Whats with the HDMI 1.4 ports that can't support the monitors resolution? Why not just go all out with DP and have 3 full size, and include an hdmi adapter?
This got me confused because my monitor has 1.3 and doesn't support even 2560x1440, but then looking around online it seems like you dont actually have to support that to claim having 1.3.
"Weak resolution and comical pricing" is this your weak attempt at being comical?
It's a professional monitor, one of the best of it's kind, and the price is very competitive though I'm sure will go down quickly to about $1k. There are always 4k IPS screens at 32" that you can argue are better, look at those prices, and they don't necessarily sport the same calibration out of the factory or color depth standards.
Lots of older WQHD/WQXGA monitors have HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 ports but don't support that resolution over them. I'm not sure why that is.
What's even more odd is my Dell U3011. For years I thought that DP and DL-DVI were the only way to get 2560x1600 on it but recently I upgraded my GPU to one that only has 1 DL-DVI port, and I have two monitors. So I switched my U3011 to DisplayPort. That worked great and all, but DP has this annoying property where if you turn the monitor off, it gets disconnected from the PC and rearranges all the windows. So I plugged the HDMI in and as I remembered it only let me select 1920x1200. I went into the NVIDIA control panel and created a custom resolution of 2560x1600 60Hz and CVT-RB. Lo and behold, it works! It seems like the monitor's EDID simply doesn't specify 2560x1600 as a supported resolution over HDMI, but if you send the signal anyways it works just fine.
OMG peterfares I am so grateful for this! I have five U3011 monitors and I always thought that 1920x1200 max on HDMI was the price I paid for being an early adopter. I tried your tip and it works, so call me five times grateful!
The real insult is DisplayPort 1.2a supports 4K @ 60hz and full 30-bit 4:4:4 color, it was approved in December 2009 and fairly mainstream in laptops and business machines by 2011-2012. Most NVidia and ATI cards from the past 3 generations have at least DisplayPort 1.2a (current cards all appear to be 1.4a)
I won't even get started discussing the native Adaptive Sync technology DisplayPort offered all along over HDMI.
Long story short, why is HDMI still around? It costs more to license, the connectors are more fragile, it is less capable, does not offer software upgradability, and it's years behind DisplayPort's advancements.
HDMI is the TV/etc industries standard ; and with casual computing use generally done on devices with only a built-in screen, they're a much bigger market than pc monitors are. That lets them drive standards for the broader market. The baseline version of HDMI being a cutdown version of DVI helped too in that iy made s much simpler back compatibility story.
Adobe RGB is roughly what's achievable with good print, DCI-P3 being the movie standard is definitely better choise on the way towards full Rec. 2020 coverage. Leaving sRGB is way overdue.
4K is not a resolution that makes sense in a conversation about displays with a 16:10 aspect ratio. There are already enough issues driving Dell's 5K displays with anything that didn't just come out and a HiDPI display at 16:10 at this size would have 2 million more pixels than that.
It does seem odd to have a monitor aimed at content creation, not able to display content in what should be the standard resolution going forward. So to fully support 4k content creation you'd think they would make it at least 3820x2400.
Oh you know, actually being able to see menus and options on that content creation software that doesn't actually scale is one reason to not run 4k on a 30" monitor. Unless you're going to try to convince someone you can actually read native resolution screen fonts at 4k on a 27" or 30" monitor without a pair of +3 diopter reading glasses and your face 6 inches from the screen. Photoshop @ 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor is somewhere just shy of pulling teeth. Resolution scaling, even in Win 10 is still at best a somewhere between "pipedream" and "what you talkin bout Willis?"
@SiSiX Update content creation software? I'm not sure about Adobe, but I know the latest Autodesk software including Maya and Mudbox 2016 finally addressed the UI scaling issues with higher ppi displays.
The point was that 4K is a 16:9 resolution lower than the HiDPI resolution expected in this display. The following response expecting a random 3840x2400 (I assume 3840 and that 3820 was a typo) is also super weird. That resolution would be like running 1920x1200 on a 30" display when running in a pixel doubled scenario which would be enormously oversized and too low resolution for this display.
"That resolution would be like running 1920x1200 on a 30" display ... which would be enormously oversized and too low resolution for this display."
Huh? What?
You're saying 1920:1200 is too low for a 15" monitor? Mind you, *MONITOR* -not tablet, not phone, but something you normally keep at arm's length from you face...
No, that's not what I'm saying boeush: Most scenarios where people are running resolutions that are doubled from what they used to be are either running OS X where they enable the retina/hidpi mode and run them with everything doubled or Windows which will do UI scaling. Because 1920x1200 is typically a 24" monitor size resolution, doubling each dimension to 3840x2400 would still only make sense on a 24" monitor. Putting that on a 30" monitor would feel like it wasn't a high enough resolution to create the effect of minimized/non-apparent pixels in a doubled/UI scaled setting.
WQUXGA aka 3840x2400, is 4x 1920x1200(like uhd aka 3840x2160, is 4x1920x1080)...
But that's not 4k. 1k is 1024 and 4k is 4096 , so 16:10 aspect ratio for 4k is 4096x2560. Stupid 1080p ruined all: FHD should have been 2048x1152. Then we would not have this uhd is not really a 4k problem.
I know this and was making a similar point in my comment. Again, the response was "why not 4K" and the answer was "because 4K is a 16:9 aspect ratio and this is a 16:10 aspect ratio display".
The cinema standard "4K" mandates that the image should have 4096 pixels width and/or 2160 pixels height. A "4K" image in 16:10 aspect ratio would therefore have 3456×2160 resolution. But the standard also mandates that output devices should be capable of the full 4096×2160, so a 16:10 screen truly capable of 4K would therefore have to be 4096×2560 to fit that. The term "4K" used to mean "UHD" is only a marketing tactic.
Dell makes a 4K 32 inch monitor for approximately the same price, but visit the official Dell forums to read end-user and expert reports to see how that's working for professional use. In short it's not working that great. The technology is very hard to get right at the $1,000 price point. If you want a good quality 4K display for professional photo editing etc. then you need to spend literally thousands more on an NEC or Eizo. Such is life. Perhaps in a few years the situation will be better.
Well, probably 25 inches to keep it up mostly the same width as a normal 24 inch 16:9 monitor. Dell does make a 25 inch monitor currently, so that size is not unheard of.
The closest equivalent you have is the UP2516D, which is 25" but its a 16:9 monitor running 2560 x 1440. It does have the cool built-in KVM switch, similar to this UP3017.
The 25" UP2516D has a much finer pixel pitch of 0.216 mm compared to 0.251 mm for the 30" UP3017.
If it doesn't have true hardware color calibration like the NEC SpectraView or Eizo ColorEdge (i.e. the LUT is in the monitor), it's not a professional monitor.
Dell have for a long time sold monitors which for the vast minority of content creators are good enough, and for prices far lower than the very best. This seem to continue the tradition.
"HDCP 1.4". So no 4K content playback. Pretty much any 4K streaming (and UHD Bluray) requires HDCP 2.2. I hate HDCP but it is a reality of our time. Honestly releasing a display in 2016 with obsolete HDCP standard is just shitty. The consumer won't realize he needs it until he does and then "oh shit that sucks and there is nothing I can do about it".
"Moreover, the DCI-P3 color space is used for digital movie projection by the U.S. movie industry, an increasing amount of Apple mobile devices, and is expected to be eventually adopted in televisions and for home cinemas."
Not really, they're skipping DCI-P3 and going straight for Rec. 2020 as the UHD color space which is as optimal as you get with non-imaginary primaries and covers 99.7-99.9% of all real world colors (Pointer's gamut). That is to say, a lot of content will be DCI-P3 masters in a Rec. 2020 wrapper since that's what they do for cinema movies, but it looks like DCI-P3 in itself will never be a consumer standard.
Its still a technical challenge to display Rec. 2020 on consumer displays (considering pricing et al), so DCI-P3 is a good midway point to get a "standard" gamut thats more readily available with current technology.
And as you say, for similar reasons DCI-P3 is also used for the master, even if its then transformed into a Rec. 2020 signal to fit the UHD standards.
Dell makes some amazing monitors. As an alternative to one ($999) 27" Apple display, I asked my company to get me two U2515H displays for my Mac. couldn't be happier.
