Saturday, September 27th 2008

Dell Silently Intros the 23-inch 16:9 S2309W Widescreen LCD Monitor

Dell has silently launched one more slave up its LCD monitor line-up, the 23-inch Dell S2309W. Base specs of this 23-incher reveal a 1920x1080 wide resolution, making it Dell's second 16:9 full HD display after S2409W. Response time is measured to be 5ms, brightness is 300 cd/m2, and contrast ratio is 1,000:1. The S2309W connects to the PC via DVI or analog VGA. It follows the new trend by matching the resolution found on modern TVs, so you may think this would be the perfect choice for movie lovers, if it did not lack HDMI connectivity for some reason. The display is currently only on Dell's Canadian site here. There is no information on pricing and availability yet.

Source: Dell
Add your own comment

24 Comments on Dell Silently Intros the 23-inch 16:9 S2309W Widescreen LCD Monitor

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
oooooh. true 16:9, 1080P... no native HDMI isnt a big loss, as you get get converters really easy (and why bother if it has no inbuilt speakers)
Posted on Reply
#2
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Missing HDMI to keep the costs down??? maybe they shoulda gone with DVi + HDMi instead & ship it with the Analogue to DVi converter things
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
as i said above freedom, why bother if it has no speakers? you gain nothing over DVI.
Posted on Reply
#4
ghost101
by: Mussels
oooooh. true 16:9, 1080P... no native HDMI isnt a big loss, as you get get converters really easy (and why bother if it has no inbuilt speakers)
But don't you use lose the HDCP path if you do that? But as mentioned pointless with no speakers.
Posted on Reply
#5

The Dell 24" S2409W is currently on offer here in the UK Dell site for just over £202 delivered (£50 off), would be interesting to see how much this one costs...

You don't need HDMI for HDCP.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#7

DVI to HDMI works fine for HDCP.

If the price is right I would be interested in this model, greater pixel density than the 24" display at the same resolution.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#8
TheGuruStud
We should just start calling these by the actual manuf. that makes them. It was sony the last time I checked (been a while though).

Regardless, it's dull and they won't be getting a penny.
Posted on Reply
#9
gerrynicol
Wish i'd got that or the 24" one, instead of the 1920x1200 I have, I likes my HD movies lol :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#10
TheGuruStud
by: gerrynicol
Wish i'd got that or the 24" one, instead of the 1920x1200 I have, I likes my HD movies lol :rockout:
Black bar hater, eh? :)
Posted on Reply
#11
gerrynicol
by: TheGuruStud
Black bar hater, eh? :)
LMAO:roll: yeah stoopidly bought widescreen and hd drive to watch movies, hahahah little did I know movies are (mostly) not screened in 16:9, shot in whatever they freakin want lol. I mean wtf is 1.85:1 or 2.40:1, just make a full screen 16:9 movie lol, jees, you'd think they were against us lmao
Posted on Reply
#12
TheGuruStud
by: gerrynicol
LMAO:roll: yeah stoopidly bought widescreen and hd drive to watch movies, hahahah little did I know movies are (mostly) not screened in 16:9, shot in whatever they freakin want lol. I mean wtf is 1.85:1 or 2.40:1, just make a full screen 16:9 movie lol, jees, you'd think they were against us lmao
I agree, they should stick to a standard. 1.85:1 isn't bad, but 2.35/4 is just ridiculously wide.
I think 16:9 is perfect. I don't wtf their deal is.
Posted on Reply
#13
gerrynicol
I have no idea why they don't have a "standard size" imo, it's just stoopid :(
Posted on Reply
#14
Weer
I got no problem with 16:9, but when MOST of the films come out at 2.40/1, and I get stuck with a film that takes up half of my WIDE-screen monitor.. I have to complain.
Posted on Reply
#15
Mussels
Moderprator
god i hate 2.40/1 'ultra widescreen' movies.

most of the time i end up returning those films, despite how good they may be because they LOOK LIKE ASS.

at the very least they should re-edit the film into a 16:9 version before releasing it to DVD, the lazy sods.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLostSwede
And maybe you "stoopid" people want smaller movies in the cinema as well?
I'm sorry, but movies are the way they are because they're shot for cinema, not for TV.
And "re-edit" them means we'll have the same problem as when 4:3 was the norm and we lost out a chunk on each side of the movie.
Go learn about how all this stuff works before you make stupid comments about stuff you know nothing about. :shadedshu

