Dell U2412M

PatK said:
But that's the thing. The very wide gamut of the U2410 is a difference that is easily seen in person....

The point is I'd rather technology moved in the direction of solving issues, giving people a choice, and eventually we'd see more software take advantage of something if the user base is large enough. If people only have sRGB then there's no reason to ever change.
Click to expand...

Well that's nice and all, but while you are living on the edge with wide gamut, I would much rather just have an sRGB monitor that just looks correct everywhere.

I think wide gamut is best left to specialty monitors where it might be needed and let us regular consumers just have normal color without all the hassles. If/when it ever gets sorted out on the software side, then they can start pushing it on everyone.

Let the early adopters who want it, pay more for it.

I remember a couple of years ago, it seemed like there was a trend toward wide gamut everywhere as marketing latched onto a number they could make bigger, 90% of NTSC, 98%, 102%, 110%...

I am very happy this trend has reversed and we are seeing more and more consumer monitors reverting to sRGB. Though this really seems more like a side effect of W-LEDs than a plan. I will take it either way.

Clearly the U2412 is becoming more consumer oriented and for most consumers that will deliver better price/performance.

Those who want a more semi-pro monitor with wide gamut should buy the U2410 while it is still available. That choice should still be available for some time, but I bet most people would rather save the $150 and have the new consumer oriented version.
 
I'm disappointed with the aesthetics, something Dell usually handles with aplomb. From images, the curved back and longer corner radii seem like a problem for fitting in with my OCD-like setup.

Will have to see more.
 
Snowdog said:
Well that's nice and all, but while you are living on the edge with wide gamut, I would much rather just have an sRGB monitor that just looks correct everywhere.
Click to expand...
But the sRGB mode on the U2410 is more accurate than what the vast majority of sRGB monitors ship with. Unless the U2412 comes pre-calibrated then it's also likely to have less accurate sRGB colours than a U2410 (out of the box) and the vast majority of consumers aren't going to buy 3rd party devices to correct that for themselves. So, even if you're just concerned with sRGB, the U2412 would still be a step backwards in that regard.

I think wide gamut is best left to specialty monitors where it might be needed and let us regular consumers just have normal color without all the hassles. If/when it ever gets sorted out on the software side, then they can start pushing it on everyone.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much of a hassle switching to a specific sRGB mode counts as. I would like even that to become a non-issue though, which would require work on the software side with colour management, and that's where the 10 bit support would help any emulated colour gamuts keep a full 8 bit format too. The less devices out there supporting wider gamuts, the longer that support is likely to take in arriving.

Clearly the U2412 is becoming more consumer oriented and for most consumers that will deliver better price/performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, although we'll see how much driving down price impacts quality. The narrower the margins the more shortcuts tend to be taken, and LG hardly have a stellar reputation for their consistency as it is.

Either way I still think a 6 bit panel is a step backwards. As I said, it might not matter much when you're talking about a TV screen viewing mostly video content in constant motion. However, from what I've experienced (and maybe I've just seen crappy examples because they're usually TN based) the impact is wider than "theoretical test images". But most consumers already buy TN anyway, so it's not like they'll care. Screens like this might just help push up the prices for those that do, so we're forced to go to NEC/Eizo, or pay for larger screen sizes where less corners are cut etc.

Those who want a more semi-pro monitor with wide gamut should buy the U2410 while it is still available. That choice should still be available for some time, but I bet most people would rather save the $150 and have the new consumer oriented version.
Click to expand...
On that I'm sure you're completely correct. Hopefully the same cost reductions might happen for some of the larger sizes too. I think a 27 inch U2712, for the same price as the original U2410, would make an interesting product, and the only real aspect about the U2412 that really bothers me potentially is the 6 bit panel.
 
cvgd said:
I'm disappointed with the aesthetics, something Dell usually handles with aplomb. From images, the curved back and longer corner radii seem like a problem for fitting in with my OCD-like setup.

Will have to see more.
Click to expand...
I was surprised by that too. I expected a much slimmer back, what with the move to LED and all.
 
PatK said:
But the sRGB mode on the U2410 is more accurate than what the vast majority of sRGB monitors ship with. Unless the U2412 comes pre-calibrated then it's also likely to have less accurate sRGB colours than a U2410 (out of the box) and the vast majority of consumers aren't going to buy 3rd party devices to correct that for themselves. So, even if you're just concerned with sRGB, the U2412 would still be a step backwards in that regard.

I'm not sure how much of a hassle switching to a specific sRGB mode counts as.
Click to expand...

First why get a wide gamut monitor only to switch it in sRGB mode (that you can't fine tune). If that is what you are going to do, just get a cheaper sRGB monitor.

Second. I think you are mistaken about sRGB emulation quality on the U2410:

Compare the native sRGB U2311, and the U2410 in sRGB emulation mode:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2311h.htm#colour
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2410.htm#factory

U2311: dE Av = 2.4, dE max = 5.6, cTemp = 6252, Contrast = 995
U2410: dE Av = 3.5, dE max = 8.5, cTemp = 5682, Contrast = 742

In every measure the native panel does a better job of sRGB. I picked this monitor because it was a also a dell, but checking the most recent half dozen native sRGB reviews on TFTCentral shows the same thing. They all have better dE and more accurate white balance than the U2410.

Just because Dell gives you are report doesn't mean it is better than monitors without a report.
 
Snowdog said:
First why get a wide gamut monitor only to switch it in sRGB mode (that you can't fine tune)
Click to expand...
Because you still have an option to use both. Also, you can fine tune the RGB from Factory mode, as I already pointed out. You just don't get the full advanced LUT options the monitor is capable of. Nothing to do with the monitor and everything to do with the fact that Dell didn't bother to allow anyone, outside of the factory, access to the info to enable that to happen.

Compare the native sRGB U2311, and the U2410 in sRGB emulation mode:
Click to expand...
I have where it matters - in person in front of my eyes. I've also compared enough U2410's to know that the quality of the panels is pretty variable, as is the calibration job done at the factory. Indeed, along those lines, I think I remember some of the TFT central (the source you quote) results for the LP2475w raised my eyebrow in comparison with the results from the U2410 (which uses the same panel). The very wide gamut of the U2410 also introduces additional issues for accurate measurement and calibration.

The Prad review (which might be regarded as a more reliable source) measured a cTemp result of 6801 (compared to the review you quoted at 5682) and a slightly better contrast at 773 (vs the 742 you quoted) for the factory calibration (I followed the German link, which I don't speak, but I think that's correct). Anyway, my point being the varying reviewers equipment, and especially the variable nature of the panels, means too much faith shouldn't be placed in one set of results.

Just because Dell gives you are report doesn't mean it is better than monitors without a report.
Click to expand...
No, and Dell didn't choose a particularly high bar to reach in their factory calibration. But it should give fairly accurate colour and a decent 2.2 gamma curve, which is more than can be said for a lot of sRGB screens out there..
 
Last edited:
PatK said:
The Prad review (which might be regarded as a more reliable source) measured a cTemp result of 6801 (compared to the review you quoted at 5682) and a slightly better contrast at 773 (vs the 742 you quoted) for the factory calibration (I followed the German link, which I don't speak, but I think that's correct). Anyway, my point being the varying reviewers equipment, and especially the variable nature of the panels, means too much faith shouldn't be placed in one set of results.

No, and Dell didn't choose a particularly high bar to reach in their factory calibration. But it should give fairly accurate colour and a decent 2.2 gamma curve, which is more than can be said for a lot of sRGB screens out there..
Click to expand...

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2010/review-dell-u2410-part10.html
Actually prad got
6988 Kelvin
637 contrast
in sRGB mode.

Still quite far off on color temp. The only monitor where Dell seem to have nailed the sRGB emulation (according to Prad) was the Dell U2711 and they lost it again in the U3011, even though it came after the U2711, they again messed up the white balance.

sRGB emulation has largely been a very hit and miss process on wide gamut monitor and I don't think it would be easily correctable messing around in factory menu. This isn't simply a case of simple tuning of R,G,B as with a natvie monitor, in this case there is fairly complex emulation going on here, to attempt to map one color primaries to another. Your attempt to tune it would most likely have unintended consequences.

As I stated. If you want wide gamut and all the futzing around that goes with it, buy all means get a U2410, I am very happy with the decision to go with standard gamut.
 
Snowdog said:
Actually prad got 6988 Kelvin
Click to expand...
Not sure what they meant by "Factory Setting" on page 9 then (which is what I quoted). If you really want to calibrate for sRGB you can just change the sRGB settings in Factory Mode anyway, as I said. None of those reviews at the time used that method, and they were also testing whilst A00 had some image quality problems in Adobe/sRGB mode. None of the reviews spotted these problems, despite them being perfectly obvious to the naked eye. Dell, to their credit, acknowledged them quickly (within a few days of reporting) and did fix them in A01. It just taught me a lot about how much these reviewers actually see sometimes. It appears they're often looking at graphs more than the actual image quality on the screen itself.

The only monitor where Dell seem to have nailed the sRGB emulation (according to Prad) was the Dell U2711 and they lost it again in the U3011, even though it came after the U2711, they again messed up the white balance.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is they're usually working on statistical examples of 1. With enough reviews you can usually spot overall trends reliably, and they serve a good purpose there, and for other info. But the highly variable quality of LG's IPS panels means a small amount of salt should regularly be applied too. I do hope the switch to LED lighting, in the U2412, is somehow helpful in providing more consistent panel quality.

sRGB emulation has largely been a very hit and miss process on wide gamut monitor and I don't think it would be easily correctable messing around in factory menu.
Click to expand...
Someone went into great detail about the process in the main U2410 thread on this forum. The real issue is more about finding a calibration device that works well with the U2410's wide gamut lighting.

As I stated. If you want wide gamut and all the futzing around that goes with it, buy all means get a U2410, I am very happy with the decision to go with standard gamut.
Click to expand...
As I said, whilst I'd like to see a move in a direction towards wider gamuts (as long as sRGB is well implemented) my concern is much more about the effect moving down to a 6 bit panel will have on image quality. A reduction in gamut is one thing. Reducing 256 values down to 64, and then claiming nobody will notice except on test patterns, is something else. It's also not true if my own experience of 6 bit panels is anything to go by.
 
Serisouly? Doubting PRAD+TFT central and saying the U2410 with its pathetic contrast ratio, IPS glow, screen tinting, premium pricing and aggressive AG coating is a good monitor:eek: Bring on the U2412, can't be any worse than the U2410.
 
Last edited:
So how well will e-ips match s-ips monitors? I'm looking to get two of these monitors to go next to my 30"rs.
 
Snowdog said:
First why get a wide gamut monitor only to switch it in sRGB mode (that you can't fine tune). If that is what you are going to do, just get a cheaper sRGB monitor.

Second. I think you are mistaken about sRGB emulation quality on the U2410:

Compare the native sRGB U2311, and the U2410 in sRGB emulation mode:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2311h.htm#colour
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/dell_u2410.htm#factory

U2311: dE Av = 2.4, dE max = 5.6, cTemp = 6252, Contrast = 995
U2410: dE Av = 3.5, dE max = 8.5, cTemp = 5682, Contrast = 742

In every measure the native panel does a better job of sRGB. I picked this monitor because it was a also a dell, but checking the most recent half dozen native sRGB reviews on TFTCentral shows the same thing. They all have better dE and more accurate white balance than the U2410.

Just because Dell gives you are report doesn't mean it is better than monitors without a report.
Click to expand...

Every U2410 has different factory calibration results. I dont remember the exact number, but my U2410 had less than 3 deltaE on every color/gradation, correct gamma and color temperature in the sRGB preset (with an average of less than 2 deltaE).

NCX said:
Serisouly? Doubting PRAD+TFT central and saying the U2410 with its pathetic contrast ratio, IPS glow, screen tinting, premium pricing and aggressive AG coating is a good monitor:eek: Bring on the U2412, can't be any worse than the U2410.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has it weaknesses, but i would never replace it for a TN or any other panel for that matter (contrast/gamma/color shifting is way to annoying). I replaced U2410 with Dell ST2220T which IMHO is the best LCD-screen one can get today if you can handle reflections.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
Serisouly? Doubting PRAD+TFT central
Click to expand...
The same TFT central who reported the U2412 was 16:9? The same Prad reviewer who said the U2410 A01 had hardware changes (when there was no evidence, and still is none afaik, that it did)? The same reviewers who both failed to spot obvious visual problems with Rev A00 of the U2410, despite their reviews, leaving it to myself and others to report problems to Dell?

That's not to put those guys down, because they both provide useful resources to people. But it is to say people are human, and a small amount of scepticism is extremely wise when it comes to anyone reviewing anything. That is especially true when it comes to monitor reviews because LCD screens are HIGHLY variable in quality. They can only review the screen in front of them, and that experience won't necessarily reflect yours. What you can do is look at several reviews and see if they find the same things. If they do then you can be more confident about overall trends.

and saying the U2410 with its pathetic contrast ratio, IPS glow, screen tinting, premium pricing and aggressive AG coating is a good monitor
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean the same tint issues which those sites didn't really mention, but which I documented more than anyone else on the U2410 thread here and elsewhere? It's true that the contrast ratio on the U2410 is hardly stellar, which is an issue common to IPS. But, if the IPS glow and AG coating are otherwise the best things you can say against it, I think most people can relax. :) It's a great screen indeed (provided you get one with good uniformity) and saying otherwise makes you sound more like an anti-IPS troll to me.
 
Right, so even though the U2410 performs well below average in the most important area of image quality, comes with screen tinting, and destroys whites+light colors with aggressive AG coating it is obviously a good screen and I am trolling. Never mind that you can pick up 2x U2311H's which have much better image quality for the same price. Sounds more like some one has never seen another monitor or TV.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
Right, so even though the U2410 performs well below average in the most important area of image quality, comes with screen tinting, and destroys whites+light colors with aggressive AG coating it is obviously a good screen
Click to expand...
Tint is not a universal issue and appears to apply to a minority of screens (How much of a minority being a question only Dell/LG could probably answer properly). Contrast? After 2 years of heavy usage the U2410 is still too bright for my eyes past 50%, and I'm able to differentiate every shade between 0 and 255. Black levels could certainly be better, but I find them entirely acceptable and even have an OLED display I can hold next to it to compare to when I say that. My current U2410 has excellent uniformity and is free of tint. AG coating? Whilst I'd prefer they tamed it down, it really isn't a big annoyance to me. I also have some glossy screens and realize reflections actually bother me a lot more, even indoors.

and I am trolling.
Click to expand...
If that is your assessment of the U2410 then it it is my opinion that you are maybe an anti-IPS troll, yes. :)
Sounds more like some one has never seen another monitor or TV.
Click to expand...
I still have CRT, as well as OLED, matte and glossy displays. Sounds more to me like someone is reporting their own subjective opinions as the one and only gospel truth.
 
Hey kids,

How 'bout we wait until the monitor actually gets released and reviewed before we continue to "crapcan" it.

In my experience most FRC implementations have been pretty good as long as they don't use dithering to go along with it. Usually this is represented by a slight pulsing of certain shades of colors, and generally no apparent loss of shades.

So before we all go off on tangents and compare it to more expensive screens aimed at a different target market, how's about we wait?

It could end up being another good screen like the 2209WA was.
 
PatK said:
Not sure what they meant by "Factory Setting" on page 9 then (which is what I quoted).
Click to expand...

Factory is the monitor native gamma settings. In case it slipped your mind, we were discussing "sRGB emulation mode" and your claims that you just pop it in that and get better results than native sRGB monitors, . That is what is on page 10. That is what I quoted from tftCentral and what I quoted from prad.

The problem with that is they're usually working on statistical examples of 1. With enough reviews you can usually spot overall trends reliably
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a sample of one, a great many people found the sRGB emulation mode of the 3011 had very poor white balance. Denise from Prad was quite skeptical given the great performance of the U2711, but when he tested the U3011 he found the same thing. In this case Prad confirmed what most people were seeing.

As I said, whilst I'd like to see a move in a direction towards wider gamuts (as long as sRGB is well implemented) my concern is much more about the effect moving down to a 6 bit panel will have on image quality. A reduction in gamut is one thing. Reducing 256 values down to 64, and then claiming nobody will notice except on test patterns, is something else. It's also not true if my own experience of 6 bit panels is anything to go by.
Click to expand...

Fine, except you also keep insisting that sRGB emulation on wide gamut monitors is superior to actual sRGB monitors. It would be nice if it worked that way, but it almost never does.

The 6 bit vs 8 bit thing, I consider overblown. I had a TN screen sitting next to my NEC 2490. I didn't really see any evidence 6 bit color. I never noticed any related artifacts. I was very happy with the color rendition of that screen. It was the viewing angles that ruined it, not the color.

DLP projectors have 1 bit native color the entire range is the equivalent of FRC dithering, yet they have no issue producing the entire color range. DLPs do show rainbows but that isn't from being 1 bit + FRC it is from the sequential color wheel (or LED, or Laser). Three Chip DLP designs that use mixed color instead of sequential, are still 1 bit+FRC, but there are no artifacts. No one rants that they are 1 bit color.

FRC is just another way of achieving more color depth (or even all of it) and it's negatives only really matter where artifacts are visible (usually not these days).

There will always be pro monitors for color zealots, most of which also use FRC for higher bit depths.
 
Snowdog said:
Fine, except you also keep insisting that sRGB emulation on wide gamut monitors is superior to actual sRGB monitors
Click to expand...

I haven't suggested that even once. What I said was a well calibrated sRGB mode, on a wide gamut screen, might well be more accurate than many standard sRGB screens out there that have had no calibration performed. Hardly an unreasonable suggestion. They're both aiming towards the same goal, and the only way I'd call one more superior is that it offers more colour choices (and, yes, potentially more headaches depending on the implementation). I'd be the first to agree that the sRGB situation with the U2410 isn't ideal and could be improved. It's also quite unfortunate that Dell never gave anyone, except their own factories, the ability to calibrate the hardware to its fullest extent, especially when the main place that allows more manual control (custom colour mode) also has a flawed implementation.

The 6 bit vs 8 bit thing, I consider overblown. I had a TN screen sitting next to my NEC 2490. I didn't really see any evidence 6 bit color. I never noticed any related artifacts. I was very happy with the color rendition of that screen. It was the viewing angles that ruined it, not the color.
Click to expand...
I have a 6 bit Samsung LED based screen sitting beside me right now and all I can say is I regularly notice a lack of detail in the darkest or very lightest regions of pictures, as well as artifacts on certain shades. But, as 10e said, we need to wait and see how it's actually implemented on the U2412..
 
PatK said:
I haven't suggested that even once. What I said was a well calibrated sRGB mode, on a wide gamut screen, might well be more accurate than many standard sRGB screens out there that have had no calibration performed.
Click to expand...

No you were quite definitive, there was no might about it:

PatK said:
But the sRGB mode on the U2410 is more accurate than what the vast majority of sRGB monitors ship with.
Click to expand...

Given that the WB was way off, I would say this is not the case, decent WB is one of the more noticeable aspect of incorrect color. Almost every native sRGB screen I looked at was much closer to 6500K right out of the box.

I am very dubious about claims of individual calibration for these dells. If they are calibrated, why so far off. I think they simply do a quick test report on each and maybe reject some outliers, but it really doesn't look like the results of individual calibration.

My NEC2490 has real individual calibration when you turn on colorcomp. My calibration correction curves with color comp on where essentially non existent. Calibration was doing essentially nothing as it was clearly individually calibrated already. This is an artifact of doing colorcomp on each screen to correct imbalances, they are really forced to do individual calibration and store in the colorcomp curves, for each screen. It was actually a surprise for me how bang on the internal calibration to the point that it made calibration nearly superfluous.

See "Effect of colorcomp on calibration"
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032929434&postcount=3

Dell results don't look anywhere near good enough to be a real individual calibration.
 
Snowdog said:
No you were quite definitive, there was no might about it
Click to expand...
I thought what I said was clearly in the context of talking about calibrated Vs non-calibrated screens, as the next few sentences that you (naturally) didn't quote hopefully showed. If you don't think so then I'm hardly going to get into arguments about reading comprehension, or the need to spell out every single thing explicitly, or failing to read things within the context of a whole paragraph.

Dell results don't look anywhere near good enough to be a real individual calibration.
Click to expand...
Well I don't think they actually fake them :) But I would agree that I've seen enough variability in quality that questioning some of the methods, on at least some of the screens, is not at all unreasonable.
 
Not sure why you guys are arguing with each other.

U2412M and U2410 are in different monitor genre. There is no point to compare the two. It is like comparing U2410 with the true 10-bit monitors.

For me though, I would now go for a used U2410 or the Asus P246Q
 
and the spec confirms recent TFT Central reports that it is indeed 16:10 :) good news!
 
Slightly thinner bezel than the U2410 according to the specs.

U2410:
Dimensions without stand (H x W x D)
365.1mm x 559.7 mm x 81.0 mm / 14.37 inches x 22.03 inches x 3.18 inches
Click to expand...

U2412M:
Dimension without stand: (H x W x D)
14.24 inches (361.6 mm) x 21.89 inches (556.0 mm ) x 2.56 inches (64.9 mm)
Click to expand...
 
I'm in searching for a Dell Ultrasharp, is this as good as the last year model.
 
Hmmm since my 30incher died, been lookin for a new monitor.

16:10 at $400 is a pretty good deal, ill wait to see some reviews first
 
Whoa, is this the successor to the 2410? Ive been looking at monitors for a week.
 
Well the question has to be asked. Why is it $200+ cheaper than the U2410 and its LED which is usually more expensive. Maybe the U2412M is using a E-IPS panel?
 
zod96 said:
Well the question has to be asked. Why is it $200+ cheaper than the U2410 and its LED which is usually more expensive. Maybe the U2412M is using a E-IPS panel?
Click to expand...

W-LED has likely been at parity for a while, perhaps even cheaper than wide gamut CCFLs.

They removed card reader.

And yes, I do believe it is an E-IPS panel (but people over-react to that minor difference).

Also I doubt they will provide a factory calibration report sheets.

So several opportunities for savings.
 
zod96 said:
So could it be that this is a 6 bit IPS panel?
Click to expand...

Probably 6 bit + FRC, not that you could ever tell by looking at it. But if you are one of those people that obsesses over having the best spec sheet, then I guess this will be inferior. :D
 
Freezebyte said:
Don't think I cant wait for this one, may just jump on U2410
Click to expand...

What do you mean wait? It is available for order now, On Dells page (link in posts above).

I added to my cart and proceeded to the checkout and I didn't get any issue with ordering it right now, but I didn't complete the transaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top