The table just has to be large enough to accommodate the base of the stand - it doesn't need to be as wide as the display itself. And surely your working area would be wider than the length of the display.
But you don't deny that being able to open 4 browsers in a 2x2 configuration can be useful right?
Personally, I find 27" inch is too small height wise to comfortably view documents or browsers when they are placed side-by-side, due to the 16:9 aspect ratio. If it were 16:10, it might be different.
Get a 4K TV instead... Cheap ones for PC use can be had for only $300. And they come with Speakers, Bluetooth, Wifi, Ethernet, Apps, and a remote control.
Unfortunately few of those TVs are good for PC use due to a variety of issues. Looks like things should improve with HDMI 2.1 which brings improved color space handling and VRR and other features that will let a video card control more of the image (bypassing the embedded TV processing). I'm hoping that some companies will sell "dumb" TVs again that have no "smart" functions and even hopefully no image processing. Even though they should be cheaper, because companies are selling peoples' data, they'd probably be same price or possibly even cost more, but just having the option would at least be nice.
If nothing else Microsoft and/or Sony should partner up for gaming "certified" TVs that could let a console handle things (or maybe offer special versions with some extra features, where they'd embed the console and it'd handle the scaling, apps, interface, etc. Which that would make the Xbox One's HDMI input a lot more useful.
I wish video cards could have at least one input just so you could plug another device in (and display it, although should be possible for processing/scaling and even capture, but just a simple input alone would be nice). Likewise I wish laptops and even tablets like the iPad had some display input functionality as well so that you could use them for a portable display if needed. I'm a little surprised with the tempered glass and RGB craze we haven't seen some boutique cases that put a display in the side panel. Wouldn't even need to be high quality or really even backlit since its more for decoration. Which, at some point OLED might get low cost enough that we could see that happen.
You can actually use an iPad (or even a 'modernish' Android tablet) as a second display using Luna Display. And for Macs running Catalina (10.15.x) you can use Apple's built-in side-car facility (however, this only works iPads able to run the latest iPadOS 13.x).
It's sad that so few monitors and TVs are not colour accurate, isn't it? Even gamers and casual users would benefit from having accurate colours and experiencing the full 0-255 RGB spectrum
HAHA! 4k TV for a computer display. I know some people using them but they are a joke. As Darksword said, computer monitors are completely different then using a TV. There are a lot of benefits to using a computer display. Especially for professional applications and games too. You just cant get the quality of a good computer display in a cheap junky $300 TV.
Have you even tried 32" or are you just speculating? I bet that if you do, you'll be convinced of the advantages of 32" as well. I have both 32" and 27", so I can speak from experience.
Of course I had tried a 32” 4K TV as a monitor but 137 ppi is a little low for me at that size. Anyway, nobody cares what you have or what you wish for. People don’t just make things ONLY for you.
Yes, it would be even better if we had 8k resolution at a screen size of 32". But as it stands, 32" 4k at a 0.85 meter viewing distance is more than adequate for me insofar as pixel density is concerned. (0.85m is a good viewing distance from an ergonomics standpoint.)
To put things into perspective, this pixel density (137ppi) is still higher than what we had for laptops not too long ago, such as the 2017 MacBook Air (13.3", 1440x900, 127ppi). And we generally sit closer to a laptop than to an external monitor!
I'm having serious doubts as to your bona fides when you raise the argument that 137 ppi is too low for an external monitor.
Also, the fact that people don't just make things for me is a non sequitur. The discussion is what is best for most people. And my contention is that 32" 4k is better than 27" 4k for most people, myself included, because this provides a large real estate to work with and yet isn't too large on an office desk.
I'd also like to add that transitioning from 27" to 32" is akin to going from a regular cinema to watching an IMAX at say the Royal British Columbia Museum.
When I was using the 27" monitor, I always wished that the good old 16:10 aspect ratio would make a return. However, once I used a 32" monitor, I do not mind the 16:9 aspect ratio any more because the vertical height of the 32" monitor is now more than adequate for my needs.
Perhaps give a 32" monitor a try and let us know what you think!
Looks like a very nice monitor, but I'm bummed out by the lack of a non-TB3 USB upstream port for using the hub with an HDMI or DP-connected PC without occupying the TB3 port. Add that + KVM functionality, and you'd have a true workhorse for people who use both laptops and desktops. For $2000 with the otherwise fleshed-out featureset this is a noticeable oversight.
That's exactly what I'm after. TB3, USB hub, integrated KVM, and an additional USB upstream to support my desktop. I need to scour the Dell catalog to see if any of their non-pro monitors offers that feature set.
The issue with that, is that the preceding version has roughly similar color accuracy but with up to 1000nits brightness. Which, might be understandable if there was a lower price or something that justified losing HDR. I personally am not keen on HDR just because I don't want to be looking at images that bright, I don't care how "realistic" it is (I'd absolutely take OLED's dark color capabilities over ability to sustain 500+ nits brightness). But 250nits seems low for any remotely professional display, and is outright head scratching when compared to the similar Dell that is the same price and fairly equal overall, but this newer model lacks HDR and can't do higher than 250nits brightness.
Just realized the integrated colorimeter explains the price being equal. I still don't think it explains 250nits max brightness and lack of HDR.
It's probably the folks using this stuff are actually not aware that the HDR is enabled and kept complaining to Dell about poor results. That or feedback was that HDR is one of the first features switched off by pro users of this type of monitor and a colorimeter would be more useful.
Print professionals (photographers, magazine illustrators, etc) typically work at 100 - 120 nits. 250 is plenty for these people, and for the wannabes. Things like 100% of Adobe with good accuracy, high bit depth, and accessible 3D CLUTs have traditionally been *very* expensive, though.
What kind of monitor are you posting your inane comment with then, if $500 monitors are too terrible to use? Surely you're using a monitor of impeccable taste, surely >$1000 using a non-IPS panel of some sort.
His complaint is that there aren't more affordable high quality monitors to choose from, so its entirely possible he doesn't have such a quality monitor simply due to not being able afford or perhaps simply to justify spending that much money for one. Its not like he has to have some exceptionally high quality display to be able to complain about the quality of lower priced but still not inexpensive monitors.
Which, to be fair, no way would a 27" microLED be $2000. Heck, I'm not sure if 1080p microLED is able to be produced at 27" yet, let alone 4K outside of lab settings. So far I think Samsung has shown a like 55" 1080p microLED, and its quite expensive. Shrinking the LEDs will cost more (which is why Samsung started touting that level of display using a movie theater where it'd have large pixels; and then were showing "The Wall" which was made of a bunch of smaller panels - think they had 16 for 4K at 146").
I'm still on my Dell 24" 16x10 (1920X1200) monitors (2 of them).. I'd love it if Dell produced a 32" 4K+ 16X10 monitor (3840X2400), HDR10, with touch enabled... I'd buy 2 of those two. I'm getting older.. with a good 5 year left of programming/development work to do.... I'd love to have everything be just a little bigger and a little clearer.... and test out touch enabled stuff right on my development station. My 24" monitors are good and old now, manufactured Jan 2009.
I'd be onboard with that thinking, but I'd actually prefer 4 ~20" panels at 1920x1200 with no bezels (basically just the bare minimum protection on the sides), with a well thought out arm mount stand (have the display inputs and power embedded into the stand base, with simpler single cables running to each display; or maybe have it routed right through the arms themselves so you wouldn't see any wires at all; maybe could have the stand motorized so that it could auto adjust for various modes), so that you could do a variety of alignments (including curved/angled). All 4 vertical would work well for documents, programming and web browsing, and it'd be good for ultrawide video content (where it'd be 4800x1920, not too far from 21:9). Then could have 2x2 wide for normal widescreen. And 4 wide horizontally for special 180 degree video content or panorama image stitching work. I'd make use of 3 vertical (close to 16:9) for having movie/TV/gaming playing while browsing the web or having other on the 4th. Of course it'd be stupid expensive, but that'd mostly be due to the mount and having a controller or software to be able to easily switch between modes, since 15" 1080p is pretty common for laptops and 20" 1080p wasn't that rare.
Which you could add a 3rd display for testing touch input for not too much. Monoprice sells a 15" 1080p one that has full on pen digitizer input (it does touch too) for $300 (and I think less pretty frequently on sales), and I'm sure there's other options if you don't care about the digitizer input.
