U2412HM is 16:9 !

O

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
"Dell are set to release a new 24" monitor in their ever-popular UltraSharp series later this year. The U2412HM will be the replacement for the U2410 monitor and is the latest in their refresh program which usually takes place every 1 - 2 years.

We don't have full information about this screen yet, but we do know that the U2412HM is expected to be 16:9 format, and so a break from their previous 16:10 format models (the 'H' in the name signifies 16:9 aspect screens). It will feature a full 1920 x 1080 resolution of course and will be White-LED backlit. As with all their recent UltraSharp models the screen will use IPS panel technology."
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/23.htm#dell_u2412h_1

Great news indeed. I really was looking for a 24 inch 16:9 with IPS panel!
 
I don't buy it. The information is either incorrect or the "U2412HM" is not a replacement for the U2410.

Just wait for more information.
 
Neither do I.
As I wrote in the other thread, why have three screens so closely matching in size and with identical resolutions? I never understood the point of the U2211H when the U2311H was around, especially not considering the low difference in price. The U2211H is rarely discussed here, it seems.
 
A 16:9 24" UltraShrap LED Monitor is a joke. Pure marketing.
I'll get a U3011 and stick with that for a long time. Not interested in LED for a IPS Panel.
 
450 said:
Why is LED a bad combination with IPS?
Click to expand...

Different light tech give different colors, could be very warm or cool.
Also uneven light/color distribution and tint. Dell could make a good effort but CCFL has been proven and no need to change it.
LED is fine for TN panels but for IPS panels, light/color accuracy is number one priority over energy consumption.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Different light tech give different colors, could be very warm or cool.
Also uneven light/color distribution and tint. Dell could make a good effort but CCFL has been proven and no need to change it.
LED is fine for TN panels but for IPS panels, light/color accuracy is number one priority over energy consumption.
Click to expand...

Technically shouldn't LED lighting be more uniform than a CCFL?
 
WorldExclusive said:
Different light tech give different colors, could be very warm or cool.
Also uneven light/color distribution and tint. Dell could make a good effort but CCFL has been proven and no need to change it.
LED is fine for TN panels but for IPS panels, light/color accuracy is number one priority over energy consumption.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't realize LED could be a negative.

Thanks for the information.
 
Meh, they should have went with something like 1920x960. An even wider display with less vertical space, what's there not to like?
 
Khanmots said:
http://reviews.cnet.com/2795-6482_7-399.html

Most everything these days is being done as edge-lit as it allows for thinner panels (yay marketing!) and is probably cheaper to do.
Click to expand...

Edge-lit is the problem and monitor manufactures aren't specifying if they are edge-lit or full-array.
The edges will be brighter and cause uneven colors/tint. Also the IPS panel type could affect color accuracy. H-IPS > All other IPS types.
Don't let thinner energy efficient monitors substitute quality for the same price. Inferior colors and 16:9, a good way to cut cost and charge the consumer the same price.
 
WorldExclusive, is there big difference between S-IPS and H-IPS?
 
450 said:
WorldExclusive, is there big difference between S-IPS and H-IPS?
Click to expand...

He doesn't know what he is talking about. There are almost no consumer IPS panels outside of H-IPS, and the ones that aren't H-IPS probably have even stricter requirements.
 
450 said:
WorldExclusive, is there big difference between S-IPS and H-IPS?
Click to expand...

H-IPS info. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/ips_technologies.htm

TFT Central has this up on the new Dell models, the 2412M will be an e-ips panel, so I don't think it's a replacement for the higher end oriented u2410, we'll probably see the 2410 stick around, or a another U2412 ( no M )

TFTCENTRAL said:
We don't have full information about this screen yet, but we do know that the U2412HM is expected to be 16:9 format, and so a break from their previous 16:10 format models (the 'H' in the name signifies 16:9 aspect screens). It will feature a full 1920 x 1080 resolution of course and will be White-LED backlit. As with all their recent UltraSharp models the screen will use IPS panel technology. This will be e-IPS classification which is signified by the 'M' in the product name, and being W-LED backlit the screen will be standard gamut. It is expected to offer a coverage of ~80% of the NTSC colour space. This is obviously a change from the wide gamut U2410 but is in line with current market trends. Details about features and other specs are not known at this time but this must also be a new IPS panel from LG.Display since at the moment they do not have a 16:9 format IPS module listed. The screen will also remain with a matte AG coating and they will not be reverting to glossy coating at all. We know the screens will feature DVI-D and DisplayPort connections but the rest of the interface options are not known yet.
Click to expand...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
H-IPS aligns the sub-pixels horizontally, hence the H, it's a new generation of S-IPS as well. It improves on S-IPS, reducing glow being one of the feats :p.

TFT Central has this up on the new Dell models, the 2412M will be an e-ips panel, so I don't think it's a replacement for the higher end oriented u2410, we'll probably see the 2410 stick around, or a another U2412 ( no M )
Click to expand...

No, the sub-pixels are sequenced vertically. All that is needed to know about H-IPS is that it is more efficient than older designs.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
No, the sub-pixels are sequenced vertically. All that is needed to know about H-IPS is that it is more efficient than older designs.
Click to expand...

I just quoted TFT Central :p don't shoot the messenger, I already removed it anyway and just posted the link for people to read.

newer generation of S-IPS panels, this time with a slightly different pixel alignment and setup giving rise to the name 'Horizontal IPS'. Pixels are orientated in straight vertical lines with a slightly smaller electrode width. Close inspection of modern IPS panels can show this new H-IPS pixel structure, although not all manufacturers refer to their models as featuring an H-IPS panel. Indeed, LG.Display don't really make reference to this H-IPS version, although from a technical point of view, most modern IPS panels are H-IPS in format. NEC have referred to H-IPS in their recent panel specs for models such as the 2690WXUi2 and 3090WUXi.
Click to expand...
 
450 said:
Death of 1920x1200. :(
Click to expand...

Because 1080p (1920x1080) is a standard. Monitor resolutions like 16:10 have never been standardized, so they're dying out as more and more 16:9 panels are being made for TVs, etc. It was inevitable.
 
djBon2112 said:
Because 1080p (1920x1080) is a standard. Monitor resolutions like 16:10 have never been standardized, so they're dying out as more and more 16:9 panels are being made for TVs, etc. It was inevitable.
Click to expand...

Yes it has. 16:10 is a standard. It was standardised by the Standard Panels Working Group.
 
Oled said:
1920x1080 is better for most uses so people should be happy.
Click to expand...
1920x1080 is a cheaper cut, and that's the only reason 16:10 is dying out. This has been confirmed with trustworthy sources in several threads, and many a post also dictate that 16:10 is better for pretty much everything if you aren't a "blackbarophobe".

djBon2112 said:
Because 1080p (1920x1080) is a standard. Monitor resolutions like 16:10 have never been standardized, so they're dying out as more and more 16:9 panels are being made for TVs, etc. It was inevitable.
Click to expand...
Sad but (partially) true (see below). Due to the cheaper cut and (as argued in another thread) 1080p being a middle ground between twice the vertical resolution of NTSC (480p) and PAL (576p), 16:9 became the standard over 16:10.

Oled said:
16:10 was standard.
16:9 is standard.
Click to expand...
16:10 is a standard. It's a matter of semantics, but both aspect ratios are standards, however 16:9 is cheaper to produce. An example of an aspect ratio which is not a standard would be 16:5 or something like that. Such aspect ratios are rare, if not non-existent.
 
garbagemule said:
1920x1080 is a cheaper cut, and that's the only reason 16:10 is dying out. This has been confirmed with trustworthy sources in several threads, and many a post also dictate that 16:10 is better for pretty much everything if you aren't a "blackbarophobe".
Click to expand...
People dont want black bars. If you pay money for a monitor you want to be able to use it. The very noticable backlight bleed for many screens makes it even more important to get rid of them.

1920x1080 is better because you pay for the pixels you use. Not for the pixels you dont use. U2412HM will become much cheaper than if it would have been a 16:10 monitor so now most people will be able to buy U2412HM instead of U2312HM.

....and the rich people should buy U2711H.
 
Oled said:
People dont want black bars. If you pay money for a monitor you want to be able to use it. The very noticable backlight bleed for many screens makes it even more important to get rid of them.

1920x1080 is better because you pay for the pixels you use. Not for the pixels you dont use. U2412HM will become much cheaper than if it would have been a 16:10 monitor so now most people will be able to buy U2412HM instead of U2312HM.
Click to expand...

Can you stop being foolish? 16:10 has much better properties for creative applications, which the U2410 is targeted at.

See http://www.veritasetvisus.com/images/Newsletters/VVDS-30+31,%20February%202009.pdf

The argument that 16:9 panels are optimal because of 16:9 content is accurate – but highly misleading. In fact, the
fast majority of PC-content is better suited for 16:10 solutions. One purpose for going to wide aspect ratios, for
example, is to conveniently enable two-page viewing of documents on a single screen. A 16:10 screen enables this
quite well, while a 16:9 screen forces the images to shrink to a much smaller portion of the screen. The tradeoffs
Click to expand...

- From someone who was personally involved in the creation of 16:10. You cannot seriously argue against what is presented here. Just deal with it.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
Yes it has. 16:10 is a standard. It was standardised by the Standard Panels Working Group.
Click to expand...
Just a link to back up this statement. Page 6 mentions aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:10. As you can see, the document is from 2007, and there is nothing about 16:9. Another similar report dates back to 2005 with similar content. So according to this, 16:10 was the standard before 16:9 was introduced, and thus a standard.
 
Oled said:
That magazine is from February 2009. The development in this field goes quickly and in May 2011 16:9 is better for most tasks.
Click to expand...

Where is your source to prove that less vertical space is better for most tasks in May 2011 than it was in February 2009? Without trustworthy sources, and in the knowledge of your strong bias, your method of debate can only be classified as sophism. I hope you (and incautious readers) are aware of this.
 
Oled said:
That magazine is from February 2009. The development in this field goes quickly and in May 2011 16:9 is better for most tasks.
Click to expand...

No seriously. If you don't want to be treated like a crank on this forum, you are going to have to bring out sources for your claims.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
No seriously. If you don't want to be treated like a crank on this forum, you are going to have to bring out sources for your claims.
Click to expand...

One of many sources. I dont have time to post them all now. Will do that later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

Also have the development for webbrowers in mind. They look different now compared to February 2009. Less vertical space needed now.

2009
ie8Accelerator_web.jpg


2011
ie9_main_934.jpg


Youtube has went from 4:3 to 16:9. More available TV now than 2009.
 
Last edited:
OLED please drop the 16:9 crap, the only time you'll see black bars is on movies / tv shows, which you will still see on 2.35:1 movies anyway while using a 16:9 screen.

16:10 is very close to the golden ratio, which makes it better, end of discussion :p
 
Oled said:
one of many links. I dont have time to post them all now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
Click to expand...

You said most tasks. All of your links are going to be about FOV in video games. Without assessing the merit of this, you have not addressed what you claimed. Demonstrate how 16:9 is equal or superior to 16:10 for most tasks, including actual tasks involving income, like CAD and graphic work.
 
Oled said:
One of many sources. I dont have time to post them all now. Will do that later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

Also check the development for webbrowers. They look different now compared to 2009. Less vertical space needed now.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that one Wikipedia-article you keep bringing up, which actually proves you wrong. I quote:
Anamorphic scaling can be forced if a HOR+ game runs in a 16:9 resolution on a 16:10 or 4:3 monitor because most modern graphics cards allow monitors to maintain the aspect ratio of resolutions in games.
Click to expand...

As for your second argument, absolute twaddle. Consider the popularity of blogs. Give me a link to one popular blog that benefits more from a wider screen than a taller screen.
 
Don't mind him.. We've had this discussion about a dozen times already and all ended with the conclusion that 16:9 is preferable for some things, while 16:10 is preferable for other things. But from the general wording of the replies and title of this thread, it still seems like he didn't get it. So the chances that this thread will help anything are approaching 0%. :p
 
tk-don said:
Don't mind him.. We've had this discussion about a dozen times already and all ended with the conclusion that 16:9 is preferable for some things, while 16:10 is preferable for other things. But from the general wording of the replies and title of this thread, it still seems like he didn't get it. So the chances that this thread will help anything are approaching 0%. :p
Click to expand...

The problem is that he isn't stating opinions, but making fallacious claims. He didn't say "I think 16:9 is better" or "16:9 is better for me", but straight out "16:9 is better for most tasks" - a claim he has no evidence to back up. Opinions are fine, fallacious claims - not so much.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
You said most tasks. All of your links are going to be about FOV in video games. Without assessing the merit of this, you have not addressed what you claimed. Demonstrate how 16:9 is equal or superior to 16:10 for most tasks, including actual tasks involving income, like CAD and graphic work.
Click to expand...

Allready demonstrated for movies and games.

For CAD and graphic work 16:9 is better because of higher resolution.
 
garbagemule said:
1920x1200 > 1920x1080
2560x1600 > 2560x1440
Click to expand...

Strange comparisons.

I trust reliable sources.

"16:9 Panels Replace Mainstream 16:10 Notebook PC and Monitor LCD Panels, New DisplaySearch Topical Report Advises

The report reveals the driving forces behind the forecast:
* 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio.
* Innovative product concepts will drive a new product cycle stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market.
* 16:9 provides better economic cut (panelization) in existing TFT LCD fabs.
* The widespread adoption of High Definition in the consumer entertainment sector will help end users readily adopt the new products with the wider aspect ratio.
* The new 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products."
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rd...6E59/displaysearch/hs.xsl/070108_16by9_PR.asp
 
Oled said:
The report reveals the driving forces behind the forecast:
* 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

While this does not elaborate, I think it indicates that the transition from an average monitor resolution of 1680*1050 and 1440*900 to 1920*1080 is coincident with the move from 16:10 to 16:9, Which is exactly what happened since 2008.

Average monitor resolution has always been increasing, irrespective of what aspect ratio is being transitioned in. It is an interesting topic, but unless you inform me further, I am thinking that you just googled that page, because it only makes sense in the context of a market forecast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top