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, @07:05AM (5 children)
milking the customer for what it's worth.
the perfect monitor will sit on your head, just like the perfect speaker sits in your ear.
not today, not tomorrow, but the monitor you can bring along anyhere and doesnt use up a whole
room in your dwelling.
it will happen with a bang, because whoever decides to go full in, will have less profit margin, but
enourmous logistical cost benefits because the shipping volume of one 42" equals maybe 5 or more head_monitors.
of course the "show off value" of a head-monitor might not appeal to the vanity folks.
for example i cant envision the new president ever watching a movie w/a head monitor unless it maybe has gold colored trimmings and fancy wave curves ; )
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday April 07 2017, @07:45AM (3 children)
Ehm, no. In part due to working with paper as source material (sketches for blueprints, inventory lists), in parts due to often need to switch quickly between machines outputs (PLC control panel, mechanical counters, laptop, clock, leds, circuit breakers, camera and smartphone), in part because that will kill you (I work near high voltage at times), in part due to me liking to be able to see what I eat, in part due to making out to a crappy b-movie will be kinda difficult.
Also, a monitor placed on the other side of a window will allow you to watch a movie while in the sauna, a headmounted display would die quickly - and be very uncomfortable to wear.
Did I miss some breakttrough that allows opera, electronica and art rock to sound good in in-ear units? Also, I kinda enjoy music when in the shower, or taking a bath, and while sleeping.
I'd rather say - the perfect HID is the one picked for the task at hand.
But I agree on "won't buy" (several separate monitors are better for mem and I dislike curved displays)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)
Yeah, the breakthrough is called not buying cheap shit. (And just because you overpaid doesn't mean it ain't cheap shit!) The problem with the vast majority of in-ears is that they use tiny little drivers that give you incredibly poor bass, then try to boost the bass response with resonance, giving you incredibly poor sound across the board. Anything with a driver less than 10mm diameter is likely this sort of junk, and should be viewed with suspicion -- even the relatively upmarket cheap shit (e.g. skullcandy). I'm not saying there's no good small-driver in-ears -- of course there are! -- but there's so many more bad ones, you better have reviews from a trustworthy source in hand before you believe you've found one of the good ones.
AIUI, good IEMs at high prices have been available for a long time, if you don't have hangups about paying those prices for something that'll just get snagged on something and broken within a year. (I do, so I have no real experience with this class of toy.) But if you want low cost, and pretty good quality, Monoprice's #9927 is a great option, because it uses 14.2mm drivers to provide bass, instead of stupid resonance tricks. If you have any use for in-ears in your life, give 'em a try, they might surprise you.
Also, I kinda enjoy music when in the shower, or taking a bath, and while sleeping.
Me too, but that's one speaker for the bedroom, and one for the bathroom; I use cheap bluetooth speakers for those roles. They'll last years with all the more usage they see, and those aren't (to my mind) high-quality listening environments anyway. (Bath could be, but I almost never bathe; shower's too loud, and IMO I won't really hear the details when I'm drifting off to sleep.) But what about the other 90% of your conscious hours? For me, good in-ears are perfect -- no turning the volume down out of consideration for others, or turning it up because I'm going to another room, no eventual switching to in-ears when I leave the house, and while I know the quality isn't the best, it's certainly good enough for me.
I can see where that balance isn't the same for everyone; if I lived and worked alone, I could just turn up the living room stereo enough to hear in the shower or basement, and wouldn't have to turn it down out of consideration for others, so it might make more sense to put money in a good stereo that lasts rather than a succession of earbuds that get destroyed annually or thereabouts. As it is, the flexibility of having it follow me everywhere I go is worth more to me than whatever sound quality gains I could get with a good stereo.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday April 07 2017, @08:00PM (1 child)
Ehm, have you even heard opera? Heck, not even top of the line speakers are good all-round. For reference my current speakers works in a nice 6Hz to 30Khz (intentionally very high in order to avoid distortion near limits, actually outperforms my amp), and they have a nice flat curve (they are monitor speakers) and while my friends often come over with stuff to listen to I can often pick up the limits of my setup.
