Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I still can't see the appeal of 4K, and maybe that's just me.
But what's the point of posting about a monitor having a somewhat larger resolution ? It doesn't seem like a technological achievement to me.
They just decided to sell a TV with large numbers.
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.
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?
This resolution is smaller in *both* dimensions than 4K, it's not even wider.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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."
I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)
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?
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
If you plug a flash drive into its USB hub does it try to send the contents back to LG?
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...
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
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.
This article is an ad.
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.)
Please help metamoderate.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
Please help metamoderate.
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.
Hey, I'm using a 17", 1280x1024 monitor* right now, you insensitive clod!
* ViewSonic VP171s, if you're wondering.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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!
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
:). 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. :(
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.
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.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Oh, and here's one more...
Seiki SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV $500
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 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.
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.
I come here for the love
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
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My person take on what the LG means is Life is Garbage...
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.
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.
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.
Good luck getting the monopoly ISP to "build it". Or would you be satisfied with going back to optical discs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have looked. it's got to be way better than using 3 screens for gaming and watching wide screen movies.
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).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
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.
if you reject their privacy policy, will they bump your resolution down to 800x600?
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. :)
So you did something the instructions told you not to do and you blame the manufacturer?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
Recommended viewing distance is about perspective, and how much your eyes have to move. Not the resolution of the screen.
Please help metamoderate.
:). 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.
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.
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.
A vertical resolution less than I was using before the year 2000 is a step backwards.
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.
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,
> 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.
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.)
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.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
If ISPs can't deliver 4K movies, then what advantage does a 2160p TV have over the more affordable 1080p?
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.
Isn't that closer to 4^3:3^3 ?
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!