U2711 vs U2410

C

Cycloptersaurus

n00b
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
49
Okay, so I’m currently using a Viewsonic vx2025wm, which has worked well enough for me in the past, but I’m getting a lot more into photography lately, as well as web/graphic design and some video editing, so I’m looking to get something more accurate (and bigger too). I’m trying to decide between these two monitors. I do game as well, but I haven’t as much recently. Though, with StarCraft 2 right around the corner, I am definitely going to get back into it.

The extra size of the 2711 would be nice, as would the resolution, especially for editing 1080p video and high resolution images. For gaming it might be a problem, since my computer isn’t top-of-the line anymore, but I guess I could scale up?

Obviously price is a factor. I could afford the 2711 but if I could get the same quality for much cheaper, I think I’d go that route. Though I’ve been hearing people complain about color accuracy and weird tints and such with the U2410. But I also heard that some of those problems have been corrected since it came out and thus is perhaps better than some old reviews indicate? I don’t know. If I were to get a 2711 today, would it really be that much better, as far as quality and accuracy than a 2410 that I could get today?
 
The 2711s main advantage is resolution and pixel density. Otherwise its pretty much the same kind of ips panel you would expect. It comes down to what is more important , resolution or cost.

Your choice.
 
Both are poor choices. Image Quality>>>>Size especially sense the U2311 is way better and alot cheaper, this is a fact. I truly feel sorry for any one who gets the U2410 now because they refuse to change to 16:9 or loose an inch or 2 when changing from a 24" 16:10 to a 23" 16:9.
 
Well again resolution is an advantage and they aren't poor choices , both are quality monitors. The U2311 does have better black level but resolution means alot more to certain people.
 
NCX said:
Both are poor choices. Image Quality>>>>Size especially sense the U2311 is way better and alot cheaper, this is a fact. I truly feel sorry for any one who gets the U2410 now because they refuse to change to 16:9 or loose an inch or 2 when changing from a 24" 16:10 to a 23" 16:9.
Click to expand...

If your talking about image quality than the U2140 would have better quality than the U2311.

The U2311 is not the same IPS as the U2140 has. e-IPS =/= H-IPS. e-IPS has several filters remove to use cheaper back lighting. In some sense it can be consider the "budget" IPS panel. I do not know where you come off thinking an e-IPS is way better than a H-IPS.

Side by side I can see some differences between the U2311 and the U2140. Both are great panels though Dell's U2311 has some slight graininess.

Your comment earlier that the U2311 has better contrast ratio hardly means much. These days manufacturer twist their words around to say such extreme contrast ratio. You can read up some more on it here:

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html

You may not find 16:10 useful but there are many people who do. So I do not understand why you feel truly sorry. I for one would like to upgrade my 2408wfp to the U2140. Yes it cost more than the U2311 but I find it worth it.
 
Last edited:
Obviously I'm not talking about Dynamic Contrast:rolleyes: In your attempt to make me look stupid please take note that the Dell U2410 claims to have a DCR of 80,000:1 vs the U2311's 10,000:1.

Dell U2311 has a calibrated 857:1 contrast ratio @ 120cd/m2 vs the Dell U2410's medicore contrast of 541:1 contrast @ 119cd/2 according to TFT Central. Not to mention the obviously deeper blacks on the U2311

Dell U2410
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2410.htm

Dell U2311
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2311h.htm

So yes I feel sorry for anyone who would willingly PAY to sacrifice Image Quality for Size when it's only an inch or 2.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
So yes I feel sorry for anyone who would PAY to sacrifice Image Quality for Size when it's only an inch or 2. I
Click to expand...

Not everyone feels contrast ratio is so important. 500:1 is plenty for me, and many others. For that matter, accurately measuring contrast ratio at reasonable brightness is rather difficult with regular colorimiters, they suck at dark measurements and do not have a great deal of precision so a small mis measurement can lead to a large ratio difference.

Regardless, CR is not the be-all, end-all. I've not seen a 2311 so I can't render a verdict but it would not surprise me to find out that the 2410 has superior colour and probably a less grainy image (due to H-IPS having larger subpixels). Is that worth it? depends on the individual. However trying to say "The 2311 has higher CR therefore is better," is silly. It's got a higher CR than my NEC 2690 but you are on drugs if you think it is a better image overall.
 
