Samsung's XL30 LED-backlit 30-inch monitor

We know, when you think 30-inch monitor, you think of a hot, massive hunk of widescreen glass, usually 16:9 or 16:10 -- not the case today with Samsung's new 30-inch XL30, which is an especially big bummer because it's LED-backlit. They're pegging it as having "123% color production", Adobe RGB support, and "eco-friendly" builds with no mercury or halogen parts. Unfortunately that's where the specs end, so those who aren't put off by the anachronistic 4:3 orientation are free to carry on obsessing as details come together on this thing.

[Chris @ Mar 15th 2007 12:24PM]

123% color production? you mean it makes up new colors?

[tc @ Mar 15th 2007 12:36PM]

why aren't these monitors widescreen? Aren't all monitors wide these days?

[Mike @ Mar 15th 2007 12:42PM]

Hey, quit dissing the 4:3 ratio. 16:9 is great for watching HD video, but how many people do that all day? For those of us who are programmers, vertical real estate on a monitor is very useful because you can see much more of a source file without scrolling up and down. It is probably true for others who look at large documents as well. I much prefer 4:3 for day to day work, and to save the 16:9 for my TV in the living room.

[zargon @ Mar 15th 2007 12:47PM]

I on the other hand, prefer 16:9 for my day to day tasks. I like the fact that I get more horizontal realestate, it allows me to put things side by side easier. Which helps a lot with all of my tasks, from programming, support related, database administration, etc...

[OMAC @ Mar 15th 2007 12:50PM]

Just think of the vertical real estate you could get if you turned you widescreen monitor on its side!

[Al @ Mar 15th 2007 12:52PM]

Hey Mike, why not turn the widescreen sideways so you have 9:16?

[Paul @ Mar 15th 2007 1:22PM]

Also, most games do not have very good support for widescreen orientations. And all games have support for 4:3.

I also agree with preferring to have a 4:3 for daily use, and 16:9 for movies.

[craig @ Mar 15th 2007 1:41PM]

16:9 is a better match for the work content creators do. Video is wider than 4:3 and still photography is typically wider as well. This monitor is clearly targetted at those markets, not programming.

What resolution will this monitor support? With photo editing, I find that more pixels is always better assuming that image quality meets a certain standard. I would love to see a definitive demonstration where a wider gamut, low resolution display actually makes editors better at their jobs than a sRGB, high resolution one. Til then I'll stick with my 9MP IBM T221 for image editing work. It is fantastic.

goobimama and yayaja:

A 4:3 monitor offers about 12% more area than a 16:9 at the same diagonal size. Doesn't really matter though since what matters is screen resolution AND surface area. Odds are that the extra screen height of the 4:3 monitor is wasted because the vertical resolution will not be increased over 1600. Remember that a 30" 16:9 monitor at 2560x1600 (the standard res) is only about 98dpi. What would be better would be 130dpi, not the 87dpi that this monitor more than likely will be. My monitor is 204dpi and there's no way I'd trade it for something that doesn't even make 90.

[Jeff @ Mar 15th 2007 1:40PM]

"Hey, quit dissing the 4:3 ratio. 16:9 is great for watching HD video, but how many people do that all day?"

This drives me crazy. As if 16:9 serves no other purpose than leisurely watching a DVD.

You know, there *are* other jobs out there besides programming and data entry/word processing. Anyone who uses Photoshop benefits from a widescreen monitor, for example, because they can have their tools on the side and look at photos (or most other images) at a native aspect ratio without losing too much screen real estate. To do that on a 4:3 monitor, you lose a huge amount on the top and bottom of the screen unless you zoom and crop to the area you're working on.

There are also those of us that work in media - it's a huge field. I do watch video at work... along with editing about 15 spreadsheets at a time, which also benefit greatly from a widescreen monitor. And on my 23" Apple display, I can easily have two separate browser windows open side by side if I need to, which also comes in handy.

16:9 monitors are actually *more* versatile than 4:3 monitors. I can't really think of an application *other* than programming where 4:3 is a benefit.

[boomhauer @ Mar 15th 2007 12:51PM]

as a programmer, i especially enjoy my 9:16 screen

[Merchant of Seoul @ Mar 16th 2007 7:19PM]

The reason that most monitors, with the exception of specially made portrait displays, cannot be turned 90 degrees is that the LCD sub-pixel anti-aliasing does not work anymore.

Normal horizontal LCD monitors have horizontal sub-pixels. This means 1000 horizontal pixels is really 3000 sub-pixels.

Thus when you consider a 2560x1600 monitor, it is really 7680x1600 for the purpose of sub-pixel rendering. The key fact is that sub-pixel anti-aliasing works a lot better in the horizontal direction vs. the vertical direction. When you rotate a run of the mill LCD, sub-pixel rendering is turned off.

So consider the drawbacks of turning a 7680x1600 monitor into a 1600x2560 monitor with no sub-pixel rendering. It is not to say the monitor suddenly turns to junk. But your text readability takes a big hit. Along with everything else that uses subpixel rendering (even Java apps do this these days).

A real breakthrough would be Samsung offering two models of XL30 -- one widescreen and one for portrait mode. The portrait mode model would be 1600x2560 pixels, but the 1600 horizontal pixels would have sub-pixels, making that 4800x2560. That would be an awesome monitor for many content production tasks.

[Electromodo @ Mar 15th 2007 12:55PM]

You might make fun of me, fine. The thing is, after I recently bought my 22-inch wide-screen monitor, I started having irrational desire to move my chair from left to right when staring at it. I wonder what you do with 30-inch SQUARE monitor - pop you chair up and down???

P.S. I am not a dwarf ;)

[Yayaja @ Mar 15th 2007 12:57PM]

Do the math people... a 30 inch 4:3 yields more overall surface area then a 30 inch 16:9. f the price is the same, i'd opt for this.

[Ken @ Mar 15th 2007 1:22PM]

@30" hypotenuse the 4:3 screen would have an area of 432in^2 vs 384.6 for the 16:9. That is a 12.3% improvement. This percentage is true for all other hypotenuse values as well.

But, 16:9 is much better to work on, especially when using software with many toolbars that can be placed on the sides. 16:9 is closer to the Golden Ratio and is more comfortable to look at IMHO.

[goobimama @ Mar 15th 2007 1:02PM]

Seriously Yayaja? Seriously? Screen size is not measured horizontally but Diagonally. Got it? From top left to bottom right. So the screen real estate is the exact same...

[Squirrel @ Mar 15th 2007 2:20PM]

Yes, they are measured diagonally. I don't see the relevance. So the surface area (two dimensions) of the screen is measured in inches (one dimension)??

Do the math.

[Mike @ Mar 15th 2007 1:18PM]

>goobimama
>Seriously Yayaja? Seriously? Screen size is not
> measured horizontally but Diagonally.

Yes, Yayaja is correct. For a given diagonal measurement, the closer a screen is to square the more surface area it has. As he says, do the math. But accordingly, because 4:3 monitors have more pixels than 16:9 monitors for a given diagonal, they usually also cost more.

[Paul @ Mar 15th 2007 1:41PM]

Now, if you did the math you would know that a 30 inch 4:3 screen takes up 432 sq. inches, and a 16:9 screen takes up 382.569 sq. inchs.

And since 432 > 382.569 a 4:3 inch screen has more real estate.

[chris @ Mar 16th 2007 1:40AM]

Really goobimama ? The real estate is so NOT the same for a 30" 16:10 vs a 30" 4:3 monitor. The widescreen has a surface area of 404 square inches, and the 4:3 has a surface area of 432 square inches. More surface area means more pixels ( assuming same size pixels ). Do your homework before dissing other people, especially when you are wrong !!!

[paul irwin @ Mar 15th 2007 1:07PM]

Adobe RGB support? that rocks!!!

(for those not in the know, Adobe RGB provides a very large color space, and is especially useful to photographers.)

[Merchant of Seoul @ Mar 16th 2007 7:20PM]

For those *really* in the know, such as *real* photographers, we know Adobe RGB is overrated and next to useless for most tasks. sRGB works with far more devices and does not require the recalibration of all your displays, printers, and content.

Adobe RGB = Adobe proprietary lock-in. There is no point unless you want to chain yourself to Adobe.

[tom @ Mar 15th 2007 1:33PM]

goobimama: "So the screen real estate is the exact same...". No it isn't. A rectangle with sides in 4:3 ratio and a 30inch diagonal has an area of 432 square inches, whereas a rectangle with sides in 16:9 ratio and a 30inch diagonal has an area approx 385 square inches. Like Yayaja said, "Do the math".

[Merchant of Seoul @ Mar 16th 2007 7:20PM]

Both widescreen, standard aspect, and portrait monitors have their uses. A standard aspect ratio monitor is better than a widescreen monitor for all content that tends to be vertically oriented.

In today's world, vertically oriented content consists of the bulk of PDF files, web pages, online help files, email, word processing, chat, etc. There is a lot of vertically oriented content and everyday users can benefit from being able to see more of it at once without scrolling.

Obviously for vertically oriented content, a dedicated portrait mode display would be even better than a standard 4:3 aspect ratio display. Also, for many types of coding, a portrait mode display works very well.

For horizontally oriented content -- videos, video editing, some image editing -- then a widescreen makes sense.

For displaying two pages of vertically oriented content (aka web pages, word processing documents, PDF files, etc), a standard 4:3 display is usually a better compromise than a widescreen display.

Personally, I run two 21.3" monitors. One is 1600x1200 and one is 1200x1600. I put each application I use on the monitor where it works best. My email runs at 1200x1600. I also display PDF files and online help files on the 1200x1600 screen.

As 30" monitor prices have dropped, I could go with a 30" display which would give me the benefit of 1600 vertical pixels across the entire screen.

What I am waiting for is the next generation of monitors from Apple and others. The pixel density will take another big jump which with high-resolution rendering in OS X Leopard will make many applications much easier to see and read.

[craig @ Mar 15th 2007 4:27PM]

I forgot, most all widescreen monitors for computers are 16:10, not 16:9. Doesn't make any comments wrong but it does lessen the difference between widescreen and 4:3 monitors. A 4:3 monitor has only 6.8% more area than a 16:10 one. Also, the 30" 16:10 monitors on the market are 101dpi, not 98.

[Paul @ Mar 15th 2007 1:45PM]

*sigh* it seems I was beaten... took to long to do my math.

[Loban @ Mar 15th 2007 1:54PM]

4:3 eh? Useless.

[Squirrel @ Mar 15th 2007 2:25PM]

No one had begun bashing whoever when I posted my comment, but the the stupid activation mail never came...

[bigpat @ Mar 15th 2007 2:33PM]

most widescreen monitors aren't 16:9 they are 16:10. Which is why you get black bars at the top and bottom or image distortion when you view HD content on a widescreen computer monitor.

I believe they made this aspect ratio specifically for computers so display manufacturers could charge more for HD tvs without having to worry about people comparing specs and prices with computer monitors.

But why get rid of 4:3 altogether? A 30" 4:3 monitor is a good thing as it provides a lot of screen area. Dual 30" would be even better... But it would be best if manufacturers just went ahead and made wide screen computer monitors 16:9 and dropped 16:10 as it would drive down costs and help drive quality.

[joe @ Mar 15th 2007 3:52PM]

ok, which would be better for online poker, the 30 inch widescreen or the 30 inch 4.3? i like to play two games at one time. i like the idea of having the two poker games being on top of each other as opposed to left and right, that being said, would the 4.3 be the better option for me? please advise
regards
newbie

[bigpat @ Mar 15th 2007 9:07PM]

like a previous post said... the wide screens like my 24" dell can be rotated and you can adjust the video settings so it becomes a very tall screen, which is a nice option. But without rotating, the 30" 4:3 is going to be taller than the 30" 16:10 Widescreen.

[Nate @ Mar 15th 2007 2:51PM]

As a programmer, I prefer 16x10 (almost no monitors are actually 16x9) over 4:3. Why? Because I hardly ever only work with one window open. You need space for a source tree, build/run output... not to mention when you want to look at more than one application or source file at a time. Of course, what's better than 16x10 is two 4x3's, but that's just an uberwidescreen (16x12) monitor with a bar down the middle.

