Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K?

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?"

Comments

I get it.. but I won't get it

[Rooked_One]

So yea... I get the whole "more resolution captain!" Absolutely. Every day all day. But I use a 27" monitor that only does 1920x1200... "Only." That's plenty for work and pleasure - i'm playing the new wolfenstien at that resolution, and its beautiful.

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.

what do I think?

[Osgeld]

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?

Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Anonymous Coward]

This resolution is smaller in *both* dimensions than 4K, it's not even wider.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Jmc23]

Well, except for the fact you can drive the monitor at a higher refresh rate over hdmi. You can drive it with ONE modern graphics card. The aspect ratio IS wider.

So, as per usual, the AC is an idiot.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Immerman]

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 computing applications refresh rate is largely irrelevant for modern displays that don't "pulse" the image like CRTs did - 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.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Trax3001BBS]

- 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.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[joemck]

Just because 30 FPS is the most common format doesn't mean increasing it wouldn't be noticeable. If you can see the difference in a 3D game, you can see the difference in an action sequence in a movie.

I've seen some clips that were shot at 60 FPS and watched them on a PC. The motion looked considerably more fluid and natural than the same clip at 30 FPS.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Jmc23]

Read subject lines, it sometimes helps to clear up your confusion.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Immerman]

Quite so. And if there were a source for consumer movies recorded at >30fps that would matter. But even NTSC Bluray is only 29.97fps. Some TV's/players will "fake in" extra frames, but the effect tends to be disappointing at best.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Immerman]

Ah yes, the fact that a high-pixel screen can't be driven at full resolution over a semi-obsolete video cable is a horrible, horrible disadvantage. Especially considering that pretty much the *only* current source for higher-than-1080 signal is from a PC that already has the option of a DisplayPort.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Vertical Resolution

[rolfwind]

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:Vertical Resolution

[serviscope_minor]

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 first time in any meaningful manner since Windows 95) and Visual Studio (never reallu used before), and that combination eats vertical space likt it's going out of fashion. On a mere 1600x900 screen it's like programming through a letterbox. It begins to feel more comfortable at 2560x1440, but it's ont particularly great. Certainly worse than a better system at 1920x1080.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have two monitor/ noth are atouf ad in 2034x231708. the fit and are good. Not they said, I would a good replacement but it needs to be BIVE 1441

Re:Vertical Resolution

[tlhIngan]

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.

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 difference between consumer 4K and cinema 4K - the latter being 4096x2160.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[swillden]

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. 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 couple of columns. I'd like that.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[FlyHelicopters]

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:Vertical Resolution

[jtownatpunk.net]

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:Vertical Resolution

[kesuki]

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" hdtv. but i don't have the room for them, and if i were to game with multiple screens i would likely use 3 40" tv sets ($300-400 on sale compared to $700 per screen for monitors) rather than pay for 'only' monitors. but 24" is plenty big. i use 1080p on my best laptop which has a 17.3" display but if i had room for 3 screens i would definitely go big, on a budget. and i am not sensitive to flicker, from crts, florescent lights and other flickery things have never ever bothered me so latency and refresh rates don't apply to me to be willing to spend more for something that doesn't bother me.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[camperdave]

The same "chicken and egg" dilemna faced 3D capable televisions, yet they sold. 4K is what movies and television is shot in these days, so it's really an "if you build it, they will come" problem.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Misagon]

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:Vertical Resolution

[FlyHelicopters]

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 use often.

4K? Yea, we will use that all the time, once the content arrives.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[TheRealMindChild]

I want a 1:1 ratio monitor

Re:Vertical Resolution

[ADRA]

I've got a couple Dell 27's at 2560x1440, and one is always veritcal and the other is always horizontal. The vertical is great for page reads, and the horizontal is for games and IDE productivity tasks.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[ADRA]

Nah, I couldn't say that. To be perfectly honest, 1080 itself only really shines in very high density panning shots like the first 2 minutes of I am Legend. Most (meaning 90+% of the time), the general public couldn't notice/care about the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you're on a gigantic display or far to close per perceivable pixel DPI scale. 4K will be fine for theatres, most likely pointless for anything smaller for a long time.

The only reason anything good will happen with 4k+ in the future is if displays function to look more like reflected light surfaces and less like flash lights (shining in my eyes). I can walk up to and touch a wall, and there's always more ganularity and clearity to be found. I walk up to a monitor, and I get more washed out and eye sore from the bright contrast bombarding my eye balls.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two monitor/ noth are atouf ad in 2034x231708. the fit and are good. Not they said, I would a good replacement but it needs to be BIVE 1441

Well said.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

He's objecting to "shorter" and "shorter" screens. I don't thing Portrait mode is what he has in mind. With many people now going to multiple monitors, the 16:9 (or more) is ridiculous, and while going portrait is viable there, it's not really ideal either. For me 16:10 is really the limit of how short I want a computer monitor, and using 3, even a 4:3 ratio could be nice. My first CRT was a 19" with 1600x1200 and I refuse to buy anything with fewer horizontal lines of resolution, especially if you look at software today and how much space is used at the top and bottom, I can't understand how anyone stays sane with only 1080 rows...and I'm very happy my main monitor is 2560x1600 now.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[rtb61]

There are more problems than that. Power consumed by the more powerful cpu and graphics. Resolution on it's own measure nothing, you new to combine it with screen size and distance from screen. Now most importantly of all, content, the content has to justify resolution, there is a whole lot of content that quite simply ends up looking worse at higher resolution because it was created before that needed to be considered and shortcuts were taken. Right now the content that makes best use by far of higher resolution larger screens is simply landscape views https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... Interesting thing here is why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for a picture window when you can buy a stream of it and of many others for nearly one hundredth of the price. Guided tours of many places will be a new source of content with panorama video streams, all making maximum use of very high resolution big screens.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I like duals because it's a cheap and easy way to double my workspace. Stacking another set vertically is not as easy to do- you need more than just a wider desk surface, and most monitors don't have an easy way to mount them to a wall... they usually have a "foot" on the stand which isn't always easy to work around or remove. It also allows me to slightly "pitch" the two displays so I don't have to move my head around as much.
So while I'd like to have a single display which is roughly 50% taller and 2x wider than the single 17" widescreen format, I'm not sure that a flat-panel solution would be quite as agreeable as manually adjusting four individual screens... and the divider caused by the monitor edges isn't too distracting since I'm not trying to use if for a "full-screen" purpose. The cables do end up turning into a bit of a mess though, and a single physical unit would go a long way in helping that.
I've had people suggest using three 90-degree rotated screens, and that might be the way I end up going. But support for three monitors and proper rotation, while growing, is still a little bit sketchy.
But even so, I'd rather have a much higher pixel-per-inch density than I do now. Frankly speaking, the 'ideal' density would be the same as is used in printed hardcopy mediums which use a dot-matrix style printing method... and we're still a good ways off from that.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The same "chicken and egg" dilemna faced 3D capable televisions, yet they sold.

Because of marketing. Most people still are not going out to buy one, and aren't going to pay more for a 3-D capable display. Some manufacturers were intentionally pushing the feature by pricing the 3-D displays the same as non 3-D ones, and a lot of consumers faced with that situation will pick the one with more features even if they never use them. Much like what we are seeing with "smart" TV's.

4K will be a different story, it will be much more similar to how people ditched the older low-res displays and intentionally bought a HD one. There is a clear benefit to doubling or tripling the pixel density of a display, especially large ones. And with only a few exceptions related to earlier digital cameras, converting existing films to a higher resolution format is quick and easy and cheap.
The stereoscopic "3-D" is not easy, quick, or cheap to convert from existing stock, and in many cases essentially impossible, and provides only questionable benefit. Some people like it, many people hate it, most people are indifferent and don't feel like they miss it when re-watching a movie in 2-D that they saw in "3-D". In addition, the S3D displays have some serious limitations in terms of viewing angle; they work best as part of a single-viewer experience and there are many people who are purchasing TV's for multi-viewer situations. Put bluntly, S3D is 100% a gimmick, it's not the "wave of the future" as many claim it to be.. the technology is still far to immature for that to happen. Now a TRUE 3-D display would be a completely different story, but such a thing is still pure science fiction and not likely to happen along any time soon.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[camperdave]

4K will be a different story, it will be much more similar to how people ditched the older low-res displays and intentionally bought a HD one. There is a clear benefit to doubling or tripling the pixel density of a display, especially large ones. And with only a few exceptions related to earlier digital cameras, converting existing films to a higher resolution format is quick and easy and cheap.

Yes, that is exactly my point. If gimmicky 3D that doesn't add much to the viewing experience and was generally unwanted by the market sold, then 4K which has a high market demand and adds a lot to the viewing experience will sell even though the content library is currently small.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Oculus rift or similar

[TheLink]

Want bigger screens and more of them? Wait for the next gen oculus rift type devices.

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:Oculus rift or similar

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Oculus rift or similar

[DigiShaman]

The latest version of the Oculus runs at 1920×1080. Because the single display is split for each eye, that effectively makes it 960x1080 regardless if the source material is stereoscopic or not. BTW, the lenses reshape the image which is further prospective corrected in software to counter the image distortion. Now go take a look at the Samsung Galaxy Note 3; notice the physical dimensions look similar? It too has a native resolution of 1920x1080 that's OLED. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the same LCD panel in fact. That, or from LG or Sharp.

Basically, the Oculus and devices like it are rather useless if the resolution isn't high enough because of its large FOV. Even the first generation Oculus suffered from a "screen door" effect due to the spacing between pixels.

"Productivity"?

[mwvdlee]

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:"Productivity"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about sourcecode + documentation, sourcecode + browser/simulator, document + browser window, your machine and a remote connection, etc etc?

There are plenty of use cases where having a very wide monitor greatly helps productivity.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

So 4 documents layed out horizontally in portrait orientation is useless for people working on documents? Audio engineers? Artists and source material? DJ's? etc...

You lack imagination and apparently don't do much with your computer.

Re:"Productivity"?

[AmiMoJo]

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. You only need one cable, but most graphics cards these days have multiple outputs so it is only really systems that use on-board video via the single port on the motherboard that really need this.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Immerman]

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 or 4). But that extra width would mean a double-monitor setup would also be ~30% wider, and that's getting to be a bit much.

Meanwhile in portrait mode I suspect only a small fraction of people would benefit much from the extra height - I've tried doing a portrait-over-landscape layout, and for most uses it gets tediously tall, and the 9:16 screen alone is more than tall enough to display any standard paper size, or an awful lot of code of web page.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Estimate the number of people who work on four documents simultaneously.

Either you work in a very tiny business or your job is of negligible importance.

Re:"Productivity"?

[ADRA]

Ultra wide seems lame, but worse case scenario, turn the monitor vertical for ultimately large text editor. My vertical 27 can probably fit around around 200 vertical console lines without being too small to read. That makes it really easy to read code at a glance for instance.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Mandrel]

I would find dual-monitors much better than an ultra-wide monitor because windows don't have to be arranged on the screen but can be simply maximised, and, most importantly, each screen can have its own set of virtual desktops, so that if each has 5 you can with a simple keyboard shortcut switch between 25 combinations of information. No windows move.

A nice feature would therefore be software support for virtual desktop zones on ultra-wide monitors.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

You like numbers and being literal, eh?

How many tabs in a browser does the average person have open?

