HP LP3065 30-inch monitor details revealed

Yesterday we told you about the HP LP3065, but as we noted at the time, details were sparse. Today, HP got its act together and finally put up some more information about this mammoth of a monitor. Here's what we've found out: 1000:1 contrast ratio, 2560 x 1600 pixels, 92 percent color gamut, 178 x 178 degree viewing angles, three dual-link DVI-D inputs and two dual-link DVI cables -- and has a respectable brightness of 300 nits. HP also tells us that the LP3065 will be available in November and "is priced not to exceed $1999", or translated from PR-speak, will be $2000 or less. But better than all of those deets are HP's PR annotations left on its monitor fact sheet (linked below). There are a couple gems like: "This monitor features an amazingly sharp 2560 x 1600 high resolution panel, extra-wide 178 x 178 degree (usually I just say 178 degree viewing angles) . . ." and ". . . the widest available in an HP monitor (this will the widest in the market for about 4-6 months. Can we get away with saying widest available on the market?)." Uh, HP, you actually can't. Dell and Apple have already come out with 30-inch monitors -- and they did it way before you. But thanks for playing! [Warning: PDF link!]

[z @ Sep 7th 2006 12:16PM]

I wonder how long it will stay with the PR comments on. Very funny anyhow.

[DrThadeusVenture @ Sep 7th 2006 12:22PM]

I like the narrow bezzel. I'm not liking the move to wide format for all monitors. I just don't watch that many movies on my computer.

[Jeff @ Sep 7th 2006 12:38PM]

"I like the narrow bezzel. I'm not liking the move to wide format for all monitors. I just don't watch that many movies on my computer."

Or do much of anything else, apparently.

Almost all applications benefit from wide aspect ratios. Whether it's Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, whatever. Even most games benefit from widescreen, as the majority of games take place on a wide playing field, not a long one... fps games all have a horizon, for example, and you're a lot better off if you can see more to the sides than up or down.

Even web browsing benefits from wide aspect ratios, because you can have two windows open at once side by side. With 2500 pixels across, you can easily view two full web sites simultaneously without overlap. This isn't something a lot of people are going to do 100% of the time, but it's nice, for just one example, to be able to compare two products you're considering purchasing side by side at the same time.

The moral of the story is, quit yer bitchin'.

[peter @ Sep 7th 2006 12:45PM]

"Almost all applications benefit from wide aspect ratios. "

Hardly. Most would benefit more from more vertical screen real estate. Most everything has more vertical information that horizontal information.

I agree with the other guy. Wide is the new black (ie all the "cool" kids want it"), but A 20" 4:3 screen has a lot more useful screen real estate than 20" "widescreen".

[Victor @ Sep 7th 2006 12:46PM]

ONCE AGAIN, you tech nerds are not attention-to-detail nerds...

IF you decide to read it, it does say :" and an expanded color
gamut of 92% of the NTSC spectrum, the widest available in an HP
monitor (this will the widest in the market for about 4-6 months. Can we
get away with saying widest available on the market?)"

It is obviously in reference to the color gamut, and it is better than both dell and Apple CD in color gamut specs.

[Dougal @ Sep 7th 2006 12:46PM]

Erm.. I dont think that the PR guys were talking about the monitor being the widest on the market, the comment comes after the statement about it having an expanded colour gamut (92% of NTSC). I dont know if this is the widest colour gamut on the market but that looks like what they are trying to say.

[mark @ Sep 7th 2006 12:59PM]

peter-

I guess you do not use Photoshop or any heavy palette program- I could have just one 30" monitor to replace my 23" and my 19" that I use at work. Palettes on the 19", working doc on the 23". I guess if I am laying out a newspaper the a taller monitor would be better- but I'll pass.

[Charles Bandes @ Sep 7th 2006 1:14PM]

As others have noted, the "widest" here refers to color gamut, not screen real estate. An improved color gamut is a really big deal, and if it's really true then they should be bragging like crazy.

[Dignan17 @ Sep 7th 2006 1:15PM]

"'the widest available in an HP monitor'

Attention to details folks. Attention to details.

IN AN HP MONITOR.

Not IN THE MARKET.

Sometimes engadget, sometimes."

Good job, willyj, you didn't read what Engadget mis-read. You're complaining about a quote out of context. They DO say widest in market, which is what they were commenting on, but it is indeed about the color gamut and not the width of the screen.

I do like the grammatical error in a press release, though: "(this will the widest..." Haha.

[Dave @ Sep 7th 2006 1:23PM]

NOW WE ARE TALKING! I begin to love HD :) Ooops HP ;)

[Dignan17 @ Sep 7th 2006 1:24PM]

""Almost all applications benefit from wide aspect ratios. "

Hardly. Most would benefit more from more vertical screen real estate. Most everything has more vertical information that horizontal information."

Examples? Jeff was nice enough to offer examples of applications that benefit from wide screens, whereas you just sound contrary for the heck of it.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three instances where taller is better than wider:

1) web pages - can be as long as they want with no limit, although as Jeff pointed out, you can easily put two of these side-to side on a widescreen monitor. Heck, if the designer used an 800px-wide design, you can fit three on these 30 inchers.

2) word processing - almost always vertically oriented. However, I know a few word processing people (it's their profession) and they like wide screens because they can fit two life-sized pages next to each other at one time.

3) coding - always vertically oriented and VERY long, but this can be resolved by the following solution to all these problems:

If you want extra vertical space, many of the widescreen monitors I've seen that are 24" and below have the ability to rotate 90 degrees. I also know several programmers who use this feature on their Dell monitors all the time and they love it. 30" monitors can't do that (at least none that I know about).

So there, a solution everyone can get behind!

[alex @ Sep 7th 2006 1:46PM]

What's this word "details"? I thought the correct terminology was "deets" according to engadget... or is "deets" not good enough to make headlines? i demand a response!

[Josh @ Sep 7th 2006 2:07PM]

I love that the wars have come down to how wide a monitor should be. CLEARLY IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON! I'm amazed at how people seem to say they are right and others are wrong!

Though when we get to 30" monitors, I think you have plenty of screen real estate in BOTH DIMENSIONS! So both camps are wrong! Hahahahahahah!

[Evilengineer @ Sep 7th 2006 2:45PM]

Fine and dandy, but does it support HDCP? If yes let me be the first to say "ZOMG WANT!"

[Senor Pantalones @ Sep 7th 2006 2:58PM]

Wider is always better. Wanna know why?

I have a scroll button.

Vertical space is limitless by means of a quick flick of the finger.

And the article took the "market" comment out of context as it was definitely referring to gamut.

[DrThaddeusVenture @ Sep 7th 2006 4:03PM]

Wow, Jeff what a pissy little girl you are today.

[glacia00 @ Sep 7th 2006 4:29PM]

I prefer the standard ratio also to the wide format. Had people actually read the post that they're bitchin' about (I'm looking at Jeff) it didn't say eliminate the wide format or that one is inherrently better than the other(which is monumentally stupid because it's 100% personal preference) nor was anyone bitchin'.

To me it looks more like a compliment to the monitor then lament that most monitors manufacturers are moving toward wide format and eliminating the standard format.

[Chris @ Sep 7th 2006 4:48PM]

yeh i beleive this monitor will very essential to those who are serious gamers and designers, aswell as business workers who have alot of windows open and i look forward to its release

[peace @ Sep 7th 2006 6:55PM]

SCREW WIDE FORMAT!!! SCREW VERTICAL FORMAT!!!

My main LCD monitors at home are a 19" obtuse triangle format and a 6-17" dodecahedron format.

Quadrilateral monitors are so 1984.

[Mutt @ Sep 8th 2006 1:54AM]

The 30" HP supports HDCP along the 3 DVI ports on it.

I wonder how BluRay 1080p content will play off a Samsung player? Will there be 260 pixels of useless black on the on the top and bottom ( 1600-1080 / 2 = 260 )? Or will the HP have any kind of video autoscaler inside? I would tend to doubt it.

[Merchant of Seoul @ Sep 8th 2006 8:43AM]

"Word processing:
Again vertically oriented. This one you could flip the screen to vertical. But you can do the same with the 4:3 screen and the 4:3 will actually be more usable because it will be wider in this mode. Though I don't like flipping back and forth."

Rotating LCD monitors is something that is maybe good for occasional use, but not something you want to do for any serious purpose.

This is because you lose the nice font anti-aliasing that ClearType and other algorithms give you. When you rotate the screen, the number of horizontal subpixels drops from 3 x monitor width to 1 x monitor width. The sharpness and clarity of text drops dramatically.

If you wanted a portrait mode monitor that had crisp text, you would have to get something special that is made from LCD glass that is cut in portrait format and hence retains the appropriate horizontal sub-pixels.

Personally, I have used two 4:3 monitors of various types and sizes for over 10 years. I find a single monitor dramatically reduces my productivity. I found a 19x12 monitor to be of no real value vs. a 16x12 monitor except for watching HD content (which I don't do on a computer screen except very occasionally).

Regarding the HP and other 30" monitors, the big plus is the 1600 vertical pixels. That is helpful vs. the 1200 vertical pixels of a quality 21.3" display. However, you do have to set a 30" monitor back further which reduces its value.

What goes mostly unmentioned these days are the high density 22" or so monitors that IBM, Viewsonic, and others offer (or used to offer). These would give you 3840x2400 pixels and would have been the perfect monitors for the video cards of today. It is only with a monitor like this that you get the great combination of workable screen size, lots of pixels, and great pixel quality. A PDF on a screen like this renders amazingly well. Far better than any consumer-style 30" monitor.

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp2290b/

The best part is these monitors are now only $6K or so. A small price for such good quality.

One last thing about the HP 30" monitor. It is a professional monitor vs. the consumer stuff that Dell and Apple put out. The brightness of the Dell and Apple is too high for professional use. It is impossible to get quality color and quality text rendering with any consumer monitor because the light output is too high. So for professionals, the HP is actually the first quality 30" monitor on the market. And HP deserves kudos for doing right by professionals.

[peter @ Sep 8th 2006 12:38PM]

To be clear. I know HP is referring to gamut when the talk about wide. But an aspect ratio discussion has broken out.

I have no problem with wide monitors, like others I have a problem that regular 4:3 monitors are being phased out. I compare the only size that offers both ratios: 20.1" 16x10 with 4:3. In this like size, there is more real estate onscreen with 4:3. 1600x1200 vs 1680x1050. Not everyones work will supply $2000 30" monitors, nor will many of us spend that much.

Applications:

Web Surfing:

Yes you can put two pages side to side on the wide but you can do the same on the 4:3 and actually see more of them. Who really uses it that way regularly. You benefit much more from the additional height.

Photoshop:

This was mentioned. I use it at home. I have a second small monitor for the Pallete and think this is the better way to go. But if I could only have one I can see wide being better. This is one of the few applicaitons with side toolbars.

Programming:

I am a programmer. Absolutely 4:3 is better. I am in the middle of a massive rebase/merge. I spend all day in a merge tool that has one output pane on top and three input panes side/side below (not configurable). This doesn't work better in vertical mode so it must be in landscape. At 1600x1200 I have enough width to use even 3 merge input windows side by side, but I still feel contrained vertically. A 20" 1680x1050 would be unusable.

Word processing:
Again vertically oriented. This one you could flip the screen to vertical. But you can do the same with the 4:3 screen and the 4:3 will actually be more usable because it will be wider in this mode. Though I don't like flipping back and forth.

Again. I don't want to get rid of widescreens. I just think 4:3 shouldn't be done away with as it is more practical. I find wide more applicable to entertainment (movies/games).

[hoochie @ Sep 15th 2006 1:35AM]

why spend monster cash on dead pixels and low latency, most lcds are plagued with! dont suppose they have a cure for dead pixels yet!

[tonatona @ Sep 17th 2006 1:30PM]

But is HP LP3065 better for professionals than Eizo CE240W (24")? That's the question.

[anonymous @ Oct 10th 2006 1:43PM]

I can't wait until the 45 inch monitors arrive!

[xenon @ Oct 11th 2006 10:07AM]

"anonymous @ Oct 10th 2006 1:42PM

I can't wait until the 45 inch monitors arrive!"

[Merchant of Seoul @ Oct 11th 2006 5:08PM]

"But is HP LP3065 better for professionals than Eizo CE240W (24")? That's the question."

Yes, the HP is better. The Eizo Color Edge monitor is nothing more than a video/television set warmed over with some Eizo logos.

The brightness of the CE240W is 450 cd/m2. That is worse than the new Samsung 30".

A professional monitor will have less brightness, somewhere 200-300 cd/m2. Notice Eizo's Color Graphics displays, such as the CG221, have less brightness. The CG221 is spec'd at 200 cd/m2 and reproduces Adobe color space. For a content producer, this looks like an outstanding monitor.

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg221/index.asp

As I have said elsewhere... there are content consumers and content producers. Content consumers should get the television-style monitor. While content creators should look at HP in the 30" monitor range and Eizo CG for 21". The Samsung 214T is also a good monitor with its 300 cd/m2 brightness and is less money than an Eizo.

[colurboy @ Oct 21st 2006 9:19PM]

How does HP know Apple and Dell aren't releasing a 30" with 92% colour gamut for 6 months.

HAve they been bugging there competitors too?

[chickenman @ Oct 24th 2006 11:51AM]

30" Apple, Dell, or HP. 3 DVI inputs...! HP wins, and combined with Synergy you've got a solution for a simplified desktop.

[David J. Heinrich @ Mar 14th 2007 8:56PM]

The Samsung Syncmaster 305T seems better. You can find one of them on Froogle for $1,347 (cheaper than any of these new 30" HP monitors I've been able to find on Froogle or ePinions).

Also, the Samsung Syncmaster 305T has the the same specs as this HP 30" monitor otherwise, but a better brightness (400).