Dell Introduces New 16:9 Aspect Ratio 1080p Monitor

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&sku=320-7345&redirect=1' target='_blank'>http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...7345&redirect=1</a><br /><br /></div><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1220544586.usr1.jpg" /></p><p>The Inspiron Mini 9 wasn't the only new product that Dell announced today: they've released a new monitor called the <a href="http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&amp;cs=19&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs&amp;sku=320-7345&amp;redirect=1">S2409W</a>. It's a 24" panel, at a 16:9 aspect ratio, running at 1920 x <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">1200</span> 1080 resolution. It has an 85% colour gamut, 5 ms Gray-to-Gray response time, and connects via VGA, DVI, or HDMI with HDCP. No memory card reader, USB ports, component, or DisplayPort connections. I guess the $349 USD price point makes this a budget monitor of sorts. They also have 20" ($299) and 17" ($189) versions, although they don't seem to be 16:9. The 20" monitor has a 2.0 megapixel camera though.</p><p>So, am I missing something with this move to 16:9 aspect ratio? What's the benefit on the desktop? You get the same resolution, so you're not really missing anything, but you get a monitor that's a bit wider but shorter (vertically). Is that a good thing? I don't know, having never used a 16:9 monitor (my TV doesn't really count). What's your take on 16:9 monitors?</p>

[gdoerr56]

Jason,

The monitor is 1920 x 1080, not 1920 x 1200. The 1920x1200 monitors are 16:10 aspect ratio which is a little off from what true HD is. Not sure I see the benefit to computer users is unless you watch a ton of movies on your computer.

My gut says that Dell is offering this because someone has inexpensive LCD panels that they're producing for 1080p TVs.

[ptyork]

Yep, the key is the 1080 vertical resolution to give you raw 1080i/p resolution for HD stuff without little black bars above and below (or some kind of silly scaling). Not a big deal AFAIC. I personally prefer the increased vertical resolution which would allow a 1080 movie to be edited at full resolution with room for controls at the bottom (not to mention the numerous other benefits of increased vertical screen real estate), but I'm sure there are purists.

To be honest, though, I'm surprised that the industry allowed (encouraged?) a computer WS standard of 16:10 and a TV WS standard of 16:9. Complete waste of resources IMO.

[onlydarksets]

So, am I missing something with this move to 16:9 aspect ratio? What's the benefit on the desktop? You get the same resolution, so you're not really missing anything, but you get a monitor that's a bit wider but shorter (vertically). Is that a good thing? I don't know, having never used a 16:9 monitor (my TV doesn't really count). What's your take on 16:9 monitors?


The benefit is that, at a workstation, a 24" widescreen has the same real estate as two side-by-side 18" monitors. This is, obviously, subjective - some people prefer side-by-side even if the real estate is the same.

[Jason Dunn]

The monitor is 1920 x 1080, not 1920 x 1200. The 1920x1200 monitors are 16:10 aspect ratio which is a little off from what true HD is.

Aha, right - fixed my post.

[ptyork]

The benefit is that, at a workstation, a 24" widescreen has the same real estate as two side-by-side 18" monitors. This is, obviously, subjective - some people prefer side-by-side even if the real estate is the same.

My math might be wrong (Excel does have some rounding problems), but two 4:3 18 inch monitors have a total width of 28.8" and a height of 10.8". The 24" 16:9 has a total width of 20.9" and a total height of 11.75". Two sideways 15" 4:3 monitors come close, but it just isnt' possible to make what amounts to an 8:3 aspect ratio equate to anything 16:9 regardless of size. :)

[Jason Dunn]

I personally prefer the increased vertical resolution which would allow a 1080 movie to be edited at full resolution with room for controls at the bottom (not to mention the numerous other benefits of increased vertical screen real estate), but I'm sure there are purists.

Yeah, I'm the same way - I'd rather have the extra vertical pixels than fit a movie on my screen...and let's face it, with the varied aspect ratios in movies, you're almost always going to have black bars.