While bass-boosting is an atrocity I prefer a weak bass over a strong one, in fact muting the bass is one of the first things I do with amplifiers (tend to set everything below 30Hz to -3dB compared to the rest). The issue is that most earphones can't do bass _nor_ treble and have a horrible response. Basically their only saving grace are that they are disposables (and outside a few monitor headphones I've not yet heard consume-grade headphones being able to even pull off Wagner (Bayreuth uptakes) decently)
All non-disposable headphones I get always have detachable coord (just like my keyboards), since cords tend to last about four months.
For that I prefer decent over ears, I tend to have a lower volume at my music than what the ambient noisefloor is - no sound out means also no sound in :) (And another advantage of detachable cord, you can just unplug the headphones when you need to talk to someone, no need to expose yourself to the ambient noise).
Seems like we also are after different qualities in music. I dislike loud music (heck, I tend to muffle clocks when I want to enjoy opera, should tell you about how low the volume is), often when I have friends over they tend to turn up all my equipment (TV, amps, alarm clocks and such) until I complain about that it is painfully loud.
For me the sound quality matters for lots of music and that kind of music I sadly can't listen to on the go, but for on-the-go music even a smartphone and a decent set of over-ears does the job nice (for when just wanting a beat even el-cheapo earphones (either in-ear or traditional) works just fine after the smartphone has been set to basically kill the bass).
But as alluded above - not even the best speaker comes even near to the sound of a grand piano, violin, nyckelharpa, flute or guitarr when heard irl.
(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.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:54AM
Your normal monitor doesn't get drenched in your disgusting sweat.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday April 07 2017, @07:51AM (10 children)
I'm not seeing the use-case for monitors more than 3 times wider than they are tall. Immersive gaming, really? How many games make sense in this kind of aspect ration, how many of those will support it, and how many players will shell out for a monitor for those games? Calculate 1/x * 1/y/ * 1/z = that's a tiny market. I'm just not seeing it.
Movies, ditto. Anyone doing serious home cinema is probably not watching movies on a monitor.
For any sort of normal work, the advantage of lots of monitor space is allowing you to see multiple windows simultaneously. For this, multiple monitors are better, because windows snap naturally to the monitors.
So: what's the use case for this? Bragging rights at trade shows?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:21AM
Woe ist mir! No one should build what I won't buy!
How about you just let rich folk spend their money on some monster cables?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Friday April 07 2017, @10:16AM (5 children)
I'm not seeing the use-case for monitors more than 3 times wider than they are tall.
Do you see also see no point for using multiple displays? Monitors like this are essentially like having two smaller displays, sans bezel. Some people prefer that even for non-gaming use; more screen real estate can be a real productivity win, and some people just hate the multi-display gaps. And for gaming it is an improvement over two 1920x1080 displays, because that layout puts the gap right in the middle, making it unsuitable for most games. That's the thing about an ultra-wide monitor like this: normally with separate displays, you have to use odd numbered display counts, cockpit-style, specifically to keep the gaps away from where you focus. Doing that also forces you into an even wider layout than you might want or have room for on your desk, so an ultra-widscreen display gives you a usable two-display equivalent.
Immersive gaming, really? How many games make sense in this kind of aspect ration, how many of those will support it, and how many players will shell out for a monitor for those games?
Why ask SN when you can look it up yourself [wsgf.org]? wsgf.org keeps a database of game support for various high-res and widescreen gaming options. They even provide information about workarounds for games that don't specifically support odd resolutions, but can be coerced into doing it with some tweaking. You can actually get a lot of games playable like this, even 10+ year old ones.
I've actually dealt with this because I run 3-4 displays, and it's not nearly as bleak a situation as you seem to think. Personally, I prefer keeping a game or video on one display and using the extras for other things, but I've done the multi-display gaming thing before on a lark. I've got the displays, so why not? Even if you don't stick to it, it's fun to see your game like this [wsgf.org] for a little while. It's not just a cool gimmick, either, because it tends to let you use your peripheral vision when playing instead of viewing the world through the small rectangular hole that a single display gives you.
For any sort of normal work, the advantage of lots of monitor space is allowing you to see multiple windows simultaneously. For this, multiple monitors are better, because windows snap naturally to the monitors.
Are you one of those people that has to maximise everything? How much screen space have you actually dealt with before? One double-width monitor or two smaller ones won't matter much if you're not maximising everything. Also, there are programs and ways to partition a display so that programs snap to regions within it as if it were multiple displays if needed, plus things like tiling window managers are useful, though that requires an OS that isn't brain dead (or hacks to make Windows act like a tiling WM).
Though this is as much personal preference as anything, because some people hate the screen gaps and others don't. It doesn't matter much to me, though I do slightly prefer multiple displays to ultra-wide, because while I don't maximise things, I like being able to filter each screen's taskbar to show only programs on that specific screen. Point is, it's not a case of "this way is better, there should only be one option" because people like different things. Though I will point out that, since these are basically two 1920x1080 displays, you could get even more space by using two or even three of them.
Also, no offense intended here, but fuck your "one size fits all" mentality. That sort of mindset is part of why we've been stuck in the 1920x1080 ghetto for so long. It works for TVs so it should work for monitors, why would anyone want something else? If you don't see a use-case for something different like this, it probably means you aren't trying hard enough. Both gaming and productivity can benefit from more displays and/or more screen real estate.
Honestly, even if we can't find a use for something, we should still be supporting companies giving us more options, rather than complaining about it when they do. Not everyone wants the same thing, but when we bitch about anything different, we send a message that trying to provide niche products is a bad idea.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday April 07 2017, @03:37PM (3 children)
Are you one of those people that spends hours of their day fiddling with window positioning and sizing, getting it just right?
You seem blinded by a caricature of the OP. It's a pretty good point, really; why would I want one super wide display instead of two or three normal displays? On the gaming argument, you make a good point that most people aren't aware of, because most people don't have extra monitors (sadly) or the extra GPU power for them. But for normal work, it is SO MUCH easier to use (on Windows at least) the Super+Arrow buttons that snap windows to half of the entire screen.
I strongly suspect we're all on the same page about "the 1920x1080 ghetto". It's a shitty size for one window, because it wastes 1/3 of the wide of the screen, and it's a shitty size for two windows, because both of them will be 1/3 too small. And it's way too short. These are problems that are exacerbated, not helped, by an even wider screen. I'd bet that the OP would not be quite so up in arms about this screen size if it was taller. But as it is, 1080 pixels tall is just terrible.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29PM (2 children)
Are you one of those people that spends hours of their day fiddling with window positioning and sizing, getting it just right?
Hell no, if anything I'm the complete opposite. I'll do one of two things, depending on whether I'm using a tiling WM or not.
* With Notion (static tiling WM) I just use a basic 50/50 split to start and add/remove splits as I go, very little resizing.
* If I'm using kwin (which I am currently), meta+left click anywhere in the window moves it and meta+right click resizes, so I just sort of throw it in the general area, drag to about what I want, and then let kwin remember it.
Either way, between real monitors and virtual desktops, I've got enough space that I go "fuck it, close enough" instead of futzing with placement.
You seem blinded by a caricature of the OP.
I didn't mean it as a caricature, the remark about maximising everything was a serious question. I don't get what he meant about snapping windows to monitors, maybe because I'm more familiar with Linux/BSD window managers than whatever it is Windows or OS X does. In my case, screen borders are largely irrelevant when I'm using a tiling WM, and when I'm not, kwin remembers window positions well enough that it doesn't matter whether it's one big space or 3-4 smaller ones. (Plus it has some extra override options for positioning misbehaving programs.)
It's a pretty good point, really; why would I want one super wide display instead of two or three normal displays?
Some people really do hate the gap between monitors so much that they'd prefer a single bigger display. It doesn't bug me, but I've seen enough complaining about it to realise it's a fairly common complaint. Maybe because people start with one display, no gaps, and spend so long with it that it's hard to adapt? I don't know, but it's a thing.
I'd say a better argument for ultrawides is that you basically get more space out of an output, at least in theory. Plus there's no requirement to set them up side-by-side; you could do, for example, use one above the other and have the equivalent of a 2x2 grid but with fewer gaps. Or, if it's not a curved display, put them in portrait mode for ultra-tall...might be interesting.
On the gaming argument, you make a good point that most people aren't aware of, because most people don't have extra monitors (sadly) or the extra GPU power for them
Out of curiosity, which point, the one about the gaps or the remark about increased peripheral vision? Of the two I actually feel more strongly about the latter, since I barely notice the gaps in a 3-monitor setup, but I find the lack of peripheral vision is a constant annoyance in 3d games.
I strongly suspect we're all on the same page about "the 1920x1080 ghetto". It's a shitty size for one window, because it wastes 1/3 of the wide of the screen, and it's a shitty size for two windows, because both of them will be 1/3 too small. And it's way too short.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the ratio; I preferred 16:10 instead, but they're a pain in the ass to get now. I was sad when I had to replace one that died with a 1920x1080 display, but ah well. I think the problem with 16:9 is really two things:
1) The obvious benefit of widescreen is putting two things side-by-side, but it's not quite wide enough to do that comfortably.
2) Being stuck at 1920x1080 because of TVs makes it feel too short.
Ultrawides don't help with #2, but consider this: If you split the 2560 display by half, or the 3840 one by thirds, you get two or three 1280px spaces to work in. These sizes are actually better at doing what widescreen is supposed to be good at. You could also do a 2/3 split on the wider one and get a 2560x1200 and 1280x1200 split, which could be useful for some things.
It would be nice to see more vertical resolution, but I do like the idea of the ultrawides. To me, at least, 16:9 feels like it's stuck in this middle ground where it's too wide for one type of use but not wide enough for another.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday April 07 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)
Well there's the rub. Windows was ahead of the curve in 2009 for offering an easy way to tile windows side-by-side on a single display, but the other tiling features in Windows are not easy to find and very inflexible. OS X does not come with a tiling solution at all.
I would think you'd have found out by now that all of the spiffy UI features that free OSes offer are not available on the computers most people use. But this can be a lesson to all readers: there is such a thing as a tiling window manager for Windows and for OS X, and it can get rid of all the fiddling with window positioning.
As for gaming, the real point you made is that games support the resolutions at all. Maybe the benefits of additional peripheral vision is obvious to me. But what was not obvious is that games would actually give it to you if your display was big enough. The smaller 1800R radius of this particular screen would be excellent for this.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:06PM
Well there's the rub. Windows was ahead of the curve in 2009 for offering an easy way to tile windows side-by-side on a single display, but the other tiling features in Windows are not easy to find and very inflexible. OS X does not come with a tiling solution at all.
"Ahead of the curve in 2009"? While tiling window management has been with us in one form or another since the 80s, the tiling wm renaissance started around 2000-2001 with ion and larswm.
WRT Windows specifically, Windows 1.0 was tiling only. Windows 3.1 (the earliest one I remember) use floating window management, but had the options to "tile vertically" or "tile horizontally" in the window menu. In 95/NT4 this moved to the taskbar context menu, and remained there through XP. In Vista, it was renamed "side-by-side" and "stacked", but same place, same functionality. I haven't used 7 and newer much, so maybe they hid these options, but they certainly were not hard to find in prior versions. (Inflexible is right; that's what you get when you try to bolt functionality on afterwards.)
But this can be a lesson to all readers: there is such a thing as a tiling window manager for Windows and for OS X, and it can get rid of all the fiddling with window positioning.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or useless. Are you implying there is no such thing, or sincerely declaring there is such a thing, but for some reason not offering any pointers to those looking for it? Either way it seems like a shitty lesson, especially since searching for "tiling window managers windows" has obvious issues.
Perhaps this [reddit.com] would be a helpful start for anyone using Windows, and seeking proper tiled window management. And OS X users might start here [stackexchange.com]. I'm sure any Windows or OS X users reading SN comments already have their own reasons for not switching OSes (and between systemd these days, and the "everything not ubuntu-shaped is just too hard for newbies" meme, I can hardly blame them anyway), so I won't beat that dead horse.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:27PM
And sans the ability to rearrange them. They're permanently locked, 'fused' as another poster put it, together in the most useless configuration imaginable, and you can't move them.
This sounds useful for 'immersive gaming' and watching cinema but HORRIBLE for computing.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 07 2017, @03:37PM
I'm not seeing the use-case for monitors more than 3 times wider than they are tall.
Uhhh... use case for the customer? There isn't one, just as there hasn't been one for 3D TVs, curved TVs, vibrating dildo TVs, amphibious-landing-craft-shaped TVs, and a pile of other stuff that manufacturers have been producing in recent years. Truth is that apart from eventually going for OLED if you really, really, really need to see slightly blacker blacks, there's been no reason to get a new TV for about the last ten years or so. So all of these "use cases" are for the manufacturers' bottom line, not for the customer. Buy our new $shinything, so we can sell you a gratuitously different $shinything next year, and another one the year after.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
For any sort of normal work, the advantage of lots of monitor space is allowing you to see multiple windows simultaneously. For this, multiple monitors are better, because windows snap naturally to the monitors.
In other words, your window manager sucks, and you can't imagine one that doesn't suck? Tiling window managers are a thing, you know, and they're more attractive the more screen space you have. I use them, and really like the idea of one big monitor, precisely because it doesn't have screen edges -- that means I have the flexibility to choose, say, 5 columns of windows, instead of having to choose between 4 and 6 on the equivalent dual-monitor setup.
(I'm only comparing 3840x1080/1200 to 2x 1920x1080/1200; of course it's better still to have a single, uninterrupted 4k display (>38"), or two 2560x1440/1600 displays -- more space is more space. But given the same amount of space with or without seams in the middle, I'll pick the single display every time.)
"Snapping" windows to edges/corners is just a way to bolt a bit of tiling onto a floating window manager, so users can enjoy some of the benefits by learning one "new trick" instead of learning a whole different way of working. That's not bad in itself, but if you've got this much screen space in the first place, it's probably worth investing some time learning a better way to use it.
For anyone interested in trying a tiling wm, I'd recommend awesome -- like many, but not all, tiling wms, it can manage floating windows at the same time as tiled windows, which can be good for apps that use floating palettes and toolbars, and it's much easier to learn than some of the other options. Once you've gotten familiar with the idea of how to manage windows with tags (analogous to the "virtual desktops" or "workspaces" in some floating wms, but more powerful), you'll be in a better position to comparison shop with other tiling wms.
So: what's the use case for this? Bragging rights at trade shows?
Well, the real reason is partly economic and partly marketing. You can make a 4k display (3840x2160, 54" diagonal), or you can split that glass in half and make 2 of these (3840x1080, 49" diagonal); economically, this boosts process yield. Whereas a single defect would scrap the whole 4k panel, it would only be on one of the 32:9 panels; even two randomly placed defects still have a 50% chance of only scrapping one panel. Of course not only is yield better, but you're making twice as many displays, which are marketed as almost the same size (thanks to diagonal measurement) and thus command much better than half the 4k panel's price.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 07 2017, @07:21PM
There are two uses for your monitor, which call for different answers...
If you want to work, vertical lines are your friend. I work on a 4K monitor (40"), because 1080p doesn't display enough information without scrolling.
BUT if you want immersive entertainment, what's your visual range, again? essentially 180 degrees wide, but not so tall.
THAT is why those extra-wide monitors can make sense to people. The corner of your eye is pretty good at seeing motion, even if you're focused ahead.
I ain't buying one of those, I hate anything below 1200 lines. But I don't deny they make sense for some uses...
Two types of monitors, two potential uses... Why is it so darn hard for everyone to understand?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Kawumpa on Friday April 07 2017, @08:50AM (8 children)
I don't get it. The move from 16:10 to 16:9 was idiotic but at least understandable, given the manufacture of TV panels with this aspect ratio and the scale economies involved, but making the aspect ratio even greater is useless in most settings.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday April 07 2017, @11:34AM (1 child)
You probably should think of it as two 16:9 displays that just happen to be fused together horizontally.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:23PM
Except if they're going to be 'fused together' at all then it needs to be vertically.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday April 07 2017, @12:17PM (2 children)
The solution is to buy more.
Two of them, one on top of the other, would be pretty great.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday April 07 2017, @12:21PM (1 child)
Crunching those numbers...
...
Hey, that's 16:9 again!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday April 21 2017, @11:03AM
Or have three side by side, each in a vertical ('portrait') orientation.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday April 07 2017, @03:56PM (2 children)
The shorter display gives you a larger diagonal measurement for the same screen area.
I thought 16:10 was a nice ratio myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:10PM (1 child)
I suppose 16:10 is acceptable for people who can't stand ccfl psu screech or want maximum pixels. For me it's 4:3 for lyfe, too bad that 1600x1200 is max that can be bought. Perhaps in the future there will be 100:1 for diagonal freaks and 4:3 for not entirely braindead folk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:57PM
The future is VR remember. A goddamn 50:9 aspect ratio wide field of view and 16K+ res. Then you just think it and a 4000x3000 virtual screen pops into the ether in front of you. But there's also onahole/teledildo integration so you are getting pleasured while coding.
(Score: 2) by BenJeremy on Friday April 07 2017, @01:12PM
I'd like to have a curved monitor I can replace my center WQHD with, and turn my side WQHD monitors to Portrait mode. So I need a vertical res of 2560 on the curved monitor and 23.5" in actual height to match up. I'd prefer it deep enough to fit nicely in the corner.
That setup would be nice for work and gaming. It would mostly wrap around me, and provide a good central area for most of my work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:13PM
Did you see those gamers from Anandtech? They had curved displays. Curved. Displays.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:21PM (2 children)
Older displays are 5:4 or 4:3 so they're still wider than they are tall, just not quite so wildly out of proportion.
The ideal aspect ratio for a computer monitor is approximately 1:√2. Yet the manufacturers keep moving further and further in the wrong direction every year.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 07 2017, @04:40PM
(Yet another) step backwards
A step backwards is what you'll need to take to see what's on this monitor. Especially in your font ;)
The ideal aspect ratio for a computer monitor is approximately 1:√2
What's that based on?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by BenJeremy on Friday April 07 2017, @07:46PM
Well, it is certainly senseless if they do nothing to increase the vertical resolution. 1080p just isn't practical these days. Toolbars, menus, fixed divs in web pages... all conspire to make 1080p unusable.
I don't mind being wider... as long as they also increase the actual vertical resolution. These are, after all, computer MONITORS. Sadly, though, the curvature isn't drastic enough for somebody sitting only 2~3 ft away (Low curvatures are designed for living room use, and honestly, unless you are a gamer who lives alone and without friends in your mom's basement, curved displays are idiotic for home theater usage - only a single viewer has the ideal viewing position for any curved display).
For computer usage, I need the curvature to be tight enough that my normal position is properly centered. As far as the wide aspect, I actually don't mind having it wrap around my view. My current set up is 3 WQHD monitors, with the side monitors ar 45deg angles.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday April 07 2017, @04:34PM
[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).
I don't sit 71 inches from my monitor; I'm barely 70 inches tall. Putting that monitor at my feet while gaming in bed would still not put my eyes at the center of curvature for this display. I'm assuming that's the point, to reduce distortion of the image due to the display's edges being further from my eyes than the screen's center is.
I'm glad to see that they're thinking about this; the curved displays with 3000R is 9ft 10in, which makes sense for my living room TV but not for my computer desk. I'm going to guess that manufacturing flat and then bending the screen makes tighter bends problematic; at least they're trying. Hopefully as flexible LCD technology improves this can be made easier and the price will come down.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin