SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Samsung has two upcoming ultra-wide displays on its roadmap:
For readers on the leading-edge of monitor configurations, ultra-wide displays in the 21:9 aspect ratio have been on the radar for about two years. These are monitors that have a 2560x1080 display, stretching the horizontal dimension of a standard 1920x1080 Full-HD monitor and make it easier to display modern cinema widescreen format content with less black bars. They are also claimed to assist with peripheral vision when gaming beyond a standard 1920x1080 display, or when curved, help with immersive content.
So chalk up some surprise when we hear that Samsung has an even wider format panel in the works. 3840x1080 represents a 32:9 aspect ratio, and the report states that this will be a VA panel with 1800R curvature and a 3-side frameless design. Putting that many pixels in a large display gives a relatively low 81.41 PPI. This panel will be part of Samsung's 'Grand Circle' format, and by supporting up to 144 Hz it is expected that variants of this panel will be included with FreeSync/GSYNC technologies. One figure to note would be the contrast ratio – 5000:1 (static), which TFTCentral states is higher than current Samsung VA panels.
The 3840×1080 display is 49 inches. Samsung is also planning to launch a 44-inch 3840×1200 display.
Is this aspect ratio a good idea or a step backwards? It is like two 1920×1080 displays without the bezels in the middle. What about the "1800R curvature"?
[1800R curvature] means that the circle that defines the curvature of the panel has a radius of 1800 mm (70.866 inches), which is much tighter than other panels on the market (2700R or 3000R typical).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:50PM
Yeah, looks like we're after different things -- fair enough. (Which in a way goes right back to your point about different interfaces for different requirements, doesn't it.) I'm maybe not as oblivious to what I'm missing as you might think, I'm just perfectly happy to make some tradeoffs you wouldn't, putting convenience ahead of audible-but-minor (in my perspective) failings. The place where I really may be missing out is high-end, thanks to some years working around machinery without ear protection.
I just know people who have only ever experienced crappy in-ears; tried more expensive ones (dollar-store -> skullcandy), found them just as crappy, and wrote off all in-ears as being inherently crappy, without realizing that (1) the near-universal stupid resonance tricks are to blame and (2) you can actually get (affordable) in-ears without that junk; assumed you were in that fix, and was trying to "liberate" you from that misconception. Looks like I was barking up the wrong tree.
(But, seriously, if you haven't tried those monoprices, do so (not forgetting to burn them in first) -- my previous go-to in-ears ran about $40, and the monoprices sound better for $7 -- they're no miracle, but they're really remarkable in quality/dollar, and 90% of it comes down to having a big enough driver that they can reach market-mandated bass response "honestly", so they don't need to wreck the frequency response. If your current "disposable" in-ears are anything less than $75-100, I bet the monoprice wins.)