ValantarPromoting "black levels" would be inherently misleading, as they're relative to the brightness setting, and any absolute measurement could easily be gamed by making some uselessly dark 0% backlight setting if that's what you wanted. The relevant data is found in the 2000:1 contrast ratio, which is ~2x higher than what most IPS panels can produce, indicating lower black levels overall (as increasing brightness would also increase the black level on any conventional panel this will never increase contrast meaningfully).

A 2x increase in contrast essentially means this can display one more stop of dynamic range. That's pretty significant, going from the ~10 stops of 1000:1 to 11. It's still not the >13 needed for real HDR, but it's a marked improvement, and one that will be easily perceptible.

Yes, that is my understanding that the black level is tied to brightness level, though I am somewhat skeptical since this is also and edge lit display. Looking forward to see the product though.

tabascosauzHate to disappoint, but even Ultrasharp isn't spared the post-pandemic QC of other brands. At one point I tried to get a U2717D, twice - both returned for horrid uniformity. Dell makes no guarantee as to uniformity on these panels, but they do have a relatively stringent dead pixel policy iirc (take note, MSI and Gigabyte).

I do have a U2515H across the pond though, and it is a flawless monitor. I have a S2721DGF now and it's good, gotten better with time - its uniformity issues are less to do with Dell and more inherent to the LG 27GL850 panel it's using.

That said, it doesn't change that Dell is head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to warranty, support and return policy on its higher end monitors (Ultrasharp and higher end gaming monitors have the same premium warranty and returns). And in a panel market where you're more likely to repeatedly play the try-it-and-return-it lottery than get a good panel, that return policy is worth more than anything else. Normally only Amazon and brick-and-mortar stores are that generous.

To get guaranteed uniformity (or at least better, with software to mitigate it), you need to at least step up to a pro-line BenQ (SW270C, SW271) or high end Eizo. Think the top Asus ProArts too maybe. All of which are Adobe RGB panels, cost as much as a GPU, and aimed at pros with colour accuracy needs.

The Ultrasharps usually have actually good accuracy out of the box, and respond well to proper calibration as well.

Benq SW line is garbage. They get "aceptable" color uniformity with agressive uniformity correction that drops contrast bellow 700:1 at D65 white (user cannot turn it off).
Eizo gets perfect color uniformity with no compensation, and very good brightness uniformity with uniformity compensation and contrast drop.
The outsiders in my generalization are CS2740 and SW271C which have poorer contrast than other CS models, although Eizo model does better than Benq... and the fact that Eizo software actually works.

Asus ProArt AdobeRGB widegamuts were and are the worst models in the market with extremely poor non correctable color uniformity, and uniformity compensation only corrected brightness. Also their HW calibration software sucks, a total failure. The outsider in this generalization is Asus PA32UCG which seems to have (a high chance in QC lottery to) an astonishing quality, contrast and color uniformity... although I have my fears about Asus software and their support.
Like Dell in the past, Asus mixes in the ProArt line very good sRGB IPS with their AdobeRGB garbage, hence "ProArt" line means a lot of things and may mislead public if we label the whole line as a block.

Also you are making a comparison with office grade from Dell (sRGB or P3), "U", the models in this article, instead with Dell "UP" line (AdobeRGB and P3) which should be equivalent to Benq SW / Asus ProArt (AdobeRGB widegamut) lines. UP line have uniformity compnesation. It's true that 10 years ago "U" line was both office and photo edition line with good sRGB IPS and widegamut (AdobeRGB type) IPS, like current Asus ProArt.

A final note. Panels are not AdobeRGB or sRGB or P3 (unless you go to OLED AMOLED domain). Display colorspace is given by the LED used in rear backlight, by its spectral power distribution.

watzupkenYes, that is my understanding that the black level is tied to brightness level, though I am somewhat skeptical since this is also and edge lit display. Looking forward to see the product though.

The type of backlight doesn't really affect static, panel-derived contrast - that's just a measurement of how well the liquid crystal array is able to block out the backlight. Whether that light is coming from a diffused and redirected edge-mounted LED array or some sort of direct backlighting is irrelevant to this measurement. Of course some sort of FALD would allow for drastically higher dynamic contrast, but even then a higher native panel contrast ratio would be highly beneficial in minimizing bloom in brighter lighting zones.

ValantarCool, now you only need to tile four of those next to each other to get a comparable screen size.

Welp, 48" OLEDs are out in the wilds for a while and 40" is inbound.

Perhaps I can buy one and slice it intto 4 monitors of Dell's size.

WGKingA final note. Panels are not AdobeRGB or sRGB or P3 (unless you go to OLED AMOLED domain). Display colorspace is given by the LED used in rear backlight, by its spectral power distribution.

Technically correct, but irrelevant since you cannot buy the panel and backlight separately.

lexluthermiesterI disagree with this point.

