• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

27 inch dell ultrasharp widescreen

R

R3MF

Senior member
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/27/dell-planning-27-inch-2707wfp/

it would be rather nice if it was.

there are loads of people building HTPC's for the living room, and generally speaking the speakers are rubbish compared to the 5.1 setups that most geeks are likely to go for.
so a 27" 1080p screen in the Ultrasharp would be a hit, and it is a natural TV size anyway, so they would just be taking a dell TV and reving the speakers and the TV tuner.

any recent news?

regards

R3MF
 
I agree with you, and that is my plan when I get around to upgrading. Of course I have to finish this last year of law school, and then pass the bar, and then at some point in the next 18 months or so I can actually practice as a lawyer and have money to buy things. my god that will be a great day. in the meantime, i will just use the xp2600+ that i've had for 3 years. ugh...
 
I'd say there is a 99% chance it will be 16:10 like every single Dell widescreen panel. Shouldn't be much of an issue because you can just center 16:9 content with very small black bars. Most movies are significantly wider than 16:9 (usually 2.39:1) anyway so you'll have to deal with black bars at some point on any display.

A 27" TV in a living room is way too small to show any difference between 1080P and 720P in video anyway, and you'll only be able to get over the air HD on an HTPC. A DVR from your cable/satellite company or an HD Tivo both tend to be a lot more useful than an HTPC for HD stuff.
 
there just doesn't seem much point in having another 1920x1200 screen that is a mere 3 inches bigger than the 2405.

and over the air HD would be fine in the UK...........

i'd like one anyway. 😛
 
I wouldn't worry about the precise aspect ratio so much - 16:9 or 16:10 is basically the same. A lot of source material isn't even in 16:9 (aka, 1.77:1). For example, I was watching House of Flying Daggers (which is 480p, but bear with me), and the aspect ratio was a huge 2.35:1. Some TV shows (nearly all of them before 2000?) were shot in 4:3 - rescanning the prints at 1080p or whatever isn't going to fix that (the actual film might be 16:9, but there's cameras and such in the cropped parts). Hell, even current movies are sometimes shot in 1.85:1.

Accept the black bars - they are part of life. If you want a physically larger picture, get a bigger monitor/TV.

-Erwos
 
I doubt it'll be 16:9. This looks like a regular desktop LCD to me. 27" is not exactly "home theater" size. A 27" 16:9 screen has less surface area than a 27" 4:3 TV (I'll shoot myself if I ever catch myself calling it "real estate"), and 27" is totally average for regular TVs.

As far as HTPC, anybody in the market for that screen would probably be better off getting any number of the 32" or larger HDTVs already available for relatively cheap.
 
Originally posted by: erwos
I wouldn't worry about the precise aspect ratio so much - 16:9 or 16:10 is basically the same. A lot of source material isn't even in 16:9 (aka, 1.77:1). For example, I was watching House of Flying Daggers (which is 480p, but bear with me), and the aspect ratio was a huge 2.35:1. Some TV shows (nearly all of them before 2000?) were shot in 4:3 - rescanning the prints at 1080p or whatever isn't going to fix that (the actual film might be 16:9, but there's cameras and such in the cropped parts). Hell, even current movies are sometimes shot in 1.85:1.

Accept the black bars - they are part of life. If you want a physically larger picture, get a bigger monitor/TV.

-Erwos
Click to expand...

16:9 and 16:10 might be pretty close, but they're certainly not the same. If you're going to use something as an HDTV, you want 16:9 because that's the aspect of HD broadcasts. It seems pretty irrelevant you bringing up TV which was shot in 4:3. That's not exactly the type of source people are getting a widescreen HDTV for.

As far as movies go, most of them are still going to be letterboxed on a 16:9 screen, but DVDs are made for 16:9, and a decent number of them are actually 16:9 full-frame, even though the source was 1.85:1.

The bottom line is that 16:9 is standard and many things expect it (like HD broadcasts and
widescreen DVDs), whereas 16:10 is a goofy widescreen PC aspect and it is not the native aspect for anything.
 
It will be 1920x1200 (16x10) using the Samsung LTM270M1 panel. There's a reason why Dell has their monitor factory next to Samsungs panel factory.
 
Originally posted by: Tostada
16:9 and 16:10 might be pretty close, but they're certainly not the same. If you're going to use something as an HDTV, you want 16:9 because that's the aspect of HD broadcasts. It seems pretty irrelevant you bringing up TV which was shot in 4:3. That's not exactly the type of source people are getting a widescreen HDTV for.
Click to expand...
They're not the same, but I never said they were. I said they were basically the same, because in our example, 1920x1200 is _better_ than 1920x1080 in terms of pure resolution.