Re:"Productivity"?

[Immerman]

Doesn't matter. How many browser *windows* do they typically have open?

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

Depends, how many can they fit horizontally?

Re:"Productivity"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vertical resolution is important, but so is width.

On my Eclipse IDE I have 4 columns - if I had a wider screen, I could make one of them a bit wider for output (rather than have it in a bottom pane, reducing the vertical space for source code), or even have a 5th column. It is useful to have several source files on screen at the same time. Even though I sometimes split a column into 2 or more areas, I'd still like more columns. I have a 30" monitor, I would love a bigger monitor and higher resolution. Even for the same amount of text, greater pixel density makes for more readable fonts.

So Ultra-wide screens are still productive for software development. However, like you, I would like more vertical resolution!

Re:"Productivity"?

[bingoUV]

Fitting tabs horizontally is idiotic anyway for a large number of tabs. Tabs should be vertical.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Horseshit - the human eye is "optimised" over the horizontal, and addtional width is much easier to navigate than additional height.
I much prefer having my screens side-by.side than one-on-top-of-the-other, and I've tried 'em both.
Each of my documents, for sure, is protrait, but it's much easier to switch between them when they're beside each other.
The productivity is there - you obviously haven't tried yourself.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

um, can I have some of that weed?

We're talking windows horizontally, and the troll was being exceptionally obtuse almost insisting that since he can't use it, well, nobody else could possibly have a use for it.

Re:"Productivity"?

[bingoUV]

No you were talking tabs horizontally, to which I replied.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

yup, really good weed! What strain?

Go up the thread and read slowly. Notice the '*windows*' line?

Don't confuse what the person in the video was saying about seeing more info in the tabs (which is really kinda dumb) and displaying more than one web page horizontally.

Re:"Productivity"?

[bingoUV]

You asked about how many tabs one can fit horizontally, and I replied only to that, that fitting tabs horizontally is idiotic.

Re:"Productivity"?

[Jmc23]

Ah, well, here's a hint. When replying to made up conversations in your head, keep the response in your head.

I fully agree though, lots of tabs horizontally is pointless when you only see one webpage on your screen.

If you're still failing to comprehend the train of thought, some people who have lots of tabs open (note i didn't mention anything about how the tabs are layed out) might actually appreciate seeing more than one webpage at a time, which this screen allows.

For the original troll, if he still can't comprehend, web dev's actually like to do that sometimes. You know, coding the page and seeing the immediate results in the top 3 browsers all at the same time at the same resolution is pretty handy.

Price?

[jamesl]

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:Price?

[Jmc23]

Well, he did say that if you're worried about price, you can get more resolution for cheaper in a multimonitor setup including a monitor stand.

So, not cheap. Then again, when is the first iteration of anything cheap or affordable for the masses?

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Rooked_One]

I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Austerity Empowers]

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...

Gimme a curved screen

[Skarjak]

You know what would be awesome? If someone made one of these ultra wide screens and curved it, so you'd get the same effect as if you were using 3 screens but without the bezels. Would be great for gaming. Come on, we live in the future, where's my gigantic curved screen?

Re:Gimme a curved screen

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already been here (and failed). Alienware made one back in 2008 http://gizmodo.com/341413/alienware-curved-monitor-looks-like-its-from-another-planet

Re:Gimme a curved screen

[ArcadeMan]

Yeah, but Skarjak asked for a curved monitor from the future, not from another planet.

Re:Gimme a curved screen

[Skarjak]

Damn. That screen's size could have been an issue. Maybe it could have succeeded if the back didn't stick out so much? Also it was 8000$... I guess we're not in the future yet.

Re:Gimme a curved screen

[wonkey_monkey]

Motorised curving TVs, at least, are on the way from, if I recall correctly, Samsung and LG.

But I think they only bend to around 20 degrees - not quite what you're hoping for (which would be cool).

Nope

[EmperorOfCanada]

This breathless sales pitch for a way too wide screen does not woo me at all over productivity.

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 applications where such an individual wide screen might be nice, first person shooters would probably benefit from it. But my IDE, my accounting, Photoshop, terminal window, or browser would all be lost and not only wasting the space but just mean that now I would have critical elements on the left so very far away from critical elements on the right.

So nope, these things are extremely niche and while probably get oohs and aahs in showrooms are probably destined for a future like the 17" laptop.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

In Windows, it's very easy to set a window to fill half your screen by dragging it to the edge, giving a similar experience as having two discrete monitors.

I'm seeing this being worthwhile for users who want one big screen for gaming or media consumption, while also having the productivity benefits of having a lot of horizontal space.

Re:Nope

[Cederic]

I rarely say this, but: You're doing it wrong. You do not need to use the whole screen for most applications.

For instance I have my browser, an SSH connection and a chat window all open and fully visible on the same screen at the same time. Who would've thought it, a multi-tasking OS capable of running multiple interactive applications at once, and displaying them concurrently on the same screen. Crikey, it's like being in 1993.

Yes Really

[SuperKendall]

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:Yes Really

[HornWumpus]

3 1080p monitors turned 90 degrees.

3240x1920. Cheaper then my first VGA monitor.

Re:Yes Really

[HuguesT]

That doesn't work well for many people because the subpixel high-resolution is the wrong way.

Re:Yes Really

[SuperKendall]

It's not a bad idea but I don't want the fiddling (and cables) associated with that many monitors.

Re:Yes Really

[HornWumpus]

Because of bugs in subpixel rendering or because of the shape of the subpixles?

I thought modern LCDs had six color subpixels/pixel. Each with only 4-8 levels.

I don't have a problem, but my eyes are old and tired anyhow. Some games don't like it at all.

Re:Yes Really

[HornWumpus]

You said you were already using multiple monitors?

Are you sure your not looking to rationalize a toy? Not that I'm against it.

Re:Yes Really

[SuperKendall]

Are you sure your not looking to rationalize a toy?

No, it's very useful for development work to have programming stuff on one monitor and design things n another. It's not rationalization.

But that's also why I'm not sure about three monitors, because I don't as often have use for three separate "views" as it were.

Re:Yes Really

[HornWumpus]

You can combine three monitors into two (one virtual spanning two and a third).

My first dual monitor setup was VGA and Hercules. Borland's debugger was the only thing that used the herc monitor.

Re:Yes Really

[Blaskowicz]

Subpixel font rendering can be "rotated" in the Operating System's GUI for fonts system, or if Windows doesn't do it you can disable it. Then you "only" have the problem of TN display and their dreaded vertical angles.

Ultra WQHD?

[BenJeremy]

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.

Re:Ultra WQHD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those curved monitors could come in useful if you wanted to make your own home driving simulator. You can already get a driving wheel, brake/clutch/accelerator pedals from game stores. Three of those TV's would seem to be enough to create a 180 degree view.

The only problem with increasing the screen resolution is that application developers then say, "oh, goody, goody, I can now increase the size of my fonts and windows". So you still have an application that fills up the whole screen and looks absolutely awful when you try and shrink the font resolutions.

Re:Ultra WQHD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that window managers should provide better control to divide a large monitor into smaller "full screen" zones for this sort of app testing. Right now, you can do it via virtual machines or RDP viewers most easily.

I use two 1920x1200 displays in portrait mode which suits most of my development, where I can have multiple tall windows open for code editing. But, periodically I wish I could open up a large spreadsheet across both screens without the bezel down the middle... I want both the width for many columns (or some wide columns with variable length text) and the height for many rows, so the almost square 2400x1900 aspect ratio would be great for this task.

I've been looking at the new monitors but am concerned that I need a combination of large area (in square inches) and reasonable pixel pitch. Reaching 40 years old and having been near-sighted my whole adult life, I am just starting to notice a reduction in my near vision accommodation. So I don't think I want to go to a 3840x2160 display will suit me unless I can get the size up higher than the current affordable ones, nearer to my current setup with dual 24" 1920x1200.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[SuperKendall]

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...

Lock your doors

[sjames]

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.

Re:Lock your doors

[Anonymous Coward]

"LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale."
That would be because they can. They even do it.
Blame LG and whoever allow them to.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[fortfive]

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 any inherent superiority, but rather it's the nicest display I've viewed while actually doing stuff (as opposed to viewing an in-store demo video, which, incidentally, are not any less unpleasant to view post retina).

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course is no more valid than the old conventional wisdom about refresh rates ("60 Hz is the fastest refresh rate any CRT will ever need. Your eyes can't perceive anything that changes faster than that.")

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Jmc23]

Belief?

What an interesting way to live your life.

Is it like their Antiprivacey TV's

[Anonymous Coward]

If you plug a flash drive into its USB hub does it try to send the contents back to LG?

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[mister_playboy]

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...

Re:Is this an ad ?

[umdesch4]

No mod points, so I'll just reply and say "me too". On the other hand, I'd consider taking one of these displays and turning it 90 degrees so I can see more of my code at once without scrolling.

4K is dead to me too

[Cantankerous Cur]

I don't understand this impulse to make the monitor wider and wider. I'd like my monitor taller so I can see more of my webpages, not less. Maybe I'm just an old fogy so get off my digital lawn.

Re:4K is dead to me too

[ArcadeMan]

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:4K is dead to me too

[Anonymous Coward]

citation, please?

Re:4K is dead to me too

[ArcadeMan]

Of course, here it is.

Re:4K is dead to me too

[Immerman]

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 forth.

I recently spotted a rotating wall mount for smaller screens for ~$15 on Amazon that had great reviews, and if you're not opposed to screwing a 2x4 into the side of your desk as the vertical then that would make for a more stable stand than pretty much anything but the most expensive desk-clamping models (though you will lose out on the easy height adjustment many desk stands offer. Personally I've never felt much need to adjust the height much)

Re:4K is dead to me too

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at your face in a mirror. Do you see one eye over the other in a vertical line? No? Do you see one eye beside another in a horizontal line? Well, there you have the citation.

Re:4K is dead to me too

[Rob Simpson]

Also word processing. The only thing that requires* monitors wider than 4:3 is cinema, and I'd rather watch on the couch.

*Yes, first-person shooters benefit from a wider screen, but they would benefit more from a curved screen or multi-monitor setup.

Re:4K is dead to me too

[dbIII]

Get yourself a monitor that can be rotated 90 degrees.

Entirely pointless with 1080. Sort of OK at 1200.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

At standard viewing distances for monitors, we will have a use for 8K. That is, 7680x4320, on a monitor roughly in the 40-50 inch range, flooding your visual field with medium-to-high-density pixels. For TVs, we will never reach 8K, in fact I expect TVs to either eschew 4K entirely or stagnate at 4K for even longer than we stagnated on 1080p (with 1440p for the premium consumer market). And since TV standards dictate monitor sizes now... Urgh.

Ads in /.? It's more likely than you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is an ad.

4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[SuperBanana]

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 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.)

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[FlyHelicopters]

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/...

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

60hz, IPS viewing angels, just crazy expensive at $3,500 (actually below $3K now, give it a few years to get cheap).

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[flargleblarg]

Only if you're looking at it too closely.

There is no such thing as too closely.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[WhiteZook]

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:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Immerman]

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 it does have a 40" diagonal.

In fact look carefully at your monitor right now - if you're using a decent laptop you're probably getting ~1080 on a 15" screen from about 20" away, and I bet you you can see jagged edges on the letters. Triple that to 45" and the pixels will be honking huge, even if you back up another 10" or so to a healthier reading distance.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[beelsebob]

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:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[InvalidError]

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

[FlyHelicopters]

at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen.

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[fnj]

at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen

This is easily verifiable. The standard definition 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 than a 60" diagonal TV screen.

However, the kicker is in the definition of "normal". 20/20 is actually "the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff" (see here; original source link no longer works). From the same paragraph, "the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12". That means that it wouldn't be very unusual for young healthy eyes, definitionally better than average but by no means uncommon, to be 20/10 or even better.

At 20/10, you can clearly easily distinguish between 1080p and 2160p ("4k") on a 60 inch TV screen at 10 feet. In fact, you could at least begin to make out a difference even in the range of 20/16 to 20/12.

If grandparent wants to say 20/20 vision "sucks", that is arguably a fair characterization in relation perhaps to his own vision, and likely that of fellow enthusiasts. Even his claim that the difference is obvious to "most people" is at least somewhat supportable if you accept that the average of "healthy" eyes is 20/16 to 20/12. At worst he would need to qualify the statement by excluding those with ocular disease or fairly advanced degeneration due to simple aging.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[DanielRavenNest]

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:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Twinbee]

Even normal TV programmes have lots of sharp lines and outlines as well as high contrasting bits (e.g: snooker, gates/fences, fireworks, striped/chequered shirt, fireworks, decoration, sunset on the water, grass, crystals, specular reflections on curved objects, and of course lots of text, whether subtitles or as part of the programme). No more (or minimal) moire effects with 4k too.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Bitmanhome]

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:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably using his Monster cables to hook it up.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[FlyHelicopters]

That all sounds nice, where it falls apart is when you understand that the human eye is analog and monitors are digital.

To put this another way, resolution won't be high enough until antialisling is no longer required. That is a crutch to compensate for resolution that is below what the eye can detect.

It is true that the human eye can't pick out specific pixels beyond a given point, but that doesn't mean in a moving image that the same eye can't see jaggies where there should be smooth lines.

That is why you need far more digital resolution compared to the analog eye.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Bill Dog]

How did you determine yours, and do you really sit three feet from your computer monitor?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[RedWizzard]

Nominal resolution of the human eye is 1 arc-minute (1/60 of a degree)

That is too low. See, e.g. this, which states that the resolvable pixel size is about 0.3-0.4 arc-minutes. Using 0.4 means that at 9 feet any 16:9 1080p screen larger than 28" has resolvable pixels. A 4k screen could be as large as 55" before the pixels are resolvable.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[pla]

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 :)

This largely depends on whether you use it as a TV or a monitor. I use my 4k display as a monitor. It kicks serious, serious butt - Yeah, I can definitely see the difference, though I sit I sit 18-24 inches away from it (riiiight at the point where individual pixels vanish seems like the sweet spot).

As for "recommended" distances... What does that mean exactly? I couldn't care less about how far LG "wants" me to sit from their screens. I sit at a comfortable distance for the task at hand. For TV, yeah, that means maybe 10ft away. For coding, it means "as close as possible while still seeing the whole screen".

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[RedWizzard]

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.

If that resolution is correct then you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 150dpi display and a 300dpi display at 2 feet but I certainly can. I'm not sure the 0.3-0.4 arc-minute figure I quoted in my other reply is really typical but I think most people's vision is better than 1 arc-minute.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[anubi]

Any advise on using monitors for PCB layout under Eagle?

Over half my computer hours are Eagle hours.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[AK Marc]

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...

Yes, and you can tell the difference between a tube amp and solid state one as well.

Most people can't see the difference. Or can you point to a study that shows people can tell the difference?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[InvalidError]

I used the empirical method: before I even read about the RPoV, I had already discovered that being too close to displays made me feel like the screen was ripping my eyes out after too many hours and found that this problem completely went away (for me) around 30-36" and RPoV explains why I need to sit at least that far to be comfortable in front of a screen for arbitrarily long periods of time... I discovered my RPoV before knowing what it was called.

This is a bit like an eye exam where you are supposed to let your eyes focus without straining to get the most accurate reading for your prescription.

And yes, I do sit at 30-40" from my PC displays most of the time... I happened to have a tape measure on my desk right now so I measured my current distance just for the heck of it and I'm at 42".

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since "20/20 vision" is equivalent to "eyes sucking" your point kind of falls apart. Most normal sighted people actually have considerably better visual acuity than 20/20. The average for a healthy eye is 20/16 to 20/12. I have 20/10 with glasses and 20/20 without. While I no longer consider it worth the hassle to wear glasses, I never for a second forget that 20/20 sucks even though some bureaucrat has declared 20/20 to be "normal".

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Jack Griffin]

I can only speak from personal experience, but I still remember the first time I saw 4k display. I didn't know it was 4k when I first saw I just remember holy fuck that's the highest quality screen I've ever seen. I felt like I could actually step inside it. It helps that it was a 85" screen and anything less than 4k on that size looks pixelated, But while I was in the store I noticed the same reaction pretty much from every person who walked past. So yeah, regular people can tell the difference...

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[FlyHelicopters]

Can you point to a study that says they can't?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[AK Marc]

Ah, so your stance is "I don't like your opinion, so I'll disagree with you, despite the fact I have no support whatsoever for my opinion".

If I'm wrong prove it. Otherwise, I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can, so if you claim I can't and I'm a crazy nut for claming I can, the burden of proof is on you.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[AK Marc]

You can't. I can prove you can't. Post your address and I'll drop by with a 720p TV and a 4k TV with 4k source material for both, and I'll swap them back and forth and you tell me which is higher resolution. But you can get no closer than 8' to the TV.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're talking about LCDs, it is a controversial statement that 480i content looks better when upscaled.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[stoatwblr]

If you sit 8-10 feet from any monitor (except when watching movies), you have a far larger desk than I ever will.

My current desktop is just under 5000 pixels wide (4 old-school 17" LCD monitors) and I like it _because_ it's immersive.
Moving to a single large monitor with higher resolution would have some benefits for me in terms of reduced complexity and for other people it would give more rreal estate to put stuff.

The producitivty enhacements form going dual monitor or huge monitor are worthwhile.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[stoatwblr]

"Nominal resolution of the human eye is 1 arc-minute (1/60 of a degree)"

FSVO Nominal. My vision is 100/20 when corrected (worse than 4/20 without)

I've had lenses tweaked to give 20/20 as an experiment and it's horrible. The interesting thing is that most people with 20/20 vision can achieve 40/20 or better with corrective lenses but 20/20 is regarded as "good enough for most purposes", not "perfect vision"

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[stoatwblr]

> However, the kicker is in the definition of "normal". 20/20 is actually "the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff"

To give a sense of this:

20/20 will allow you to make out the first 4 lines on an eyechart and have trouble with the 5th line (25% sucess rate)

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

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:Is this an ad ?

[gl4ss]

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:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck!

[Dekonega]

I want 24' IPS 4:3s or 16:10s. Especially 16:10 is a beautiful widescreen aspect ratio. It's very good for working on a computer. 16:9 is only good for watching movies and perhaps some games which are in a movie aspect ratio. Try doing work with one and you'll get frustrated and annoyed. Even if you turn it 90 degrees it's still horrible. 16:10 for life! (If you absolutely need widescreen). Now excuse me, I need more beer.

Re:TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck!

[ArcadeMan]

If you ever find 4:3, 24", IPS monitors, please tell me.

Re:TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck!

[fnj]

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:TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck!

[ArcadeMan]

I don't even care about the resolution, to be honest. As long as it's 24", 4:3, IPS, 1280x1024 or above.

Re:TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck!

[jones_supa]

Me too. Do you hear us, moron designers out there?

Better not call the designers "morons" if you want a change.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

27" at 1920x1200 is a signficiantly lower pixel density than standard pixel densities on 22" monitors, which have the same resolution.

For the record, if you want screen real estate, you want 4K, not this stupid ultra-widescreen bullshit. For the record, the Ultra-wide 1440p panel is signficiantly shorter in width and especially height compared to a true 4K monitor.

At your current display size class, you can buy a Samsung U28D590D, or any of the other comparable monitors from Asus/Acer/Lenovo whenever they ship, and get literally your same monitor with double the pixel density. If you seriously still believe that Windows has a problem with DPI scaling (it doesn't), then you can buy larger 4K displays at 39". All of these are displays under $1000, albeit with some compromises (TN panels, and the 39" panels don't run 60hz at 4K because of HDMI limitations).

Speaking of fads - I would not be suprised if we see prices on 4K monitors - at least the cheap displays we're getting now - drop below the price of 1440p and ultra-wide 1440p displays.

Pro users will not switch away from IPS

[SuperBanana]

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/animation, or game - wait. For a while. You'll need to wait until ~4K IPS panels come out on the high end, and then trickle down to low end.

Re:Pro users will not switch away from IPS

[Jmc23]

So, you missed the part where it's IPS and has wide viewing angles?

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.

Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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), which is just fine, this new monitor would have to be about 47" diagonal. At only 34" diagonal, in order to get the same effective pixel size as my existing monitors, it would have to be about 18" from my face.

Sure, smaller pixels might make for smoother games or videos, and "smoother" fonts, but when it comes to actually working on your computer, you don't want the text to be too tiny or the buttons to be too small. 4k or bigger is fine with me, but for work, the physical size has to be in good proportion to the pixel size. Smaller pixels are not always a good thing.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

I should clarify: I use two monitors, not just one. And I do use all of that "real estate" in my work and then some. I could use more.

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:Too Small

[FlyHelicopters]

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 horribly wrong...

A 30" screen is just about perfect to put up 2 pages in Word or Acrobat, in "real size", meaning 1-to-1 compared to their real world size. That resolution is also high enough to at least make them sort of look like printed pages.

4k will get us there, I really would love to get a trio of the Dell 32" 4k panels, those would be outright PERFECT for previewing 2 letter sized pages side by size on one panel, and at 4k resolution, they would look like printed pages as well (or really close to it).

The thing is, Windows sucks at DPI scaling, Microsoft knows this and is finally starting to work on it. Windows 7 was supposed to fix that, but clearly didn't. The new Surface Pro 3 tablet is clearly adjusted with Windows 8 to compensate, Windows 9 may be where it finally gets fixed properly.

Smaller pixels are a great thing, if your application supports DPI scaling properly.

Re:Too Small

[FlyHelicopters]

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 resolution in half and ran at 100% zoom. Everything would be physically the same size, running at 1280x800 instead of 2560x1600.

But I assure you that it looks like crap. That is a perfect example of how more pixels will help, you simply need a high-DPI aware OS.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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" monitor at 1920 x 1200, across my desk. I use more than one for more space. The thing is, if I want a finer resolution, great, but I still want the same physical size, or more, not something that is physically smaller. As I say: in order to get the same work done, regardless of other factors, this monitor would have to be 47" diagonal, even if the resolution were higher than it is.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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 this screen SPACE for my work, which is often text (I have only 4 windows open right now but I'm not working... one of them is full-screen on one monitor).

A smaller dot pitch would be just fine, to smooth out the text, and video, and so on. As I explained. But the SIZE of my windows and text still needs to be the same, for work. But Windows and OS X don't allow you to scale that properly. Regardless of the resolution, I still use all of that 41" diagonal for my work. And could use even more.

So let's not get the two things confused. I'm not saying the resolution is "too high". I'm saying the physical size is too small. If they made it bigger, and kept the same dot pitch, that would be fine with me. But that would mean a lot more pixels than 3440 x 1440.

Re:Too Small

[FlyHelicopters]

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 current computer monitor, when the monitor is 600dpi, then I'll probably be happy. My $130 printer can put out a much higher resolution image than my $1,000 monitor can, we have far to go...

Re:Too Small

[FlyHelicopters]

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 the new 32" 4k panels, but they need another revision or two and a price drop before I buy. But I fully expect in 3 years, when my current panels are out of warranty, I'll have them.

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.

Yes, in a perfect world, Windows would render everything, toolbars, mouse cursor, text, all a the same physical real world size, regardless of your monitor size or resolution.

Look at the iPad 2 and the iPad 3, the resolution doubled in both directions, yet the OS knows to display stuff at the same physical size. That is what Windows should do.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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 plenty good enough. My main point again is that at my current dot pitch (which is "good enough"), that LG monitor would be 47" diagonal. BUT, if you scaled it up to my current physical size (41" total), the text and picture size in many applications would be too small for comfort.

So that monitor would NOT be very suitable for me, for my work. It would have to be physically larger than it is. Being able to fit more windows on the screen is nice, but not so much if they're too small.

I look forward to the day when OSes allow for better scaling. Apple's "retina" adjustments to the OS are a clunky work-around. You jump from 1x to 2x. Which is better than nothing but finer-grained control is desirable.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that I use a 24" monitor, but I have more than one?

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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) you can set the "default" font size for many of the included apps, but not all 3rd party apps allow you to do that. And with a higher density dot pitch, unless you are talking about "retina" display, default picture sizes and icons are too small.

Re:Too Small

[wonkey_monkey]

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)

For any particular resolution there will always be a viewing distance at which doubling the resolution will be "smack you in the face" obvious. Why not try a 90" screen at 8 feet, then you'll be ruing the days you've wasted on 4K when 8K was what you needed!

65" at 10 feet sounds ridiculously close, personally. For what I, personally, consider to be a reasonably sized screen at a reasonable viewing distance, I don't think 4K would make much difference.

Re:Too Small

[newcastlejon]

Resolution vs. size. Like hacker vs. cracker that ship has sailed.

Re:Too Small

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Then we're in complete agreement. :)

Re:Too Small

[Jeremy Erwin]

Some of the viewing calculators suggest that to really pick out every detail, a 65 inch 1080p TV needs to viewed from no more than 8.8 feet away.

The whole point of 4k is to let the set dominate ones vision without seeing jaggies, or at the very least, the nagging suspicion that the picture is not as sharp as in real life. It is possible that this visual domination is undesirable.

Re:Too Small

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, smaller pixels might make for smoother games or videos, and "smoother" fonts, but when it comes to actually working on your computer, you don't want the text to be too tiny or the buttons to be too small. 4k or bigger is fine with me, but for work, the physical size has to be in good proportion to the pixel size. Smaller pixels are not always a good thing.

The only time that is true is when an application doesn't use a scalable font/interface, and there is almost no situation where writing code like that today is excusable.

I currently use two monitors, both are widescreen format with 17" horizontal viewing area, running 1280x1024 pixel resolution. While they are "good enough" for my purposes right now, I can most certainly still see the pixel density limitations and would be far happier if I had double my current density. I would also like to have a single display which is 34" wide and roughly 50% higher than my existing pair, just to eliminate the divider of the two displays. It's a matter of having more 'workspace'. While I'd be fine with my current pixel density, I could still gain some benefit and would prefer it to be double what I currently have.. beyond that I'm not sure it would provide much benefit.

What many people don't realize is that one of the byproducts of using a pixel-based display, as opposed to a truly analog one, is various types of visual artifacts. These can still manifest even when the pixel density is good enough to make individual pixels essentially 'invisible' to the human eye. Higher densities help to reduce or eliminate the artifacts, and can also help reduce eye strain. It's not just about looking smoother.

Re:Too Small

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in a perfect world, Windows would render everything, toolbars, mouse cursor, text, all a the same physical real world size, regardless of your monitor size or resolution.

No, in a perfect world those would all be adjustable by the user. I end up wasting a lot of space in my workspace through borders, panels, etc. which the application or OS developer felt were "best". What works for me isn't always what works for others, I don't need as big of a border on my windows, for example. I don't need my scrollbars to be as wide/tall as they are right now, and in some cases don't need them at all. If an OS or app gives me the option to make icons smaller, I generally make them as small as it allows. It would be nice if I could manually tweak the scaling of the various UI elements apart from things like text and icons. I end up with a lot of windows taking up space, there are times where I want a window to be visible but only need it displayed at maybe 1/2 resolution, but be able to come back to it and blow it up larger temporarily. The current choices of "full screen" vs. "smaller but still scaled the same" vs. "completely minimized" are too limiting in my opinion.

Re:Too Small

[Cederic]

smaller pixels might make for smoother games

If the game is 3D rendered on the fly (so most PC games that aren't browser based, and a few that are) then the render overhead increases as you add pixels.

Instead of a fully lit dynamic detailed world with great view distances at 1920x1080 with anti-aliasing to minimise the grain on edges the same graphics card would have to lose the AA, the detail, the lighting, the view distances or the frame rates at 3440x1440.

That doesn't mean that you can't buy a bigger/faster graphics card, but it does mean it's now a lot more expensive.

More of a challenge is that most games wont support an ultra-wide format. They'll display in a 16:9, 16:10 or 4:3 ratio, so if your monitor can't deliver those natively you're now having the scale the output and it's not going to look quite as nice.

Re:Too Small

[Reziac]

When you get tired of it let me know :)

The one I'm using right now (Acer, nominally 21" but closer to 20" in Real Life) is distorted at ANY resolution other than 1440x900, which fortunately is okay for me tho I'd rather not have menu text shrunk so much (enlarging that makes a mess). It's trying to die so I'm looking for a new monitor, preferably with a little more vertical space, but I'm leery of the distortion issue. Any thoughts?

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm happy with 1920 x 1200 at 24". The dot pitch is adequate (for me), and used monitors can be found on the market.

Rather sadly, for years now the "mainstream" monitor has been 1920 x 1080 (i.e., 1080p), which means the size in pixels of your average monitor actually went down for a few years, in contrast to the upward trend of the entire time before and since. I believe that was primarily due to the video content industry which wanted to focus everything in the world on 1080p, which rather hindered progress.

Having said that, a 21" monitor at 1080p has a "good enough" dot pitch at about a 24" distance, which is approximately across-the-desk distance if you have a decent desk.

I was getting along for quite a while with my 1920 x 1200 monitor alongside my 1680 x 1050, 17" Macbook Pro. But the Macbook is showing its age and I recently ordered another 24" 1920 x 1200. (Which is technically WUXGA.) 2 of them adjacent, pretty close to the same size, for 3980 x 1200. Not a dream setup, by any means, but it's a decent amount of screen "real estate".

Re:Too Small

[Reziac]

[goes off, looks 'em up] Ah, THAT size!

Thanks for the recommendation -- 1920 x 1200 screen at 24" looks like it would work very well for me too. I sit quite a ways from the screen (4-5 feet). What brand is yours? the least-bogus-looking offers on eBay are at the Dell refurb store, and there's one locally on CL, so maybe I'll get lucky.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

The one I bought is a Dell refurb. :)

Reasoning: It's manufacturer refurb, so it's guaranteed to be defect-free. The specs are good. It has flexible input (vga, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort), it's the size I wanted, and it's a swivel stand so you can turn it vertical if you want. (I like that for writing code.)

My other one is a Princeton. I don't think this model is made anymore. But it's been working good for over 5 years, no sign of any problem.

Re:Too Small

[Reziac]

Good reasoning, methinks. Do you have the model number handy? I suppose anything in that family would work for me, tho. I don't really need the rotating screen but I do want VGA.

Princeton used to make good CRTs, some marketed under another name which I've forgotten.

"...Over five years..." Goes to show how our expectations of monitor longevity have been downgraded! :( Plenty of CRTs out there 15 years old or more.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

I just realized that I didn't actually answer your question though.

The 1900 x 1200 Princeton I have had for years now is model 2418W. 24" diagonal (give or take a fraction), good contrast ratio, good brightness, good color, 5ms response time.

The Dell meets or exceeds the specs of my old Princeton. 5ms also. If you watch video, you should probably stick with these LCDs because so far the LED monitors do not have nearly the response time. You get blurry motion.

(So-called "experts" sometimes disagree but hey... when one changes pixels at 5ms and another at 12ms, critics can argue all they want but one is better than the other.)

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

"...Over five years..." Goes to show how our expectations of monitor longevity have been downgraded! :( Plenty of CRTs out there 15 years old or more.

Yes. Would you like one? I have one I've been trying to get rid of for a year. Just pay shipping, it's yours.

Re:Too Small

[Reziac]

Nowhere to put it right now (stuck between houses, all my crap is in storage, and just got word that in a month I'll be homeless) or I might take ya up on it... well, if it's a ViewSonic. :)

Aren't you here in the Treasure State too?? or am I thinking of someone else?

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[ArcadeMan]

Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?

Hey, I'm using a 17", 1280x1024 monitor* right now, you insensitive clod!

* ViewSonic VP171s, if you're wondering.

I have one and it's great

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have one of these screens and I'm a huge fan. For coding work it's significantly better than the 30" Dell that I used to have. I can put two files side-by-side in my IDE and still have room to the side for a browser.

Having something like a 36" 4k screen would be nice for the extra vertical pixels, but I'm not expecting to see any of those out for a while. The trend seems more towards ~27-32" 4k screens and for me that just doesn't help. I have to scale the image up or sit super close to the screen. The smaller 4k tvs (~42") are only 30hz and that's a non-starter for me.

For $1k it's pretty hard to beat for coding work. I'm going to get another one to replace the 27" Cinema Display that's on my desk at home.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[sabri]

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.

Never buying LG again.

[Kaenneth]

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.

Re:Never buying LG again.

[joemck]

If you still have it, get an LCD fixer program that flashes the whole screen at 60 Hz. Leave that running a couple nights and it should fix the burned in stuff.

Unless of course that was a CRT, in which case it's pretty much permanent aside from the untested idea of making a picture of the screenburn and leave a negative of it on a while to "wear level" the screen. It would obviously need to be lined up just right, and I don't know if it would make things better or worse.

Re:Never buying LG again.

[Kaenneth]

LCD, and yeah, I tried the screen fixer programs, didn't help.

Re:Never buying LG again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The name is derived from "lucky goldstar". They came into the Canadian market back in the 1990's (?) via purchase of Zenith, and then did a good thing: fired all the top brass that made Goldstar such a world renowned failure. Turned them drastically around, and they started winning awards. I felt the same way, until the turnaround.

Re:Never buying LG again.

[Reziac]

Yeah, I remember GoldStar, back when it was a crappy brand only K-Mart carried. Renaming it LG didn't fool me. I'll consider myself warned on the burn-in issue! Could happen just as easily when Windows decides not to run the screen saver, as it sometimes does.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[iamhassi]

Agreed. Needs to be at least 6 foot wide, same as three decent sized LCDs, and should be a reasonable resolution, 5760x1080 which is what three HD monitors would be. Then I would be interested, but 3440 isn't even 2x1920, so you're actually losing horizontal real estate compared to 2 cheap HD monitors.

