Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K? 304
Iddo Genuth (903542) writes "Forget about 4K displays, are Ultra Widescreen 'cinematic' displays the real deal? Earlier this year LG announced its new 34UM95 – a 34-inch Ultra Widescreen monitor with a cinematic 21:9 aspect ratio and a generous 3440 x1440 resolution — a recent hands-on review suggests that this monitor might be the new productivity king, for those who simply can't stand that annoying bezel between their multiple monitors. Linus Sebastian had a chance to play with the new LG 34UM95, and although he seems to start as a skeptic (after all, how really useful can a 21:9 display be right?) he ended up his review fully converted, with no going back. We still think that pro graphic users will not rush to switch over their EIZOs and NECs for this baby, but video editors, gamers, programmers and basically anybody who loves multitasking, might be very tempted — what do you think?"
I get it.. but I won't get it (Score:2)
However, I would love some ultra widescreen for more real estate. To me, 4k is just too faddish, and thus too expensive for the poor nerds amongst us to justify purchasing.
Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (Score:5, Informative)
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I use a trio of Dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600, I can most assure you that it makes a difference. I've had to, from time to time, use another computer with a pair of older Dell 27" monitors at 1920x1200 and it is horrible to go back.
The idea that 4k is "faddish? Really? Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?
You simply don't know what you're missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
High resolutions at a moderate price have been available for some time via Korean sellers... I have a Catleap Q271 Retina and I love it.
Even better, Monoprice now offers similar gear without the overseas seller worries! http://www.monoprice.com/Categ... [monoprice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good post... $400 to $450 depending on what connections you want on it, much nicer panels than the cheap 27" 1080p TN panels being sold for half the price.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries if lack of money is the reason... we have all been there at one time or another...
The issue is when someone says, "oh, that isn't needed and is "faddish", the current ones are fine.
Yea, they are fine because they really want the good stuff, but have no money, so instead of just admitting that, they claim they don't want the new stuff to feel better about themselves. :)
Harsh perhaps, but true...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)
Kidding, right? I have three 22" 1680x1050 monitors, only $50 each on craigslist. That's 5040x1050 compared to 1920x1200. Games in eyefinity are beautiful when the screens wrap around you and all you see from the corners of your eye is more of the video game. Looking at one flat screen is annoying now, it's like I'm missing the rest of the game. I don't know why the new consoles don't have two more video outputs for two more screens.
three 30" though.... I don't know if I would want all that, I woul
Too Small (Score:2)
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I'm all for higher resolution. And I do think 4k is overkill for TV. But not for computer monitors.
But size and resolution are two different things. 3440 x 1440 is the picture size, not the resolution. Resolution is expressed in dpi. (Or dots per whatever, it doesn't have to be inches.)
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics. If I wanted the same "effective resolution" at the same distance (across my deep desktop) as my 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA)
Re: (Score:2)
But if it isn't big enough to see, at sufficient distance to prevent eyestrain, then it's not good for work. Even though this monitor has more dots than my two monitors, it is physically smaller than my two monitors together. Text would be too small to see comfortably and so on, unless I just made the windows bigger, which defeats the whole purpose of the higher resolution
Re: (Score:2)
Text would be too small to see comfortably
At the default DPI scaling of Windows, you're correct. And that is an issue that Microsoft needs to fix.
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
Right now I run my web browser at 200% zoom, rather than adjust the DPI of Windows 7, because DPI scaling in Windows 7 is still broken.
At 200% zoom, the screen is nice and clear, the text is large and easy to read.
Compare this to if I just cut the res
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
While I explained the difference between size in pixels and resolution, I managed to muddy the waters myself a bit in my comments.
The problem is that yes, while better resolution will make for fewer jaggies and so on, most modern OSes do not allow you to scale your windows (including text size, and so on) properly.
And as I say: even if they did, it would use up some of that useful SIZE. So to get the same work done you still need a bigger monitor.
My text and video looks just fine to me with a 24" m
Re: (Score:2)
A 24" monitor sounds like it fits your needs, if so, more power to you.
A resolution of 1920x1200 is ok on that screen, but 2560x1600 would be nicer.