How about some 16:10 monitors for us non-professional plebs? We typically use ours for working and gaming, not watching 16:9 video (a task left to the TV).
To all those complaining about this monitor's "low" resolution. Are you really stupid enough to think that Dell are just trying push this at people? Do you really think Dell would be producing a new version, if there was not sufficient demand from the many people who DO want this size and resolution? Not everyone wants to peer at a higher resolution screen, just because you do.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
52 Comments
Back to Article
Sttm - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Whats with the HDMI 1.4 ports that can't support the monitors resolution? Why not just go all out with DP and have 3 full size, and include an hdmi adapter?DanNeely - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
HDMI 1.4 can do 2560x1600x60Hz@10bit color. (Support was added in 1.3 actually).HDMI 2.0 is only needed for 4k@60hz.
Sttm - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
This got me confused because my monitor has 1.3 and doesn't support even 2560x1440, but then looking around online it seems like you dont actually have to support that to claim having 1.3.dsumanik - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Mad props for pushing 16:10 monitor into the market!!!Sad props for the weak resolution and comical pricing 8(
jsntech - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
Thiiiiiiiiiis. Please more 16:10.niva - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
"Weak resolution and comical pricing" is this your weak attempt at being comical?It's a professional monitor, one of the best of it's kind, and the price is very competitive though I'm sure will go down quickly to about $1k. There are always 4k IPS screens at 32" that you can argue are better, look at those prices, and they don't necessarily sport the same calibration out of the factory or color depth standards.
peterfares - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Lots of older WQHD/WQXGA monitors have HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 ports but don't support that resolution over them. I'm not sure why that is.What's even more odd is my Dell U3011. For years I thought that DP and DL-DVI were the only way to get 2560x1600 on it but recently I upgraded my GPU to one that only has 1 DL-DVI port, and I have two monitors. So I switched my U3011 to DisplayPort. That worked great and all, but DP has this annoying property where if you turn the monitor off, it gets disconnected from the PC and rearranges all the windows. So I plugged the HDMI in and as I remembered it only let me select 1920x1200. I went into the NVIDIA control panel and created a custom resolution of 2560x1600 60Hz and CVT-RB. Lo and behold, it works! It seems like the monitor's EDID simply doesn't specify 2560x1600 as a supported resolution over HDMI, but if you send the signal anyways it works just fine.
http://imgur.com/a/Tg0to
You could try doing the same thing and seeing if it works.
Macumazahn - Sunday, September 18, 2016 - link
OMG peterfares I am so grateful for this! I have five U3011 monitors and I always thought that 1920x1200 max on HDMI was the price I paid for being an early adopter. I tried your tip and it works, so call me five times grateful!Samus - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
The real insult is DisplayPort 1.2a supports 4K @ 60hz and full 30-bit 4:4:4 color, it was approved in December 2009 and fairly mainstream in laptops and business machines by 2011-2012. Most NVidia and ATI cards from the past 3 generations have at least DisplayPort 1.2a (current cards all appear to be 1.4a)I won't even get started discussing the native Adaptive Sync technology DisplayPort offered all along over HDMI.
Long story short, why is HDMI still around? It costs more to license, the connectors are more fragile, it is less capable, does not offer software upgradability, and it's years behind DisplayPort's advancements.
rib3 - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
One of the reasons Display Port can handle high bandwidth is tight restrictions on cable length. (Typically 3 meters max)This isn't an issue at a desk, but could be limiting in the rest of the house.
DanNeely - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
HDMI is the TV/etc industries standard ; and with casual computing use generally done on devices with only a built-in screen, they're a much bigger market than pc monitors are. That lets them drive standards for the broader market. The baseline version of HDMI being a cutdown version of DVI helped too in that iy made s much simpler back compatibility story.Taneli - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Adobe RGB is roughly what's achievable with good print, DCI-P3 being the movie standard is definitely better choise on the way towards full Rec. 2020 coverage. Leaving sRGB is way overdue.cosmotic - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Not 4K? Still only 60hz? Same price as it was 10 years ago? *snores*Tegeril - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
4K is not a resolution that makes sense in a conversation about displays with a 16:10 aspect ratio. There are already enough issues driving Dell's 5K displays with anything that didn't just come out and a HiDPI display at 16:10 at this size would have 2 million more pixels than that.p1esk - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Actually, any resolution less than 4k does not make sense in a conversation about 30" displays.Sttm - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
It does seem odd to have a monitor aimed at content creation, not able to display content in what should be the standard resolution going forward. So to fully support 4k content creation you'd think they would make it at least 3820x2400.SiSiX - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Oh you know, actually being able to see menus and options on that content creation software that doesn't actually scale is one reason to not run 4k on a 30" monitor. Unless you're going to try to convince someone you can actually read native resolution screen fonts at 4k on a 27" or 30" monitor without a pair of +3 diopter reading glasses and your face 6 inches from the screen. Photoshop @ 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor is somewhere just shy of pulling teeth. Resolution scaling, even in Win 10 is still at best a somewhere between "pipedream" and "what you talkin bout Willis?"dragonsqrrl - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
@SiSiXUpdate content creation software? I'm not sure about Adobe, but I know the latest Autodesk software including Maya and Mudbox 2016 finally addressed the UI scaling issues with higher ppi displays.
Tegeril - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
The point was that 4K is a 16:9 resolution lower than the HiDPI resolution expected in this display. The following response expecting a random 3840x2400 (I assume 3840 and that 3820 was a typo) is also super weird. That resolution would be like running 1920x1200 on a 30" display when running in a pixel doubled scenario which would be enormously oversized and too low resolution for this display.boeush - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
"That resolution would be like running 1920x1200 on a 30" display ... which would be enormously oversized and too low resolution for this display."Huh? What?
You're saying 1920:1200 is too low for a 15" monitor? Mind you, *MONITOR* -not tablet, not phone, but something you normally keep at arm's length from you face...
Tegeril - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
No, that's not what I'm saying boeush: Most scenarios where people are running resolutions that are doubled from what they used to be are either running OS X where they enable the retina/hidpi mode and run them with everything doubled or Windows which will do UI scaling. Because 1920x1200 is typically a 24" monitor size resolution, doubling each dimension to 3840x2400 would still only make sense on a 24" monitor. Putting that on a 30" monitor would feel like it wasn't a high enough resolution to create the effect of minimized/non-apparent pixels in a doubled/UI scaled setting.jabbadap - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
WQUXGA aka 3840x2400, is 4x 1920x1200(like uhd aka 3840x2160, is 4x1920x1080)...But that's not 4k. 1k is 1024 and 4k is 4096 , so 16:10 aspect ratio for 4k is 4096x2560. Stupid 1080p ruined all: FHD should have been 2048x1152. Then we would not have this uhd is not really a 4k problem.
Tegeril - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I know this and was making a similar point in my comment. Again, the response was "why not 4K" and the answer was "because 4K is a 16:9 aspect ratio and this is a 16:10 aspect ratio display".Findecanor - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
The cinema standard "4K" mandates that the image should have 4096 pixels width and/or 2160 pixels height.A "4K" image in 16:10 aspect ratio would therefore have 3456×2160 resolution.
But the standard also mandates that output devices should be capable of the full 4096×2160, so a 16:10 screen truly capable of 4K would therefore have to be 4096×2560 to fit that.
The term "4K" used to mean "UHD" is only a marketing tactic.
damonlynch - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Dell makes a 4K 32 inch monitor for approximately the same price, but visit the official Dell forums to read end-user and expert reports to see how that's working for professional use. In short it's not working that great. The technology is very hard to get right at the $1,000 price point. If you want a good quality 4K display for professional photo editing etc. then you need to spend literally thousands more on an NEC or Eizo. Such is life. Perhaps in a few years the situation will be better.Wineohe - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
Yes. I can't imagine buying a monitor in this class and not expecting it to be 4K. I'll wait to replace my existing 30".Blassster - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
I'd like to have this as a 24-inch version.Blassster - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Well, probably 25 inches to keep it up mostly the same width as a normal 24 inch 16:9 monitor. Dell does make a 25 inch monitor currently, so that size is not unheard of.Phylyp - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
The closest equivalent you have is the UP2516D, which is 25" but its a 16:9 monitor running 2560 x 1440. It does have the cool built-in KVM switch, similar to this UP3017.The 25" UP2516D has a much finer pixel pitch of 0.216 mm compared to 0.251 mm for the 30" UP3017.
