Dell 3008WFP 30" LCD monitor

The new Dell 3008WFP 30" LCD sounds quite interesting with its 117% NTSC

gamut. Is there any reason why one might regret purchasing this monitor at

this time other than the price?

 

Also, what would be the recommended calibration device for such a wide gamut

display? Would the i1Display 2 system do the job?

The Dell website quotes typical values of 100% of the NTSC gamut and 98% of the Adobe RGB gamut. It is clearly aimed at video and gaming. It doesn't appear to be an IPS panel so you will not get the best possible color accuracy for serious image editing.

Both of your points about the gamut size and panel type seem to be incorrect.

 

See the link below where Dell's website says "Dell TrueColorTM Technology ? 117% colour gamut for rich, life-like imagery that has accurate colour representation better tones and hues, and supports Adobe 98 colour standard."

 

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/3008wfp?c=nz&cs=nzdhs1&l=en&s=dhs

 

I agree that some of the specs are not consistent and range from 100% to 117% - but any way you cut it that's sounds like a lot more than the 92% available in previous models using the LG Phillips S-IPS panels.

 

See this link indicating that this is indeed an S-IPS panel: http://www.ulyssys.com/i/lng.en/page.news_detail/news_id.77

 

"The 3008WFP is built on an S-IPS panel and uses a WCCFL backlight, claiming to be able to show 117 percent of the NTSC colour gamut, theoretically allowing for greater distinction between colour tones and providing better colour accuracy. Colour calibration should also be made a little easier thanks to the sRGB and Adobe RGB presets included. The PC/Mac Gamma and RGB/YPbPr input modes make a return from the previous model, however this monitor has a few new tricks up its sleeve."

 

Other reviews have indicated that this panel would be especially excellent for professional image editing. Any negative reports I've seen pertain to low resolution performance when connected to devices such as VHS players or set top DVD players.

 

I don't have any personal experience using a high end monitor so I'm trying to make a decision based on stats. One specific question I have is about the contrast. This panel uses Dynamic Contrast Ratio (DCR) to achieve a 3000:1 contrast. Is DCR problematic for photo editing with PhotoShop? Can this monitor have DCR disabled to function at its native 1000:1 contrast ratio?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

Here's more support for the 3008WFP being a S-IPS panel:

 

Dell 3008WFP (S-IPS): 30" LG source:

 

http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/moni...9284554,00.htm

 

http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...prd200_j_e.jsp

 

Most likely it is the LM300WQ5.

 

Now I have another question. The specs on the LG site indicate this panel as well as the well regarded predecessor (LM300WQ3) used in the NEC and Apple 30" displays indicate "Number of Colors: 8bit". Does this mean that images processed with 16bit settings in Photoshop cannot be displayed to show any difference between 8bit and 16bit?

The links above seemed to have been clipped somehow. Sorry. Here are the correct links:

 

http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/monitors/0,239029422,339284554,00.htm

 

http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd200_j_e.jsp

The Dell US website, www.dell.com quotes 100% NTSC and 98% Adobe RGB. I doubt you will be able to tell the difference between 92 and 100%. As for contrast ratio, I doubt anybody can see the difference between 600 and one that is more. The fact that Dell states that the panel is IPS doesn't mean they will not switch to something else if need be.

As for bit depth, you can't see the difference between 8 and 16 bit. High bit depth is important only if you do a lot of editing to your image because this creates more headroom before you would notice any degradation.

One BIG question (if you're using it for photo post-processing) is "Does it pivot".

 

Processing vertical shots on a horizontal monitor is a major PITA.

I'd look for some unbiased comprehensive reviews. Specs with respect to NTSC gamut or

aRGB mean little if the brightness can't be turned down far enough.

 

I have a Dell 24" display with the backlighting turned down to 0 and it's still too bright. Yes,

it can be reduced through the look-up table, but at the expense of tonal range.

 

IPS is good...

Colin,

 

I understand the PITA problem. I've never had the priviledge of using a monitor capable of displaying a verticle image well. I have had the expectation that a monitor as large as this 30" would dramatically reduce that problem due to the large work area without having to pivot. Do you think pivoting is a significant issue with such a large monitor? Would it be any less desireable than a smaller monitor which can pivot, but not display anything larger? I doubt if this monitor as heavy as it is will pivot. If pivoting a 30" monitor would be a real advantage I could probably have a custom stand/mount made that would provide for pivoting as long as the video drivers would cooperate.

This would be my monitor of choice if $ were no object. All reviews I've seen are glowing.

 

I'm going with the HP 30" though, ~$1200 street price including $100 rebate good through

Jan. My brother has one and it looks great out of the box without calibration. Good reviews -

92% gamut.

Unfortunately one downfall with Dell is that they do tend to play panel lottery with some of their models. Dell's manufacturing is all contracted out to third parties. If the contract manufacturer runs out of stock of a particular panel, they will sometimes seek permission from Dell to substitute. Dell usually says yes. Dell doesn't tell you this.

 

I've got a Dell 2007WFP and am very happy with it. It's got the S-IPS panel its supposed to have but there are reports out there that some people got a lower quality panel.

 

It appears from the specs that the 3008 does swivel. There is a conflict between the Dell US website and other Dell websites (Australia, for example) apparently with regard to the colour gamut. It's spec'd as having a 370 nit brightness rating which is fine. What is a bit worrisome is that they only list the dynamic contrast ratio (3000:1) and not the static contrast ratio. Unless you can turn the dynamic contrast off somehow, I wouldn't use this for photo editing.

 

With the resolution of this display you may also need to upgrade your graphics card to handle it.

Since most of the panels used in LCD monitors are made by probably no more than 4 manufacturers it would be tough to find many alternatives that meet the advertised specs for a lottery style substitution with a monitor this size. My suspicion is that any lottery effect is going to occur in much lower priced devices where the price is commensurate with any of the panels used. I have heard of no evidence that this monitor is subject to a panel lottery or which alternative panel would be used.

 

I spent some time this morning talking with an XRite tech. Overall he said he would be very pleased if one of these monitors showed up on his porch. From a technical (almost hair splitting) perspective, some of the issues which would benefit from more understanding include knowing the lowest brightness setting achievable (120 nit being close to ideal) and more information regarding how to interpret what the gamut specs really mean. A gamut map indicating specifically which colors beyond 92% up to the 100/117% spec is necessary to be able to know how well the i1Display 2 calibration device can be expected to perform with the wide gamut. Are these extra colors in the expanded gamut space actually visible or are they colors that will be commonly used or printable?

 

Does anyone know how to derive a gamut map for this monitor?

 

I have seen in some reviews and comments from others who already have this monitor that the DCR can be turned off and that with it turned off the contrast is 1000:1.

The point of there being a panel substitution is that the substituted panel doesn't meet the advertised specs.

 

If I recall the specs said 92% of NTSC and 100% or 117% of AdobeRGB. Those are different colour spaces. It isn't a matter of beyond 92 up to 100 or 117. They're different colour spaces and the numbers mean different things. It's also irrelevant. If it does have an S-IPS panel that's all that matters. It's capable of rendering 16.7 million colours. That's what matters. And yes, the Gretag EyeOne will be able to calibrate it.

Robert,

 

You hit it right on the nose about the panel lottery.

 

The socalled 16.7 million colors refers to having three 8 bit channels; 8 bits is 256 levels for red, green and blue each, so the total number of combinations is 256x256x256 or 16.7 million. This has nothing to do with how large a color gamut a monitor can display.

 

Not all IPS panels are created equally. NEC's Series 90 IPS monitors for instance have color gamuts that vary between 74 and 93% of Adobe RGB.

"The point of there being a panel substitution is that the substituted panel doesn't meet the advertised specs. "

 

If this occurs and the advertised product is sold with components inferior to what was advertised, that is fraud. If such a substitution occured Dell would be subject to significant liability. I have not been aware of this alleged habit of Dell's until recently and have asked for references to documented examples from credible third parties substantiating this allegation but so far nobody has offered any such examples, only more allegations. It would be interesting to see such a specific, documented example.

 

What seems more likely to me is that Dell may have advertised specs which have been sufficiently vague as to allow for a wide variety of components which meet or exceed the advertised specs. In this case it would be hard to say if a customer who received lower quality components was cheated or if the customer who received the higher quality components simply got very lucky. A clear, documented example with references to published sources of Dell delivering a product that was plainly inferior to advertised specs would be helpful at this point.

