Dell U2412M

[Walker]

Why would an OS have a "recommended" aspect ratio? Please stop spreading this BS and derailing the thread.

BTW you are too obsessed about the Contrast specification. If you were sitting in front of it, you would be unlikely to tell the difference between 800:1 and 1000:1 contrast.

My NEC is a little under 700:1 calibrated. Yet in average room lighting my blacks look like they are emitting as much light as my bezel. Total non issue.

If you are sitting in the dark 1000:1 is not going to help either. My TV is 1400:1 calibrated, yet it looks no blacker than my 700:1 monitor and watching movies in the dark still shows glowing greyish black.

Bottom line:
In normally lit room even 500:1 is likely good enough.
In a dark room 1400:1 isn't. Maybe even 3000:1 isn't.

Obsessing about the difference between 800 and 1000 is ridiculous.

I'm with you on that one. I have a 1000:1 PVA next to my ZR24w and I can barely tell any difference in black depth in a normally lit room. I believe the higher the contrast, the more difference there needs to be in order to be noticeable because the sensitivity of the eye to contrast is not linear. So while there is an obvious difference between a crappy 100:1 contrast laptop display compared to a 300:1 one, there isn't a massive percieved difference between 800:1 and 1000:1.

 

[Oled]

Why would an OS have a "recommended" aspect ratio?

Probably because it works better that way. But ask Microsoft. There are multiple sources that claims that Windows 8 will work better on a 16:9 display.

One ex:
"In terms of display support, Windows 8 will work best on 16:9 screens"

But lets discuss U2412M instead.

 

[kevinsbane]

"it is recommended that the devices have a 16:9 aspect ratio"

"In terms of display support, Windows 8 will work best on 16:9 screens"
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2011/06/02/windows-8-hardware-recommendations-for-oems/

I have no idea how that article applies to the computer monitors that we are discussing.

The first paragraph clearly states:

Microsoft discussed the new hardware recommendations for the upcoming Windows 8 tablets and slates today during the OS’s unveiling at the Computex trade-show in Taiwan. According to Microsoft Corporate Vice President Mike Angiulo Windows 8 devices manufacturers will have to follow strict hardware guidelines when building products similar to Windows Phone 7 OEMs right now.

Tablets, slates and phones.

 

[VulcaN]

Thread to discuss 16:9 in windows 8:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1627572

 

[PeaKr]

M$ supporting only specific hardware would be terrible business decision. Personally, I wouldn't let any OS dictate what hardware I can or can't use. But I won't have to worry about that because Win8 not supporting 16:10 is a load of horseshit.

 

[khwain]

M$ supporting only specific hardware would be terrible business decision. Personally, I wouldn't let any OS dictate what hardware I can or can't use. But I won't have to worry about that because Win8 not supporting 16:10 is a load of horseshit.

What about OSX :x

Anyways, despite anyone's complaints, I'm pretty sure these monitors will be a nice upgrade to my NEC 1760NX+1720M (one of which has its power button thing detached from the actual switch)...Estimated delivery is the 15th

 

[suiken_2mieu]

What are you talking about?

Windows 8 ready is something for hardware. For a display to be Windows 8 ready it must be 16:9 and at least 1366x768 in resolution.

Example:
http://www.tabletstoreuk.com/1366-windows-ready-c-44.html

"it is recommended that the devices have a 16:9 aspect ratio"

"In terms of display support, Windows 8 will work best on 16:9 screens"
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2011/06/02/windows-8-hardware-recommendations-for-oems/

That being said, I notice how they are mostly talking about the amount of resolution. 1366x768 is not a high res screen. For that matter, I don't even consider 1920x1080 or x1200 high res either, but they are much larger than 1366x768. I doubt a 1600x1200 screen is going to have the same issues as a 1024x768 screen. Furthermore, they are talking about Windows 8 in a mobile space, not a desktop. The mobile space is where you'll see smaller resolutions more often which makes this article make sense. But bringing this up in a discussion about a desktop monitor just shows how trolly you are.

I don't understand this forum, once one troll is knocked out, another enters the ring. We shouldn't even have a ring, this is supposed to be discussion.

 

[fishsauce]

I was originally debating between the 2410 and 2412, but this thread has helped me settle on the 2412. I suppose I'll buy a third monitor when I actually need wide gamut (and by then the sRGB support on those should be better too).

And it sounds like 16:9 is just a synonym for widescreen in the text. Even if it only supported 16:9 and not 16:10, it apply only to the new 'Metro UI' screens that are never going to be used on a desktop anyway. From what I've heard they've said that non-touchscreen devices would fall back to a normal interface that's similar in layout to the current Windows 7 one and won't be too dramatic of a change. They would lose a lot of customers if they decided not to support 16:10, same with 4:3. Companies and schools aren't going to go on a spending spree to buy up a few thousand monitors per facility just because Microsoft said so.

 

[tk-don]

How is my post biased? 4x positive vs 2x negative and a warning. The contrast value is below average and much worse than 10e's unit and the recent ST2220T, if it is below average mediocre is the only fitting word to describe it, because that is what below average is. The 2412 is a better monitor than the 2410 according to PRAD and it is 200$ cheaper.

I was more surprised you saw it as a con, when it is progression from what the U2410 offered at a higher price (regarding screen quality).
Take a glance at all of IPS displays, either medical or for photo editing or for casual use. In that respect 750:1 to 800:1 is fine and above average (assuming this is calibrated).

The fact that the human eyes do not not perceive contrast linearly is greatly exploited in image compression, so this should be seen as a greater step moving from 600:1 to 800:1 (or more) than 800:1 to 1000:1. So to answer your question: Biased, as in you interpret and grade an actual number that you don't know what is perceived like in reality (neither do I) - which makes the text and impressions in a review more important than just numbers alone.

 

[flwolf]

Got the Spyder 3 Pro today and calibrated this screen. I am very surprised at how dark it wants it to be. It tells me to keep color temp at 5k and brightness at 50%. I'm certainly no pro, and maybe that's why, but it sure seems like the calibration is too dark.

 

[bAMtan2]

Probably because it works better that way. But ask Microsoft. There are multiple sources that claims that Windows 8 will work better on a 16:9 display.

One ex:
"In terms of display support, Windows 8 will work best on 16:9 screens"

But lets discuss U2412M instead.

don't be so gullible please.

thread, continue.

 

[Snowdog]

Got the Spyder 3 Pro today and calibrated this screen. I am very surprised at how dark it wants it to be. It tells me to keep color temp at 5k and brightness at 50%. I'm certainly no pro, and maybe that's why, but it sure seems like the calibration is too dark.

Does it give you a choice for color temp? D65(6500 Kelvin) seems more common and I think most of these monitors ship closer to D65 , you will probably end up with more contrast if you stick with D65.

 

[flwolf]

Does it give you a choice for color temp? D65(6500 Kelvin) seems more common and I think most of these monitors ship closer to D65 , you will probably end up with more contrast if you stick with D65.

The first time I ran it it wanted me to switch it to 5k. It is set to 6.5k by default. I ran it again and told it I wanted to use the existing setting, which was 6.5k. The result was better but the whites seem to have a faint red hue to them. Not sure how to fix that.

 

[Funkdancer]

If you move back a few feet and look at it straight on, and the glow in the corner is still there, return it for uneven backlight because it's probably backlight bleed.

Thanks, 10e, yep I can see the difference now - I'm new to IPS panels and the IPS glow vs backlight bleed is definitely easy to spot. The backlight bleed is static, the IPS glow is not.

Here's shots of my three screens. I didn't get the tripod out, but for the purpose of displaying the bleed it does the job. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion of them. Shots taken a bit over 2 metres from the screen. Hand held D70s 50mm fixed / 1.8 aperture, iso 1000. Bright pixels are dust specs, not dead pixels.

EDIT: Removed old screenshots. See my newer post for better ones.

Thanks again!

EDIT: I also found that the plastic frame is slightly loose at the top of the panel, on the back of the two worst ones. Pinching it very gently laying my hand of the top of the screen, dead in the middle, thumb on front, other fingers behind, I get movement and bit of snap noise on the two worst ones.

 

[senna89]

What is the percentual to the ISOcoated and SRGB cover by PRAD.de ?

 

[Oled]

Thanks, 10e, yep I can see the difference now - I'm new to IPS panels and the IPS glow vs backlight bleed is definitely easy to spot. The backlight bleed is static, the IPS glow is not.

Here's shots of my three screens. I didn't get the tripod out, but for the purpose of displaying the bleed it does the job. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion of them. Shots taken a bit over 2 metres from the screen. Hand held D70s 50mm fixed / 1.8 aperture, iso 1000. Bright pixels are dust specs, not dead pixels.

