![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dell U2412M
- Thread starter brod
- Start date
I don't need or want wide gamut, so why pay the extra cash?
chains_of_andromeda
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5
mm very very interested in this monitor, the Dell rep I chatted with wouldn't budge on the price though..
1. I don't need wide gamut for anything
2. My credit limit is 750 :x (for 2 monitors...)
3. I was originally going for the 2311/2211, but the extra price for the 2412 was worth it for the extra vertical space.
50% more contrast and spending 200$ to make colors look unatural when you have no use for wide gamut is silly?
That's the response I was looking for. So people were raving about how awesome the U2410 was and how it was the best 24 inch IPS hands down with its 8 bit panel and wide gamut. Now People it seems are saying the U2412 with its 6 bit panel and standard gamut is better, when all along people were saying stay away from anything 6 bit they suck, go for 8 bit only. How the tables have turned....
hey 10e, thank you from me as well for the review and your posts about 2412M - you've sold me (just have to wait probably a few months before it becomes available for purchase over here in Croatia)
The only thing which could be problem is the pricing - right now, new U2410s are sold at Dell's reseller here for nothing less than $700 so... I kind of expect the 2412 will be priced similarly)
cheers
In Canada the U2412M is cheaper by $200.00. I hope that is the case in Croatia. The European countries pay even more than Canadians, and we already pay too much
Don't feel bad. I paid $399.99 Canadian for mine, and the Canadian dollar is worth more than the USD right now. Early adopters always get the shaft.
I'm gonna change my handle to Alain Prost. I used to love F1, but have lost interest since the early 2000s.
I skimmed the sneak preview
+Decent colors with the factory settings (6200k temp, 2.09 gamma) the other settings are awful
+0.9ms of input lag and no ghosting
+No banding: 8 bit elitists can GTFO
+Good viewing angles as to be expected
-Contrast never goes above 800:1 (750:1 calibrated) which is less than average= mediocre
-Stretches 16:9 content when used with external devices
Yay more panel lottery garbage from LG, so be prepared. The Asus ML239H Prad revived had a 200:1 contrast ratio while TFT centrals was 800:1. Hopefully the 2412's won't have such wild variances but I wouldn't put it past LG looking at this years models.
+Decent colors with the factory settings (6200k temp, 2.09 gamma) the other settings are awful
+0.9ms of input lag and no ghosting
+No banding: 8 bit elitists can GTFO
+Good viewing angles as to be expected
-Contrast never goes above 800:1 (750:1 calibrated) which is less than average= mediocre
-Stretches 16:9 content when used with external devices
Yay more panel lottery garbage from LG, so be prepared. The Asus ML239H Prad revived had a 200:1 contrast ratio while TFT centrals was 800:1. Hopefully the 2412's won't have such wild variances but I wouldn't put it past LG looking at this years models.
Last edited:
If only it was 1920x1080, eh?
Don't see what's mediocre about it. Not the best looking monitor for sure, at least going by pictures, but 800:1 contrast is still good, it's 1920x1200 and it's IPS so you don't have to deal with uneven colors and poor viewing angles of TN panels. For the price it seems like a very good option in fact.
Please don't tempt him or anyone to go down this road again... it's almost like a program that got stuck in an infinite loop with a printf inside it. There are enough threads about this discussing it already, just lige AG coatings, gamma shifts and whatnotIf only it was 1920x1080, eh?
Don't get why NCX is so negatively biased and insulting about this either... wonder what kind of words he'll use to describe it, if it turned out that the U2412 was identical to U2410, just with a higher price tag.
But it seems like people are forgetting the low price tag of this monitor in comparison to the U2410.
* No HDMI
* Low quality e-IPS panel
* 6 bit panel (U2711H is 8 bit)
* Low contrast (750:1 calibrated which is less than average= mediocre)
* Stretches 16:9 content when used with external devices
* Not Windows 8 ready
* Mediocre response time (8 ms)
Last edited:
Fair points. I would guess most people interested in such monitor won't find it an issue though.
e-IPS and 6bit does not = low quality. Taking 10e's measurements into account, even with the fairly normal panel varience, contrast is still better than the U2410 and possibly the HP ZR24w. Also both Prad and 10e say the response time is fine.
What does that actually mean?
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.
If Oled want's to make it turn out entirely negative that is his choice not mine. Also the LG panel lottery stuff is also true this year, read all the EA232/IPS236V/231p/ML239H and now 2412 reviews and see there are wild variances in quality compared to last years models and this years ST2220T which were all pretty consistent across reviews.
Not Windows 8 ready? It's a monitor, not a piece of software.
Do you have a link for this sneak preview?
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 have calibrated a bunch of monitors and had them side by side, I see a big difference between 100:1 and 800:1. It is just a matter of putting 2 side by side to see the difference. I find once the black level goes higher than 0.15@120cdm/2 black starts to look greyish and colors very dull, especially when placed next to a CRT or CPVA
I would see a big difference between 100:1 and 800:1 as well.
CPVA is 3000:1 which is a far cry from 800:1.
CRT is even higher contrast. For a while I had a CRT next to my LCD. In the dark the CRT was far ahead. It's blacks were nearly invisible in the dark. But again in lit room it's blacks actually looked inferior to LCD, because the way room light lit up the CRT screen and the LCD was brighter.
In a normally room it is a non issue. You are just making mountains out of molehills.
kevinsbane
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 269
Snowdog, are you referring to something like this when talking about ambient lighting affecting contrast ratio on CRT? I remember noticing that my old CRT was not really *black* when the lights were on, but it's been years since I had a CRT.
senna, on AG:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037590611&postcount=401
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037586344&postcount=380
senna, on AG:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037590611&postcount=401
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037586344&postcount=380
I've had 0.13 next to 0.15 and the difference is noticeable with the lights on, turn them off and it is even bigger. My CRT does 0.08 @ 110cdm/2 and again there was a big difference next to 0.12 on an LCD with almost no bleeding at the same brightness. Certain colors also look much better on a CRT/glossy panel vs light AG coating on my CPVA, especially whites and light blues+browns. How people can deal with super low contrast and aggressive ag coating is beyond me.
Just click on prads review page and you can see the 2412 review is up for subscribers
Just click on prads review page and you can see the 2412 review is up for subscribers
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
That is exactly what I saw with my CRT next to my LCD. Turn of the lights and watch a movie and reversed dramatically with black levels that were invisible. But in a normally lit room it is a non issue.
inputlagplz
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6
do you really think windows will only allow 16:9 aspect ratio?
its not going to happen, may besomeone got it wrong, or maybe its just for the tablet ui....
but not for desktop computers, it would be the most retarded thing ever
Windows 8 will work with 4:3 and 16:10 as well but 16:9 is recommended.
If you intend to use Linux I would consider 16:10 and 4:3 but not in Windows 8.
inputlagplz
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6
as i said, its probably just for the new tablet interface, its not going to be an issue at all for desktop.
Doesnt sound wise to take a chance there.
Even if you want to take a chance, if you intend to play games 16:9 is better.
My recommendations
Will you play games? Buy 16:9 monitor
Will you use Windows 8 in the future? Buy 16:9 monitor
Will you use Linux mostly? Consider both 16:9 and 16:10
kevinsbane
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 269
I don't get it. I don't see anything that defines "Windows 8 Ready" other than that it "requires a 1366x768 screen". Does that mean that 95%+ of current computer monitors are not windows 8 ready?
I look at my super low contrast... I look at my aggressive ag coating... see it for about 30 seconds, then forget about it when I get back to work. It bothered me a lot when I was using a U1905fp alongside a U2311H, that the U1905fp looked like crap next to the U2311h. When I was using 2x U1905fp's, it didn't bother me in the slightest that they looked terrible. The only time it has bothered me is when I've been using two different screens at one time. Otherwise, I don't think I could care less about contrast ratio or aggressive ag since I simply stop thinking about it since there isn't a comparison. I lose more time looking at my desktop and appreciating the picture quality of my background than I do worrying about how my aggressive AG coating is ruining my pictures.
"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/