Last edited:
U2711 is great, I upgraded from a TN 24" and love it, even though its really only about 3 inches wider than my old TN (because of the 16:9) ratio. If you use it for gaming I would say go for the U2711 over the 2410 or 2311, the colors and resolution are amazing.

and most numbers like contract and brightness (especially brightness) are just marketing crap, why do they all make these monitors up to 350-400 brightness when you really should be using it at about 120 brightness for most tasks (including photo editing), gaming looks fine at 200 brightness...
 
NCX said:
I hope the OP will realize this, ignore the crap in this thread and save some $$..
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I came on kinda hard. I apologize for that. However overall comparing the U2311 to U2410 is like comparing apples to oranges.

The U2311 is a pretty fine monitor especially for the price but that doesn't deem the U2410 as crap at all.

OP refer to himself as a photo/video editor and the better uniformity from the U2140 would serve him greatly.

Not only that but it is very difficult to even purchase the U2311 thanks to the whole slickdeals.net craze when it was release.
 
Last edited:
i thought the u2410 had less input lag than the u2311h, am i wrong?
 
Godmachine said:
The 2711s main advantage is resolution and pixel density. Otherwise its pretty much the same kind of ips panel you would expect. It comes down to what is more important , resolution or cost.

Your choice.
Click to expand...

according to prad.de the 2711 custom mode works properly so you can do initial R,G,B balance internally leaving you with less banding after final calibration and profiling.
 
Sycraft said:
Not everyone feels contrast ratio is so important. 500:1 is plenty for me, and many others. For that matter, accurately measuring contrast ratio at reasonable brightness is rather difficult with regular colorimiters, they suck at dark measurements and do not have a great deal of precision so a small mis measurement can lead to a large ratio difference.

Regardless, CR is not the be-all, end-all. I've not seen a 2311 so I can't render a verdict but it would not surprise me to find out that the 2410 has superior colour and probably a less grainy image (due to H-IPS having larger subpixels). Is that worth it? depends on the individual. However trying to say "The 2311 has higher CR therefore is better," is silly. It's got a higher CR than my NEC 2690 but you are on drugs if you think it is a better image overall.
Click to expand...

colorimeters usually do better than spectrophotometers in the dark shades

eyeone pro does worse in the really dark shades than a DTP94b

also they usually measure the overall intensity better than the color balance so even if the color balance measurements are off the intensity measured might still be somewhat close, at the very least they should be fine in giving a rough idea of relative black levels and one can easily see that some top s-pva in an hdtv might have say roughly 0.020 blacks while some photo IPS might have 0.15 when both are set to the same white brightness, even if the difference is not exact it is still clear that one has way deeper blacks (and visually confirmation is instantaneous).

In almost every respect your NEC has better image quality but it does lag behind a the Dell in properly showing deep blacks and lags incredibly far behind a top modern HDTV in that regard. But in all other regards it does have a far superior image quality.

For movies and certainly for games i'd tend to lean more towards deep blacks and take the Dell.

For photo work i'd take the NEC for sure (although the deep blacks are still missed and I do wonder if photos edited on modest black level LCD might not look quite as you expected were you to swing them onto a pro editing CRT or some future OLED photo editing panel and I wonder a little if we won't find that on certain photo we got tricked into making certain deep shades too dark although maybe the eye generally adjust to the relatively gray starting for black and doesn't make things too far off (although occasionally i've seen scattered suggestions about making absolute black based profiles even it means that the last few shades of dark are all identical), although for printing reference there will likely never be any problem).
 
Really, gaming isn’t nearly as important as photo editing / graphic design for me at this time. SC2, yeah, I’m gonna be playing it, as I will also play other stuff, but the purpose of this monitor isn’t really for that. I’ve never noticed input lag or had problems with response rates, so I’m not too concerned about that unless I’m going to take a huge hit from the monitor I’m coming from now (I know it’ll suffer a little in these areas but I don’t expect it to be a huge problem). And if I opt for the bigger screen, I can always scale up right? I know non-native resolution isn’t going to be as good, but since 1280x720 divides evenly into 2560x1440 wouldn’t that look pretty good? And it wouldn’t be too taxing on my graphics card either.

The photo editing is really important to me, which is part of the reason the 2711 is appealing. I’m working with 5046x3364 images on a regular basis, so the extra resolution and screen real estate would be pretty helpful in that regard. Same with video – I run at 1650x1080 resolution now which doesn’t even display my 1080p videos in full resolution. ANY of these monitors would be a step up, obviously, and the extra money for the 2711 could go to computer upgrades if I go with the 2410 (or the 2311 I guess - I haven’t heard much about this one at all, I’ll have to look into it)

One other thing to mention – a buddy of mine has a colorimeter which he would likely let me borrow. He doesn’t have the software anymore but if I could find it and get it working that would probably change how some of these screens stack up against each other.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
Interesting. Can you provide a source for this claim? one that isn't Wikipedia or DisplayBlog?
Click to expand...

Heh funny. The first link I google lead me here. Post 8 mentions it. I'm heading out right now so I'll try to come back and post my source.
 
Cycloptersaurus said:
Really, gaming isn’t nearly as important as photo editing / graphic design for me at this time. SC2, yeah, I’m gonna be playing it, as I will also play other stuff, but the purpose of this monitor isn’t really for that. I’ve never noticed input lag or had problems with response rates, so I’m not too concerned about that unless I’m going to take a huge hit from the monitor I’m coming from now (I know it’ll suffer a little in these areas but I don’t expect it to be a huge problem). And if I opt for the bigger screen, I can always scale up right? I know non-native resolution isn’t going to be as good, but since 1280x720 divides evenly into 2560x1440 wouldn’t that look pretty good? And it wouldn’t be too taxing on my graphics card either.

The photo editing is really important to me, which is part of the reason the 2711 is appealing. I’m working with 5046x3364 images on a regular basis, so the extra resolution and screen real estate would be pretty helpful in that regard. Same with video – I run at 1650x1080 resolution now which doesn’t even display my 1080p videos in full resolution. ANY of these monitors would be a step up, obviously, and the extra money for the 2711 could go to computer upgrades if I go with the 2410 (or the 2311 I guess - I haven’t heard much about this one at all, I’ll have to look into it)

One other thing to mention – a buddy of mine has a colorimeter which he would likely let me borrow. He doesn’t have the software anymore but if I could find it and get it working that would probably change how some of these screens stack up against each other.
Click to expand...

one thing to keep in mind is that many colorimeters don't work well on wide gamuts so you have to be careful

if you are willing to go $950 for the 2711 and are super serious about photo you could always spring for a smaller 24" NEC PA241W for the same price.
 
If you work with high resolution photos, it's a nobrainer to go with the U2711. Your professional application takes precedence over the gaming experience. And in any case you won't have a 'bad' gaming experience on the u2711, it just won't be as quick or as responsive as on a smaller monitor, but then again the extra real estate and pixels will be pretty to look at.
 
I guess what I'm taking away from this is that basically the 2711 and 2410 are for all intents and purposes identical except for resolution and screen size, and the 2311 is one inch smaller and it uses slightly different technology?
 
Cycloptersaurus said:
I guess what I'm taking away from this is that basically the 2711 and 2410 are for all intents and purposes identical except for resolution and screen size, and the 2311 is one inch smaller and it uses slightly different technology?
Click to expand...

No. The U2410 has the worst contrast/black value of the bunch while the U2711 achieves average (good) contrast and the U2311 is fantastic and will give you the best image quality of the bunch, but lacks size. They all have similar calibrated presets and all yeild excellent color reproduction once calibrated.

That is why I posted the TFT central review which compares the bunch repeatedly, please read it instead of relying forum members. If you read these "Professional," reviews you could have awnsered your own questions ages ago:


Dell U2311
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2311h.htm

Dell u2711
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2711.htm

Dell U2410
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2410.htm
 
Cycloptersaurus said:
I guess what I'm taking away from this is that basically the 2711 and 2410 are for all intents and purposes identical except for resolution and screen size, and the 2311 is one inch smaller and it uses slightly different technology?
Click to expand...

the U2410 has a screwed up custom color engine so you need to leave it internally at defaults and then do a lot of correction with the profiles so you will get more banding than with the U2711 and way more than with a NEC PA241W

the U2410 appears to have worse contrast ratio than the U2711 or NEC as well

it's not a bad monitor and it sure does cost a HECK of a lot less than the other two but I don't think it is as good

the NEC has the fanciest electronics driving it

i don't know so much about the U2311 other than it uses PVA instead of IPS and it's sRGB (for photos, wide gamut can be nicer and the other dells have reasonable sRGB modes for non-managed stuff and the NEC has a perfect sRGB simualtion mode after calibration the U2410 srgb mode cant be calibrated without introducing issues)

for serious photo work i'd stick to the top two wide gamuts, if you were more into games and movies and just a few photos here and there then the U2311 would make the most sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top