PicasaWeb link

Centre screen - very strong backlight bleed top left (and some bottom right)

Left screen, strong backlight bleed top left and bottom right

Right screen - backlight bleed is much more moderate

That looks really horrible. My 5 year old TN panel has less back light bleed than that.

Poor job Dell!

 

[Funkdancer]

That looks really horrible. My 5 year old TN panel has less back light bleed than that.

Poor job Dell!

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the difference in quality. Whilst the camera exposure might overstate the effect a little bit, it is still visible on the best screen - definitely so in a blacked out room. Would you say its level is acceptable? I've decided to definitely return the two others.

Whatever they save in manufacturing they'll pay for in returns; it doesn't make so much sense to me. Maybe it was a faulty batch. I'd rather _not_ get the replacements from the same batch then, but I guess it's all a lottery.

I forgot to get the monitor tags before leaving for work so will have to call Dell tomorrow.

I really hope I can get this sorted out as when not having dark material, the monitors are otherwise superb; I love the IPS viewing angle in particular.

 

[Oled]

Yeah, I'm not impressed by the difference in quality. Whilst the camera exposure might overstate the effect a little bit, it is still visible on the best screen - definitely so in a blacked out room. Would you say its level is acceptable? I've decided to definitely return the two others.

Whatever they save in manufacturing they'll pay for in returns; it doesn't make so much sense to me. Maybe it was a faulty batch. I'd rather _not_ get the replacements from the same batch then, but I guess it's all a lottery.

I forgot to get the monitor tags before leaving for work so will have to call Dell tomorrow.

I really hope I can get this sorted out as when not having dark material, the monitors are otherwise superb; I love the IPS viewing angle in particular.

No. that is not acceptable in any way. Not any of them.

What really worries me is that you bought 3 U2412M and all had really much back light bleed. That means it is no coincidence. From what I have seen so far zr24w appears to be a better option.

 

[Snowdog]

Whatever they save in manufacturing they'll pay for in returns; it doesn't make so much sense to me. Maybe it was a faulty batch. I'd rather _not_ get the replacements from the same batch then, but I guess it's all a lottery.

No one can judge accurately from your pictures.

But this is pretty much par for the course IMO. I have been seeing pictures like this for 8 years now from just about everyone with excess exposure. If you go hunting for bleed with high exposure you will find it. It isn't going to change with another batch.

If you sit in a dark room, looking at black screens, perhaps skip IPS for the c-PVA moniotrs with 3000:1 contrast...

 

[Funkdancer]

No. that is not acceptable in any way. Not any of them.

What really worries me is that you bought 3 U2412M and all had really much back light bleed. That means it is no coincidence. From what I have seen so far zr24w appears to be a better option.

Unfortunately the zr24w is nearly twice as expensive down here, so it's not really an option for me. I also have to get the monitor stand replacement (sag doesn't work for me, and neither does the limited swivel), and the ++++++++ is a fortune to ship down from the US - I'm in Melbourne, Australia.

 

[Funkdancer]

No one can judge accurately from your pictures.

But this is pretty much par for the course IMO. I have been seeing pictures like this for 8 years now from just about everyone with excess exposure. If you go hunting for bleed with high exposure you will find it. It isn't going to change with another batch.

If you sit in a dark room, looking at black screens, perhaps skip IPS for the c-PVA moniotrs with 3000:1 contrast...

Ok, also for the warranty process, I can do another series of shots and get the tripod out tonight - my lens is the Nikon 50mm 1.8 - in a dark room, what exposure time? I had 1/4s on the middle, and 1/2s on the side shots with ISO of 1000. Maybe 1/4s? Let me know.

Subjective analysis: The middle screen's bleed is offensively excessive to my eyes - even with dark content (e.g. I have a big sampling of Deviant "galaxy" themed wallpapers ) not just black screen. Using that as a reference, the right screen is a lot more acceptable to me. Left screen is in the middle, but not good.

 

[albovin]

If you sit in a dark room, looking at black screens, perhaps skip IPS for the c-PVA moniotrs with 3000:1 contrast...

Contrast numbers won't help.
3000:1 may have BL bleed and nice LCD glow.

 

[albovin]

I can do another series of shots and get the tripod out tonight - my lens is the Nikon 50mm 1.8 - in a dark room, what exposure time? I had 1/4s on the middle, and 1/2s on the side shots with ISO of 1000. Maybe 1/4s? Let me know.

No one can tell you.
You'll have to experiment.
Just don't post unrealistic pictures like you did. They do not help much but attract trolls.

 

[flwolf]

The Spyder3 Pro turned out to be a waste of money for me. No matter how many times I try, I can never get the red tint out of the whites and greys. Doing it "by eye" looks so much better to me. I'm greatly interested in 10e's settings.

 

[NCX]

Colorimeters can be incaruate, what it reads as 6500k could actually be 5900k, I would try using 6700-7000k during calibration instead.

 

[10e]

That looks really horrible. My 5 year old TN panel has less back light bleed than that.

Poor job Dell!

I think it's pretty obvious these shots are very over-exposed. Please take a picture of your 5 year old TN panel with these same settings and I guarantee it will look as bad or worse.

I haven't seen a positive post from you in this thread. I don't see why you are remotely interested in a screen that isn't 16:9 or Windows 8 certified.

Thanks, 10e, yep I can see the difference now - I'm new to IPS panels and the IPS glow vs backlight bleed is definitely easy to spot. The backlight bleed is static, the IPS glow is not.

Here's shots of my three screens. I didn't get the tripod out, but for the purpose of displaying the bleed it does the job. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion of them. Shots taken a bit over 2 metres from the screen. Hand held D70s 50mm fixed / 1.8 aperture, iso 1000. Bright pixels are dust specs, not dead pixels.

<....snipped for space...>
Thanks again!

EDIT: I also found that the plastic frame is slightly loose at the top of the panel, on the back of the two worst ones. Pinching it very gently laying my hand of the top of the screen, dead in the middle, thumb on front, other fingers behind, I get movement and bit of snap noise on the two worst ones.

I don't get a snap noise, but mine moves as well. It seems there should be an extra clip on the back behind the bezel where the Dell logo is. It doesn't have an effect on the picture though.

If I use your settings with my admittedly not-so-great older S3 IS camera I get the following photos, with the Dell on the left and the NEC on the right.

2 second exposure, 800 ISO, f-stop f3.2 both at 150 cdm/2 whites, camera on a makeshift stand around 2 m away, more centred on the NEC. Obviously I have a super noisy sensor that dies at 800 so this is for comparisons' sake.

Dell U2412M on Left, NEC LCD2490WUXi2-BK

Same settings withOUT 800 ISO, now 80 ISO (so 2 second exposure, F3.2, 80 ISO)

The camera was at desk height. This makes the NEC look so much better than the Dell, and yet the Dell has better black levels at this brightness due to improved contrast.

Now compare these with my original pictures in my older post on page 11 of this thread: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037563158&postcount=207

Big difference!

I'd say a 1/2 second to second exposure with ISO no greater than 200 to start.

Thanks!

I also love my Subaru


If you wish to return them, the good part is you won't get a refurbished unit, because there probably aren't any refurbished ones in stock.

No one can judge accurately from your pictures.

But this is pretty much par for the course IMO. I have been seeing pictures like this for 8 years now from just about everyone with excess exposure. If you go hunting for bleed with high exposure you will find it. It isn't going to change with another batch.

If you sit in a dark room, looking at black screens, perhaps skip IPS for the c-PVA moniotrs with 3000:1 contrast...

Probably agree with that.

 

[10e]

The Spyder3 Pro turned out to be a waste of money for me. No matter how many times I try, I can never get the red tint out of the whites and greys. Doing it "by eye" looks so much better to me. I'm greatly interested in 10e's settings.

Right now I'm in Preset > Custom Color with Red>96, Green>93, and Blue>87 @ brightness of 45 and contrast of 75.

This seems to match the white up to my NEC and the rest of the colors look decent as well, just looking at test images.

 

[Oled]

@10e

Sorry but I cant take you seriously. . You consistently negligate negative aspects of this screen. In your review you have a comparisonpic where you compare white glow NEC vs Dell and show the NEC from an angled position. Classic trick to make a screen appear worse than it actually is which of course fool the reader to believe that the Dell is better than it actually is.

It is also intresting that you constantly choose to show blacks on the Dell when brightness set to 0 and takes pics with ridicolous short exposure time. Obviously that give a very false view to the reader how the screen actually are.

