly color manage it, so it just ended up displaying sRGB content in the wider color space, which made skin tones too red and saturated, for instance. It was fine for most office work and games, but couldn't really be used for photo/video editing and such. |
| | |
| 16:10 had disappeared from their offerings for a few years. Nice to see it return. It's very useful for programming as many IDEs place debug tools at the bottom of the screen, so the extra height helps tremendously. Is it 2002 again? Sometimes image quality is more than big specs. Dell ultrasharps are known for image quality, and are worth the price premium. I have two 30" ultrasharps at work. Probably cost $1000 a piece? Please now tell me you work in print. If you're happy with a $250 screen, more power to you! Not everyone has the same use cases or care about panel limitations or color reproduction. |
| | |
| Just like someone else pointed out, I can't understand why they are still putting out 24"-27" FHD monitors. 24" should be at least QHD (2560x1440) (my old, but still good U2515H is barely acceptable, resolution wise), 27" should be 4K. Because some of us want either 100% or 200% scaling. I have no interest in anything in between personally. Ideally I could get a 5K 30-32" monitor and run it as effective screen space as 2560x1440. Scaling of what? Are you talking about people who edit 1920x1080 video? Even then, wouldn't you want to display that video at full resolution AND a control interface around it? Actually, to do good work for video, you need to Shoot/mix/postproduce/edit at higher resolutions. So, for 1080p video you need to shoot "at least" at 2560x1440. Therefore, to display at native resolution AND keeping the interface around, you would need something close to 4k. For 4K you need "at least" 5K recording, and that's why you also get monitors like Apple's XDR at 6K exist, to allow you to see your recorded material at native resolution, with the controls around it. Pray for us, as there are already cameras like the "Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K", that tapes at 12k (for you to make 8K videos with it). what monitor will we need to edit/mix/postproduce/edit those videos? Only good knows. Why would you have just one monitor? Why not have a dedicated monitor to fullscreen the Program Monitor window at 4K resolution? |
| | |
| Going to need to check my wishlist to see if I need to refresh the models on there based on this news. Last year I was gifted a 2k monitor and going from 1080 to that has been great! ... Uhh. 1080p is 2K. Yes and no. Mostly no. Both the digital cinema and desktop PC world generally define "2K" as horizontal resolutions of 2048 or 2560 pixels. Meanwhile, "1080p" is strictly defined as having a vertical resolution of exactly 1080 pixels, with 1920×1080 (full HD) being the dominant resolution. That's sub-2K. Some common 2K resolutions are 2048×1080 (DCI 2K), 2048×1536 (QXGA), 2560×1080 (widescreen HD), 2560×1440 (WQHD), and 2560×1600 (WQXGA). Yes, DCI 2K is both 1080p and 2K, but since 2K > 1080, marketing wins. Just to confuse things, marketing departments went fast and loose with "4K", so 3840×2160 (UHD) and 3840×2400 (WQUXGA) are included even though they are technically sub-4K resolutions. 4096×2160 (DCI 4K) actually meets it, though. edit: typo, good catch Dzov. | |
| Last edited by Dinjiin on Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:54 pm |
| | |
| Going to need to check my wishlist to see if I need to refresh the models on there based on this news. Last year I was gifted a 2k monitor and going from 1080 to that has been great! ... Uhh. 1080p is 2K. Yes and no. Mostly no. Both the digital cinema and desktop PC world generally define "2K" as horizontal resolutions of 2048 or 2560 pixels. Meanwhile, "1080p" is strictly defined as having a vertical resolution of exactly 1080 pixels, with 1920×1080 (full HD) being the dominant resolution. That's sub-2K. Some common 2K resolutions are 2048×1080 (DCI 2K), 2048×1536 (QXGA), 2560×1080 (widescreen HD), 2560×1400 (WQHD), and 2560×1600 (WQXGA). Just to confuse things, marketing departments went fast and loose with "4K", so 3840×2160 (UHD) and 3840×2400 (WQUXGA) are included even though they are technically sub-4K resolutions. 