 

I've done a few Google searches on Dell Panel Lottery and there are indeed a lot of hits and many comments on the subject. I haven't read all of them but each one I have read falls short of providing sufficient specifics to be informative and sounds more like grumbling and hearsay. It would not surprise me if Dell was guilty of this. I just wish that someone who is aware of this issue could point to proof. I would possibly, depending on more details, be more comfortable buying from Dell now had Dell been convicted of fraud because Dell would be on notice and subject to more significant liability if they kept on with such a practice.

 

I did find some references to fraud charges related to financing offered to customers.

 

I'm fairly sure that if I received a product from Dell which was inferior to advertised specs that I would have little difficulty in getting a full refund - it might take some letterhead from a lawyer, but if verifiable fraud occured it would be an easy battle - unless things got so bad that they just closed the doors.

 

Still, I'm aware of only one panel made by anyone that meets Dell's specs - the LG Phillips LM300WQ5. If anyone knows of any other panels which might be candidates for substitution please share.

Agreed Frans and that's why I'm saying that the gamut coverage is irrelevant.

 

Robert, yes you can return the display if it doesn't meet your requirements and get a replacement. I also researched the issue before I bought mine and found sufficient information to allow me to determine whether mine had an S-IPS panel when it arrived. It's not all grumbling and hearsay. It was an actual issue with the display I bought as it is with other Dell displays. I'm not trying to dissuade you from buying the monitor, simply trying to alert you to a "potential" issue with Dell. For most people it wouldn't matter because they're not doing the colour critical work photographers are. Most people probably wouldn't even know. When I was researching monitors, the site www.flatpanels.dk showed only 2 S-IPS panels being used in the display I wanted. Now, it shows the same 2 S-IPS panels as well as 1 S-PVA panel based on the fact that substitution has occurred.

And the twisted logic award today goes to Robert who wrote "I would possibly, depending on more details, be more comfortable buying from Dell now had Dell been convicted of fraud ".

 

It's obvious that you are blind to information others are supplying so one has to wonder why you ask in the first place. Accept or don't what others say, but don't start unreal arguments.

Ok Frans, you seem to be determined to find ways to make things personal and drift off topic. Just for fun, I'll bite. Here's a 3 point challenge for you.

 

If you are the Frans Waterlander from Battle Ground, WA then you may be close enough to me that I would be able to buy you a dinner in the near future if you can put your money where your mouth is and substantiate the information you've posted. I would be pleased to accept a dinner from you if you agree to accept my challenge and fail. You might find that I'm sufficiently likable after all.

 

In your first post you say "The Dell website quotes typical values of 100% of the NTSC gamut and 98% of the Adobe RGB gamut. It is clearly aimed at video and gaming. It doesn't appear to be an IPS panel so you will not get the best possible color accuracy for serious image editing."

 

Point 1: Provide a link to the page on Dell's site that says "98% of the Adobe RGB gamut"

 

Point 2: You claimed that "It doesn't appear to be an IPS panel" - please point out the specific information on Dell's site that led you to that conclusion and explain why others should be expected to make the same conclusion. Note that a simple Google search easily reveals many assertions from well known sources that it is most definitely an S-IPS panel.

 

Point 3: Provide even just one example of a case where Dell has advertised an LCD monitor as being equipped with an IPS panel but shipped that same advertised unit with a non IPS panel. The provided example must be from a credible source such as a major news paper or equivalent. Comments by individuals in internet forums don't count - although I would even be interested in seeing a forum post with complete documentation of such a case. I'm new to this issue so I'm not contending that Dell hasn't done this. My contention is that you and others have made such an issue it about but don't seem to be able to back it up and I can't find any examples via Google that I just have doubts and want to see credible evidence.

 

If you can provide satisfactory evidence that supports the information you've posted here as represented in the above 3 points, I'll buy you a dinner the next time I'm in your vicinity - and would enjoy meeting you.

 

If you cannot substantiate the information you've posted, then you may buy me dinner or at least stop giving me such a hard time.

 

So, are you up to the challenge?

 

I found what appears to be a message from you which includes this statement:

 

"...my message to you is a request to stop providing misinformation about one of your competitors and implicating an otherwise well-respected testing house."