In the end, it all comes down to resolutions... if I had to choose between a 1600x1200 4:3 or a 1440x1024 16:10, I'd pick the 4:3 every time. But if I'm choosing between that 4:3 and a 1920x1200, the choice is clear. Dual 1600x1200s is of course, ideal.

[Merchant of Seoul @ Mar 16th 2007 7:24PM]

You may wish to experiment some time with running dual 1600x1200 monitors, but with one at 1200x1600. This is what I run and find my productivity to be better than both monitors at 1600x1200.

The 1200x1600 monitor also runs my email client and as I have a lot of sub-folders for my accounts, makes email very easy to manage.

Just a thought.

[Nobody important @ Mar 15th 2007 2:54PM]

I much prefer 4:3 monitors in a dual-monitor configuration. 16:9 or even 9:16 feel awkward, giving me either too much or not enough horizontal real estate.

If I can only have one monitor, however, yeah, 16:9 is the way to go. But 4:3 monitors aren't going away anytime soon.

[Deezee @ Mar 15th 2007 4:14PM]

I'd much prefer to have the 4:3 ratio than the widescreen. Designing graphics and working on DAW's requires a lot of vertical space. I could care less about watching DVD's on it.

[Jeremy @ Mar 15th 2007 5:34PM]

I am glad that someone is still making 4:3 panels. I like WS for TV, but give me 4:3 on a PC any day. It took me forever to find an LCD that supported 1600x1200 and had a BtW response time less than 12 ms. The only one that I found to fit the spec was also a Samsung. I wonder if this beast will support 2048x1536?

[FXi @ Mar 15th 2007 7:01PM]

Yep watch how many they don't sell of these due to that format. 16:10 has become the norm. Financial folks use it, as do a lot of folks who keep data (not hard to guess what Sidebar is for) off to the side of the screen. It's easy to scroll up and down. Side scrolling just more tedious and the data I want to see is always the stuff that rolls off the end of the page, not the stuff below my screen area. Of course going bigger (30" models) is kind of trying to have the best of both worlds.

But most folks who are willing to pony up for this size monitor will look at 4:3 and walk away.

[Carl Lumma @ Mar 15th 2007 8:35PM]

All this talk about surface area is irrelevant without talk about pixels. The capacity for content is measured in pixels. Picture quality is a function of dpi, where fewer panel inches is *better* given a fixed pixel count (there are some readability issues carrying this to extremes given that most software relies on raster-based elements, but...).

And I don't see a reply to Chris (first post). This probably means 123% of NTSC color space. In other words, 23% colors than your TV can produce. Most monitors produce significantly less than the full NTSC color gamut (sad, isn't it?).

Meanwhile, the "Read" link took me to some flash nonsense that had info on another monitor with a cool stand but not as cool of a panel.

-Carl

[Alistair @ Mar 15th 2007 9:31PM]

I think that the point of the 16:10 aspect ratio is better compatibility with both computer and video resolutions. A 1280x800 screen can display both 1280x720 and 1024x768 without scaling. A 1920x1200 screen can display both 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 without scaling. It's also the reason some DLP projectors are 1280x768. That said, I want a LED backlit LCD for photo editing, but I wouldn't mind a 4:3 screen. I take far more photos with a vertical orientation than horizontal. My current setup is two 5:4 monitors. I wouldn't mind pairing a 4:3 monitor with a 16:10, though. Maybe I'd orient it vertically.

[Jeff @ Mar 15th 2007 10:36PM]

I just don't like the wide screen format period. Never have, it just annoys me. I don't care about specs, they only changed the formats once everyone had the 4:3 monitors and said Hmmm now that everyone owns the 4:3 standard for all of thier displays (tv or monitor) in thier home, lets screw umm into thinking 16:9 is better and make everyone have to buy new stuff. Bastards...Like they couldn't of made high resolution square format film for the hd novie cameras either. I would love to have this monitor by the way!

[zonamanoz @ Mar 15th 2007 10:54PM]

Wonder what resolution it is? Would be awesome to use in CAD apps.

[xenon @ Apr 1st 2007 9:29AM]

this monitor is NOT 4:3 - its 16:10... also the responcetime is NOT 2ms - as some sites say (using a faulty digitimes source) - its 6ms (seems more reasonable as well doesnt it?)