And besides, 16:9 screens are worse than 16:10 for anything BUT watching movies on, as they offer lower resolution, not great resolution. I'm amazed that the lot of you are buying into the BS marketing all these companies are doing about HD this and HD that, especially those of you that already have a 1920x1200 res display which is better than the 1920x1080 of the so called full HD displays. :banghead:

Maybe you guys should write to the movie industry and complain that they movies they make are "too big" and they should consider people's TV screens instead of the cinema, maybe they'll listen :laugh:

Btw, 16:9 is 1.78:1 and anything wider isn't really suitable for home use due to the odd screen size you'd end up with...
Posted on Reply
#17
TheGuruStud
^^ Which is exactly why they should've picked a standard. Thanks for proving our point.

And 20 more/less vertical pixels never killed anyone.
Posted on Reply
#18
ghost101
Err, if you hate black bars just use pan and scan? Then at least those that don't mind black bars have the option of a wider angle.
Posted on Reply
#19
Assimilator
by: malware
Dell has silently launched one more slave up its LCD monitor line-up...
Am I the only person to whom that sentence makes no sense whatsoever?
Posted on Reply
#20
TheGuruStud
by: Assimilator
Am I the only person to whom that sentence makes no sense whatsoever?
Yeah, I mean, if you were launching my ass up anything, I would be screaming my head off.
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Moderprator
movies come in 16:9, or stupid alternate resolutions. as PC users, we get 16:10. as home cinema users, we get 16:9.

I do not like black bars, and for f*cks sake i do NOT want to stretch my video to fit. whats the point of making a movie for the cinema aspect ratio if it lasts 2 months in a cinema, and 20 years on DVD!
Posted on Reply
#22
Swansen
by: TheLostSwede
And maybe you "stoopid" people want smaller movies in the cinema as well?
I'm sorry, but movies are the way they are because they're shot for cinema, not for TV.
And "re-edit" them means we'll have the same problem as when 4:3 was the norm and we lost out a chunk on each side of the movie.
Go learn about how all this stuff works before you make stupid comments about stuff you know nothing about. :shadedshu

And besides, 16:9 screens are worse than 16:10 for anything BUT watching movies on, as they offer lower resolution, not great resolution. I'm amazed that the lot of you are buying into the BS marketing all these companies are doing about HD this and HD that, especially those of you that already have a 1920x1200 res display which is better than the 1920x1080 of the so called full HD displays. :banghead:

Maybe you guys should write to the movie industry and complain that they movies they make are "too big" and they should consider people's TV screens instead of the cinema, maybe they'll listen :laugh:

Btw, 16:9 is 1.78:1 and anything wider isn't really suitable for home use due to the odd screen size you'd end up with...
Very well stated, as well, i believe HDMI has about ZERO place on a PC. The real advantage of HDMI is that it neatly sends audio and video over a single cable, but the bandwidth gap of HDMI vs DVI is about nothing, that and how many displays have onboard sound? Lastly, i would much rather have a connectivity for display port as it is computer equivalent of HDMI. On a final note, this is still a nice monitor, but i don't think i'd buy it for the simple fact that its native resolution is one thats not a very standard computer resolution, being that its 16:9 not 16:10, it wouldn't be much good for playing anything other than movies on, in which case i would rather use a TV display. However, i give props to Dell for advertising the actual response time, not some over the top measurement to boost their numbers. (Samsung)
Posted on Reply
#23
Mussels
Moderprator
Movies work in 16:9.

Games work in 16:9 and 16:10. (Either they support all resolutions, or they were console ports with native support) Hell, i find more games that ONLY work in 16:9 than i do for 16:10.

So actually, 16:9 is the superior resolution here. It gives you native support in BOTH movies and games, whereas 16:10 only gives it in games, and not even all of them.

oh and HDMI loses nothing over DVI - HDMI is actually an extension of the DVI protocol, they just removed analogue VGA support and added audio instead. Its only pointless if the TV has no speakers, otherwise it has a few bonuses. One of them being cable size (its smaller) and the other being that they can be a LOT longer (15 meters, i have a 5M cable and it doesnt tie my PC next to the screen)
Posted on Reply
#24
1c3d0g
HDMI sucks if you're a corporation anyway. DisplayPort for life! :rockout:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment