Dell Introduces New 16:9 Aspect Ratio 1080p Monitor

[Jason Dunn]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...7345&redirect=1

The Inspiron Mini 9 wasn't the only new product that Dell announced today: they've released a new monitor called the S2409W. It's a 24" panel, at a 16:9 aspect ratio, running at 1920 x 1200 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.

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?

[Jason Dunn]

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...7345&redirect=1

The Inspiron Mini 9 wasn't the only new product that Dell announced today: they've released a new monitor called the S2409W. It's a 24" panel, at a 16:9 aspect ratio, running at 1920 x 1200 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.

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

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]

Originally Posted by gdoerr56

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]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

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]

Originally Posted by ptyork

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]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

What's your take on 16:9 monitors?

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

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by ptyork

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.