 

[NCX]

Take 2 seconds to read and find out those pictures are over exposed, which should be obvious just looking at them.

I don't think a Dell employee would also consitently post positive comments about an NEC monitor

 

[khwain]

...This is ridiculous. Look at 10e's pictures. Dell on left, NEC on right. The top edge of the NEC is fairly flat (so it's fairly straight on), whereas the dell is notably slanted (not straight on). Also given from how the surroundings turned out, I'd say 10e's are more properly exposed (look at keyboard) as opposed to funkdancers (see startbar). Keep in mind as you increase the exposure, you'll compound the actual difference...

As an aside: 10e, what keyboard are you using. It just looks really sweet in your second picture.

 

[Funkdancer]

As NCX says, exposure is on the high side - I was mainly focusing on getting the artefacts to show up, and it should be taken as that. The bleed does indeed show up, but the overall effect is made more somewhat more dramatic than it should be.

The bleed on the centre screen is pretty offensive during normal use, especially at night with two halogen desk lamps (20w ones) on either side of the setup, viewing dark pictures - and one CFD lamp behind. The right screen is much less offensive, in the realm of what I'd find acceptable - not ideal, but ok.

Please see my pictures in light of that; it was my first take, and I didn't quite expect this result (on the forum). I will take new shots tonight - run lower iso for less noise, on tripod, and try to make shutter speed more representative. Nothing I can do about the sensor dust though.

If it weren't for the bleed spots, I'd be in utter heaven - when viewing brighter material, I find the whites and general colours fantastic - and I haven't even calibrated the screen yet. I was never 100% happy with the whites on the 2407WFP-HC; horrific pre-calibration, much better after but to get this out of the box makes me happy. I also like the SRGB colour space, coming from the HC.

 

[khwain]

Hey funkdancer, if you take more pictures, could you black out your left monitor too? The blue bar is actually kind of distracting when you're trying to show your blb. The other things you mentioned should help a lot too.
Thanks

 

[Funkdancer]

<snip>
Big difference!

I'd say a 1/2 second to second exposure with ISO no greater than 200 to start.

Thanks! Yours looks great, especially your original shot - which is a fair notch up from the best of mine. I appreciate the effort in taking the above shots. I'd say your high exposure shots ended up being more exposed than mine, but looking much better due to use of stand - but will see what I can churn out tonight @ 200 (my Camera's minimum) @ 0.5s/1.8.
I updated to Picasa instead of Flickr, and Picasa doesn't report on all the EXIF data (e.g. ISO) - annoying. Will use Flickr next.

I also love my Subaru

If you wish to return them, the good part is you won't get a refurbished unit, because there probably aren't any refurbished ones in stock.

Outback == much love!
Yes, I am considering returning all three as it'd expedite / improve my lottery chances - my best is not as good as yours, I can see that clearly.

Hey funkdancer, if you take more pictures, could you black out your left monitor too? The blue bar is actually kind of distracting when you're trying to show your blb. The other things you mentioned should help a lot too.

Will do - I'll make sure to put a proper black image on and turn off the monitors not being photographed. Also I'll take some more realistic low light usage photos (galaxy backgrounds) including keyboards. Might have to clean up my desk..

 

[william_fontaine]

@10e

Sorry but I cant take you seriously. In my opinion it is obvious that you are payed by Dell to promote this screen. You consistently negligate negative aspects of this screen. In your review you have a comparisonpic where you compare white glow NEC vs Dell and show the NEC from an angled position. Classic trick to make a screen appear worse than it actually is which of course fool the reader to believe that the Dell is better than it actually is.

It is also intresting that you constantly choose to show blacks on the Dell when brightness set to 0 and takes pics with ridicolous short exposure time. Obviously that give a very false view to the reader how the screen actually are.

LOL oled, you are a joke.

 

[Oled]

Centre screen - very strong backlight bleed top left (and some bottom right)

Left screen, strong backlight bleed top left and bottom right

Right screen - backlight bleed is much more moderate

.

If you could take some more pics it would be nice.

 

[Revrak]

this is absurd, oled keeps editing his comments just like the previous troll, now he quotes the images and moves them to a new post so they get more views

 

[khwain]

Let's please let that rest. More people should be getting their units in the next couple days and Funkdancer said he will try to get better photos. Until then, meh

 

[Funkdancer]

Yeah, what's the point of that? I've already said new will be taken, so it's rather redundant. I may have to take the existing ones down, even though it'd look a bit silly if I did. (Or would it?)

 

[TharkunX]

Hello 10e,

I've been looking for info on monitors for 2 weeks now, and there seems to always be something wrong (especially in my price range)

It will be mostly used for .Net development, but also for games.

After the first week of searching, I thought I'd chose the Benq V2400W (after reading your review, mostly), since it seems to be pretty good in most areas.

While looking for more info on Dell u2410 (which is too expensive for my current budget), I found out about the U2412M.
I've been following this thread for a week, and I almost made up my mind to get this one, but I'd like to have your input, since you used both the V2400W and the U2412M.

I can buy the V2400W for 300€ and the U2412M for 350€ (they don't seem to do discounts or coupons on monitors in Belgium unfortunately).

I'm in favor of the latter due to the IPS screen and the fact that it still seems useable for games (low input lag and response time).

Could you please tell me how you'd compare the 2? I'm guessing the U2412M is a better choice, even considering the price difference, right?

Also, does anyone know of a way to get discounts on it from Belgium, by any chance?

Thanks !

 

[10e]

...This is ridiculous. Look at 10e's pictures. Dell on left, NEC on right. The top edge of the NEC is fairly flat (so it's fairly straight on), whereas the dell is notably slanted (not straight on). Also given from how the surroundings turned out, I'd say 10e's are more properly exposed (look at keyboard) as opposed to funkdancers (see startbar). Keep in mind as you increase the exposure, you'll compound the actual difference...

As an aside: 10e, what keyboard are you using. It just looks really sweet in your second picture.

Logitech Illuminated Keyboard ----> http://www.logitech.com/en-ca/keyboards/keyboard/devices/4740

Yeah, what's the point of that? I've already said new will be taken, so it's rather redundant. I may have to take the existing ones down, even though it'd look a bit silly if I did. (Or would it?)

You can leave them and just update with the new settings. No big deal.

I knew exactly what your intention was > to amplify the issues. If mine had the amount of bleed I think you have, I'd be on the phone with Dell support.

The only reason I mentioned trying new setting was to put it into perspective and compare it with what I have.

Hello 10e,

I've been looking for info on monitors for 2 weeks now, and there seems to always be something wrong (especially in my price range)

It will be mostly used for .Net development, but also for games.

After the first week of searching, I thought I'd chose the Benq V2400W (after reading your review, mostly), since it seems to be pretty good in most areas.

While looking for more info on Dell u2410 (which is too expensive for my current budget), I found out about the U2412M.
I've been following this thread for a week, and I almost made up my mind to get this one, but I'd like to have your input, since you used both the V2400W and the U2412M.

I can buy the V2400W for 300&#8364; and the U2412M for 350&#8364; (they don't seem to do discounts or coupons on monitors in Belgium unfortunately).

I'm in favor of the latter due to the IPS screen and the fact that it still seems useable for games (low input lag and response time).

Could you please tell me how you'd compare the 2? I'm guessing the U2412M is a better choice, even considering the price difference, right?

Also, does anyone know of a way to get discounts on it from Belgium, by any chance?

Thanks !

Dell Pros:

1) Better Stand - Height adjustable, pivots and rotates
2) IPS panel has much better viewing angles except on blacks
3) Lower lag, better response time, very little reverse ghosting
4) W-LED backlight is instantly bright
5) Two USB ports built in

Dell Cons:

1) Black mirror glow can be bothersome if looking at many dark images (typical of IPS panels) and creeps in from corners
2) Slightly more visible anti-glare coating than the V2400W that shows up in a slight crystalline effect. It's not as strong as other screens but it is more pronounced than the V2400W
V2400W Pros:

1) Accurate factory colors
2) Low input lag, decent response time
3) Great aspect ratio support (more important for consoles and disc players over HDMI)

V2400W Cons:

1) Overdrive / RTC over amplified causing obvious reverse ghost effects
2) Older screen, discontinued in many markets
3) Not very bright from start and will get darker over time due to CCFL backlighting.
4) Dark screens, when viewed from above, show lightening

Over all I'd take the higher quality IPS panel in the U2412M. Like I said, the V2400W is pretty much discontinued, which is sad, because it was one of the last great 1920x1200 TN screens IMHO.