Assuming a high-DPI aware OS of course. :)
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
It is easy to say that what you are used to is "just fine", but so was B&W TV once. :)
Real life is much higher resolution than any curren
Re: (Score:2)
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
A higher dot pitch would be desirable. But again "4k" and so on are sizes, not resolutions. It is easy to get them mixed up because for some bizarre reason the industry has been referring to size in pixels as resolution, when it just isn't. 4k isn't a resolution, it is a size in pixels.
My whole point here, which you probably already understand, is: a higher resolution is more generally desirable. Sure. But my current dot pitch IS "fine". I didn't say it was ideal, but the important thing is that it is pl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several points...
And I do think 4k is overkill for TV.
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
A 65" 1080p TV and a 65" 4K TV, from 10 feet away, playing a proper 4k video source from a hard drive, the difference was "smack you in the face" obvious which one was better. (hint, it was the 4k)
The lack of current 4k content from Netflix, Bluray, Amazon Prime, etc. is the real problem.
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horr
Re: (Score:2)
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
Okay. I admit that I haven't. But I'd have to see them right next to each other, showing the same picture or video, before I made up my mind.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...
Don't tell me what's "horribly wrong" with my work setup. How arrogant! I've been doing this shit for a living for many years.
Currently I have 2 x 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200. That's 3840 x 1200. And the diagonal measure (screen only) is approx. 41".
As I explained elsewhere: the dot pitch on these monitors, sitting across my desk, is just fine for work. I use thi
Re: (Score:2)
It was at a high end home theater store, couch was setup in front of two Sony TVs, same content on both.
The 4k really is incredible, once you see a proper 4K source material. But it isn't ready for prime time yet due to a lack of consumer facing content. But that will change.
------------------
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I'd love t
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I see. No, it certainly isn't "too high". More would be nicer. IF it could be scaled properly so that pictures and text aren't too big or too tiny.
You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.
It isn't just Windows. It is also OS X and Linux. They let you set your screen "resolution" (by which they mean size in pixels of course), but the scaling isn't adjustable for dot pitch. The closest it gets is Apple's "retina" work-around, which is better than no difference at all but it's all-or-nothing.
In OS X (I haven't checked recent versions of Windows) y
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm using a 17", 1280x1024 monitor* right now, you insensitive clod!
* ViewSonic VP171s, if you're wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...
As it stands, I would be thrilled with a 300dpi computer monitor at the 30" size, shame no one makes one. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone with a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and a 15" 2880x1800 monitor... No, 2560x1440 is not high enough resolution on 27", and 1920x1200 certainly isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't need the height if it was sitting on the desktop. looking too much up sucks.
but a 4k 55", a sofa and wireless kb mouse.. sign me up for that(the sofa being 1.4meters or so away from the screen). for that I would prefer 16:9
what do I think? (Score:2)
I just bought my first 16:9 display 3 months ago, wide is handy but resolution is where its at for multitaskers, but considering this thing cant decide if its a high end monitor or a gimmicky TV, resolution? whats that?
Vertical Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.
As a TV display, I'd be hesitant to buy nonstandard resolutions as current HDMI has a bandwidth problem with 4k at a decent frame rate let alone finding media for it. I've seen 4K resolution playing 4K media. It's very beautiful but it also suffers from the industry or whoever announcing 8k already, so I'm in wait mode if economical models ever come along.
Until then, 1080p is good enough for TV and I'll find something not quite so wide for computers.
Re: (Score:2)
My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.
Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical. I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.
That said, some programs are hideously wasteful of vertical space. I've had the curious experience of using Windows (for the fir
Yes Really (Score:2)
Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.
Yes really. I use multiple monitors most of the time, but I find my current second display (A cheapish HD monitor) at 1080p, is jet a bit too short. I've been looking at second monitors that offer more vertical resolution (looking strongly at 4K).
Although extra space to either side is nice in the end vertical space is often more useful for the task at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
3 1080p monitors turned 90 degrees.
3240x1920. Cheaper then my first VGA monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work well for many people because the subpixel high-resolution is the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bad idea but I don't want the fiddling (and cables) associated with that many monitors.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.
I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation [google.com]. Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.
I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.
I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.
With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another coupl
Re: (Score:3)
Or how about lack of resolution in general?
A consumer 4K monitor is 3840x2160. This screen is 3440x1440. Neither dimension is as big as a consumer 4K screen - it's 400 pixels too skinny, and 720 pixels too short.
So no, a regular 4K screen would get you more pixels.
And let's not even talk about the differen
Re: (Score:2)
1080p is "good enough" right now simply because the content isn't ready.
When Netflix and Amazon Prime start streaming the majority of their content in 4k, it will be time...
As it stands, there just isn't enough to watch on one, which is why they aren't selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but other than at the very start, the price difference is so small, the "why not" factor comes into it.
Last Christmas I replaced our 60" Sharp Aquos TV with a 70" Sony 3D TV.
Partly to get a bigger screen, but mostly to put the 60" TV upstairs and replace the small TV that was there.
I paid about $2,200 for that new TV. Sony also makes a non-3D version of that exact same TV, for $100 less.
For a 4% price difference? Sure, I'll get 3D. We have used it a few times, it is cool, but not something we will u
Re: (Score:3)
So rotate your monitor already. That's been an option for 20 years. Sure, only a few specialty products were available back then but now it's available with just about every video driver. I can do it on my laptops with AMD and Intel video and my desktop with Nvidia. If your monitor's stand doesn't allow rotating, get a VESA stand for $35.
Re: (Score:2)
three hdmi 1080p monitors in 24" resolution for $130 per screen and a $120 gpu (ati 7770) and two display port mini to hdmi adaptors and a decent computer will do just fine for most people and be a fraction of the price because it's standard screen size. if the 7770 isn't fast enough for gaming then a r9 280x is only $300 and is 4 times faster than the 7770. i still play old games though, so there are many models for me to chose from. technically i don't do multi screen except to play back blurays to a 40"
Re: (Score:2)
This monitor is pretty big. It has about the same height as a 27" 16:9 monitor or a 22" 4:3 monitor.
Resolution is 109.7 PPI which is the norm for desktop displays.
BTW, I think it is about time we start comparing vertical sizes instead of diagonal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oculus rift or similar (Score:2)
Too bad Microsoft and the Desktop Linux bunch have their heads too far up their butts or are too busy forcing tablet and other crappy UIs onto Desktop users to actually provide us with an environment that will take full advantage of such hardware.
So you'll have to resort to some 3rd party software.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I'm looking forward to VR for various applications (games, 360* movies, etc) - work isn't one of them. If I'm working I want lots of screen real estate, and I don't want to have something strapped to my head cutting me off from my work environment. Not to mention the physical discomfort of wearing it for 8 hours a day, and the fact that if I did so I almost certainly wouldn't want to come home and strap the thing to my head again for a few hours of entertainment.
"Productivity"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most documents read are still portrait orientation, most sourcecode is still nicely formatted over multiple lines.
Ultra-wide screens are only "productive" if you make cinema movies. Everybody else needs vertical space for productivity.
Then again, the entire review shows videogames and browser windows, so I guess it's for a different definition of "productivity".
Re: (Score:2)
I am far more productive when writing code or designing electronics if I have two monitors. An ultra-wide monitor is similar to having two separate monitors side-by-side, so it should definitely be better than a normal widescreen.
The real question is if this is better than having two widescreen monitors. On the plus side you only need one stand and because there is no bezel you can do three "pages" across without the middle one being annoying. On the other hand it isn't as wide as two widescreen monitors. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Estimate the number of people who work on four documents simultaneously. Divide by the number of people who only work on three or fewer at a time. My guess is that's a pretty small percentage of people to whom this would offer a productivity boost.
Not to mention the fact that at a given vertical resolution this only offers a 31% wider screen, not even remotely comparable to the gains of adding a second monitor - which is pretty much the standard today of anyone doing serious work on a computer (if not 3 o
Re: (Score:3)
Fitting tabs horizontally is idiotic anyway for a large number of tabs. Tabs should be vertical.
Price? (Score:2)
Any discussion like this is pointless without knowing the price. As in, "It's nice, but not for $XXXX." Or, "Since it costs as much per square inch as the two monitors it will replace, it's very attractive."
Re: (Score:2)
So, not cheap. Then again, when is the first iteration of anything cheap or affordable for the masses?
Nope (Score:2)
The bezel is not a problem, and if anything, is an asset. It allows me to maximize a program on the left, and maximize a program on the right and keep the two separated in my mind. Few programs need such a wide space and will just waste it when maximized. Anything where you have to try and screw with dividing the screen manually sounds like it would be a productivity eater.
I suspect that there are a few ap
Ultra WQHD? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so I now have three WQHD displays and the 1440 vertical pixels are nice... while I cannot stand the 21:9 1080p monitors, because they are only useful for watching movies, I can see 3440x1440 being somewhat useful, but realistically, nothing beats multiple monitors for development. There are times when you need to go full-screen with your application while debugging. Having a 7680x1440 (and 3440x1440 still means at least 2 monitors to match what I currently have) display won't help me at all there (which is why I don't use nvidia's "Surround"). The problem with the 2560x1080 monitors is the lack of vertical real estate for "everything else" outside of games and movies. We took a minor step backward with 1080p to synch up with our home theater TVs, and as a developer, it was truly miserable to develop in. Even if I went with two of these monitors, it means I don't have a center monitor - I either have a primary and a secondary off to the side, or I'm staring at a bezel in the center. Maybe a developer on a budget could get one of these, and a WQHD monitor as a secondary... all I know is that I'm no longer miserable debugging full screen and mobile apps with my current setup.
While I'm ranting...
For home theater, ultra-wide is fine. Curved, on the other hand, is a crappy gimmick unless you are the sole viewer in your lazyboy at the focal point. In this usage, I can also see curved ultra-wides as a possible ideal gaming monitor.
5:4 (Score:2)
Don't forget that this is two 5:4 screens side-by-side. Slashdotters often bemoan the lack of non-widescreen monitors, and now you can have two.
Lock your doors (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get one, lock your doors or they'll come in and saw half of it off while you sleep. LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale.
Pro users will not switch away from IPS (Score:2)
Pro users want 8 bit (or better) color and wide viewing angles (this is important because contrast/gamma/color balance doesn't shift with slight viewing angle shifts.)
Gamers won't switch because of 30hz refresh rates and poor response time.
At this size, featureset seems to be jumping back a couple of years at least, which isn't surprising. If you're a programmer or spend all day looking at text, yes, by all means, switch! Ditto for CAD. But if you do graphics/photo work, like to watch a lot of video/animati
Re: (Score:2)
Or where you can drive it @50hz (hdmi) or @60hz(display port)?
The best feature it seems to have is you only need 1 graphics card.
Never buying LG again. (Score:2)
I didn't know they used to be Goldstar, or I wouldn't have bought their monitor in the first place.
I fell asleep with Dragonball Z paused one night, and Goku's hairline got permanently burned in; along with the still legible "Kaenneth has won a cultural victory!" from play 'one more turn' on Civ 4 a bit too much.
Betteridge said it best: No. (Score:3)
First of all, 3440x1440 isn't better than 3840x2160.
If you really truly believe that a 21.5 aspect ratio is better than a 16:9, you could put a piece of tape over the bottom 500 lines of a "standard" 4k display and still end up with a higher res.
How about building a display panel that doesn't have edges?
Give me a dozen megapixel panels and a let me arrange them however I like.
Make them modular, interchangeable, cheap, and the whole display becomes expandable.
Or improve the power efficiency, or the cabling, or the weight, or the color depth, or... any of a dozen other things I care about more than the aspect ratio of a single panel.
If you absolutely must claim that one aspect ratio is superior to another, then why not go with the golden ratio?
At least that way you can put two together and still have the same ratio.
Re:Betteridge said it best: No. (Score:5, Funny)
The golden ratio is too expensive, that's why they're using the silver screen ratio.