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:Is this an ad ?

[flargleblarg]

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.

Playback&viewership

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm aware some games have the 21:9 option but what about the streamers and content creators for other streaming media, will we be given options so our viewers can enjoy the native resolution without cropping issues?

Even now yt doesn't handle portrait videos very well, my 720p videos are native at '1440p' because of the vertical resolution, I'm not against the form factor just wondering why I'd shoot myself in the foot at this point in time.

Betteridge said it best: No.

[AnotherBlackHat]

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.

[ArcadeMan]

The golden ratio is too expensive, that's why they're using the silver screen ratio.

Re:Betteridge said it best: No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can it not be consumer choice?

Even physicists are forced to use 16:9 SLMs, lest those physicists take the extremely overpriced Lab SLMs and convert them into consumer projectors.

There has to be some sort of cartel behind this. It beggars belief that every display manufacturer could simultaneously and exclusively switch aspect ratio, completely dumping the older (and preferred) aspect ratios of yester-year. While it's not price-fixing per-se, it's clearly a symptomatic side-effect of an underlying price-fixing conspiracy.

Yes this is a conspiracy theory, but it's not a crazy conspiracy theory, as most of the companies making LCDs were prosecuted for their involvement in a prior conspiracy to fix the price of CRT displays.

I can't see any good reason why it should be more difficult to crank out 1:1, 5:4, 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 displays than it is to crank out 19", 21", 24", 26" and 32" displays. What is more likely is the cartel leadership has simply declared a fixed aspect ratio, to avoid manufacturers slipping off the pricing schedule claiming it doesn't apply to their aspect ratio.

Re:Betteridge said it best: No.

[TeknoHog]

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.

Nope. You need sqrt(2) to combine two into a bigger version with the same ratio, as we do with standard paper sizes like A4. The golden ratio means cutting a line into two pieces so that long piece / total = short piece / long piece. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25...

Of course, if you combine displays this way, you are turning subpixels into non-optimal orientations, but I guess it won't be a problem at these huge resolutions.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[iamhassi]

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 would have to turn my head to look from one side to the other, I would be exhausted from constantly looking around LOL. 22 to 24" is about the limit with three screens on a desktop if you don't want to have to turn your head to look from one corner to the other unless you're placing the screens several feet away.

Linux compatibility?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Does it work on Linux, specifically Centos/RHEL? is any particular video card required or should it work with what I already have (Intel graphic something built into the motherboard).

I'm not into gaming but I do like the idea of a bigger desktop and workspace!

Some drawbacks

[Cinder6]

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.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Immerman]

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:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

:). 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:Is this an ad ?

[Jmc23]

But you do need to go to reading comprehension school right?

So, since you have one, can you contribute to what is being discussed? Which is whether or not you can tell a difference, not whether it works for you in computer use.

Aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither 21:9 or 3340x1440 are 'cinematic'.
2.40:1 theater anamorphic SMPTE 195-1993
2.39:1 theater anamorphic PH22.106-1971
3440/1440 2.3888 monitors
2.34:1 theater anamorphic PH22.106-1957 aka: 2.35:1
21/9 2.3333
2.20:1 theater "70mm"
1.85:1 theater widescreen
16/9 1.7777 2560x1440 1920x1080 hdtv
16:10 2560/1600 1.600 monitors
1.375:1 theater acadamy 35mm
4/3 1.3333 sdtv

And quite frankly 1440 is not enough vertical space in which to stack a couple apps such as 2 browsers or browser and tall xterm in.

Before buying into some ragefad you need to consider your primary usage and the tradeoffs.
Movies? You're going to hit black bars or lossy/expensive scaling no matter what primary near-ratio you choose... 2.4/1.8/1.3. 16:9 (1.777) is most common.
Apps? Unless you like being confined to a wide yet vertically narrow workspace band, go 1.7-ish.
Such as monoprice 10734 30" LED $690 or 10489 27" LED $461.
And remember to always calculate the physical DPI you're getting before buying.

Re:Aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically what you want is a high (not-visibly-countable) DPI in horiz and vert, and then that dpi in the physical dimensions (real estate) you want. That will give you your native HxV panel resolution.
Your card has to be able to drive it at its highest native resolution and refresh. Otherwise you are interpolating somewhere.
It has to meet your glare preference, so long as the matte doesn't obscure your DPI, go with the matte, not clear glass.
It needs to be LED because CCFL ages even worse than LED.
It really should have a DisplayPort, because HDMI/DVI-D/VGA are older, not really capable of really high res, and unlikely to be updated much farther.
Unless you're a MAChead paying double for the same basic tech, don't go with MAC stuff, duh.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[beelsebob]

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).

I hate odd fractions...

[mspohr]

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.

Aspect ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and here's one more...
Seiki SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV $500

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[beelsebob]

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.

Of course 3K is better than 4K ....?

[Dantu]

Of course 3440 x1440 is better than 4K, having only 56% of the pixels of a true 4K display (4096x2160) LG can make a lot more money on it. A true 4K screen cropped to 21:9 is still going to give you more pixels to work with. BTW: 4K cinema is 4096x2160, but when then want to show 21:9 they use the appropriate lens to change the aspect ratio without throwing out pixels.

Re:Of course 3K is better than 4K ....?

[Jeremy Erwin]

The DCI page on wikipedia 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.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[epyT-R]

It's not just pixel resolution, it's color depth and gamut range too.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[beelsebob]

Which 4k doesn't improve in any way.

4k is about resolution, only.

And

[justthinkit]

And fitting more information on the screen. Many of the dialogues and even spawned program windows I work with are of fixed size. And sometimes I have dozens of them on the screen. If they could occupy a smaller percentage of my screen, that would be a very good thing.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[gl4ss]

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

Re:Is this an ad ?

[epyT-R]

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.

Two Monitors

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Hamsterdan]

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 ?

[danknight48]

More pixels is always better if you're coding.

Strange, i prefer to code at 1280x720 with a dpi of 120.
Probably due to old age, 15+ years of CRT radiation, or maybe i just like things big and clear.
Each to their own i guess :)

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should double down and go 8:9.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[fnj]

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.

Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently picked up the Seiki 39" 4k screen for use as a monitor. Native resolution is 3840x2160. It took a few days to get used to it's size, even coming from a dual 27" IPS 2560x1440 setup. This single monitor has almost a million more pixels than my old dual head setup, and you can actually full screen a window without an annoying bezel splitting down the middle.

As a developer, this thing is amazing. You wouldn't use it for games, as it only does 30hz refresh. In every other way it is clearly superior to my old kit. Not bad for $450 at Tigerdirect.

5:4

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:5:4

[toddestan]

Exactly my thought. I've always thought that 16:9 was awkward, because it was not wide enough to replace two side-by-side standard ratio monitors, and two 16:9 monitors next to each other is just stupidly wide. On the other hand, the 21:9 1080p panels nicely replace two 1280x1024 screens, and this new monitor will nicely replace two 1600x1200 screens.

Oh LG products, JOY!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My person take on what the LG means is Life is Garbage...

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Mr Z]

You realize, of course, that a 26" 1920x1080 monitor is only 85 DPI, so the same font size (in pixels) on a 26" 1920x1080 monitor would actually look about 40% larger. And, you'd get more text on the screen to boot.

1280x720 at 120 DPI makes for a small screen: 10.7" x 6", which is approx 12" diagonal. Do you do all your coding on a subnotebook or MacBook Air or something?

Bah! 15:4 is where it's at! Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, 3 20" 1280x1024 5:4 monitors side by side. Great for gaming (if you use only 1 or all 3 monitors, can't stand a central bezel split). Good for programming and writing, as you can actually see more than 20 or so lines without the text disappearing to credit card contract font size.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Shadow of Eternity]

If you thought 4k was that impressive then you'll piss yourself when you see what my 12 year old CRT can do at an even higher resolution...

Math, huh yeah. What is it good for?

[Tristao]

Absolutely nothing, judging by this article.
Is a "21:9 aspect ratio"the same ration as 7/3? Maybe they should market it as 483:207 aspect ratio. Sounds bigger.
And if so, 3440x1440 pixels give you an aspect ratio of 43/18, not "21:9".
I guess this screen has a Wide-Ass (tm) aspect ratio. Let's just call it that and leave the math to the nerds at those "news for geeks" sites.

Multi-monitor is for desks and desks are for PCs

[tepples]

I don't know why the new consoles don't have two more video outputs for two more screens.

Probably because there aren't a commercially significant number of end users willing to set up three suitably arranged televisions in the living room. And people who prefer gaming on a desk tend to prefer PCs.

ISP

[tepples]

Good luck getting the monopoly ISP to "build it". Or would you be satisfied with going back to optical discs?

Re:ISP

[camperdave]

Good luck getting the monopoly ISP to "build it". Or would you be satisfied with going back to optical discs?

What has an ISP got to do with building a television?

I tried out one of these .....

[King_TJ]

Initially, it's impressive looking -- but as others said, the fact it gives you no more vertical resolution than you get with many of today's laptop screens is kind of a "non starter" for me. When web browsing (which, let's face it, almost all of us do quite a bit of, no matter what other task(s) we claim a given computer was purchased for), you're always scrolling pages up and down. I wouldn't spend this much on a display that didn't let me see a single bit more information on a web site without scrolling down.

Same thing tends to happen for tasks like photo editing. Your typical photos are going to have a lot more vertical resolution in pixels than this monitor can display at a time.

I dislike the bezel between multiple monitors too -- but I don't think anyone's really offered a worthy substitute yet. (I have a pair of 27" LG monitors side-by-side on a monitor stand right now, and at least with this arrangement - I can go full screen to play a game while keeping the main Steam window open and visible on the second display the whole time. Same with other apps that were coded to work best in a full screen mode. You can do that and still have another screen to work with.) Cost-wise, these displays were only about $249 each plus $49 for the stand from NewEgg. So $550-ish to have the whole thing? I'll learn to live with the bezels before paying the $1000-ish prices for most higher resolution 30" displays out there and the like.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[UnknownSoldier]

Exactly.

One my laptop I use the native 2880x1800 LCD, an external 27" 2560x1440 LED monitor, and 22" 1920x1080 that has been rotated 90 degrees for 1080x1920 which is awesome for coding.

On my Linux box I use the 27" 2560x1440 as my primary monitor, a 27" 1920x1080 for running my game, and the 22" 1080x1920 for coding.

Once those who have never tried multiple monitors for development don't know what they are missing.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[hubie]

Samsung just released a 4k monitor for $700. A guy at work just got one. That's still too much than I'd pay for a monitor for the home (considering the options now available), but it is much less than all the other 4k monitors I've seen.

Macbook pro retina

[Anonymous Coward]

My laptop can use it's display + 2 thunderbolt monitors and one monitor connected to the laptop's HDMI port. I assume it can handle more but would probably start to tax the GPU in the system. I have 10 desktops on my laptop and have always wanted to be able to see more than 1 simultaneously in a number of different workflows I happen to use when working. (rendering on one screen and source code on another or just having apple scripts that I can work on with the editor on one screen and the stuff it is doing on another.) I am a bit of an ADD child, and I have found over the years that when my work space gets too "cluttered" It makes me start to feel overwhelmed, which does not have positive effects on my productivity. My concern with this monitor is price and whether I would be able to have 2 of them such that I can view 5 desktops or 3 of them so I can view 7. I have no idea how I would arrange such a think as I usually use my laptop by itself.