Content creation is pushing into the 120hz arena and this display would be ill equipped to handle 4k-120hz. And even though 1000/8=125, there are processing and panel latency's to consider. Because of the 8ms pixel response time, the panel will be able to do 4k60hz fine, but little above that. Couple this with the display menu controls being on the back instead of the front and the USB ports being placed in very poor locations, this is an all around design failure for Dell. They'll be asking a premium price for a subpar product. Not acceptable.

I said "it most likely doesn't matter much." I didn't say it was irrelevant.

I love having the controls on the back of my display and have had that on several different displays, it's really not an issue and takes a whole 30 seconds to get used to.
I hate the capacitive touch button on my old U2515H, as they don't respond one time out of three.
Don't see the issue with the USB port placement either, fairly normal, plus you have two ports accessible at the front.
Each to their own I guess.

This monitor looked great, stopped reading at 60Hz.

medi01Welp, 48" OLEDs are out in the wilds for a while and 40" is inbound.

Perhaps I can buy one and slice it intto 4 monitors of Dell's size.

At 1080p that wouldn't be a particularly good experience either, but be my guest I guess? 48" is far too large for desk usage outside of a few niche use cases, and even 40" is an ergonomic nightmare for the vast majority of users. 32" is about as large as you can go for most users on most desks without incurring excessive neck and eye strain, or necessitating moving the monitor further away than what is ideal or making other ergonomic concessions.

So, until we have 27-32" 2160p OLEDs at prices that somewhat ordinary humans can afford, this looks pretty decent for what it's intended for.

ValantarAt 1080p that wouldn't be a particularly good experience either, but be my guest I guess?

The only reason I've picked 2.8k 14" screen over 1080p 15" screen (both OLED), was that I liked 16:10 and smaller size more than 16:9 and bigger size.

Now you could argue, that 15" is notably smaller and hence different, fair enough, but note how Dell's offering is tightly sandwiched on both higher PPI and lower PPI ends, not just sizes.

OLED notebooks were also a $2.5k+ thing just recently and today, the overblown "burn in" myth is perhaps what stops home OLED monitor market from exploding (I was shocked by the number of people who were looking for notebooks regarding OLED screen as a minus)

medi01The only reason I've picked 2.8k 14" screen over 1080p 15" screen (both OLED), was that I liked 16:10 and smaller size more than 16:9 and bigger size.

Now you could argue, that 15" is notably smaller and hence different, fair enough, but note how Dell's offering is tightly sandwiched on both higher PPI and lower PPI ends, not just sizes.

OLED notebooks were also a $2.5k+ thing just recently and today, the overblown "burn in" myth is perhaps what stops home OLED monitor market from exploding (I was shocked by the number of people who were looking for notebooks regarding OLED screen as a minus)

I entirely agree that it's great that we're seeing affordable OLED notebooks start to appear, but AFAIK those tend to use display tech that isn't really suitable to scaling to larger sizes, whether that's due to unusual subpixel arrangements that would become far too visible or just production related issues (difficulty scaling to large panel sizes without defects etc.). Burn-in is still an issue though - it's not as bad as many people think, but it will happen eventually, and unlike TVs, PCs have essentially zero effective mitigations that don't require significant user effort (pixel shift won't help you from burning in your taskbar icons; dimming on idle won't work for a PC; selective "logo" (icon/UI) dimming would likely harm usability as icons and UI elements are actively viewed unlike TV channel logos; hiding the taskbar and frequently moving your windows is a lot of effort that mainly postpones the inevitable). But ultimately this depends on a lot of factors - usage patterns, the user's tolerance for burn-in artifacts, their expectation of device longeivty, warranty terms and ease of repair, etc. Far too many variables for this to be a reason to avoid the panels outright, but it's something that one needs to factor into any purchase decision. If you tend to replace your laptop every 3 years it's not likely to matter; if you want to keep it for a decade that's likely a bad idea. I would love an OLED laptop myself - I keep them a long time, but don't use them that frequently - but I wouldn't go anywhere near it for my main desktop monitor with current OLED tech. QD-OLED might do the trick there though, as that promises another jump over current solutions in terms of subpixel lifespan.

But we're veering way, way off topic here. The point still stands that there are no desktop display sized OLED panels available in sane price categories, so that point is moot. I'm hopeful that this will change soon, but I'm not crossing my fingers. Desktop displays sell in such low volumes (compared to phones, tablets, laptops and TVs) that they're always the last market to get fancy new tech.

As for what dell is offering here in terms of size and PPI, I don't see your point - these are standard sizes and resolutions. Nothing unusual about any of this. That doesn't change the fact that comparing these desktop-sized displays to small laptop panels or large TV panels is ... well, a poor comparison in many ways.

TheLostSwedeI said "it most likely doesn't matter much." I didn't say it was irrelevant.

I know, didn't mean any offense at all..

TheLostSwedeI love having the controls on the back of my display and have had that on several different displays

Really? I guess to each there own. Irritates me to no end.

TheLostSwedeDon't see the issue with the USB port placement either, fairly normal, plus you have two ports accessible at the front.
Each to their own I guess.

Yes, definitely an "agree to disagree" moment.

For the 32-inch version, based on the price, I rather save up for an OLED.