Some drawbacks (Score:3)
No bezels is nice. However, I have three 24" ASUS monitors with probably around 1.5" of bezel between them, and it's honestly something you get used to. When gaming, you aren't really supposed to look directly at the other monitors anyway (there tends to be a lot of distortion to the sides), so the bezels aren't as big a deal as you might think. I would prefer to keep 5760x1080 over 3840x1440, but that might just me. The extra vertical space is nice, but not at the cost of almost 2000px in horizontal resolution.
Beyond that, the "ultra-wide" LG monitor isn't as good for a lot of productivity tasks. With three separate monitors, you have the advantage of the window manager allowing you to maximize or snap to multiple points instead of one giant one. So you can have three maximized windows with the click of a couple buttons, whereas on the LG monitor, you have to manually position them to achieve the same effect. If you use the "snap to side" feature found in Windows and at least some Linux WMs, you can quickly have six windows side-by-side filling three monitors. Finally, if you're watching a video in one monitor, maximizing it only fills that single monitor, leaving you two others to use in the meantime.
I hate odd fractions... (Score:5, Informative)
How about we just use decimals so we can understand this more easily?
5:4 = 1.25:1
Made common with 1280×1024 displays
4:3 = 1.33:1
Old computer monitor standard
16:10 = 1.6:1
Made common with 1280×800, 1680×1050 and 1920x1200 displays
16:9 = 1.78:1
(HD video standard)
Became most common aspect ratio for computer displays in 2012
A4 paper size = 1.41:1
Movies usually are in 2.39:1, 16:9 or 1.85:1
256:135 = 1.9:1
Since 2011, several monitors complying with the Digital Cinema Initiatives 4K standard have been produced. The standard specifies a resolution of 4096×2160 and an aspect ratio of almost 1.9:1.
Of course 3K is better than 4K ....? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DCI page on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] suggests that matting is used.
2048×1080 (2K) at 24 frame/s or 48 frame/s, or 4096×2160 (4K) at 24 frame/s
In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the image is used
In 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998×1080 pixels of the image is used
In 4K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 4096×1716 pixels of the image is used
In 4K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996×2160 pixels of the image is used
If anamorphic lenses were perfect, this would be an obvious failing, but I'm not so sure that an anamorphic projection of a unmatted 4k image would be that superior.
Two Monitors (Score:2)
I use two monitors, however one of them is a Dell U3014 which is a 2560 x 1600 IPS display. The other is a bog cheap generic 27" 16x9.
I used to have two 27" 16x9 side by side. The problem with that arrangement is the 1080 vertical resolution wasn't satisfactory for programming.
Now this with a 1440 is definite improvement. Still though I think I'm sticking with the 2560 x 1600 - it's even deeper. IPS is also pretty sweet when doing graphics work.
Following up on the last LG story... (Score:3)
Hates it! Hates it precious! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this an ad ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be just you, but are you basing that on the "idea of 4k", or actual experience using it?
I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"
So why don't I own one now? The source material from most media isn't 4k, so what's the point? For TV use, it will be a few years. For computer use, that time would be now if a good IPS 4K display wasn't crazy priced.
But when the prices come down, it will make total sense.
4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score:3)
I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"
Only if you're looking at it too closely. At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in. Up close, yeah, it's obviously going to look astounding, and most people have "too large" a screen for their viewing distance, so in a way, I guess it works out :)
The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow r
Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score:4, Informative)
At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.
Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...
I speak from experience...
The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)
More wrong information. 60hz 4k panels are out now, and they don't have poor viewing angle or color. You simply need DisplayPort to get 60hz (which anyone buying such a monitor today should have).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
http://www.tomshardware.com/re... [tomshardware.com]
60hz, IPS viewing angels, just crazy expensive at $3,500 (actually below $3K now, give it a few years to get cheap).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...
No, it's nothing to do with his eyes sucking, it's to do with the angular resolution that 20/20 vision can pick up. at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen.
I speak from experience...
How sure are you you don't speak from placebo?
