Why is the Dell 2407 BETTER then the Dell 3007?

I took the stuff off from the dell site but it's obnoxiously hard.

The alienware site is a bit easier:

Dell 2407:

Response Time 6ms (GtG)
Color Support 16.7 million colors
Contrast Ratio 1000
Dot Pitch 0.270 mm
Image Aspect Ratio 16
Image Brightness 450 cd/m²
Max Resolution 1920x1200 at 60 Hz

Dell 3007:

Response Time 11 ms (grey-to-grey)
14 ms (black-to-black)
Color Support 16.7 million colors
Contrast Ratio 700
Pixel Pitch (Dot Pitch) 0.250 mm
Brightness 400 cd/m2
Resolution 2560x1600 (max)

Seriously, Is all of that crap worth higher resolution?

 

Higher resolution, and the fact that the display is six inches larger in diagonal length. That alone makes a huge difference.

Have you ever compared a 24" and 30" monitor side by side? Even though I was looking at a very thick bezeled 24" (an iMac, actually) and a very thin bezeled 30" (an Apple Cinema Display), the difference was massive.

 

So it changes worse contrast and worse refresh rate?

Versus other monitors that could be as big as 42", but with all of that high quality?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...CategoryId=pcmcat95100050044&id=1158318442758

Oh, but low resolution...

Seriously, as much as I like dell monitors, (And I now own 5), the 3007 is a huge step back.

 

That isnt a monitor mate, thats a TV with a VGA input, but not a tuner. Theres a difference.

That is meant for plugging in a Cable box or Satellite reciever, the Dell is meant to be hooked up to an insanely powerful Workstation for imaging or to a gaming rig.

Also, compare the 24" to say, a 17" or 19" LCD (aspect ratio doesnt matter). The specs will be better on the 17" one.

 

A workstation for imaging? It better be to a gaming rig, because with that refresh rate and that color contrast, any poor soul working on images will have any images they make look about as good as... garbage (Okay, I'm tired).

Lcd's are not the the first place to go to work on images on a workstation in the first place, but if you do use a lcd, you must pick one with the biggest color contrast available, so you can see all the colors.

 

I dunno, I have a friend who is a manager at the Phillips North American Headquarters for ultrasound imaging, and his setup (and the rest of the employees) is a Dell workstation with Quadro graphics and at least one of these 30" Dell monitors (some have two). That would count as imaging, and if this monitor made images look like garbage, I dont think Phillips would use them....

On that note, have you ever looked at this monitor in person?

 

Generally speaking, the higher the contrast, the closer it is to looking like real life.

And I'd hafta see that, because most graphics pros I know, use crts :-\

If it's true, perhaps they use it because it's so high in resolution. Even though contrast is important, resolution is VERY important. But really, If I was a graphics professional, I'd pick a monitor that was super big, super high res, and super good in contrast. None exist right now, but Apple monitors come close...

But while a very high resolution helps you see all the finer details up close, it's the contrast that helps you actually see if the colors match.

EDIT: BTW, do you know of any graphics professionals who attach 1080p 6000:1 lcd tvs or plasma tvs to their pcs and use it? I don't, but it certainly sounds like a much more resonable method of doing things then using a crt or an lcd with low contrast...

 

So, you havent seen it in the flesh and are making your comments based on the spec sheet.

CRTs usually dont get 2560 x 1600 res, as far as I know, and a 30" CRT will take up quite a bit of desk space and power, not to mention adding a second one.

 

What do you need to see?

Do they lie about contrast ratio or something? Is their something I'm not getting? I'm just going by the book here.

And yes, crts do go up to that resolution

But your right, a crt that big wouldn't just take up quite a bit of desk space, it would FILL your desk space :-X

 

No offense meant in the forthcoming post...

CRTs at that res, or actually, CRTs in general, are paragons of inefficiency, compared to LCDs.

How much difference does it actually make? Do you actually know? I do not, I am merely pointing out a significant logical fallacy in your argument.
In something so subjective like image quality, how can you proclaim something is better just looking at specs? If you have not seen them both (I am assuming you have seen neither, but have ordered the 2407) with what authority can you say that the 2407 is better?

 

Simply by the contrast ratio...

The more colors put out in contrast, the better it looks...

I have a 2007wfp, and I'm ashamed that a 19" 480i crt from 2001 looks better then it.

Try playing movies on both. You see the difference immediately, if you have good eyes (Like me).

 

I know, I can tell the difference, I have a 17" CRT running next to my 19" Sony LCD. I am about to replace the CRT tommorow with an old 14" LCD that looks so much worse, but at least I wont have to worry about the monitor falling through my glass table...

Your trying to use a spec to judge something very subjective, which really doesnt work.
Its like saying, my car has 10% lower first gearing than normal so its going to accelerate quicker than an identical car with the normal gearbox. Yes, but is it going to be a noticable difference? Not likely.
Or like saying, the Sony SZ is lighter than the Asus W7J. Yes, it is, but not by a noticable amount.....

