5K goes ULTRAWIDE

[James]

Buy LG 34WK95U
On Amazon: http://geni.us/qqdYa
On Newegg: http://geni.us/Wk3NtBq

 

LG finally made a no-compromises ultrawide monitor for creatives: you no longer have to choose between 21:9 and high resolution (4K or 5K) because this monitor is 4K2K! No great for gaming though..

 

 

[Billy_Mays]

Interesting. Wonder how Taran will like it?

[vanished]

So the graphic was changed slightly but literally nothing of what I pointed out was fixed.  Very disappointing.

 

This would be easier to read if animated but I can't be bothered.  In case anyone wants to see the actual sizes, shapes, and names though, here's the common and relevant ones:

Spoiler

Unfortunately the "ultrawide" name is a bit misleading when it is used in conjunction with the cinema standard for naming resolutions based on width, because just like the introduction of 4K with a resolution that coincidentally was 4x 1080p misled people into thinking that's what 4K meant, having primarily lower resolution monitors (which for whatever reason are usually labelled with vertical res instead) has led people to believe that ultrawide means "whatever is listed, but wider", when in fact it just means ~21:9.  Perhaps if the convention had only been introduced once 4K and 5K screens were well known, it would have been called "ultrashort" instead   But, that's no reason to go around saying utter nonsense like "This [5K monitor] is more like a '4K ultrawide'" and "A true 5K ultrawide should have a resolution of something like 6820 x 2880".  In fact, it's all the more reason to try and explain the situation correctly so you can educate people to understand what they're dealing with instead of confusing them further.

[DrMacintosh]

I was wondering why the video was in 3:4....then I realized they were joking about that taco shell commercial  

[Syntaxvgm]

Gonna copy my comment from floatplane here 
 

On 10/31/2018 at 1:43 PM, Syntaxvgm said:

On 10/31/2018 at 12:47 PM, LinusTech said:

I guess the fact that it's arbitrary anyway is what led us to "interpret" it our own way. That was kind of our point - how do you name something that has a naming scheme that seems to be designed to seem better than it is compared to the old one?

 

We used to say 1080p, then we switched to 4K I guess because 4000 pixels and 4x the resolution kind of made sense to the marketing people who wanted a way to sell it. With 5K though we're at the point where it doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the display (other than how many pixels WIDE it is), so maybe we SHOULD go back to vertical-p resolutions.

 

I think what we need to do is put both LG's "5K2K" in quotes in the diagram and adjust ours to be in "quotes" as well.

Well I think of it this way- 

My 2560x1080 is something I consider a 1080p ultrawide, not a 1400p ultrawide. It's just 1080 made longer. 

Then suddenly we switch to horizontal resolution for 4k when really the vertical resolution is more important imo. So I'd call it a larger 4k display (even though it is 5k horizontally). 

This monitor has 11,059,200 pixels. 

A 4k Monitor has 8,294,400 pixels, 2,764,800 less than this monitor. 
A 5k Monitor has 14,745,600 pixels, 3,686,400 more than this monitor
In total pixel count, closer to 4k. 

 

Another way I think of it is the idea that a 4k monitor is 4 X 1920 by 1080 and a 5k monitor is 4 x 2560 by 1440. Apple chose 5k for the imac for this reason- integer scaling works for 1440p at this resolution. If it doesn't fit at least 4 1440p screens in it, it isn't really 5k class imo. There's really no way to settle this, because 21:9 is stupid math wise. 
 

And here we get to how weird 21:9 is. 

The relationship between 4:3 and 16;9 is pretty clear- 16:9 is (4^2)x(3^2)
5:4 squared is 25:16, which isn't 16:10, but it's close- solving out to 1.5625 where 16:10 is 1.6. 

21:9 is closer to 16:10 squared than 16:9 squared. 

16:9 squared is 256:81, which is ~3.16. 21:9 is 2 1/3, which is closer to what you'd get squaring 16:10- 2.56

Even weirder is 21:9 is a fake aspect ratio 
16/9 is 1.7(repeating)
1920/1080 is 1.7 repeating) 
1280/720 is 1.7(r)
2560/1440 is 1.7(r)
16/10 is 1.6

1920/1200 is 1.6

1440/900 is 1.6
2560/1600 is 1.6

You get the point, same goes for 4:3 and 5:4, these resolutions are EXACT to the ratio 

21/9 is 2.3(repeating) 
2560/1080 is ~2.37, or 64:27
3440/1440 is 2.38(r) or 43:18
3840/1600 is 2.4, or 12:5
5120/2160 is ~2.37 or 64/27, the closest thing to actual 21:9 yet
21:9 doesn't exist, and this is why game devs are so reluctant to put it in as a blanket supported aspect ratio. They have to support the resolutions manually and making it blanket supported in a future proof way is hard if they dont already support any ratio automatically

A true 21:9 picture at 1080p would be 2520 x 1080
3360x1440
3360x1600 (21:10)
5040x2160

So why is it this way? 
Where we come up with different aspect ratios traditionally using the old ones as a jumping point, so-called 21:9, the name I think borrowed from the idea that's it's basically cinescope or close to it, is just taking common resolutions and slapping them together or something idk. 

What if we had a 1080p screen as wide as a 1400p screen? 
2560x1080
What if we made a 2560x1600 (16:10) screen and made it was wide as a 4k screen?
3840x1600

What if we took 1440p and huffed a bunch of paint thinner? - LG
3440x1440

It's truly madness and I blame LG. 

 

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Gonna copy my comment from floatplane here 
 

I wish monitor resolutions could become more 'normal'.

Like how metric is base 10, a 2000x1000 monitor would be nicer to work with than 1920x1080, for photo editing, cad, UI design, etc etc etc.

Or a multiple of 12 would be nice, since it can be evenly divided by 2, 3, and 4

[Syntaxvgm]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I wish monitor resolutions could become more 'normal'.

Like how metric is base 10, a 2000x1000 monitor would be nicer to work with than 1920x1080, for photo editing, cad, UI design, etc etc etc.

Or a multiple of 12 would be nice, since it can be evenly divided by 2, 3, and 4

well like I mentioned, the resolutions being odd previously was because they lined up perfectly with the mentioned ratios. So it was a standard, just a differnt thing they were going for I suppose. 

[Enderman]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

well like I mentioned, the resolutions being odd previously was because they lined up perfectly with the mentioned ratios. 

Yeah, but those ratios are based on old small resolutions, and those resolutions based on obsolete reasons, just like train track gauge is based on the width of a horse.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Yeah, but those ratios are based on old small resolutions, and those resolutions based on obsolete reasons, just like train track gauge is based on the width of a horse.

yah. I liked the idea of 16:10 for putting menus and stuff and still having 16:9 content areas, too bad it's all but died. 

[zyxep]

Would this monitor work perfect with a Radeon RX VEGA?? or only RX 4xx / RX 5xx ?

[Enderman]

22 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

yah. I liked the idea of 16:10 for putting menus and stuff and still having 16:9 content areas, too bad it's all but died. 

Well with the way smartphones are moving to random screen sizes and resolutions hopefully a new system can be developed to replace the regular system...

 

It would be great to have a system like degrees-seconds-minutes where you can divide by 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, etc. and always get a round number.

 

Or a base 10 system for easy UI design.

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, Enderman said:

Well with the way smartphones are moving to random screen sizes and resolutions hopefully a new system can be developed to replace the regular system...

 

It would be great to have a system like degrees-seconds-minutes where you can divide by 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, etc. and always get a round number.

 

that would be the dream. 
Or giant ultrawide TVs. 

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

that would be the dream. 
Or giant ultrawide TVs. 

2:1 or 3:1?

[vanished]

On 10/31/2018 at 11:43 AM, Syntaxvgm said:

Well I think of it this way- 

My 2560x1080 is something I consider a 1080p ultrawide, not a 1400p ultrawide. It's just 1080 made longer. 

Then suddenly we switch to horizontal resolution for 4k when really the vertical resolution is more important imo.

Yes I think this has done a lot of harm and not really any good.  Either system on its own probably would have worked fine (though my preference would be for vertical... I think it makes more sense on desktop in a world with 16:9 and 21:9, etc.) but having the mix confuses people.