Re: (Score:3)
This is easily verifiable. The standard definition [ndt-ed.org] of "normal" visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. At 12 inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. That means that at 10 feet, someone with 20/20 vision can resolve 0.0349 inch. 1920 (1080p width) times 0.0349 inch is equal to 67.008 inches, significantly wider
Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's approximately true. Nominal resolution of the human eye is 1 arc-minute (1/60 of a degree), therefore a 1920 pixel wide display will subtend 32 degrees horizontally at the resolution limit. At 9 feet (108 inches), a 62 inch wide screen will subtend 32 degrees horizontally. Since screen sizes are measured on the diagonal, that equates to a 71 inch diagonal.
Human eyes are variable in resolving power, both because of their optics, density of the cones in the fovea, and brightness of the image source. Our retinas and brains also do image processing, so we can detect narrow lines, like a power line against the sky, at better resolution by interpolating eye movements (which change which cones are getting the image) and contrast enhancement.
An image with lots of narrow high contrast linear features (like text) can benefit from somewhat better pixel density, but for general colored images it does not help much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score:4, Informative)
20/20 is the ability to read things made of lines 1 arc-minute thick. If the letters are smaller, you might not be able to read them, but you can tell tell it's text because the rods and cones are much more dense than that. "General colored images" usually have texture.
Another big value that's not discussed often is that the higher the resolution, the harder the pixels are to see. This is why even 480i content looks better on an HD TV -- it's a much smoother, cleaner picture. Also, through some quirk of physics, when my eyes de-focus I can see pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're looking at it too closely.
There is no such thing as too closely.
Re: (Score:2)
There is such a thing as too closely: the human eye has something called the "resting point of vergeance" which is the focal distance at which the eye focuses at rest.
This is the ideal minimum viewing distance if you want to stare at a screen for arbitrarily long periods of time. The average RPoV is around 38" but can vary from 10" to 60" depending on individual, physical condition, viewing conditions, etc. Mine is around 35" with glasses on, 10" without glasses.
Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (Score:5, Insightful)
At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect
The obvious solution is to reduce the recommended viewing distance, as the resolution of the screen improves.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on the size of the screen. I think the rule of thumb is that for watching movies most people need to be sitting one screen-diagonal away from the screen to really notice the difference between a 720 and 1080 monitor. But that's for movies. Try reading text on the same screen, where fine high-contrast small-radius curved lines abound, and the low pixel density will become far, far more obvious. Especially since you're unlikely to be sitting 40" away from a computer monitor, even if
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.
It's not that large of a screen you can plainly see the difference, especially sitting at a few feet (as you do with a computer monitor).
You should go to CES sometime where you can see lots and lots AND LOTS of different displays all using the same source material, then you can tell for yourself...
Re:Is this an ad ? (Score:4, Informative)
You should go to CES sometime
I don't need to go to CES. I bought that monitor three weeks ago when Fry's had it for a little under $1k. It is huge, I did not really like it. Much of the monitor is in my peripheral view, and moving the mouse from far-left to far-right is a pain. I decided to use my "old" 1920x1200 again and use my 34UM95 for my flight simulator.
The idea of having a gazillion xterm's next to each other is great, but it didn't work for me.
Re:Is this an ad ? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it is - if you sit 8-10 foot away from your screen you need a 60" TV to see a resolution higher than 1080p.
4k is pretty much useful for monitors only (where it's useful because you sit 2 feet away from them).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just pixel resolution, it's color depth and gamut range too.
Re: (Score:2)
Which 4k doesn't improve in any way.
4k is about resolution, only.
And (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.
You must have poor eyesight. The difference is actually profound.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, yes, you can hear the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp. The tube amp will be "warmer", meaning it will distort the audio in a manner some find pleasing. The solid state amp won't do this, and will instead require those effects to be simulated in a DSP.
Then why have every study done double-blind shown that audiophile claims aren't represented as claimed? People can't tell the difference. When you avoid edge cases (clipping/distortion), the cheap equipment matches the expensive equipment.
This display is only around 100DPI. Even using the "20/20 vision" measurement of 1 arcminute resolution, that means you're still going to see benefit all the way out to three feet.
Being able to resolve the differences doesn't mean it makes a difference to the viewing.
