Balraj (or anyone else at AnandTech) can you tell me why theres never any 30" LCD's released anymore?
I've not seen a new one in so long... i've also got a 30" Dell 3008, great display, but it was release years ago now and there's not even any talk of a new version coming soon.
Do you know whats happening in the 30" area? Thanks.
What is unfortunate about 1920x1080 on a 27" LCD? I wish I could get 1920x1080 in a 30". What is unfortunate is the push for an ultra low DPI that makes everything look microscopic. I'm in my 20's and my eye sight is perfect and I still don't get it. I'm currently using a 37" at 1080p and it's perfect, everything is sharp and comfortable. At work recently they ordered a 15.6" at 1080p... what!?!. I told them to send it back. DPI scaling within the OS is as crappy as it ever was so that's not even an option. Someone make a 30" LCD at 1080p and I will buy 3 today. Or give me 2560x1600 on a 40", yes please!
To me, it's bad because it would imply a high dot-pitch. My near-sight vision is very good so can easily see the pixels if the dot pitch is .27 or above. I look for monitors that have a .25 dot pitch or so, which makes for a clean looking image. Also, it packs more screen space in a smaller package.
Well I have a 28" 1920x1200 and a 1080P 15" laptop. Both are wonderful. Laptop I am just a foot and a half away from about, while the big one I am about 3 feet away. Anything less than 1080P now is disappointing for me.
Another monitor with a 16x9 AR. That's a non starter for me. I value my vertical real estate space. I don't know why the industry thinks everybody just sits in an office chair watching HD movies on their PC.
Is there any way to get an official response from OEMs as to why they have cut screens down from 16:10 to 16:9? There are rumors ranging from reduced panel size/cost, to customers being wowed by the "1080P Full HD!" labels on the box. I tend to lean towards the later myself, since high end enthusiast monitors are still 16:10.
You hit the nail on the head. Most consumers are mindless sheep and see "FULL HD! 16:9" without realizing they can watch full HD movies just fine on 16:10, while having higher resolution for everything else they may want to do.
Go figure. I would never spend money on a 16:9 screen.
I have a 147 DPI laptop display, and it's wonderful! It's the only monitor I've ever had, that I can look at all day with next to no eyestrain. The only problem: I can't use two displays... because all desktop LCDs are freakin' low DPI. As long as no high-dpi desktops exist, I'll be sticking with laptops.
Hell, you could even just take a laptop display and stick it in a desktop-type enclosure -- as it is now, the DIY option would cost like 700 dollars for the screen and the LCD controller. HP now even has a "DreamColor 2" 15" laptop display that's IPS and does 30-bit color depth.... they could make tons of money if they'd make a desktop version of it.
Under high DPI, some apps do break -- Linux apps are mostly okay, and almost all of Microsoft's own stuff is good as well. Unfortunately, now Xorg actively lies about DPI: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705
Oh, and how the hell is LOSING 120 rows of pixels an improvement (1920x1200 -> 1920x1080)? This transition to 16:9 pisses me off to no end. Watching a 16:9 movie on a 16:10 display, you have room for movie controls and a taskbar. If the display is also 16:9, you have two choices: either the things overlap the movie, or you letterbox the movie on all 4 sides! IIf I could, I'd love to take who is forcing this change, and cut all their ceilings down to 5' 10", or however tall the person is -- look, no wasted space!
I'm typing this on my HPw2408h so I guess I'm qualified to make some kind of opinion on their monitors.
On the good side, it makes for an amazing HDMI TV set for digital cable and my PS3/360, it 's nice and bright, the bezel is high-quality plastic, no bad pixels, it rotates 90degrees and... well, I like it so far.
My beefs, however, include: excessive light bleed on the edges, rotating 90 degrees is actually kind of useless as it's so large you can't really read text at the top of the screen very easily, color shifting due to angle of view is noticeable, lacks DVI input (even though the BOX SAID IT DID -- for shame), the power button (changed on new monitors, but not much better) is very poorly designed and the tilt mechanism/ base consumes so much space, the monitor might as well be 7" deep.
I'd still buy another hp monitor, probably 27" or 30".
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
13 Comments
Back to Article
B3an - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Balraj (or anyone else at AnandTech) can you tell me why theres never any 30" LCD's released anymore?I've not seen a new one in so long... i've also got a 30" Dell 3008, great display, but it was release years ago now and there's not even any talk of a new version coming soon.
Do you know whats happening in the 30" area? Thanks.
juzz86 - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
B3an, HP have not long released a new 30" model. There's a top review on the ZR30w by Brian right here!ethsen - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
What is unfortunate about 1920x1080 on a 27" LCD? I wish I could get 1920x1080 in a 30". What is unfortunate is the push for an ultra low DPI that makes everything look microscopic. I'm in my 20's and my eye sight is perfect and I still don't get it. I'm currently using a 37" at 1080p and it's perfect, everything is sharp and comfortable. At work recently they ordered a 15.6" at 1080p... what!?!. I told them to send it back. DPI scaling within the OS is as crappy as it ever was so that's not even an option. Someone make a 30" LCD at 1080p and I will buy 3 today. Or give me 2560x1600 on a 40", yes please!HauntFox - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
To me, it's bad because it would imply a high dot-pitch. My near-sight vision is very good so can easily see the pixels if the dot pitch is .27 or above. I look for monitors that have a .25 dot pitch or so, which makes for a clean looking image. Also, it packs more screen space in a smaller package.Jjoshua2 - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Well I have a 28" 1920x1200 and a 1080P 15" laptop. Both are wonderful. Laptop I am just a foot and a half away from about, while the big one I am about 3 feet away. Anything less than 1080P now is disappointing for me.Mumrik - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Are you SURE your eye sight is that good?I wouldn't want anything less than 1920x1200 on my 24" monitor and I really like 1440x900 on a 12.1" laptop.
Mumrik - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Even the 27" model (2710m) with the wider gamut?jackylman - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Yeah, what kind of LCD (p)review omits this important information? Okay, the answer is most of them, but that needs to change.valnar - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Another monitor with a 16x9 AR. That's a non starter for me. I value my vertical real estate space. I don't know why the industry thinks everybody just sits in an office chair watching HD movies on their PC.Mr Perfect - Thursday, June 3, 2010 - link
Is there any way to get an official response from OEMs as to why they have cut screens down from 16:10 to 16:9? There are rumors ranging from reduced panel size/cost, to customers being wowed by the "1080P Full HD!" labels on the box. I tend to lean towards the later myself, since high end enthusiast monitors are still 16:10.RaistlinZ - Friday, June 4, 2010 - link
You hit the nail on the head. Most consumers are mindless sheep and see "FULL HD! 16:9" without realizing they can watch full HD movies just fine on 16:10, while having higher resolution for everything else they may want to do.Go figure. I would never spend money on a 16:9 screen.
DanaG - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
http://10rem.net/blog/2010/04/22/rant-hdtv-has-rui...http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/where-are...
I have a 147 DPI laptop display, and it's wonderful! It's the only monitor I've ever had, that I can look at all day with next to no eyestrain. The only problem: I can't use two displays... because all desktop LCDs are freakin' low DPI. As long as no high-dpi desktops exist, I'll be sticking with laptops.
Hell, you could even just take a laptop display and stick it in a desktop-type enclosure -- as it is now, the DIY option would cost like 700 dollars for the screen and the LCD controller.
HP now even has a "DreamColor 2" 15" laptop display that's IPS and does 30-bit color depth.... they could make tons of money if they'd make a desktop version of it.
Under high DPI, some apps do break -- Linux apps are mostly okay, and almost all of Microsoft's own stuff is good as well. Unfortunately, now Xorg actively lies about DPI: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705
Oh, and how the hell is LOSING 120 rows of pixels an improvement (1920x1200 -> 1920x1080)? This transition to 16:9 pisses me off to no end. Watching a 16:9 movie on a 16:10 display, you have room for movie controls and a taskbar. If the display is also 16:9, you have two choices: either the things overlap the movie, or you letterbox the movie on all 4 sides! IIf I could, I'd love to take who is forcing this change, and cut all their ceilings down to 5' 10", or however tall the person is -- look, no wasted space!
Thomas Krul - Monday, June 14, 2010 - link
I'm typing this on my HPw2408h so I guess I'm qualified to make some kind of opinion on their monitors.On the good side, it makes for an amazing HDMI TV set for digital cable and my PS3/360, it 's nice and bright, the bezel is high-quality plastic, no bad pixels, it rotates 90degrees and... well, I like it so far.
My beefs, however, include: excessive light bleed on the edges, rotating 90 degrees is actually kind of useless as it's so large you can't really read text at the top of the screen very easily, color shifting due to angle of view is noticeable, lacks DVI input (even though the BOX SAID IT DID -- for shame), the power button (changed on new monitors, but not much better) is very poorly designed and the tilt mechanism/ base consumes so much space, the monitor might as well be 7" deep.
I'd still buy another hp monitor, probably 27" or 30".