Really hope the team behind this monitor gets an opportunity to update this in 2020 ASAP to have HDR1400+ support & Dolby Vision, HLG, & HDR10+ HDR support. It's certainly possible given that Asus already impressively accomplished this w/ their 2020 ProArt flagship monitor (PA32UCG) at 4K@120hz.
HDR10 isn't enough & HDR400 doesn't cut it for professional color work anymore.
I have this monitor, I am on my 2nd monitor now. The first monitor had so many dead pixels it was like having a Milky Way desktop wallpaper, also really pronounced backlight bleed around the bottom edges. The replacement monitor thankfully has no dead pixels but the backlight bleed is very pronounced again, rather dissapointing for a monitor that is in this price range and pitching itself for creative professionals. Everything else about the monitor however is fantastic (built-in calibration, USB-C connectivity).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
Back to Article
Pro-competition - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
Damn these small 27" monitors. I wish all monitors were 32" (for 16:9 screens).deil - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
32 does not fit on my desk, so what should I use?edzieba - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
A bigger desk.Pro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Nice onePro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
The table just has to be large enough to accommodate the base of the stand - it doesn't need to be as wide as the display itself.And surely your working area would be wider than the length of the display.
TristanSDX - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
4K is great even foe 21 inch. People are buing 4K for image qyality, not for opening 4 browsers on desktopPro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
But you don't deny that being able to open 4 browsers in a 2x2 configuration can be useful right?Personally, I find 27" inch is too small height wise to comfortably view documents or browsers when they are placed side-by-side, due to the 16:9 aspect ratio. If it were 16:10, it might be different.
Spunjji - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
I work with a 24" 2560x1440 display that easily lets me do that. 27" at 4K is plenty for viewing two documents.TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
Get a 4K TV instead... Cheap ones for PC use can be had for only $300. And they come with Speakers, Bluetooth, Wifi, Ethernet, Apps, and a remote control.https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/pc...
I'm using the LG 43" recommended in this article. I don't think it's great for color accurate work, but for games it's pretty good.
darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Unfortunately few of those TVs are good for PC use due to a variety of issues. Looks like things should improve with HDMI 2.1 which brings improved color space handling and VRR and other features that will let a video card control more of the image (bypassing the embedded TV processing). I'm hoping that some companies will sell "dumb" TVs again that have no "smart" functions and even hopefully no image processing. Even though they should be cheaper, because companies are selling peoples' data, they'd probably be same price or possibly even cost more, but just having the option would at least be nice.If nothing else Microsoft and/or Sony should partner up for gaming "certified" TVs that could let a console handle things (or maybe offer special versions with some extra features, where they'd embed the console and it'd handle the scaling, apps, interface, etc. Which that would make the Xbox One's HDMI input a lot more useful.
I wish video cards could have at least one input just so you could plug another device in (and display it, although should be possible for processing/scaling and even capture, but just a simple input alone would be nice). Likewise I wish laptops and even tablets like the iPad had some display input functionality as well so that you could use them for a portable display if needed. I'm a little surprised with the tempered glass and RGB craze we haven't seen some boutique cases that put a display in the side panel. Wouldn't even need to be high quality or really even backlit since its more for decoration. Which, at some point OLED might get low cost enough that we could see that happen.
darklight69 - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
You can actually use an iPad (or even a 'modernish' Android tablet) as a second display using Luna Display. And for Macs running Catalina (10.15.x) you can use Apple's built-in side-car facility (however, this only works iPads able to run the latest iPadOS 13.x).Pro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
It's sad that so few monitors and TVs are not colour accurate, isn't it? Even gamers and casual users would benefit from having accurate colours and experiencing the full 0-255 RGB spectrumSee http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php
Also see http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php
Being able to distinguish all 255 colours makes images that much more realistic and life-like.
MrCoyote - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
HAHA! 4k TV for a computer display. I know some people using them but they are a joke. As Darksword said, computer monitors are completely different then using a TV. There are a lot of benefits to using a computer display. Especially for professional applications and games too. You just cant get the quality of a good computer display in a cheap junky $300 TV.sonny73n - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
Wish for yourself. There are plenty of 4K 32” monitors on the market. I like 27” at 4K resolution because my seat is only 2-3 feet from the screen.Pro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Have you even tried 32" or are you just speculating? I bet that if you do, you'll be convinced of the advantages of 32" as well. I have both 32" and 27", so I can speak from experience.sonny73n - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Of course I had tried a 32” 4K TV as a monitor but 137 ppi is a little low for me at that size. Anyway, nobody cares what you have or what you wish for. People don’t just make things ONLY for you.Pro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Yes, it would be even better if we had 8k resolution at a screen size of 32". But as it stands, 32" 4k at a 0.85 meter viewing distance is more than adequate for me insofar as pixel density is concerned. (0.85m is a good viewing distance from an ergonomics standpoint.)To put things into perspective, this pixel density (137ppi) is still higher than what we had for laptops not too long ago, such as the 2017 MacBook Air (13.3", 1440x900, 127ppi). And we generally sit closer to a laptop than to an external monitor!
I'm having serious doubts as to your bona fides when you raise the argument that 137 ppi is too low for an external monitor.
Also, the fact that people don't just make things for me is a non sequitur. The discussion is what is best for most people. And my contention is that 32" 4k is better than 27" 4k for most people, myself included, because this provides a large real estate to work with and yet isn't too large on an office desk.
I'd also like to add that transitioning from 27" to 32" is akin to going from a regular cinema to watching an IMAX at say the Royal British Columbia Museum.
TheJian - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Uh, how about 16:10, that is my wish for ALL monitors...LOL.Pro-competition - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
When I was using the 27" monitor, I always wished that the good old 16:10 aspect ratio would make a return. However, once I used a 32" monitor, I do not mind the 16:9 aspect ratio any more because the vertical height of the 32" monitor is now more than adequate for my needs.Perhaps give a 32" monitor a try and let us know what you think!
drgigolo - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
Agreed. Love 4K 32". How come they can't implement Freesync support on these monitors?!Valantar - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
Looks like a very nice monitor, but I'm bummed out by the lack of a non-TB3 USB upstream port for using the hub with an HDMI or DP-connected PC without occupying the TB3 port. Add that + KVM functionality, and you'd have a true workhorse for people who use both laptops and desktops. For $2000 with the otherwise fleshed-out featureset this is a noticeable oversight.imaheadcase - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
I would think that is a minor thing considering you can buy lots of those for cheap online?sorten - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
That's exactly what I'm after. TB3, USB hub, integrated KVM, and an additional USB upstream to support my desktop. I need to scour the Dell catalog to see if any of their non-pro monitors offers that feature set.timecop1818 - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
$2k for a piece of 250nits heap of crap?!!!!! Get lost, Dell.Still waiting for 24" 10bit monitor with non-wled (GB-R / GB-led ) backlight, and 350+ (500+ preferable) brightness. Anyone?!
jaggedcow - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
It’s clearly designed for maximum colour accuracy at all costs.darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
The issue with that, is that the preceding version has roughly similar color accuracy but with up to 1000nits brightness. Which, might be understandable if there was a lower price or something that justified losing HDR. I personally am not keen on HDR just because I don't want to be looking at images that bright, I don't care how "realistic" it is (I'd absolutely take OLED's dark color capabilities over ability to sustain 500+ nits brightness). But 250nits seems low for any remotely professional display, and is outright head scratching when compared to the similar Dell that is the same price and fairly equal overall, but this newer model lacks HDR and can't do higher than 250nits brightness.Just realized the integrated colorimeter explains the price being equal. I still don't think it explains 250nits max brightness and lack of HDR.
jabber - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
It's probably the folks using this stuff are actually not aware that the HDR is enabled and kept complaining to Dell about poor results. That or feedback was that HDR is one of the first features switched off by pro users of this type of monitor and a colorimeter would be more useful.gvp - Saturday, November 9, 2019 - link
Print professionals (photographers, magazine illustrators, etc) typically work at 100 - 120 nits. 250 is plenty for these people, and for the wannabes. Things like 100% of Adobe with good accuracy, high bit depth, and accessible 3D CLUTs have traditionally been *very* expensive, though.sorten - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
I thought artists preferred working in the dark anyway. ;-)250 nits is probably enough as long as you're not sitting with your back to a window.
crimsonson - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
Well obviously color accuracy is not your primary professional requirement.xenol - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
You don't need a lot of nits for everyday use. 250 nits in a typical office environment is plenty. Especially if you're using that shroud.sonny73n - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
For $2000, the panel should be micro-LED. Damn IPS with edgelight leak.I just bought a BenQ PD2700U for ~$500. Returned for an exchange but they all suffer the same problem.
JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
What kind of monitor are you posting your inane comment with then, if $500 monitors are too terrible to use? Surely you're using a monitor of impeccable taste, surely >$1000 using a non-IPS panel of some sort.darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
His complaint is that there aren't more affordable high quality monitors to choose from, so its entirely possible he doesn't have such a quality monitor simply due to not being able afford or perhaps simply to justify spending that much money for one. Its not like he has to have some exceptionally high quality display to be able to complain about the quality of lower priced but still not inexpensive monitors.Which, to be fair, no way would a 27" microLED be $2000. Heck, I'm not sure if 1080p microLED is able to be produced at 27" yet, let alone 4K outside of lab settings. So far I think Samsung has shown a like 55" 1080p microLED, and its quite expensive. Shrinking the LEDs will cost more (which is why Samsung started touting that level of display using a movie theater where it'd have large pixels; and then were showing "The Wall" which was made of a bunch of smaller panels - think they had 16 for 4K at 146").
HardwareDufus - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link
I'm still on my Dell 24" 16x10 (1920X1200) monitors (2 of them).. I'd love it if Dell produced a 32" 4K+ 16X10 monitor (3840X2400), HDR10, with touch enabled... I'd buy 2 of those two. I'm getting older.. with a good 5 year left of programming/development work to do.... I'd love to have everything be just a little bigger and a little clearer.... and test out touch enabled stuff right on my development station. My 24" monitors are good and old now, manufactured Jan 2009.darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
I'd be onboard with that thinking, but I'd actually prefer 4 ~20" panels at 1920x1200 with no bezels (basically just the bare minimum protection on the sides), with a well thought out arm mount stand (have the display inputs and power embedded into the stand base, with simpler single cables running to each display; or maybe have it routed right through the arms themselves so you wouldn't see any wires at all; maybe could have the stand motorized so that it could auto adjust for various modes), so that you could do a variety of alignments (including curved/angled). All 4 vertical would work well for documents, programming and web browsing, and it'd be good for ultrawide video content (where it'd be 4800x1920, not too far from 21:9). Then could have 2x2 wide for normal widescreen. And 4 wide horizontally for special 180 degree video content or panorama image stitching work. I'd make use of 3 vertical (close to 16:9) for having movie/TV/gaming playing while browsing the web or having other on the 4th. Of course it'd be stupid expensive, but that'd mostly be due to the mount and having a controller or software to be able to easily switch between modes, since 15" 1080p is pretty common for laptops and 20" 1080p wasn't that rare.Which you could add a 3rd display for testing touch input for not too much. Monoprice sells a 15" 1080p one that has full on pen digitizer input (it does touch too) for $300 (and I think less pretty frequently on sales), and I'm sure there's other options if you don't care about the digitizer input.
lilkwarrior - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link
Really hope the team behind this monitor gets an opportunity to update this in 2020 ASAP to have HDR1400+ support & Dolby Vision, HLG, & HDR10+ HDR support. It's certainly possible given that Asus already impressively accomplished this w/ their 2020 ProArt flagship monitor (PA32UCG) at 4K@120hz.HDR10 isn't enough & HDR400 doesn't cut it for professional color work anymore.
marsbar - Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - link
I have this monitor, I am on my 2nd monitor now. The first monitor had so many dead pixels it was like having a Milky Way desktop wallpaper, also really pronounced backlight bleed around the bottom edges. The replacement monitor thankfully has no dead pixels but the backlight bleed is very pronounced again, rather dissapointing for a monitor that is in this price range and pitching itself for creative professionals. Everything else about the monitor however is fantastic (built-in calibration, USB-C connectivity).