Dell monitors: Value vs. Ultrasharp

Æthelred

I'm all but done customising a Dell, and just have now to decide on a monitor. There's very limited options available, so it's basically a choice between their 'Value Flat Panel' (197) and their 'UltraSharp Digital/Analogue Flat Panel' (1907). Is there any real difference between the two, or is it just marketing? I wouldn't mind spending the bit ($70) more if the so-called UltraSharp is just that. I won't be using it for graphics editting or anything - so is it worth anything to general use and gaming?

The only real difference (both seem to have the same response time etc. ) I could see in their
comparison was:

Contrast Ratio 500:1
Contrast Ratio 700:1


Thanks!

vonPoonBurGer

Get the Ultrasharp. The Dell E197 monitor only has VGA input, no DVI. That means your video signal has to get converted from digital (in the computer) to analog (over the VGA cable) then back to digital (displayed on the panel). That seriously reduces the quality of the final output. The 1907 has both DVI digital input and VGA analog input, as long as you use the DVI input the signal is digital all the way through, and final quality will be noticeably better. Even if everything about the two units was the same aside from the DVI input, I'd still recommend the one with DVI. It's hardly worth getting a flat panel if you don't get digital input along with it.

Nexus Zero

I can't stress the difference between Value and UltraSharp enough. I've got an UltraSharp, which has a brilliant, consistent colour, and a wide viewing angle. The Value, which my family has, has a viewing angle so narrow that by simply moving your head up and down the colour will "shimmer" - the colour at the top of the screen is never the same as the bottom. It would be impossible to do graphics design on one, so I'd imagine they're no good for games, either.

stigweard

I ordered an lg194wtx at the end of September. When I picked it up, I never noticed that what I got was actually the lg194wt. The difference between them is the type of tn panel. I have the crappier 6 bit version and I would never recommend it (or any other 6 bit tn panel) to anyone. It is passable for games and reading the web, but it is horrible for any kind of graphics work. I thankfully still have a nice 19" crt for that, but I wish I had been at my computer more during the transition of my upgrade. I am passed the one month return now and am stuck with it. You can move your head horizontally and still have pretty consistent color, but if you move vertically at all, the brightness and color shift noticeably.

The Dell ultra sharp panels are 8 bit s-ips panels. They need more power to be as bright as the tn panels, but they have better color, clarity and much wider viewing angles.

Deusfaux

i'd really really really persuade you to get the 20" widescreen if you think this is gonna be for any gaming

going to a non widescreen lcd from a crt means you're LOSING space, instead of potentially gaining a bunch

Zeon

The 1907 is a fucking beautiful monitor. Its the LCD that convinced me to buy an LCD. Previously ive never seen much advantage to them, but then my company installed them at all our terminals. Staring at that all day and then coming home to a regular CRT makes your eyes bleed.

Its a fucking amazing monitor. Crisp, clear, no noticeable lag, and a fairly good viewing angle. The only thing i dont think is that if you do look at it from a fairly sharp angle (Probably 55 degrees or more) whites look yellow. But thats a minor grip.

My favorite part is it uses standard 4:3 resolution.

Deusfaux

i think you better look again


i have never heard of a 4:3 lcd.


and dell's page says:


Max Resolution Max Sync Rate (V x H)
1280x1024 Pixels at 75 Hz

that's 5:4 and less screen real estate

blincoln

Less screen real estate than what? All three of my CRTs at work and my left and right ones at home run at that resolution, because it's the highest res they get to before standard text on screen is too small to read comfortably. My middle CRT at home is 21" (as opposed to 19"), so I have that one jacked up to 1600x1200.

Gotcha Force

Deusfaux wrote:

i think you better look again


i have never heard of a 4:3 lcd.


and dell's page says:


Max Resolution Max Sync Rate (V x H)
1280x1024 Pixels at 75 Hz

that's 5:4 and less screen real estate

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-4687

Zeon

Shit, youre right, i did mean the 2007fp. The 1907fp's are what they have in the proof department, not our department. I knew ours were 4:3 because the resolution is 1600x1200.

The 1907fp is still a very nice monitor.

Nexus Zero

Deusfaux wrote:

i think you better look again


i have never heard of a 4:3 lcd.


and dell's page says:


Max Resolution Max Sync Rate (V x H)
1280x1024 Pixels at 75 Hz

that's 5:4 and less screen real estate

My old CRT ran at 1024x768. My LCD runs at 1024x768.

Deusfaux

Nexus Zero wrote:

Deusfaux wrote:

i think you better look again


i have never heard of a 4:3 lcd.


and dell's page says:


Max Resolution Max Sync Rate (V x H)
1280x1024 Pixels at 75 Hz

that's 5:4 and less screen real estate

My old CRT ran at 1024x768. My LCD runs at 1024x768.

it can do it... but is that its native rez?