What I am asking is, how do you know how much better the 2407 is than the 3007 if you havent seen both of them? yes, the contrast ratio is higher, the response time is marginally quicker, and its brighter by 12.5%, but does that make a whole lot of difference, if at all?

 

hum... Well I can tell the difference between 500:1 and 800:1 contrast monitors and it is pretty big to me, so I might be able to tell a slightly big difference between it...

BTW, it's not really because my eyes are so good... It's because of the way my mind is. My mind is so good it can find the slightest change anywhere.

When playing music, NORMAL PEOPLE would listen to the music whole. Not me. My mind SEPERATES the music by instrument. I have virtual surround sound in my head because of the way my mind is!

Honest to god, serious.

Shall I continue?

I'm losing my eyebrows... I can notice the slightest change on my body, that includes the loss of 1 friggin' eyebrow.. I'm not kidding... do you know how annoying it is to notice that?

SO if my mind can see 1 eyebrow lost, you can imagine how I feel about 100 contrast level change, or even 300.

Now you'll probably understand why I'm serious all the time. I notice everything!

 

OMG you must be an anomaly! Or at least a genius.

 

Is that sarcasm I detect? Besides... who DOESN'T notice that they look freakin' weird if they lose an eyebrow?

 

Ah, shutup.

How do you explain the music thing then?

 

If you like contrast so much then get the latest LG LCD lol. Its digitally boosted to 3000:1. Anyway Id go out and actually take a look at a the 3007 before making comments like this. The 30in is S-IPS which is a better panel than the M-PVA in the 2407. Some 2007 also has S-IPS but no 2407 has them.

 

Many people can separate music if they listen to it. It's actually one of the things that we as humans can do that we can't figure out how to make computers do, actually "ignore" certain sounds in order to make out other ones. It's just that most people don't pay attention to the fact that they can do that, and prefer to just have the din of an iPod blasting in their ear with crappily-mixed music that's blown out on all channels. I'll bet you like classic rock better than a lot of new music, too, right? If not, then you aren't really listening like you think, you're just hearing that everything in new music is overly bright because they crank the levels up to where it starts clipping, but you don't have to worry about skips like on records anymore. But that's just the audiophile in me talking.

Some people just pay a bit more attention to detail than others, and to different things. Do you pay attention to the latest fashion trends to see how you look to other people? Go to parties, know what everyone is doing and can remember names with no problem? It's mostly priorities, not super-intelligence The real trick is to recognize areas where you're weak (like I am in parties and dressing and acting like a normal person) and work on them.

Anyway, back on-topic, you might be able to see a difference between the two if they're side by side, or with videos and games. Just using one or the other? Not likely. And the fact is, a larger screen is just harder to manufacture than a smaller one. There are many physical limits of the materials and signaling they're working with that they run into when making the larger LCD's, hence why the refresh, etc. is lower on the larger flat panel. It's part of the price you pay for a higher resolution and larger work area, and it depends on what it's worth to you. For people working on spreadsheets and some kinds of non-photo graphics, raw resolution is king. If you can get more pixels without splitting them between two monitors, it's better. It's all in your priorities.

 

The Dell 3007 may be bigger, and have a higher resolution, but it lacks in quality to the Dell 2407.

The Image contrast levels are better on the 2407, and the Image Brightness is higher too, and the Image Response times.

When I'm spending around $1500, I'd want a monitor that is perfect in every way, and that monitor for Best Buy is quite poor. It may be nice and big, but the resolution is atrocious, and it does not even have a DVI input.

The 3007 is OKAY, but not perfect.

I 2407 howver, is PERFECT in every way. I have pretty much the same monitor, the Dell 2405FPW. It has fantastic a 5 inputs. And the S-Video and Composite interfaces cater for old VCRs or consoles without need for half a dozen adapter, and the Image Quality really is unbeatable. Provided you have a half decent GPU, every pixel is rendered to perfection.

However, there is no point buying a more expensive monitor if your laptop does not support widescreen resolutions, or even support the resolution of 1920 x 1200 for a secondary monitor.

Go for the Dell 2407FPW.

 

I just wanted to mention caution on comparing specs, especially with LCD's.
I know your comparing dell to dell, so it's a bit safer... but comparing between different manufacturers...
There is no ISO standard to measure response time. Several web sites have done their own standardized response times and found that many are 2-3 times higher than what is stated.
I'm not sure about other factors. I've heard some manufactuers play with the settings to get a very high contrast and brightness setting, at which point the images actually don't look good.

BTW, how does the --07 dells compare to the 05's? My roommate had a 2105 and I thought it looked like garbage. Totally unusable for any sort of imaging. I'm curious if their new monitors are any better.

And on another point, no contrast is not really that good of a benchmark to go by. A monitor can have the best contrast, but poor color reporduction.