|
Forum List
>
Café LA
>
Topic
20 inch Dell?Posted by Jude Cotter
Is the 20 inch Dell (Dell Sp2008 WFP 20 inch) as good as the 24 inch, or is it a different beast altogether? Apparently we can't buy them here in Oz, only off the Net.
This is for a second edit suite off a G4 and a laptop (not at the same time) - not used full time for editing, mostly used for gaming. ![]()
Jude,
I don't recommend anything that doesn't play full rez HD (1920x1080). The highest rez on the Dell 20" is 1680x1050. Dell just had a price drop on their 2407WFP-HC 24-inch Widescreen to $669!!! [accessories.us.dell.com] When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade. ![]()
Yeah, but haven't really got the room for the big one. We have one big desk, 2.4 metres long, and we are looking to put the second suite on the end of the desk at right angles to the first, so the second operator can't really get enough distance from the screen to get a really big one.
More than likely both machines won't be editing at the same time too often, but they will be gaming and doing prep work quite a bit. We just have a job that needs to be cut at the same time as another one right now, and a second editor sitting around, so we're going to hook up the old G4, and swap it out for the production manager's tibook later for day to day screen comfort. I did have the niggling thought in the back of my mind that there was a big difference, quality wise, between the 24 inch and all the other Dells. True or false? ![]()
Why are high pixel count monitors so very large? For example, I want to use FCP on a single monitor, so I'm looking for a 2560x1600 pixel monitor which my video card supports. I can find none but 30" (26"x16" ). TOO BIG. These monitors all have 0.25 mm square pixels. At reading distance, our eyes can utilize detail in much smaller pixels than that. My laptop screen has 0.2 mm square pixels, and I'm still aware of the pixillation. If someone made a 2560x1600 pixel monitor with 0.20 mm or 0.15 mm pixels, it would fit on my table and show all the fine stuff in FCP.
Note: besides the monitor I routinely project the work, because I need to see it bigger than monitor size to ... see it. Dennis Couzin Berlin, Germany
Having bloodied my hands on this panel thing, I can report that I found a posting from someone who claimed to have both the Dell and the Apple version of the same panel.
He reported that, yes, the brightness, color, etc, were about the same, but the picture wasn't. The Dell version didn't correct for all the little optical problems. As he put it, looking at the Dell was like looking at a computer screen. Looking at the Apple was like looking at a glossy magazine. This information got promptly lost in the flame war of PC/Mac, Right Brain/Left Brain, Artist/Engineer, Streisand/Midler. I couldn't help thinking that the one posting made my decision for me. I'm going to be staring at this thing for years and I want the highest quality I can get. The extra cost will be irrelevant. Koz
grafixjoe Wrote:
> They're not. The new MBP has a 17" screen with 1920x1200 option ![]() This confirms my point. This is another laptop screen with pixels about 0.20 mm x 0.18 mm. What free-standing monitor screen has pixels smaller than 0.25 mm square? I think I must give up looking for a 2560x1600 monitor and settle for a 1920x1200 monitor with about 23" diagonal so it fits on my table. Dennis Couzin Berlin, Germany
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|