4096×2160 (DCI 4K) actually meets it, though. I've seen the 2560x resolutions referred to as 2.5k, not that it really matters. Edit: 1920x1080 is 2k. Quote: Terms like "2K" and "4K" don't refer to specific resolutions. They are resolution categories. They are used to classify resolutions based on horizontal pixel count. "2K" refers to resolutions that have around 2,000 (2K) pixels horizontally. Examples include: 1920 × 1080 (16:9) "2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example: 2304 × 1440 (16:10) ... In addition, an actual 8K resolution such as 8K UHD (7680×4320) is equivalent to four 4K UHD screens. A single 4K UHD screen is four times as many pixels as 1080p, so four of those together is sixteen times as many pixels as 1080p. But 7680×4320 isn't called "16K", it's called "8K", because it's approximately 8,000 pixels horizontally. Again it doesn't have anything to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is. |
| | |
| You know what's better than 16:10 for productive tall monitors? 4:3. Turn that baby portrait, and you have plenty of width! Please? Many, (maybe most) monitors have a much wider viewing angle (unrotated) left-right than they do up-down. Once you rotate you get the slightest bit off center and that shallow view angle causes the colors shift. |
| | |
| You know what's better than 16:10 for productive tall monitors? 4:3. Turn that baby portrait, and you have plenty of width! Please? Many, (maybe most) monitors have a much wider viewing angle (unrotated) left-right than they do up-down. Once you rotate you get the slightest bit off center and that shallow view angle causes the colors shift. This has a lot to do with the panel type used in the specific monitor. Most monitors (all the ones I've seen) that come with bases that allow rotation aren't of the type to have dramatic color shift. |
| | |
| I've never personally seen 1920×1080 or 1920×1200 referred to as 2K before, but since it is just a marketing term, I guess that doesn't mean anything. /sent using my AT&T 5G-E hotspot |
| | |
| Just like someone else pointed out, I can't understand why they are still putting out 24"-27" FHD monitors. 24" should be at least QHD (2560x1440) (my old, but still good U2515H is barely acceptable, resolution wise), 27" should be 4K. Because some of us want either 100% or 200% scaling. I have no interest in anything in between personally. Ideally I could get a 5K 30-32" monitor and run it as effective screen space as 2560x1440. Scaling of what? Are you talking about people who edit 1920x1080 video? Even then, wouldn't you want to display that video at full resolution AND a control interface around it? Actually, to do good work for video, you need to Shoot/mix/postproduce/edit at higher resolutions. So, for 1080p video you need to shoot "at least" at 2560x1440. Therefore, to display at native resolution AND keeping the interface around, you would need something close to 4k. For 4K you need "at least" 5K recording, and that's why you also get monitors like Apple's XDR at 6K exist, to allow you to see your recorded material at native resolution, with the controls around it. Pray for us, as there are already cameras like the "Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K", that tapes at 12k (for you to make 8K videos with it). what monitor will we need to edit/mix/postproduce/edit those videos? Only good knows. Why would you have just one monitor? Why not have a dedicated monitor to fullscreen the Program Monitor window at 4K resolution? I do not know. I am no video editor. I guess that at least the control that let's them move the video back and forth + all the thumbnails are betetr inmeditely below the video. As per the other controls, I do not know. But it seems that they preferr it that way. I personally like the 16:10 format better, and when I have multiple monitors, then to discriminate in trems of priority, with the biggest/best monitor front and center, and low priority things like activity monitor, chats, etc in the other monitors |
| | |
| ... Both the digital cinema and desktop PC world generally define "2K" as horizontal resolutions of 2048 or 2560 pixels. Meanwhile, "1080p" is strictly defined as having a vertical resolution of exactly 1080 pixels, with 1920×1080 (full HD) being the dominant resolution. That's sub-2K. Some common 2K resolutions are 2048×1080 (DCI 2K), 2048×1536 (QXGA), 2560×1080 (widescreen HD), 2560×1440 (WQHD), and 2560×1600 (WQXGA). Yes, DCI 2K is both 1080p and 2K, but since 2K > 1080, marketing wins. Just to confuse things, marketing departments went fast and loose with "4K", so 3840×2160 (UHD) and 3840×2400 (WQUXGA) are included even though they are technically sub-4K resolutions. 4096×2160 (DCI 4K) actually meets it, though. The point is that 4K is called 4K because its horizontal resolution is close to 4000. 1080p has a horizontal resolution of 1920, which is pretty damn close to 2000, so that's 2K. Obviously. In what world would 2560x1440 be considered "2K" when: Anybody who says "2K" and means 1440p is wrong, plain and simple. |