Anyone have useful or constructive insights on my situation here?
(Other than not to use a mac? I am a PC guy who pulled the trigger on getting a mac last year. I still have about 10 windows/linux boxes but I 3 my mac.)
Thanks in advance.

NEVER buy an LG TV

[Anonymous Coward]

They've changed the T&Cs of their smart TV to disable features if you don't agree to having your behavior tracked. That's not mentioned on the box and I'm surprised retailers aren't seeing angry customers returning used LGs to them saying they've been sold fraudulently.

Doesn't matter if any LG product is "better" than Samsung's 4K set. I would never buy an LG product. Period.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?!?"

You're talking about a market supported by people who can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray quality (or don't care). How are they going to support a viable market for 4K resolution when there isn't even an HD market. Everything marketed as HD by satellite, cable, and streaming services is massively compressed shit that looks more like Lego stop-motion than HD.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies spread by individuals with poor eyesight.

there aren't many 21:9

[Anonymous Coward]

I have looked. it's got to be way better than using 3 screens for gaming and watching wide screen movies.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, but the 4k TV was 10 feet away... at the distance your CRT sits, the 4k TV would be absurd... :)

Re:Is this an ad ?

[DigiShaman]

If you watched the review, Linus conceded this fact. What he's sold on is the idea of a bezel-less wide screen viewing experience. Also, the native resolution is just right so as to not need to be driven by high-end graphic cards for gaming and tiny fonts for text reading.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[mrchaotica]

Eh, if I'm going to spend that much for a monitor I'd rather wait till one of these goes on sale and spend a little more (I've heard that it was $600 around Easter, and I'm hoping it or something comparable might be $500 on Black Friday).

Oh no, not again...

[pinzvidz]

It took production studios and prehistoric TV stations forever to switch fully to 16:9 content, I can just see the "black bar either side" syndrome kicking in again for another decade. Sigh. Now I'm going to go watch ST:TNG on one these new LGs. :P

Re:Oh no, not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love when I see "black bar either side, top and bottom"!

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Bill Dog]

I'm guessing you've taken the 1920 x 1080 23" or so monitor you were given at work and run it at 1280 x 720. This would make your DPI (a nice tool for this) go the other way, to about 64 DPI. Or in terms of how we used to measure this in the CRT days, a gonzo near .40 dot pitch! (Most people used their CRT's at .28 dot pitch back then.)

Incidently, I use a 27" 1920 x 1200 at home, which is about a .30 dot pitch or 84 DPI, because after staring at a mainstream (read: inexpensive) coding monitor all day at work, I find the slightly larger text more comfortable on tired eyes.

needs to be wider and curved

[breakspirit]

If this was like 50% wider and curved, I'd pay almost anything for it. I've got triple 24" right now and it's great except for the bezels.

Following up on the last LG story...

[barlevg]

if you reject their privacy policy, will they bump your resolution down to 800x600?

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

Interesting, those are getting cheap fast...

Of course, it is a TN panel, so to compare it to the IPS panels that Monoprice is selling isn't really fair. The TN panel has a faster response time, but the IPS panel is going to have better color accuracy and better viewing angles.

Still, that is darn cheap. :)

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

I've got a 55" 720p plasma. People who own 1080P TVs comment on how nice it is.

I've "experienced" 4k. At 8' from a 55" TV, I can't tell the difference. Even if all the source was 4k, I don't think most people could tell the difference between the two. Gets to be one of the audiophile/vidoephile discussions. They can't "prove" they can see a difference, and won't be swayed by proof they can't.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

Yeah, and you can hear the difference between a tube amp and solid state amp, or whatever the audiophiles are claiming.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[LordKronos]

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.

A few weeks ago I want to Costco. I wasn't yet aware that they even carried 4K TVs. I wasn't even paying particular attention to the TV section. As I was walking by, I just glanced over at one of the 4K TVs without knowing what it is, and I was like "Holy crap, thats amazing! What is it?". My wife looked over and had the same reaction. I looked at the tag and realized it was a 4K. I've never had a reaction quite like that to any TV I've ever seen. I believe it was a 55" model (they caried 2 sizes, and it was the smaller of the two), and I was probably about 10 feet away.

So

[ArchieBunker]

So you did something the instructions told you not to do and you blame the manufacturer?

Re:So

[jones_supa]

LCDs should not burn in that easily. Even if it was noted in the instructions, that's one crappy display.

sidesight is 50/50

[epine]

I also have the landscape/portrait combination. It would take far more than this to tempt me to switch. My gutter has a slight fold, so my visual perpendiculars are about six inches apart, and I'm not viewing the wings at some weird oblique angle (or buttock balancing, which can only end badly if like many software developers one is treadmilling the 50/50/50, where 50 is the new 40).

My landscape screen hails from the era where 1680x1050 was king, and a godly stout and square king at that. It's not quite wide enough to triple tile, so I had to solve the console problem differently.

I configured Tilda terminal to pop up (always on top) in the bottom 1/3 of the vertical display, where the pixels begin just two inches above the top of my desk. The vertical display always has my primary browser, maximized. When Tilda pops up, I still have as much vertical height for my browser than on the landscape screen, so I just have to scroll the web content to the top portion of the browser window while I'm using the console (like hell I'm going to manually demax my browser window every time I pop up Tilda with my Windows menu key).

The problem that drove me nuts is that the content at the bottom of a web page won't scroll up to the top of the window. FF just doesn't think the user ought to be able to scroll past the point where the bottom pixel of the content is any higher than the bottom pixel of the display window. No empty bottom margin allowed! The right side of your screen can taper into nothingness, but not the bottom. That makes it pretty clear already that there's an industry-wide potato famine for vertical real estate: they didn't even consider that it might be ergonomically more acceptable to scroll the portion of the content you're actually reading up to eye level, because to a first dipshit–designer approximation nearly every screen is a horizontal slit (I chose the ndash rather than a hyphen in that compound modifier, by a nose).

One loses pretty much nothing running a browser in portrait mode if combined with NoSquint. On 80% of web sites (denominated by the sites I willingly chose to visit) I just magnify the fonts until all the loopy cruft blows off the sides of the screen, leaving that portion which I wish to attend gloriously enlarged on my jumbo page. It is certainly true that some sites are coded in relative units where it's impossible to achieve a horizontal enlargement of the main content column by fiddling with NoSquint. For these, there's always Stylish. If even Stylish fails (mainly because the selectors are too cluttered and generic) I either (A) actively seek an alternative resource better behaved, or (B) switch that specific page into Chrome. Yes, I treat the web like a kindergarten full of unruly children (and graphic designers) forever requiring a heavy thumb. It's worth the effort. One font to rule them all!

I've long lived by the adage that for primary reading, fonts should be large enough that the user can lean back and operate the Page Dn key with your big toe. Your own spine will thank you on the home stretch of the 50/50/50.

That mainly leaves the annoying scrolling problem. Fixed with Stylish.

body:after {
content: 'Tail';
color: #505050;
display: block;
text-align: center;
font-size: 1vmax;
padding-bottom: 40vh !important;
}

Yes, this breaks a few web layouts and the word 'Tail' shows up sometimes in the strangest places (this is how I know when it's my own diddle—and which of many—breaking the layout). Easy enough to switch off if the need arises.

The 40vh is empirically just big enough to cause web pages to scroll above the top of my Tilda terminal.

I love this desktop configuration. It rocks. Even my black gutter, slightly crooked like the spine of a book, is more of a feature than a bug.

One sees those big flat screens in a different light after one multiplies by the love-slave vector 50/50/50. The applicable units are hours, weeks, years. Not seconds, minutes, and dazzle.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[DarwinSurvivor]

Maybe not, but the flicker (not present in LCD technology) gives many people a headache. In our old high school, there was this 1 monitor that had to be kept at 60Hz because of a high-voltage line going up the wall behind it (the other side of the wall was the metal shop with a CNC) and any other resolution would cause the monitor to go squirly (wavy lines, etc). People *hated* sitting at that computer, even those who had no idea we'd changed the refresh rate from the 72 (which the rest of the monitors used) to 60, it was literally painful to look at close up.

that's not what determines viewing distance

[SuperBanana]

Recommended viewing distance is about perspective, and how much your eyes have to move. Not the resolution of the screen.

Re:that's not what determines viewing distance

[WhiteZook]

Ideally, the screen would cover your full angle of vision. Yes, this means that if you want to look at all the details, your eyes will have to move. The same thing happens in real life, so it's not a problem. What needs to happen though, is that film makers adjust their camera focal lengths accordingly, so that the size of objects in the media correspond to their real life size so that your eyes and head don't need to make more movements than they would in real life if you were standing there in the scene.

Re:that's not what determines viewing distance

[stoatwblr]

> Recommended viewing distance is about perspective, and how much your eyes have to move. Not the resolution of the screen.

Recommended viewing distances is based on watching TV as a non-immersive experience. Those of us who grew up with TV treat it differently to the generattion who drew up those guidelines.

By those same standards you'd be sitting 3 times the distance of the back row from the screen in most movie theatres.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[wagnerrp]

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. Do understand that 20/20 vision is only the value everyone with healthy eyes should be able to achieve, while the limit for human sight is somewhere closer to 20/10. I personally have roughly 20/13, measured during an eye exam just a few months ago, which would move that distance out past four feet for me.

The standard visual acuity test is intended to be used on high contrast, high resolution, monochromatic print. It doesn't directly apply to a display with geometrically independent colored subpixels. The standard visual acuity test is only one measurement, and other test have found the resolving limit in certain circumstances to be down around just a few arcseconds.

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.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[wagnerrp]

:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...

I'm using one right now, next to another one the same size, and a 15" UXGA, and a 16" WUXGA, and a 20" UXGA, and a 24" WUXGA,... Just because you get new ones doesn't mean you have to stop using the old ones.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)

Which is why I didn't buy a 640x480 capable monitor when they first came out. But I didn't call them a fad, I just waited until they dropped in price.
Besides, it's not the raw resolution which matters, it's the pixel density of the display. There are many advantages of having 30" worth of horizontal display area on my desktop environment, and once single displays which have enough pixel density become affordable I'll get one.

But I'm not going to call them a fad or talk shit about people who do buy them. Those are the people who eventually help drive prices down, and I don't need to criticize other people's choices in order to remain satisfied with what I'm using right now.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

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" you list, and my vision is worse than 20/20. I can see that it's lit, so it's obvious I can see it, and it'd smaller than your numbers indicate I should be able to see. I understand that's not what the tests test for, but it proves to me that the human eye can "resolve" things smaller than what's looked for in vision tests.

But there are so many limitations in source material that it doesn't matter for TV/movies. IT would matter for sitting close to a 4k computer monitor seeing text, but a moving image filmed with flawed human-made optics and motion blur will make no difference. I know people who own 1080p TVs that think my 720p TV is better. Setup and source material matter more than resolution.

Still just 1440 pixel of height

[Casandro]

So you are still looking through a letterbox. This may be acceptable in situations where you need lots of width.