[EscapePod]

I think this size (and price) will fit perfectly for the Media Center PCs I build using the Gigabyte mobo with AMD 780G chip and a Hauppauge HD tuner. These really go over big for dorm room sales on campus.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What's your take on 16:9 monitors?</p>

Stinks. The PC industry should exert some clout to make monitors less skinny!

[onlydarksets]

My math might be wrong (Excel does have some rounding problems), but two 4:3 18 inch monitors have a total width of 28.8" and a height of 10.8". The 24" 16:9 has a total width of 20.9" and a total height of 11.75". Two sideways 15" 4:3 monitors come close, but it just isnt' possible to make what amounts to an 8:3 aspect ratio equate to anything 16:9 regardless of size. :)
You're right - hasty math on my part. Two 15" 4:3 monitors have slightly less real estate than a single 24" 16:9 monitor.

Notwithstanding, I read an article a couple of months ago that did a survey and found that 24" was the sweet spot where people tended to prefer a single 16:9 monitor to two 4:3 monitors. With 16:9 monitors smaller or larger than that, they preferred two 4:3 monitors.

[Felix Torres]

24" 1080p displays?
Dorm rooms, guys.
Double duty as computer monitors and TV.
The panel manufacturers call the shots, remember? And in many parts of the world, TVs don't get all that big so a 24" 1080p TV is a desirable product when hooked up to a cable box or sat receiver. Whats the going rate for 1200p 24-inchers? $399? $499?
This lets Dell gets a 24" out the door for $349 and every bit helps in these price-sensitive times.
Heck, one of these and a $360 arcade is a complete HD gaming system for about the price of a PS3... ;-)

[Sven Johannsen]

I use a monitor as a second display on my MCE machine hooked to my 50" big screen. I run them in mirrored mode because sometimes I like to browse the guide on the monitor while watching actual TV (tuner in TV), but I use the MC PC as a PVR. I have a heck of a time setting up a resolution that looks right on both the big screen and the monitor when they are mirrored. May just be a function (or lacke thereof) on the video card, but it is annoying. The picture on the TV looks great, out of the Media Center interface, but overbounds the edges on the monitor. It can look great on the monitor, but then has black edges on the TV. If this thing will help solve that issue, it will be in my shopping cart today.

Another thing I would love is a remote standby on a monitor, so I don't have to watch two screens, or a seperately settable screen saver on a secondary display, same reason.

[Jason Dunn]

Stinks. The PC industry should exert some clout to make monitors less skinny!

Less skinny? Huh? You want fat monitors? :confused:

[Jason Dunn]

The picture on the TV looks great, out of the Media Center interface, but overbounds the edges on the monitor. It can look great on the monitor, but then has black edges on the TV. If this thing will help solve that issue, it will be in my shopping cart today.

On your TV, see if you can change the mode to "Just Scan" or something similar - I was playing with my LG TV today and had that exact problem: the Windows desktop on the Studio Hybrid computer was off the edge of the display at 1920 x 1080. I had to change the TV to "Just Scan" rather than the fixed 16:9 ratio and now it looks *great* (oh, I turned down the sharpness too).

[Felix Torres]

On your TV, see if you can change the mode to "Just Scan" or something similar - I was playing with my LG TV today and had that exact problem: the Windows desktop on the Studio Hybrid computer was off the edge of the display at 1920 x 1080. I had to change the TV to "Just Scan" rather than the fixed 16:9 ratio and now it looks *great* (oh, I turned down the sharpness too).

Correct.
The problem is Overscan. The onboard electronics upscale the incoming signal by anywhere between 5 to 15% and then display the center portion of the now-blurred image, letting the rest fall outside the display.-
This is because the idiots designing TVs are still applying analog TV design principles to HD displays and defaulting digital ports to overscan on (to "protect us" from garbage data that isn't there), instead of the rational zero-overscan setting they should be using with digital content.

Different TVs call the setting different things (as well as implementing it differently); some call it 1-to-1, dot-by-dot, native display, etc. It is (barely) excusable on analog SD ports (composite, s-video), an annoyance on SD component ports and totally inexcusable on any HD ports.

And, of course, retailers and manufacturers do their best *not* to talk about it.:mad: