Dell 3007 30" Flatpanel

On 12 Feb 2006 12:20:25 -0500, wrote:

How likely is it that this huge flat panel lcd can be calibrated adequately for an amateur?

It’s resolution is 2560×1600, and I covet the amount of information such resolution can contain.

Thanks,

I haven’t use the Dell flat panel, but I use a 23" Apple flat panel, and I’m quite happy with it.

how much?

how much?

posted:

How likely is it that this huge flat panel lcd can be calibrated adequately for an amateur?

It’s resolution is 2560×1600, and I covet the amount of information such resolution can contain.

What will you do with all these pixels?

I have a 21.3 inch Samsung SyncMaster. It’s capable of 1600×1200 but at that resolution the type on the icons, etc. is too small, so I use it at 1280×960. I don’t see any difference in "information" when I look at an image full screen at either resolution.

Spend your money on two monitors and a video card that can handle them. Oh and the monitors should both be the same size.

– Max

—
MisterMax

http://buten.net/max/
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Myanmar (new), Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand (new), Tour de France.

http://pbase.com/mistermax – Shadows and Reflections

Mister Max writes:

posted:

How likely is it that this huge flat panel lcd can be calibrated adequately for an amateur?

It’s resolution is 2560×1600, and I covet the amount of information such resolution can contain.

Mister> What will you do with all these pixels?

Mister> I have a 21.3 inch Samsung SyncMaster. It’s capable of 1600×1200 but at Mister> that resolution the type on the icons, etc. is too small, so I use it at Mister> 1280×960. I don’t see any difference in "information" when I look at an Mister> image full screen at either resolution.

Perhaps not with just an image, but you can get many more rows of a database table, and side by side excel and word programs running (just an example). You can get far more information.

I love small crisp text, one of my laptops has a 15" 1600×1200 and I love it.

Mister> Spend your money on two monitors and a video card that can handle them. Oh Mister> and the monitors should both be the same size.

I do not know any monitors that are 1280×1600, so that will not reproduce the resolution.

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

carolyn writes:

carolyn> how much?

Dell wants 2200, but there are some on eBay for 1650.

ah

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.

With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance is similar all the way across.

If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet for word processing and such.

wrote:

How likely is it that this huge flat panel lcd can be calibrated adequately for an amateur?

There must be quite a few people who can answer this from experience; Apple has been selling a 30" LCD since mid-2004.

It’s resolution is 2560×1600, and I covet the amount of information such resolution can contain.

Thanks,

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

must not have seen this original post because i thought you were selling this monitor. you just want callibrate it. i asked how much because i just bought a dell 24" monitor and i very happy with it. also bought an eye one callibrator and callibrated the lcd monitor myself (1st time) . i had great results. the new monitors have the capability to callibrate in each of the red, green, and blue "channels". also set the white point and brightness’contrast. now my prints finally match my monitor. the eye one was $179.00 but i got it at a special convention price. i think they run around $20.00 more that that regularly.

good luck,
carolyn

www.carolyncoffey.com

Pat writes:

Pat> Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your Pat> editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and Pat> keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one Pat> and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want Pat> to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.

At the job I just left I had 2 in my office, and three on my trading floor desk.

Neither 2 nor 3 had the resolution that one 2560×1600 had.

And these were 1280×1024. So three was less than a third the resolution than one 3007.

2560×1600 > 3*3*1284*1024.

Pat> With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you Pat> 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance

That is 2.6 times less than the 2580×1600.

Pat> is similar all the way across.

Pat> If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors Pat> that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet Pat> for word processing and such.

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

Off memory this particular model only had a contrast ratio of 600 to 1. I’ve observed others commenting that 1000 to 1 is preferred (The 24" model is 1000 to 1).

C J Southern writes:

C> Off memory this particular model only had a contrast ratio of 600 to 1. I’ve C> observed others commenting that 1000 to 1 is preferred (The 24" model is C> 1000 to 1).

It is 700:1.

Would that not be enough for an amateur CS2 user?

ah

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

wrote in message

C J Southern writes:

C> Off memory this particular model only had a contrast ratio of 600 to

1. I’ve

C> observed others commenting that 1000 to 1 is preferred (The 24"

model is

C> 1000 to 1).

It is 700:1.

Would that not be enough for an amateur CS2 user?

Not sure – perhaps others might have a better idea.

wrote:

Pat writes:

Pat> Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your Pat> editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and Pat> keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one Pat> and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want Pat> to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.
At the job I just left I had 2 in my office, and three on my trading floor desk.

Neither 2 nor 3 had the resolution that one 2560×1600 had.
And these were 1280×1024. So three was less than a third the resolution than one 3007.

2560×1600 > 3*3*1284*1024.

Pat> With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you Pat> 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance
That is 2.6 times less than the 2580×1600.