I also whole-heartedly disagree with your "how do people use their HDTV" rant. 4:3 does _not_ mean low resolution. It is only an aspect ratio. And, dare I say it, I think many people with HDTVs (myself among them) enjoy watching upscaled DVDs - DVDs which are sometimes in 4:3. And, if we don't see some 4:3 HD formats in the near future, I'll be quite surprised.

As far as movies go, most of them are still going to be letterboxed on a 16:9 screen, but DVDs are made for 16:9, and a decent number of them are actually 16:9 full-frame, even though the source was 1.85:1.
Click to expand...
Most. Not all. That's what I'm trying to point out here - trying to get rid of 120 pixels of black bar when viewing 16:9 aspect material is silly when 2.35:1 is as common as it is. Just accept that you will sometimes be seeing black pixels because of non-native aspect, and be done with it.

The bottom line is that 16:9 is standard and many things expect it (like HD broadcasts and widescreen DVDs), whereas 16:10 is a goofy widescreen PC aspect and it is not the native aspect for anything.
Click to expand...
Let me try: The bottom line is, 16:10 is an excellent compromise between 4:3 and 16:9. From that perspective, it's hardly goofy - it's an excellent screen resolution. Whining because Dell is forcing 120 _more_ pixels on you is bizarre, and complaining about black bars shows us exactly how much of an AV guy you really are.

-Erwos
 
erwos:

That doesn't even make sense. HDTV is by definition 16:9. All HDTV streams are 16:9. If something is 4:3 and is being broadcast in HD, it is actually being broadcast as a 16:9 stream with pillarboxing. This is why all HDTVs are 16:9.

I mean, right this second I'm watching Jeopardy on an HD channel in 1080i. Jeopardy isn't actually an HD program, though, and the 4:3 show is pillarboxed and then broadcast as 1920x1080.

I also enjoy watching upscaled DVDs. I have a Sony upconverting DVD player which does a very good job of outputting 1080i and 720p via HDMI. It looks better than any other DVD player I've seen, and it simply cannot output anything besides 16:9.

You are using an awful lot of exaggeration to try and prove a point that simply isn't there. 16:10 is fine for a PC monitor, but it's just absurd to choose 16:10 over 16:9 for any sort of home theater / media center system.

 
Originally posted by: Tostada
erwos:

That doesn't even make sense. HDTV is by definition 16:9. All HDTV streams are 16:9. If something is 4:3 and is being broadcast in HD, it is actually being broadcast as a 16:9 stream with pillarboxing. This is why all HDTVs are 16:9.

I mean, right this second I'm watching Jeopardy on an HD channel in 1080i. Jeopardy isn't actually an HD program, though, and the 4:3 show is pillarboxed and then broadcast as 1920x1080.

I also enjoy watching upscaled DVDs. I have a Sony upconverting DVD player which does a very good job of outputting 1080i and 720p via HDMI. It looks better than any other DVD player I've seen, and it simply cannot output anything besides 16:9.

You are using an awful lot of exaggeration to try and prove a point that simply isn't there. 16:10 is fine for a PC monitor, but it's just absurd to choose 16:10 over 16:9 for any sort of home theater / media center system.
Click to expand...



they make plenty of 4:3 hdtvs


here is 1 for example.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp...yId=pcmcat31800050031&id=1138085846523



 
Originally posted by: Tostada
You are using an awful lot of exaggeration to try and prove a point that simply isn't there. 16:10 is fine for a PC monitor, but it's just absurd to choose 16:10 over 16:9 for any sort of home theater / media center system.
Click to expand...
HTPCs can display at 16:10. If you want to do anything that's actually PC-like on your HTPC, 16:10 can be a useful aspect ratio, moreso than 16:9 due to the higher resolution. 16:10 does not REALLY impact the watchable area of your screen by that much with 16:9 material, and actually increases it for 4:3, which does exist in DVD form, much as you would like to ignore it. 16:9 is _not_ a magical aspect ratio because of the common existence of non-16:9 material like 2.35:1 and 4:3.

_That_ is what I am saying. I wouldn't spend double on a 16:10, but then again, I wouldn't spend double on a 16:9, either.

-Erwos
 
I hope not. The 2405 is 1920x1200. I think it'd be incredibly lame to have a larger monitor with a lower resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top