I don't believe that is an accurate description of human vision, anyway. I tested, and I can resolve a single pixel (stuck green on a bad LCD) at less than 1/10th the "minimum" yo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they can. put two 55" TVs side-by-side (one 1080 one 4k), and you will see the difference, even from 10 feet. (If the source material is 4k)
Re:Is this an ad ? (Score:5, Interesting)
More pixels is always better if you're coding. However 21:9 does nothing for me, they should double down and go 32:9 and allow two host controllers (and selectably just one to drive both). It'll save me a bit of desk space and one power cord...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say the same - I do similar with 16:9 monitors now and it's wonderful. But I have a sneaking suspicion that 21:9 might be pushing the line of too much of a good thing. Maybe not crossing it, but 31% more height at the same width is starting to get a little ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Why buy this 34" at $1,500 when it has less space than two $200 $26" LCDs? I would have 52" total, 3840x1080 resolution and spend $400 instead of $1,500.
Re: (Score:2)
1. So you're not constantly panning your vision around to see.
2. So you can have a lot of windows open simultaneously. you're not 6ft away, you're 2ft away, making this viable.
3. you pay for the privilege of not having a bezel in the middle.
4. yes it is overpriced atm.
Re: (Score:2)
Why go to two 32:9 monitors stacked vertically? That is exactly the wrong direction to go. This 21:9 monitor is unforgiveably stupid when they could equally well have gone to the far superior 4:3 format. That way with a single monitor of adequate linear size and pixel count you could have either two portrait areas side by side, or two vertically stacked wide screen areas. Or an infinite number of other layouts. No screwing with anything required; simply accomplished by stretching your windows to taste.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a retina macbook pro for any length of time, the appeal will dawn on you. 4K enables pixel doubling, which makes text amazing to look at. All the other details, too.
It's a first world problem, mind you, but I find it quite unpleasant to view a non-pixel-doubled display, now. I mean even the Apple cinema display* looks outdated and primitive.
I kick myself for buying the retina machine before it could drive/I could also afford an external 4k display.
*I referenced the Apple display not because of an
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the point of a really wide monitor though - which is what this is about......
like, no bezel in the middle, less software going hordky dorzky.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but Skarjak asked for a curved monitor from the future, not from another planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Our vision is made for horizontal viewing, not vertical. The only thing that requires taller monitors is websites, everything else needs to be wide.
Get yourself a monitor that can be rotated 90 degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, here it is [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and there's an easy solution - rotate it 90* to portrait mode. Wonderful for web browsing, programming, etc., though I think 9:21 would still be getting a little ridiculous.
Granted, not many monitors offer a rotating stand, but most have VESA mounting holes and there's lots of wall- or desk-mounted VESA stands available, and you'd be amazed at how much of a difference getting rid of the stand makes to available desk surface space as well. Some even rotate if you want to be able to switch back and
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever find 4:3, 24", IPS monitors, please tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. Do you hear us, moron designers out there? The first guy with a 4:3 2000x1500 or 2400x1800 LCD monitor could really clean up. You can get tablets in 4:3. BRING ON THE 4:3 MONITORS!
Re: (Score:3)
What does refresh rate have to do with the pixel-dimensions of the screen? Yes, there are bandwidth limitations with the current HDMI spec, but that's irrelevant. to what your eye can see, and if 4K catches on either HDMI will be updated, or things will move to DisplayPort, where the tentative next-gen standard can already handle 8K displays at 60Hz.
Meanwhile the AC is absolutely correct, at 3440 x1440 this new display is smaller in both dimensions than a "standard" 4K at 3840 x 2160. And for most computi
Re: (Score:2)
- 30Hz is quite sufficient for everything but 3D games. DVDs are only encoded at 30fps (NTSC), or even 25fps (PAL). Hell, even a traditional movie theater only runs at 24fps.
I have a 42" 600hz Panasonic Plasma HDTV (that's 60hz effective). so my flicker 3D games are at 30hz; you'll get your rear handed to you. Stupid thing isn't divisible evenly by 24 so cinema is buggered as well.