Pat> is similar all the way across.

Pat> If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors Pat> that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet Pat> for word processing and such.

My production machine has 2 x 19" ViewSonic LCD panels (1280×1024) and one portrate display (1024×768, rotated on end). The screens are run off two independant video cards meaning I get very fast desktop redraws (especially when multiple 3d applications are open or video editing where one display becomes a playback monitor). Total desktop size is effectively 3328×1024! It’s fab 🙂

SpaceGirl writes:

SpaceGirl> wrote:

Pat writes:

Pat> Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your Pat> editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and Pat> keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one Pat> and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want Pat> to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.

At the job I just left I had 2 in my office, and three on my trading floor desk.

Neither 2 nor 3 had the resolution that one 2560×1600 had.
And these were 1280×1024. So three was less than a third the resolution than one 3007.

2560×1600 > 3*3*1284*1024.

Pat> With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you Pat> 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance

That is 2.6 times less than the 2580×1600.

Pat> is similar all the way across.

Pat> If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors Pat> that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet Pat> for word processing and such.

SpaceGirl> My production machine has 2 x 19" ViewSonic LCD panels (1280×1024) and SpaceGirl> one portrate display (1024×768, rotated on end). The screens are run SpaceGirl> off two independant video cards meaning I get very fast desktop redraws SpaceGirl> (especially when multiple 3d applications are open or video editing SpaceGirl> where one display becomes a playback monitor). Total desktop size is SpaceGirl> effectively 3328×1024! It’s fab 🙂

Sounds nice, but it is 2048×1024, not 3328. Unless I am missing something.

That is still about half the new dell in terms of total resolution. You can see why I would like that…

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)

wrote:

SpaceGirl> My production machine has 2 x 19" ViewSonic LCD panels SpaceGirl> (1280×1024) and one portrate display (1024×768, rotated on SpaceGirl> end). The screens are run off two independant video cards SpaceGirl> meaning I get very fast desktop redraws (especially when SpaceGirl> multiple 3d applications are open or video editing where one SpaceGirl> display becomes a playback monitor). Total desktop size is SpaceGirl> effectively 3328×1024! It’s fab 🙂

Sounds nice, but it is 2048×1024, not 3328. Unless I am missing something.

You’re missing something: the third monitor. 2x 1280 + 768 = 3328.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

wrote:

SpaceGirl writes:

SpaceGirl> wrote:

Pat writes:

Pat> Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your Pat> editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and Pat> keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one Pat> and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want Pat> to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.

At the job I just left I had 2 in my office, and three on my trading floor desk.

Neither 2 nor 3 had the resolution that one 2560×1600 had.
And these were 1280×1024. So three was less than a third the resolution than one 3007.

2560×1600 > 3*3*1284*1024.

Pat> With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you Pat> 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance

That is 2.6 times less than the 2580×1600.

Pat> is similar all the way across.

Pat> If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors Pat> that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet Pat> for word processing and such.

SpaceGirl> My production machine has 2 x 19" ViewSonic LCD panels (1280×1024) and SpaceGirl> one portrate display (1024×768, rotated on end). The screens are run SpaceGirl> off two independant video cards meaning I get very fast desktop redraws SpaceGirl> (especially when multiple 3d applications are open or video editing SpaceGirl> where one display becomes a playback monitor). Total desktop size is SpaceGirl> effectively 3328×1024! It’s fab 🙂

Sounds nice, but it is 2048×1024, not 3328. Unless I am missing something.

You missed something – 3 screens, not two. Two screens that are 1280 wide, and another one that is 768 wide (cuz it’s on end, portrait). 1280+1280+768 = 3328 x 1024 (height), so… about 3.5mpix desktop. It’s fun!

That is still about half the new dell in terms of total resolution. You can see why I would like that…

But yes you are right… I’d kill for the Dell!

toby wrote:

wrote:

How likely is it that this huge flat panel lcd can be calibrated adequately for an amateur?

There must be quite a few people who can answer this from experience; Apple has been selling a 30" LCD since mid-2004.

:s

Tried PhotoShop on an HD LCD TV over the weekend (my Powerbook plugged into it). Amazing at 37"! The colours are so funky on a TV tho, way off of my normal panel displays.

SpaceGirl wrote:

You missed something – 3 screens, not two. Two screens that are 1280 wide, and another one that is 768 wide (cuz it’s on end, portrait). 1280+1280+768 = 3328 x 1024 (height), so… about 3.5mpix desktop. It’s fun!

That is still about half the new dell in terms of total resolution. You can see why I would like that…

But yes you are right… I’d kill for the Dell!

You shouldn’t. I have a 23" Apple Cinema Display (1920 pixels wide) and a 21" Dell (1600 inch) wide, so my desktop is even bigger, but the Apple is clearly better than the Dell. The Dell shows discoloration as soon as I move a bit too much to one side, or when I stand up and look down on the displays. The Apple does not. I would never trade that in for one bigger Dell display!

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

You missed something – 3 screens, not two. Two screens that are 1280 wide, and another one that is 768 wide (cuz it’s on end, portrait). 1280+1280+768 = 3328 x 1024 (height), so… about 3.5mpix desktop. It’s fun!

That is still about half the new dell in terms of total resolution. You can see why I would like that…

But yes you are right… I’d kill for the Dell!

You shouldn’t. I have a 23" Apple Cinema Display (1920 pixels wide) and a 21" Dell (1600 inch) wide, so my desktop is even bigger, but the Apple is clearly better than the Dell. The Dell shows discoloration as soon as I move a bit too much to one side, or when I stand up and look down on the displays. The Apple does not. I would never trade that in for one bigger Dell display!

Johan,

I know you use Mac, but what kind of connections does your display have? Does it have a normal DVI connection (white)? I am interested in that display for a PC.

Waldo

Waldo wrote:

You shouldn’t. I have a 23" Apple Cinema Display (1920 pixels wide) and a 21" Dell (1600 inch) wide, so my desktop is even bigger, but the Apple is clearly better than the Dell. The Dell shows discoloration as soon as I move a bit too much to one side, or when I stand up and look down on the displays. The Apple does not. I would never trade that in for one bigger Dell display!

Johan,

I know you use Mac, but what kind of connections does your display have? Does it have a normal DVI connection (white)? I am interested in that display for a PC.

Yes, it has a white DVI connection, but I’m not 100% sure it’s a ‘normal’ one that also fits a PC. My Dell monitor has a different connector, so I use a short adapter cable that was supplied with my Quad G5 Mac.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Waldo wrote:

You shouldn’t. I have a 23" Apple Cinema Display (1920 pixels wide) and a 21" Dell (1600 inch) wide, so my desktop is even bigger, but the Apple is clearly better than the Dell. The Dell shows discoloration as soon as I move a bit too much to one side, or when I stand up and look down on the displays. The Apple does not. I would never trade that in for one bigger Dell display!

Johan,

I know you use Mac, but what kind of connections does your display have? Does it have a normal DVI connection (white)? I am interested in that display for a PC.

Yes, it has a white DVI connection, but I’m not 100% sure it’s a ‘normal’ one that also fits a PC. My Dell monitor has a different connector, so I use a short adapter cable that was supplied with my Quad G5 Mac.

Ok. Thanks for the info.

Waldo

SpaceGirl writes:

SpaceGirl> wrote:

SpaceGirl writes:

SpaceGirl> wrote:

Pat writes:

Pat> Two monitors are a real blessing. You can open one and start your Pat> editing software and put all of the palettes, etc. on the other one and Pat> keep you image clean. Better yet, you can open Word or Excel in one Pat> and Netscape or your database in the other. I run two and sort of want Pat> to upgrade to one more, but I would have to wall-mount it or something.

At the job I just left I had 2 in my office, and three on my trading floor desk.

Neither 2 nor 3 had the resolution that one 2560×1600 had.
And these were 1280×1024. So three was less than a third the resolution than one 3007.

2560×1600 > 3*3*1284*1024.

Pat> With two monitors, you get 1024 x 768 or whatever on each, giving you Pat> 2048 x 769. You can also put them at slight anges so you eye distance

That is 2.6 times less than the 2580×1600.

Pat> is similar all the way across.

Pat> If I was going to do it again, I would get a graphics card and monitors Pat> that I could put in the portrait orientatin so it would be better yet Pat> for word processing and such.

SpaceGirl> My production machine has 2 x 19" ViewSonic LCD panels (1280×1024) and SpaceGirl> one portrate display (1024×768, rotated on end). The screens are run SpaceGirl> off two independant video cards meaning I get very fast desktop redraws SpaceGirl> (especially when multiple 3d applications are open or video editing SpaceGirl> where one display becomes a playback monitor). Total desktop size is SpaceGirl> effectively 3328×1024! It’s fab 🙂

Sounds nice, but it is 2048×1024, not 3328. Unless I am missing something.

SpaceGirl> You missed something – 3 screens, not two. Two screens that are 1280

My bad.

SpaceGirl> wide, and another one that is 768 wide (cuz it’s on end, portrait). SpaceGirl> 1280+1280+768 = 3328 x 1024 (height), so… about 3.5mpix desktop. It’s SpaceGirl> fun!

Similar to what I had at work, Close to the 2560×1600 overall.

That is still about half the new dell in terms of total resolution. You can see why I would like that…

SpaceGirl> But yes you are right… I’d kill for the Dell!

—
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop…)