Why is the dell 2007fp more expensive then the widescreen version - dell 2007fpw

A

AY786

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
324
I have a dell 2001fp and i noticed a while ago that on both the Dell.com and the Dell.co.uk website that this was more expensive then the widescreen version - Dell 2005fpw.

Now with the new range the Dell 2007fp is still more expensive then the dell 2007fpw - does anyone know why? You would think the widescreen version would be more expensive.

Dell.com prices -
dell 2007fp = $489.00
dell 2007wfp = £367.20

Dell.co.uk prices -
dell 2007fp = £472.35
dell 2007fpw = £437.10
 
That was kind of incorrect. Here is the corrected link:
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?62f2d866ac06ac7b1ccabf824d6ecd29

Simple reason. The regular 4:3 screen is bigger. Has both more area and more pixels. So it will cost more to build and should be more to purchase.
___4:3: 194 sq inches, 1.92 Million Pixels
_16:10: 181 sq inches, 1.74 Milliong Pixels

The odd thing being that in Canada, since the release of these monitors, the 16:10 has been more expenisve than the 4:3.
 
Snowdog said:
The odd thing being that in Canada, since the release of these monitors, the 16:10 has been more expenisve than the 4:3.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're charging according to the "vibe"? The "OOhhh and AAhhh" factor about being able to watch widescreen movies and view panomaric(sp?) images.
 
err...im pretty sure its because they sell wayyy more widescreen versions. thus driving up the cost for the "niche" who still wants the stardard 4:3 display
 
AY786 said:
I have a dell 2001fp and i noticed a while ago that on both the Dell.com and the Dell.co.uk website that this was more expensive then the widescreen version - Dell 2005fpw.

Now with the new range the Dell 2007fp is still more expensive then the dell 2007fpw - does anyone know why? You would think the widescreen version would be more expensive.

Dell.com prices -
dell 2007fp = $489.00
dell 2007wfp = £367.20

Dell.co.uk prices -
dell 2007fp = £472.35
dell 2007fpw = £437.10
Click to expand...

The 4:3 has both more pixels and more physical area.
 
DuyNgn said:
Maybe they're charging according to the "vibe"? The "OOhhh and AAhhh" factor about being able to watch widescreen movies and view panomaric(sp?) images.
Click to expand...

I can still do this on my 4:3 as there is not that much difference in width.

Personally I want them to build a 2:39:1 screen for watching movies. As almost every movie I am interested in was shot in 2:39:1 (called 2:35 but the actual ratio is 2:39). So you get massive black bars on 16:10 and even 16:9 screens.
 
Snowdog said:
I can still do this on my 4:3 as there is not that much difference in width.

Personally I want them to build a 2:39:1 screen for watching movies. As almost every movie I am interested in was shot in 2:39:1 (called 2:35 but the actual ratio is 2:39). So you get massive black bars on 16:10 and even 16:9 screens.
Click to expand...

Not exactly an LCD, but here ya go. I wish I could afford a constant height setup--no more black bars ever, regardless of material aspect ratio.
 
It is not the screen that worries me, it is the price of a constant height projector.

Aspect ratios sure are a mess though.
 
You can effiecently cut more panels out of a gen. 6 or 7 piece of glass for the wide screen 20 inch monitors than 4:3 20 inch
 
Because of the panel, when cutting the panel in manufactory, the wide screen panel cutting left more than a normal panel. So the cost is lower than non-WS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top