 

I guess that's kind of how I feel about the information I'm getting from you.

 

The full text from the message with a link to the original is as follows: (I don't believe in quoting out of context or without providing sources.)

 

http://www.soluxtli.com/ultraluxfalsedata.htm

 

Attention: Full Spectrum Solutions and Paralite

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Your Full Spectrum Solutions and Paralite websites claim that SoLux tungsten-halogen bulbs do not meet their stated color temperature specifications by a significant margin. You refer to and include on your website an Intertek ETL SEMKO test report to this effect. You are, I am sure, aware of the fact that Intertek ETL SEMKO retested SoLux bulbs and found them to be well within the stated specification of 3500K, 4100K and 4700K +/-200K as reflected in their report dated October 21, 2004. Intertek's test results agree with my own testing of SoLux 4700K bulbs.

 

Please be aware that I am not affiliated with Tailored Lighting and my message to you is a request to stop providing misinformation about one of your competitors and implicating an otherwise well-respected testing house. My special area of interest, as a digital photography enthusiast, is to promote the use of high-quality lighting in the digital darkroom. Your misrepresentation of SoLux products negatively impacts the use of a superior solution for photographers.

 

I await your responses with a great deal of interest.

 

Sincerely Yours,

Frans Waterlander

frans2001@netzero.net

(360) 687-1552

 

 

My posts are right on-topic, the topic being Dell LCD monitors. As for the gamut numbers, go here: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=223-4890 and you will find the statement "Dell TrueColor Technology ? 100%3 of NTSC color gamut for rich, life-like imagery that has accurate color representation better tones and hues, and can support up to Adobe 98 color standard."

 

Both the short response time and high contrast ratio seem out of line with typical IPS panels. I couldn't find any statement from Dell about what kind of panel is supposed to be used for this monitor and that very well may have been done on purpose so nobody can pin them down if non-IPS panels are used. However, it seems that others report that this monitor uses IPS panels, as least the ones that are now being tested and reported on by others, thereby setting expectations. So, the specs lead me to believe it to be a non-IPS panel, but others seem to think otherwise. The fact that you can't find a reference to a lawsuite doesn't mean there are none or that none will happen in the future. Hundreds of or people have reported the switch to non-IPS panels for monitors that were supposed to have IPS panels; I don't need a lawyer for "credible evidence".

 

Well, I'm so glad you read what I said about false advertising by Full Spectrum Solutions and Paralite. I hope you and others take it to heart.

 

As for this dinner thing, thank you, but no thanks.

Robert, phone Dell and ask what panel type this display uses. Chances are they either won't tell you or won't be able to tell you. Check Dell's website(s) to see if there are specs that contain the panel type for any of their displays. I think it highly unlikely you'll find anything. Dell, while selling some decent products works on the basis of low cost and volume. They want to have an item shipped out within a day or so of it being ordered. They don't like back-order situations. They allow substitutions if a contract supplier runs out of a particular part.

 

You asked a question and you got answers. You didn't like some of the answers so you got a bit pissy. And let me pose this rhetorical question to you. If you view reports and opinions posted on internet discussion fora with such disdain, why are you (a) posting on an internet forum looking for reports and opinions and (b) why are you taking those reports and opinions with such seriousness when you apparently have no faith in them?

OK, so I misread the 98 part. It says up to Adobe 98 standard. Bad, bad Dobie! While they don't say that with so many words (why not, you wonder), this could mean up to 100% of the Adobe RGB (1998) color gamut, but then again, who knows? And what is up with the weasel wording "up to"? Is it or is it not 100%? Hmmmm... All this doesn't diminish the existence of the "Dell Panel Lottery", coming to a place near you.

Frans, I didn't think you would take me up on that challenge.

 

The topic of this discussion is "Dell 3008WFP 30" LCD monitor", not "Dell LCD monitors" or Dell bashing.

 

Talk about twisted logic. If there are literally hundreds of people reporting that Dell has advertised LCD monitors to have IPS panels but has then delivered non-IPS panels it should be a simple matter to provide !ONE! credible example. You can't. That speaks for itself.

 

I made no mention of lawyers in my challenge - just news papers or other credible sources.

 

Mr. Fisher, you have stated "The point of there being a panel substitution is that the substituted panel doesn't meet the advertised specs." Yes, you have provided "answers" to my original question, but they appear to be unfounded and inaccurate. The fact that I find your information unfounded and uncorroborated doesn't make me the least bit "pissy".

 

A forum is a great place to share information and help direct people to other good sources of information. I have no disdain for internet discussions. I'm just asking you to back up what appears to be an grossly irresponsible claim. I'm prepared to be enlightened, but it will take more than hearsay, grumbling and name calling.

 

The fact that nearly the entire population of earth, government and church leaders all say that the world is flat doesn't it make it so. It doesn't make Galileo "pissy" either.

Robert, I'm not Dell bashing. You'll recall that I own a Dell display (2 actually). And while this particular discussion is about a particular Dell display, Dell's business practices don't concern just this one display. Now, if there is only one panel made that can be used in this display then there won't be substitution. That's obvious. While you didn't mention "lawyers" specifically, you did discuss lawsuits and fraud and legal action against Dell as being a credible source of information. In your own words above you say "just news papers [sic] or other credible sources" which indicates you don't consider the experience of others as a credible source and then you go on to say that a forum is a great place to share information and that you have no disdain for them. Either there's an inconsistency there or you only think fora are great when you get the answers you want. The particular display you're asking about is so new that there isn't a lot of information out on it yet. flatpanels.dk doesn't even have it listed when you do a panel search and that site updates pretty regularly. The previous version of this display, the 3007WFP did use an S-IPS panel in both configurations. I've also told you about my personal experience when researching my display and what I found at that time (about 9 months ago) on flatpanels.dk and what I find now.

 

Knowing you won't consider these as "credible", I'm going to post them anyway.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1111100

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/638065.html

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=511085

http://www.trustedreviews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2239

 

Robert, go buy your monitor. I hope you're very happy with it.

Robert wrote: "If there are literally hundreds of people reporting that Dell has advertised LCD monitors to have IPS panels but has then delivered non-IPS panels it should be a simple matter to provide !ONE! credible example. You can't. That speaks for itself."

 

Well, let me see, Robert. How about hundreds of credible examples? Like the hundreds of people that have reported the switch? In your opinion, is a source of information only credible if the issue at hand has resulted in a lawsuit or a paper/magazine article? By that same logic your inputs are not credible either.

 

This "dicsussion" is getting too non-sensical so count me out.

Frans, "...hundreds of credible examples" begins with ONE. Feel free.

 

Mr. Fisher, you say "...I'm not Dell bashing...Dell's business practices don't concern just this one display". I know little about Dell's business practices but you have stated here that "...the substituted panel doesn't meet the advertised specs". What makes what you are saying come accross as Dell bashing is your assertion that Dell has sold something which differs from ADVERTISED SPECS. You, Frans, nor any of the links you have provided indicate any evidence that Dell ever claimed their monitors would be shipped with IPS panels. Dell, as far as I know, has never attempted to represent with ADVERTISING their monitors as being competitive with high end monitors utilizing IPS panels and their prices are much lower than the high end options. You have claimed that delivered panels don't meet the advertised specs. I have asked for information which would support your claim and all you've provided is examples of grumblers who paid a relatively low price and some of them got lucky. Much of the discussion in the links you did provide discuss knowing how to even identify what type of panel was installed. Most of these posters don't even know how to verify what panel they have.

 

Many companies alter how their products are delivered without disclosing that to consumers. Restaurants, auto manufacturers, toy makers and many more continually alter their product lines to adjust to changes in supply, to cut costs or whatever. So what?

 

It becomes a dramatically more significant point when a business ADVERTISES specifics and does a bait and switch and delivers something OTHER THAN ADVERTISED. You have claimed that Dell has done just that. I find no evidence of Dell having done that. You have not provided any such examples.

 

Please don't get personal because you aren't able to back up what you have posted.

 

Dell seems to be the one throwing the dice in this lottery. The lottery is really more like what are the odds that the customer who buys a monitor will become upset and cause Dell to incur costs for accepting a return simply because the customer holds an expectation that exceeds what Dell advertised. The customer has no risk in this lottery given that they are allowed to return the product and if the product does not meet advertised specs a refund will be guaranteed by most major credit cards. What justification does a Dell customer have for being disatisfied if they receive what was advertised?