| | |
| And yet none of them are Thunderbolt 3. *sigh* EDIT: oh wait, only the most expensive one is at 5000$. Thank you Dell. At this point I'm holding out for Thunderbolt 4 because it will support USB 4 as well. (Or is it the other way around?) |
| | |
| Haven't needed to buy a monitor in a long time. In the olden days, there was a huge debate between the relative merits of various LCD types (e.g. VA, TN, IPS, etc.) but given the lack of information about the panel being used, should I assume it's not an issue anymore and that only one panel type dominates? |
| | |
| 16:10 had disappeared from their offerings for a few years. Nice to see it return. It's very useful for programming as many IDEs place debug tools at the bottom of the screen, so the extra height helps tremendously. Is it 2002 again? Sometimes image quality is more than big specs. Dell ultrasharps are known for image quality, and are worth the price premium. I have two 30" ultrasharps at work. Probably cost $1000 a piece? Please now tell me you work in print. If you're happy with a $250 screen, more power to you! Not everyone has the same use cases or care about panel limitations or color reproduction. Some people just like to be smart about their purchases and not buy into hype that was built up by admittedly smart marketing. |
| | |
| It's very useful for programming as many IDEs place debug tools at the bottom of the screen, so the extra height helps tremendously. Make/model of this $250 43" 4k screen? Like I mentioned just at first, I haven't needed to buy a monitor in awhile but for $250, I would be willing to do some research on whether or not it would be a good upgrade for my needs. Thanks! Sometimes image quality is more than big specs. Dell ultrasharps are known for image quality, and are worth the price premium. I have two 30" ultrasharps at work. Probably cost $1000 a piece? Please now tell me you work in print. If you're happy with a $250 screen, more power to you! Not everyone has the same use cases or care about panel limitations or color reproduction. Some people just like to be smart about their purchases and not buy into hype that was built up by admittedly smart marketing. Make/model of the $250 43" 4k screen? Like I just mentioned, I haven't needed to shop for a new monitor in quite awhile but if there is a usable 43" 4k option for only $250, I'm intrigued. Thanks. |
| | |
| Still rocking my 2560x1600 30" 3007WFP-HC from 2007 and a 27" whose model escapes me. As much as I'd love two 4K monitors, can't justify it until one of them die. Same here, I've got two U3014s I picked up used via Craigslist when I was working offsite and needed a better solution. $700 for two, so a good discount but not a no-doubt deal. It's 16:10 with 2560x1600, and I have one in portrait and the other in landscape. I've got mixed feelings about it. The bezels are petty big and annoy both me and Ron Amadeo. 30" is really pushing it in terms of my horizontal and vertical range of view at my 30" depth desk. And it's heavy, so I've got to be careful with moving my monitor arms to make sure nothing gets crooked. But it's big and in 16:10 so I can see a lot of stuff at an acceptable zoom, which is the most important thing. I can also run two on my 7 year-old i5-4600 and GTX 1060. Not replacing it until someone makes another 16:10 monitor in the 27"-30" range. |
| | |
| Just like someone else pointed out, I can't understand why they are still putting out 24"-27" FHD monitors. 