p1esk - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Earlier this year Dell announced 30" 4k 120Hz OLED display. What happened to it?Sttm - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
That was only for Zuckerberg.fazalmajid - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
If it doesn't have true hardware color calibration like the NEC SpectraView or Eizo ColorEdge (i.e. the LUT is in the monitor), it's not a professional monitor.Calista - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Dell have for a long time sold monitors which for the vast minority of content creators are good enough, and for prices far lower than the very best. This seem to continue the tradition.namechamps - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
"HDCP 1.4". So no 4K content playback. Pretty much any 4K streaming (and UHD Bluray) requires HDCP 2.2. I hate HDCP but it is a reality of our time. Honestly releasing a display in 2016 with obsolete HDCP standard is just shitty. The consumer won't realize he needs it until he does and then "oh shit that sucks and there is nothing I can do about it".chaos215bar2 - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Well, this isn't a 4k monitor, so indeed, no 4k content playback.Kjella - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
"Moreover, the DCI-P3 color space is used for digital movie projection by the U.S. movie industry, an increasing amount of Apple mobile devices, and is expected to be eventually adopted in televisions and for home cinemas."Not really, they're skipping DCI-P3 and going straight for Rec. 2020 as the UHD color space which is as optimal as you get with non-imaginary primaries and covers 99.7-99.9% of all real world colors (Pointer's gamut). That is to say, a lot of content will be DCI-P3 masters in a Rec. 2020 wrapper since that's what they do for cinema movies, but it looks like DCI-P3 in itself will never be a consumer standard.
nevcairiel - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Its still a technical challenge to display Rec. 2020 on consumer displays (considering pricing et al), so DCI-P3 is a good midway point to get a "standard" gamut thats more readily available with current technology.And as you say, for similar reasons DCI-P3 is also used for the master, even if its then transformed into a Rec. 2020 signal to fit the UHD standards.
eek2121 - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Dell makes some amazing monitors. As an alternative to one ($999) 27" Apple display, I asked my company to get me two U2515H displays for my Mac. couldn't be happier.r3loaded - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
How about some 16:10 monitors for us non-professional plebs? We typically use ours for working and gaming, not watching 16:9 video (a task left to the TV).ruthan - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I waited for 16:10 monitor a long time, but with this pricing, were is 120Hz where is Gsynch?azrael- - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I didn't know you needed GSync and 120Hz for image-editing...Meteor2 - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Shouldn't we be seeing the use of USB-C connectors by now?qasdfdsaq - Thursday, September 15, 2016 - link
Ironically, the "predecessor" to this monitor, announced in January - the UP3017*Q* had USB-C, but never surfaced.Friesiansam - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
To all those complaining about this monitor's "low" resolution. Are you really stupid enough to think that Dell are just trying push this at people? Do you really think Dell would be producing a new version, if there was not sufficient demand from the many people who DO want this size and resolution? Not everyone wants to peer at a higher resolution screen, just because you do.piroroadkill - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
I like everything apart from the fact we're still stuck on 60Hz.Give me 35-96Hz Freesync on this and I'll be saving my pennies for it.
Lolimaster - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
I want OLED 2560x1600 32° 120Hz and 3000x2000 36" 120Hz.No one is following the awesome 3:2 aspect ratio of the surface line.
mdriftmeyer - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
What a waste of money. You want high quality outputs you don't charge asinine prices. You win by volume.No one cares for Audio Out.
Pixel density is pathetically low.
Nothing new but the Color space.
milkod2001 - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
I also think that in 2016 any monitor selling for over $1000 should be 4k. There is no excuse for not doing that.Spede - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
Meh. Same shit different name. That's no 4:3 or even 3:2.xaml - Saturday, September 17, 2016 - link
The UP3017Q variant of this model will be even more interesting, as it features an OLED panel with a UHD resolution and an even thinner bezel.Itselectric - Saturday, September 17, 2016 - link
If they bring the price down to 500 dollars, I'll be a customer.Macumazahn - Sunday, September 18, 2016 - link
Forget this and order an LG 38UC99-W instead.