It's a typical "market research" product. People put 2 screens next to each other and complain about the bezel, a company realizes this and makes a "double wide" monitor.
People don't put 2 screens next to each other because they want to have just a wider screen. They do so because they want to have a larger screens. Putting screens on top of each other is, however, rather difficult. That's why they are put next to each other.

What people actually want is a large high definition screen. Ideally with more than 2000 pixels in height. That way you can put whole designs on your screen without having to constantly scroll and zoom around. Just imagine routing a wire on a board and being able to see where you're going.

Re:Still just 1440 pixel of height

[Reziac]

People complained the wrong way. They shoulda said they wanted two of these dwarfy monitors side by side in *portrait* mode. Then the mfgrs woulda said "Oh, people want it tall as well!" and we wouldn't be feeling like someone set an anvil atop the monitor and squished it.

Hates it! Hates it precious!

[dbIII]

A vertical resolution less than I was using before the year 2000 is a step backwards.

Re:Hates it! Hates it precious!

[TeknoHog]

I can't believe nobody posted the obligatory XKCD yet. http://xkcd.com/732/

Re:Is this an ad ?

[FlyHelicopters]

Everyone has a different point of view... A high end 720p plasma in a proper setting probably does look nicer than a cheap 1080p LCD does in the not proper setting.

You claim you couldn't tell the difference. Fair enough, if you can't, you can't. But you might get your eyes checked, because a lot of other people CAN see a difference. Back when 1080p came out, there were the exact same arguements being made, "oh, you can't see 1080p, 720p is all that is needed", blah, blah... same story, new numbers.

Another way to look at it is video streaming vs. Bluray. Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, etc. all will stream 1080p, at various quality levels. None of it equals a nice Bluray in terms of detail levels.

It can't, the bits just aren't there. A nice Bluray at 25 megabits vs. Netflix at 5 megabits, the image simply won't be the same.

You know what? I CAN tell the difference. Same resolution, both 1080p, but the Bluray is nicer.

That being said, we are quickly switching over to all streaming. Why? Because it is good enough and a whole lot easier to manage.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

No, you don't... but there does come a point where you're just being silly...

Reminds me of an old farmer... had a very old (40+ years old) truck that just drove around the farm, moving hay and other stuff as needed. It was old and beaten up, but it still started and still drove. Mostly, the farmer had to kick it sometimes and had to tinker on it from time to time, but he just wouldn't give it up, it was like old Bessy, no one wanted to put it out to pasture.

Yea, it is heartwarming and all that, but at some point, recycle the damm thing and get something reliable, efficient, and low maintenance.

There is using equipment for its full useful life, then there is taking it beyond that for bragging rights. There are people who will drive 25 year old cars, not because it continues to make any financial sense, but because they want to claim they are getting "full use" out of them.

Full use was obtained some time ago, now they are just old crappy cars.

A 15" monitor on a workstation that isn't actively used, that may only need to be checked every so often? Sure, no big deal.

A 15" monitor on a computer that you actually use every day? For productive work? Yea, ok, there are probably use cases where it makes sense. They would be rare indeed. Most people, maybe not all, but most, should recycle that and move on with life.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

You know what? I CAN tell the difference.

Can you find any study that shows *anyone* can tell the difference? If not, then I'll assume it's confirmation bias, or any of a number of other psychological fallacies where you "know" you are right because that's what your brain tells you, but you are, in fact, wrong.

How well do WMs tile?

[91degrees]

A wide display is nice for showing two documents next to each other (code and documentation, or compiler output or whatever) but fiddling around with windows to get them to the right place is a tedious task.

Perhaps Windows 8 does this better (not used it) but from reports it doesn't sound like it does this particularly well,

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

> But I use a 27" monitor that only does 1920x1200... "Only." That's plenty for work and pleasure.

You just do not know better. I just hooked an old 17" with 1024*768 (yes, a crappy old piece of hardware!) to a modern 24" widescreen and it was like, for the lack of a better word I use, revelation. I do not do professional work but even for day to day desktop use and some hobby coding it was a real game changer for PC use.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[jones_supa]

Maybe not, but the flicker (not present in LCD technology) gives many people a headache.

LCD's have typically a backlight frequency of 240Hz which gives many people a headache.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[jones_supa]

Strange, i prefer to code at 1280x720 with a dpi of 120.

Which display?

Re:Is this an ad ?

[jones_supa]

A 26" desktop monitor will make your neck hurt.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[jones_supa]

More pixels is always better if you're coding.

A professional programmer like me can be extremely productive and crank premium code at 1024x600 resolution.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[ShieldW0lf]

Do you realize that there was a young man with hearing so good that he could use echolocation to play basketball despite being blind?

Can you do that?

Does this suggest to you that, perhaps when people claim to be able to discern sounds you can't, it's because your hearing isn't particularly good?

I'm nearsighted with superior human hearing. At least, that's what the medical tests they gave me said. I can't see that well, but I can hear electronics in the room when no one else can and do other things that are unusual. Not nearly good enough to use echolocation, but statistically speaking, probably much, much better than you. If you're going to talk about me behind my back, you might want to walk another 50 meters away before you start. Not really much of an art buff, though.

Dated a woman for years who was both a tetrachromat and a synesthete. Her capacity to discern things visually was spectacular. Brilliant painter. Didn't hear that well though. Unless you're a woman, I can say with a high degree of certainty that her vision is far superior to yours. Her mutation is known to cause color blindness in men. Her taste in music was rather simplistic compared to mine, a reflection of my own failure to appreciate what it is in visual art that gets people so excited.

Are you a child, perhaps? You come across that way. Most people learn that other people have vastly different experiences of the world by the time they reach adulthood, and learn not to project their own capabilities and limitations onto everyone else.

You know that when we play peekaboo, just because you can't see me, that doesn't mean I've disappeared, right?

Re:Is this an ad ?

[donaldm]

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.

Yes you can unless you have a problem with your eyes.

If you take a 4k TV with an aspect ration of 16:9 which is the same as most (not all) HDTV's on the market then the pixel resolution is going to be 3840x2160 (ie 2160p) which actually can almost look like a photograph (assuming the appropriate content). This is not to say 1080p is bad in comparison however once you get into larger screen sizes such as say 80 inch (203.2 cm) upwards the difference in screen resolution become much more pronounced.

Sometimes the bezel is nice as a hard divider

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, it's nice to have a hard divider for programs that insist on taking a full screen, etc. Or to snap windows to a certain space. (Better window managers could make that easier without having to resort to multple physical displays, though.)

Re:Is this an ad ?

[ShieldW0lf]

This douchebag dismisses other peoples subjective experience as lies, and I'M a troll?

Who moderated this, Suey Park?

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[donaldm]

So yea... I get the whole "more resolution captain!" Absolutely. Every day all day. But I use a 27" monitor that only does 1920x1200... "Only." That's plenty for work and pleasure - i'm playing the new wolfenstien at that resolution, and its beautiful.

While I do agree with you to a certain point it must be pointed out that if the monitor or even a HDTV (4k or 1080p or 720p) has an aspect ration of say 16:9 which is what many Hi Def monitors and most HDTV's are then if you are dependent on the aspect ratio of the content be it game or movie. If the content's aspect ration is say 16:9 then the display of that content will fully fill a 16:9 screen. However if the content has an aspect ratio other then the aspect ratio of the screen which has physical dimensions and cannot be changed you are going to have what is called "letter-boxing".

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.

For a monitor more real estate is great however that may not be ideal for some movies or games. In fact it is quite bewildering/annoying that some content which is best viewed full screen may have to be letter-boxed to keep the appropriate proportions (ie. aspect ratio). Do a quick Google search on "aspect ratio" and you will get 54 million hits of which many could explain this issue better than I can without writing a paper on it.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[wagnerrp]

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" you list, and my vision is worse than 20/20.

That's a different measure. The standard visual acuity test is supposed to see at what distance you can distinguish one stuck pixel from two side by side. You're not resolving any details of that subpixel, you're just seeing it as a point source. If you look into the night sky, just because you can see a star doesn't mean you can determine its size. However, poor example doesn't disprove the point. Human vision is more complex than the standard visual acuity text, and other tests show you in fact can resolve below that limit. If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.

You need a 4K source to drive a 4K TV

[tepples]

If ISPs can't deliver 4K movies, then what advantage does a 2160p TV have over the more affordable 1080p?

Re:You need a 4K source to drive a 4K TV

[camperdave]

ISPs could deliver 2048K movies if any existed. It's just a file to them; a bit stream like any other. ISPs don't care what you've got connected, so long as you don't exceed your bandwidth.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[whopub]

That depends on the cables!

Bring it on!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought one, I also have three 27" Cinema Displays I use with my nMP presently.

While I like pixel density for smoothness, I like raw number of pixels better. I'm not sure why the industry thinks density is the only thing people care about, we all spend too much time scrolling around and moving windows, I think people would also prefer raw real estate to keep all their windows up. The dream is to have those wraparound displays like they had in Avatar. When I'm programming I need several windows for code, one for a browser, and another for a terminal. I hate switching around just to get between them, especially since I often need to look back between the windows.

With three 27" though why the LG? Mainly for gaming. The 3x27" is about twice the size as the LG (which is 1.5x a 27"), I'm fine with that and bezels for programming and getting work done. But for gaming multiple monitors is a compromise. One is that graphics cards have a hard time doing it properly, via Eyefinity and such (it's really too many pixels and you get artifacts like tearing), and two OS X refuses to compromise and doesn't support it. But I like a wide screen gaming experience. Especially for MMO's the more real estate the better.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what genius? After so many posts along these lines it should be apparent to you that nobody is going to take you seriously until you provide a link to these fabled studies saying people can't tell the difference.

And regarding the burden of proof, if I claim most people can't smell the difference between a fresh turd and a 14" 1024x768 CRT, the burden of proof is on me... And likewise if you claim that people can't notice the massive reduction of moire effects when doubling the resolution on their 55" screen, well, then the burden of proof is on you.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Mr Z]

Hasn't made mine hurt.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Reziac]

I see the problem in this argument (which is all up and down various threads).

Being able to see *individual pixels* is not the same as being able to see a *difference in quality*.

To my eye, if I can see the pixels, it sucks. So the pixels have to be small enough that they no longer *catch my attention*. And there's the difference. Higher resolution makes the pixels less noticeable, which makes the picture sharper and clearer. Making your eye resolve individual pixels isn't the goal here; quite the reverse.

21:9 or 64:27?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that closer to 4^3:3^3 ?

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The clue is in the "desktop" designation. You can put it on the desk instead of on your head.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?

If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.

The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does. We can get to the same "image" with differing resolutions that are worse than the best eye resolution.

Often it gets into discussions like whether a sound system can reproduce 20k to 25k Hz properly, when it doesn't make a difference to whether someone "enjoys" the sound better.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

Her mutation is known to cause color blindness in men.

I hadn't heard that tetrachromacy was related to color blindness. Though it is linked to the X chromosome, which is linked with male colorblindness. And it seems they have linked a similar effect in monkeys, but it hasn't been found in humans.

Are you a child, perhaps? You come across that way. Most people learn that other people have vastly different experiences of the world by the time they reach adulthood, and learn not to project their own capabilities and limitations onto everyone else.

Rude lies like that are why someone modded you troll. Nowhere did I say that if I can't do it you can't do it. Nowhere did I say anything like what you claim I said. You lied about what I said, in a rude manner. Why? Obviously to pick a fight. Some call that trolling.

If you don't like it, stop trolling.

If you want to address what I said, rather than making fun of me for you thinking I share a different opinion, feel free to try again. You do the worst of what you accuse me of.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[wagnerrp]

So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?

No. A point source can be seen down to an infinitely small size, so long as its intensity is sufficient, but that infinitely small point source cannot be resolved.

The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does.

Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.

They've found that many of the "optical ilusions" are in fact brain illusions. The input of the eyes is filtered by the brain before passed to conscious thought. The blind spot is edited out, filled in by interpolation, and other "defects" erased. Motion is highlighted. Colors filled in. Patterns highlighted (especially those that look like eyes/faces).

There's a lot of brain processing that occurs between the retina and an image.

Congestion by choice

[tepples]

Then let me spell it out: Several major home ISPs have shown themselves unwilling to invest in providing enough bandwidth, both on the long haul side and the last mile side, to deliver reliable 4K video streams.

Re:Congestion by choice

[camperdave]

... and again, this has nothing to do with television manufacturers. Manufacturers will build 4K sets because consumers demand it and don't forget that the internet isn't the only way to get a signal into a TV. It's a distant third after cable/satellite and disk players.

Re:Congestion by choice

[tepples]

Manufacturers will build 4K sets because consumers demand it

I'm trying to determine on what grounds "consumers demand it".

and don't forget that the internet isn't the only way to get a signal into a TV. It's a distant third after cable/satellite and disk players.

Which cable TV providers offer 4K? Which satellite TV providers offer 4K? And related to the question I asked above: Do disk players offer 4K yet? This article is less than a month old and claims that 4K Blu-ray Disc is "dead in the water".

Re:Congestion by choice

[camperdave]

Like I said, "If you build it, they will come" Granted, it may be niche market in North America right now, mainly due to to price, but the big box stores around here are all selling 4K TVs. They wouldn't do that if there was no demand.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Feeling a little defensive that someone called out your vanity purchase? Are you honestly concerned that people will think of you as a greedy scumbag who spends all their money on themselves? I mean, you are, but so are most people. Next time, feel free to let the comments about how unnecessary your junk is slide to the wayside.

No

[Draugo]

How fucking hard is it to understand that I want larger resolutions because of the vertical resolution. Move from the old 16:10 aspect to 16:9 already stole ~200 pixels of vertical resolution because common consumers don't understand that "FullHD" doesn't mean bigger when it came to computer monitors. I want my 4K monitor because I don't want to be scrolling continuously.

4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.

We're talking about a population that can't see the difference between the "HD" they're served by cable/satellite providers and actual Blu-ray content. If you have the capability, make a screen grab from any so-called HD content and compare it to the same frame from DVD and Blu-ray. Most of the time the "HD" content looks worse than DVD. Just because the picture is 1920 pixels wide doesn't mean it's high quality, and yet the public can't see it (or doesn't care).

Oculus rift or similar

[Anonymous Coward]

To look at all the screen space in my monitor I only need to move my eyes, with VR googles I would need to move my head and keep my eyes focused on the same point for 8 hours a day. I don't think that will work for most people.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[phorm]

1080p has been a terrible burden on consumer equipment for quite awhile. It's really sad to look back and see older models that were reaching higher resolution, only to have the average resolution drop after 1920x1080 became "standard"

I couldn't give a shit about >1080p for gaming. I do accept that some people might want more, especially on bigger screens, but even 720p looks fine to me most of the time. However, when it comes to workspace I've got two screens running 1920x1200 and frankly, it's not enough. Coding window. Browser. IM. Email. Monitoring system. There's a lot of stuff that I need to keep an eye on. Beyond that, the browserification of everything means that there aren't a lot of dedicated applications for much of that, so lots of stuff ends up with a crappy oversized web-UI. Having a bigger monitor means more space to work. Having a better way to manage large monitors (subdividing) would be even nicer.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Blaskowicz]

Even the retina does a great deal of filtering and motion highlighting, so you're more accurately refering to the "brain-retina" complex.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[ShieldW0lf]

Rude lies like that are why someone modded you troll. Nowhere did I say that if I can't do it you can't do it. Nowhere did I say anything like what you claim I said. You lied about what I said, in a rude manner. Why? Obviously to pick a fight. Some call that trolling.

If you don't like it, stop trolling.

If you want to address what I said, rather than making fun of me for you thinking I share a different opinion, feel free to try again. You do the worst of what you accuse me of.

You implied in a sarcastic tone that all the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp are lying about it. This implies that you cannot. You don't know the audiophiles in question that you are implying are liars, and you can't provide any evidence whatsoever that they lied, but you implied it anyway.

You are the troll, and I called you on it.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[ShieldW0lf]

And, tetrachromats are the daughter of a man who is an anomalous trichromats and a woman with normal vision. One of the man's cone types has a mutation that makes it a little off.

In a normal woman, she'll have two x chromosomes, each having functionally identical coding for red, green and blue cones. She doesn't need both, so one of the x chromosomes will be switched off.

In a tetrachromat, she'll have two x chromosomes, but only two of the three types of cones are functionally identical, and the third color of cone is functionally different.

So, she might have R0, G0, B0 on one and R0, G1, B0 on the other.

When the x chromosomes are switched off, it's not always the same one. Sometimes it's the one from mom, sometimes the one from dad. So, her eyes will have R0, G0, G1 and B0.

This is what gives her superior color vision.

It also gives her a higher probability of having colorblind male children.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

You implied in a sarcastic tone that all the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp are lying about it.

There are studies proving the "average" person can't. And I've seen trials where the people who claim they can, can't. Do you have any evidence backing up your claim that there are people who can tell the difference? All the studies indicate that it's a mental illness, not physiology that convinces people that they can hear a difference.

This implies that you cannot.

You inferred I cannot. There's a difference. You neither understand nor care about the difference.

You don't know the audiophiles in question that you are implying are liars, and you can't provide any evidence whatsoever that they lied, but you implied it anyway.

There's "proof" they cannot. I've never seen any proof they can. If you can't actually contradict me, then you are the troll, not me. Your opinion doesn't trump reality.

Yes, I know, your opinion is wrong, and you can't substantiate it, so you lash out at anyone with a differing opinion. I forgive your troll. You can't help your mental incapacity. Maybe you could get some therapy to help yourself out.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[ShieldW0lf]

I didn't express an opinion. I acknowledged that human capabilities extend far beyond the norm, and that neither of us knows, something you're unprepared to do. This isn't a thesis defense, or a court room. Being pedantic and engaging in sophistry isn't going to achieve some sort of victory of debate that erases the fact that you're a prick.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

So color blind guys should mate with women with color blindness in the family, and have only women, and we'll breed tetrachromats.

We should breed women with recessive one type of color blindness with men with another type, and breed women with pentachromacy.

Funny that a mutation would last and be so wide-spread that is a deficit to one sex and a benefit to the other, though manifests rarely.

And, tetrachromats are the daughter of a man who is an anomalous trichromats and a woman with normal vision.

Genetically, it wouldn't matter who gave which X, so why did you exclude the case of a woman with color blindness mating with a man with color blindness? Or a woman with recessive color blindness with a "normal" man? Or a normal man with a tetrachromat mate? Why not R0 G1 B0 on one X and R0 G0 B1 on the other (though R1 is more common than B1)? Though a hexachromat is possible, R0 G0 B0 and R1 G1 B1. We should genetically engineer all women to that, and filter out R0 B0 G0 eggs for male offspring and R1 B1 G1 eggs for female offspring, so there are no color-blind males, and all women are hexachromatic.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a thesis defense, or a court room.

This is a surrender. Every time.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[toddestan]

Of course, you have to be careful with those because sometimes you have no idea what you're getting. 2560x1440 at 27" is only a slightly higher DPI than the common 1920x1080 at 21.5". Anyone claiming "Retina" is full of it.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[Blaskowicz]

Letterboxing is not that annoying, if the display is good at rendering the black bars. So I am somewhat fine with letterboxing on a CRT (small, but high quality). With movies and videos you can also crop rather than letterbox, easily if the content is played under VLC at least. So on a traditional > 20" 16:10 or 16:9 monitor for example you can crop a ~2.35 movie to 1.85, have small enough black bars and you can actually watch the movie more like if it was a TV. Much bigger picture for $0 spent.

The ultrawide monitor will play ultrawide movies with almost no black bars (I think there are small variations around ~2.39, 2.40 etc.), as for 16:9 content, well too bad! At least modern video stuff is bigger than old stuff, and movie stuff bigger than modern video stuff.
Really old games can be played at 1920x1440. At least it's better than most monitors.

That monitor seems really great to me, even if I consider the aspect ratio problems.. For the asked price, being stuck at 60Hz is a shame though, I would like to run it at 100 or 96Hz at least (even DP 1.2 has enough bandwith for that)

Used 1440 IPS for 2-3 years to avoid multi monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd jump to this in a heartbeat.

Often run two documents areas side by side, one reference, one writing, or even two with notes in the middle.. this is perfect for that. 1440p is shitloads of vertical resolution, especially for those who have never tried it. If you think only screen ratio all the time, you will miss the fine points. It's 1440p. It makes webpages look tiny at default size.
I tried my 10 bit 1440p next to 10 bit 1600p and for the price difference (x2) it was not worth it. If I were a coder, possibly. Plus for majority of 16:9 video content I watch or produce, 16:9 native looks best.

So 16:9 1440 for video/aux and the 21:9 1440 for work/production. Best of both worlds. Thanks LG!

Re:Is this an ad ?

[stoatwblr]

que?

CCFL inverters tend to run at 15-20kHz and LEDs are either run continuously or chopped at 1-2kHz

Re:Is this an ad ?

[stoatwblr]

"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."

As you point out, "valve sound" is only relevant when you reach peaks. It's because valve systems "round off" when they start clipping, vs a sharp knee point on solid state. (this is a combination of thermionic effects and the transformer necessary for valve output.)

Another contributor is the valve output transformer - Iron exhibits hyteresis in magnetic fields which introduces its own sets of unique distortion even at low levels in most amplifiers - this is all part of the "valve sound"

(Outside of edge cases, the biggest contributor to distortion is speakers. There's no such thing as 100% faithful reproduction from the things and whoever manages to produce a distortionless wideband loudspeaker will have the world beating a path to his door)

Audiophiles are an odd bunch anyway. It's far more about mumbo-jumbo than hard facts. A lot of stuff pushed is way out there in kook territory.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[stoatwblr]

"So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?"

Not at all. A significant number of the stars you see in the sky turn out to be 2 stars if looked at through a small telescope.

On the other side, trying to resolve a single _dark_ spot on a uniformly bright background is extremely hard.

Eyes are non-linear devices in both their intensity and frequency response - far more so than ears are.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[jones_supa]

Yes, a lot of CCFL inverters run at the kilohertz range, but a frequency of 120Hz (desktop) and 175Hz (laptop) has also been often used.

Most LED desktop displays run at 180Hz or 240Hz. Benq and Dell have some models which do not have PWM dimming.

Laptops smaller than 15.6" generally have a LED LCD with frequency 220Hz. 15.6" laptops and higher have high-frequency signal (20kHz or no PWM).

Laptops with Intel HD Graphics have a backlight register which allows the user to set a new frequency. Many LED laptops do not have the inverter to govern the frequency but it is set by the video BIOS.