24" should be at least QHD (2560x1440) (my old, but still good U2515H is barely acceptable, resolution wise), 27" should be 4K. Because some of us want either 100% or 200% scaling. I have no interest in anything in between personally. Ideally I could get a 5K 30-32" monitor and run it as effective screen space as 2560x1440. Scaling of what? Are you talking about people who edit 1920x1080 video? Even then, wouldn't you want to display that video at full resolution AND a control interface around it? Actually, to do good work for video, you need to Shoot/mix/postproduce/edit at higher resolutions. So, for 1080p video you need to shoot "at least" at 2560x1440. Therefore, to display at native resolution AND keeping the interface around, you would need something close to 4k. For 4K you need "at least" 5K recording, and that's why you also get monitors like Apple's XDR at 6K exist, to allow you to see your recorded material at native resolution, with the controls around it. Pray for us, as there are already cameras like the "Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K", that tapes at 12k (for you to make 8K videos with it). what monitor will we need to edit/mix/postproduce/edit those videos? Only good knows. Why would you have just one monitor? Why not have a dedicated monitor to fullscreen the Program Monitor window at 4K resolution? You can show things on main 'workspace' or 'secondary display' when using FCP X. In that case your virtual monitor should match the shooting size. If you don't obsess over screen symmetry then one of the wide-format screens can serve for the timeline. For MacOS, people quite often prefer a second screen to be capable of HiDPI/Retina to match the iMac/MacBook screen. Intermediate scaling is seamless and well-sorted so it doesn't have to be exactly 2x for less critical work. Most of the odd-format non-Retina third party options are less good because of they lack vertical pixels. Personally that means 27" 5K on a desk running at 'looks like' 2880x1620, which is like my old 30" 2560x1600, but sharper-looking. 4K is best left to smaller screens, but I do get away with running a 4K Sony OLED 55" a bit further back when using a laptop from the sofa (running the secondary screen at 2x). For Windows people go for various options, as scaling and zooming are done differently. |
| | |
| 🤬 I so badly want to replace my current 5Kx2K 34" monitor with an equivalent one that doesn't suffer from horrible burn-in. Of course none of these will fit the bill. Why, Dell? Why? Slightly off-topic question; what do you do with your old monitors? I always end up keeping my "good enough monitors" for way too long, usually as a 2nd or 3rd monitor hooked up to my setup as the second hand prices are so low and I cannot quite get over letting go for $100 something I paid $800-1000 only 3 years ago (or even for that matter arranging for pickup or delivery). And I also don't feel like throwing it in the trash, and neither will charities take them (they have enough free monitors and "don't need more than Full HD" e.g.1080p) I save mine. Worked out well with COVID as my daughter's school gave them some tiny-ass Chromebooks that they "NEED" to use for school. So I got a usb-c to HDMI converter and no more eye strain for her Yup same. My son's Chromebook now outputs to a nice sizable monitor. Although once my son discovered "school on the couch" ... it has been used less. that might be a thing in my house if not for the 4-yo twins. If the oldest isn't in the office with the door closed, she can't focus w/ the twins' shenannigans. And, from the few times I've been in the office while she has class, other kids in her class aren't as lucky. (teacher had to keep muting a kid who had a baby sibling crying in the background) Yeah but it entertains the other kids. My son loves it when one of his classmate's toddler sibling wanders in view on camera and sits down for reading aloud time |
| | |
| ... I'm sure your $250 display is very nice but there are a lot of monitors that are objectively better... there are many dimensions to monitor/image quality... color volume, color accuracy, brightness, contrast, backlight evenness/bleed, viewing angles, reflectiveness... you can pay more than $250 and get a better monitor. It's not always just "smart marketing." |
| | |
| for $5K, it better fucking be 10bit color. |
| | |
| According to TFTCentral, the UP3221Q has 2000 dimming zones. That works out to ~4150 pixels/zone, or zones being ~64x64 pixels in size, or slightly less than a half inch square. It's a major step up from the 384 zone FALD panels that came out a year or two ago, but being much larger than a cursor is still going to have some fairly noticeable halo effects. If those are problematic to you, probably best to wait for the next generation panels. AUO is working on 10k and 1 million zone backlights; those work out to ~28x28 pixel zones and ~3x3 pixel zones. Assuming there aren't bleeding problems, the latter should be close enough to OLED that you'd have to lean in until you're close enough to see individual pixels to notice it's not 1:1. My TV has local dimming, though somewhat larger than 64x64px. It's heavy-handed and distracting for text (screen credits) and I rather wish it could be turned off. For monitors used for work in "dark mode" it's probably best to go OLED or wait for true micro-LED (1:1). |
| | |
| ... I haven't heard of a TV that didn't allow you to turn off local dimming. Are you sure it can't be done? |
| | |
| I recently bought a Dell monitor to replace my old AOC. It's a 27" WQHD consumer model and not the Pro one, but damn is it good. We use Dell at work, and I thought I'd give it a go (Dell had a promotion running). Very impressed with it. |
| | |
| It looks like UP3221Q is VESA DisplayHDR 1000 certified: https://displayhdr.org/certified-products/ Sadly due to unfixed bugs in Windows 10's multiple monitor experience related to DPI scaling - specifically the "Enhanced" option which uses DPI virtualization (wrong window getting closed when you click the red X button in the scenario where two maximized windows overlap each other) in Windows 10 1809, 1903, 1909, 2004, 20H2 and 21H1 Insider, I have put off any monitor buying plans until the serious bugs get fixed. |
| | |
| I used to have a 4k 24" for hobby computing, and it was fine. Then came Covid and work from home... it was a nightmare after one month: too small, had back pain and days felt very long. So I moved to 4k 27" and that's so much better (all are Dell's). Now I wonder if a wider screen with lower resolution would be even better ? |
| | |
| I know Dell isn't a "cool" brand but I like them because they are well priced and don't have flashy exterior design features. Just upgraded from my Dell 34" curved Ultrawide to a Dell 38" curved Ultrawide. I adore it. I guess if you do a lot of action gaming, they're not the best because refresh rate is capped at 60Hz, but the only games I play extensively are Civ 6, Kerbal Space Program and a couple of flight sims. 200Hz woud be totally wasted. Even though I use it at a desk, I mounted it on a wall-attached articulated arm. This has made an incredible difference to the look of my workspace. No more big stand. No more cables running down the back. I routed the cables along the arm so they all go down neatly along the wall. I even got someone to rig up mounts for my speakers so they hang from the bottom of the monitor. The declutter is real. I'm running a U3419w that has the USB-C hub thing. It's amazing. Just one USB-C cable and any of my laptops are up and running / charging, keyboard, mouse, accessories. Hit the quick switch / select on the monitor and I can switch to my desktop, or even use picture in picture. It sounds silly but it's the one cable in everything solution I've been hearing about forever, finally real. It's amazing. Since Covid, it's been work and school from home, so I've set up a monitor/mouse/keyboard/webcam in every bedroom, the living room and the storage room (for standup desk). Wherever you are, all you need to do is plug in your laptop with one USB-C cable and BOOM! |
| | |
| I know Dell isn't a "cool" brand but I like them because they are well priced and don't have flashy exterior design features. Just upgraded from my Dell 34" curved Ultrawide to a Dell 38" curved Ultrawide. I adore it. It is funny, but I consider Dell the best brand for high quality screens. |
| | |
| I know Dell isn't a "cool" brand but I like them because they are well priced and don't have flashy exterior design features. Just upgraded from my Dell 34" curved Ultrawide to a Dell 38" curved Ultrawide. I adore it. I like how you say that Dell isn't cool because they don't have flashy exterior design features, then immediately go on to say you have a curved monitor. There is nothing more cool, flashy and devoid of substance as a curved monitor. |
| | |
| Going to need to check my wishlist to see if I need to refresh the models on there based on this news. Last year I was gifted a 2k monitor and going from 1080 to that has been great! ... Uhh. 1080p is 2K. Yes and no. Mostly no. Both the digital cinema and desktop PC world generally define "2K" as horizontal resolutions of 2048 or 2560 pixels. Meanwhile, "1080p" is strictly defined as having a vertical resolution of exactly 1080 pixels, with 1920×1080 (full HD) being the dominant resolution. That's sub-2K. Some common 2K resolutions are 2048×1080 (DCI 2K), 2048×1536 (QXGA), 2560×1080 (widescreen HD), 2560×1400 (WQHD), and 2560×1600 (WQXGA). Just to confuse things, marketing departments went fast and loose with "4K", so 3840×2160 (UHD) and 3840×2400 (WQUXGA) are included even though they are technically sub-4K resolutions. 4096×2160 (DCI 4K) actually meets it, though. I've seen the 2560x resolutions referred to as 2.5k, not that it really matters. Edit: 1920x1080 is 2k. Quote: Terms like "2K" and "4K" don't refer to specific resolutions. They are resolution categories. They are used to classify resolutions based on horizontal pixel count. "2K" refers to resolutions that have around 2,000 (2K) pixels horizontally. Examples include: 1920 × 1080 (16:9) "2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example: 2304 × 1440 (16:10) ... In addition, an actual 8K resolution such as 8K UHD (7680×4320) is equivalent to four 4K UHD screens. A single 4K UHD screen is four times as many pixels as 1080p, so four of those together is sixteen times as many pixels as 1080p. But 7680×4320 isn't called "16K", it's called "8K", because it's approximately 8,000 pixels horizontally. Again it doesn't have anything to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is. Thank you for the information. I got out of the business of caring so much a while back, so I thought "2K" meant a vertical resolution of 2160. I'll revise my lament back on page 1: I want to replace my 5120x2160 monitor with an equivalent one that doesn't suffer terrible burn-in (see the reviews https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34WK9 ... or/reviews ). Really like having a DCI-P3 monitor with this resolution at 34" wide with a Thunderbolt 3 connection, but I just wish someone else would make one that's better. My hopes got high when I read this article's headline and subheading, but dashed when I read the details of the products in the article. | |
| Last edited by Morhyn on Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:25 am |
| | |
| I know Dell isn't a "cool" brand but I like them because they are well priced and don't have flashy exterior design features. Just upgraded from my Dell 34" curved Ultrawide to a Dell 38" curved Ultrawide. I adore it. It is funny, but I consider Dell the best brand for high quality screens. Except that I'm sure that they don't produce their own panels. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ufacturers ) So that means they use someone else's panel and package it. There's nothing wrong with that but it does mean they will never be the best brand for high quality screens. Especially since cost conscious Dell will never pay a premium to secure supply for the best graded components for like Apple does for example. My experience with Dell monitors has been terrible, probably because the only ones I have used have been the cheap ones that large companies hoist on any worker that isn't in upper management or design. Dell will sell you a product that will fit a cost conscious budget regardless of what your requirements are. As the importance of cost to a purchaser decreases so does the appeal of Dell products. |
| | |
| I know Dell isn't a "cool" brand but I like them because they are well priced and don't have flashy exterior design features. Just upgraded from my Dell 34" curved Ultrawide to a Dell 38" curved Ultrawide. I adore it. It is funny, but I consider Dell the best brand for high quality screens. Except that I'm sure that they don't produce their own panels. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ufacturers ) So that means they use someone else's panel and package it. There's nothing wrong with that but it does mean they will never be the best brand for high quality screens. Especially since cost conscious Dell will never pay a premium to secure supply for the best graded components for like Apple does for example. My experience with Dell monitors has been terrible, probably because the only ones I have used have been the cheap ones that large companies hoist on any worker that isn't in upper management or design. Dell will sell you a product that will fit a cost conscious budget regardless of what your requirements are. As the importance of cost to a purchaser decreases so does the appeal of Dell products. At least when 5k monitors were new, I'm pretty sure Dell and Apple were using the exact same panels. In fact, the UP2715K came out 9/5/14 and Apple's 5k didn't come out until 6 weeks later. |
Source: https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1470679&start=120
0 Response to "Funny Ksp Width 2048 Pexils by 1152 Px"
Post a Comment