New 27-inch UltraSharp U2711 WQHD announced.
- Thread starter Macro
- Start date
Really? I thought it has to be a multiple of pixels like (2560/2)x(1440/2) = 1280x720. It that not right?
Soldato
1920x1080 is the same aspect ratio.
1280x720 is also the same ratio but would represent 4 times less pixels and that wouldn't look good on a 27inch screen.
1280x720 is also the same ratio but would represent 4 times less pixels and that wouldn't look good on a 27inch screen.
There are no specific backlight bleed characteristics of a panel type. It's a manufacturing problem. What you are probably thinking of is the off angle 'glow' IPS panels exhibit, which is different to bleed. Glow you can't do anything about (Since LG stopped manufacturing IPS panels with the A-TW polariser anyway), bleed is grounds for return.
Those of you concerned with good black levels - Pick yourself up a cheap calibration device. You can get your backlight right down whilst still keeping good colour and contrast, and also helps your eyes to boot! Most people run their displays at far too high luminance leading to wishy washy blacks and headaches.
Something ain't right here. Native res on my screen is 1920x1200, which is 1.6 ratio. If I set res to 1680x1050, which is the same 1.6 ratio everything looks blurred like crap. So, apparently it is not just the ration that makes it look good.
This is well known with LCD panels. Anything but the native res (unless an exceptional scaler is used) generally looks unsharp and rubbish. No res will look as good as native.
Resolution: 2560x1440
Associate
Last edited:
A 2560 x 1440 monitor should be able to display 1280 x 720 accurately without interpolation, and so will look about as good as a 1280 x 720 native monitor. (The only issue is whether a 2x2 grid of pixels at 2560 x 1440 looks clearer or less clear than a single pixel at 1280 x 720).
What kills you at intermediate resolutions is that you end up with pixels that are, say, 1.5 monitor pixels wide, and there's no "good" way of displaying those (1 pixel is too thin, 2 pixels too wide, so you end up doing 1 pixel full and 1 pixel 50% blended, and then it looks blurry).
The difference is your viewing distance doesn't change depending on your resolution. So say, 2ft being the optimal viewing distance for a 27" screen at 2560 x 1440 res does not mean 2ft is the optimal viewing distance for a 27" screen at 1280 x 720, it will be greater. You may have to be another 6ft back before the image appears the same.
Same as printing an A3 photo with a 20mp camera or an 8mp camera. You view an A3 print at the same distance, but the 20mp photo will be sharper with more detail. Just like the screen (Although sharpness isn't the only differing trait of switching resolutions, which is why I said 'generally'). You're just having to fill the same space with less information, so the image quality will be compromised.
That's not an issue about the Dell's "native resolution", however. It will look the same as a 27" screen with native resolution 1280 x 720. In contrast, run the Dell at 1920 x 1080 (or whatever) and it will NOT look the same as a 27" screen with a native resolution of 1920 x 1080.
Whether you'd want to be close to a 27" screen at 1280 x 720 is another matter (and a reasonable point, but I'd have thought people can use their common sense here).
From a review of the 30" Dell:
Yup, but you're still filling the same space with less information. Edge detail will be sharp but it still doesn't mean image quality on the whole will be as good as it's true 'native' resolution (which was my original point). It will only be perceptably the same from a greater distance, and as most people can't just upsticks with their keyboards, chairs and mice, and move 6ft across the room, I'de say it was a bit of a moot point anyway.
Associate
How DOES it look at 1280x720? Obviously the resolution is lower, but with it being exactly half the native, it ought to look pretty good (much better than having to interpolate 1280x720 on to a 1920x1080 display, for instance)!
Yes, 1280 x 720 isn't going to look great at 27", but the point is that because it's an integer ration of the full resolution, it will still look as good as a native 27" 1280 x 720 monitor.
In contrast, displaying 1920 x 1080 is not going to look as good on the U2711 as it will on a 1920 x 1080 native display (at least for things like text and other things with lots of detail). Which is a fairly important point if you're expecting to often work at that resolution.
(One of the things people appreciated about the IBM T220/T221 was that its "2nd native resolution" was 1920 x 1200, so you could display full HD without interpolated scaling).
Heh, I'm not disagreeing with you
You're arguing a point I never disputed.'Generally', because not ALL other resolutions look unsharp (but the majority of selectable ones do). And that no res will look as good as native, because it just won't!
Associate
ooooh, trying to decide whether to get this over the U2410. I've got a 23" 1080P (TN) screen to pair with it, which will be useful for gaming, but what's putting me off the 27 incher is the performance hit I'll get at native. Knowing that I can drop down to 1280x720 without interpolation is always a blessing.
Shall be pairing whatever I go for with a 4870x2.
Shall be pairing whatever I go for with a 4870x2.
During games interpolation isn't really an issue, it's more with static items like text or photos etc. I ran my 3007 at 1920x1200 or even 1680 x 1050 if the game required it without issue. I would bet 1280x720 on the U2711 will still look worse in games than 1920x1080.
I doubt your 4870X2 would have much problem driving it anyway. I ran plenty of games at 2560x1200 with a meagre gtx260-216.
Associate
Have you tried running your screen at 1280x800? That's exactly 1/2 the native resolution of your 3007. Therefore, it ought to be able to use 4 screen pixels for every drawn pixel, which ought to look pretty sharp (perhaps more so that the interpolated 1920x1200).