Quote

So I'd call it a larger 4k display (even though it is 5k horizontally).

But you can't say "4K ultrawide" to mean something wider, because 4K already specifies the resolution.  It would be like saying "I'm not 6 ft, I'm 5ft ultratall".

When using the horizontal system, ultrawide switches to meaning shorter, not wider.

Quote

Another way I think of it is the idea that a 4k monitor is 4 X 1920 by 1080

True but a complete coincidence.  Don't rely too much on this

Quote

Even weirder is 21:9 is a fake aspect ratio 

16/9 is 1.7(repeating)
1920/1080 is 1.7 repeating) 
1280/720 is 1.7(r)
2560/1440 is 1.7(r)
16/10 is 1.6

1920/1200 is 1.6

1440/900 is 1.6
2560/1600 is 1.6

You get the point, same goes for 4:3 and 5:4, these resolutions are EXACT to the ratio 

Do you remember 1366 x 768 though?  Or 1360 x 768 (because apparently both had to exist for some reason).  They weren't perfect 16:9 either.  Horrible thing I'd rather have 720p just for that reason alone.

 

As for supporting it though, these various displays are surely close enough that it doesn't actually cause them any trouble?  Design for one and they should all more or less work I would think.

[Syntaxvgm]

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It would be like saying "I'm not 6 ft, I'm 5ft ultratall".

 

I'm going to say that from now on.
It is kidna why I say tehre's no way to settle it anyway. 

 

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

 

True but a complete coincidence.  Don't rely too much on this

 

 No, that' is the purpose of 4k. It's 4x 1080p by design. 5k is 4x 1440p, again by design which allows 1440p content to integer scale- not that any windows drivers, amd or nvidia, give this fucking option. This is also the reason for 1440p being 4x 720p - often called "quad hd" since 1280x720 is minimum HD

 

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

 

Do you remember 1366 x 768 though?  Or 1360 x 768 (because apparently both had to exist for some reason).  They weren't perfect 16:9 either.  Horrible thing I'd rather have 720p just for that reason alone.

 

They are not exact, but for 1366x768 it's like 1.7 repeating vs 1.7778. Did any actual monitors use 1360x768 and not tvs with cutoff? 

The original low end HD was 1280x720, a perfect 1.7(r). This is what TV panels were at first for the most point, later they became 1366x768
The reason 1366x768 become common was making a widescreen version of 1024x768, chosen originally for monitors wanting to be compatible and pixel perfect with legacy 1024x768 content. The reason it's not perfect is it can't like up at 768. "Perfect" 16:9 at 768 is 1365.3(r). They rounded up. I'd consider the intention was to make an as close to perfect resolution the the ratio, where in most of the 21:9 cases I listed, perfect resolutions to the ratio are available and are not even close. Not to mention, a game camera at 16:9 generic worked at 1366x768. 

 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

No, that' is the purpose of 4k. It's 4x 1080p by design. 5k is 4x 1440p, again by design which allows 1440p content to integer scale- not that any windows drivers, amd or nvidia, give this fucking option. This is also the reason for 1440p being 4x 720p - often called "quad hd" since 1280x720 is minimum HD

Yeah that's the reason they chose that exact resolution instead of say, 4096 x 2304 or any other number of similar options, but that's not why it's called 4K.  I don't want people to think the 4 in 4K means 4x 1080p.

[Tech_Dreamer]

 

Literally meme material.

[Syntaxvgm]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah that's the reason they chose that exact resolution instead of say, 4096 x 2304 or any other number of similar options, but that's not why it's called 4K.  I don't want people to think the 4 in 4K means 4x 1080p.

oh, so you're saying the exact resolution of 3840x2160 not being the only thing called "4k" means I'm being too strict with the definition. Make sense, the way the response was phrased was as if 4x1080p being happenstance with that resolution. 

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

oh, so you're saying the exact resolution of 3840x2160 not being the only thing called "4k" means I'm being to strict with the definition. Make sense, the way the response was phrased was as if 4x1080p being happenstance with that resolution. 

Well, sort of... that is also something to keep in mind: 4K is just a class of resolutions roughly more or less 4000 px wide and any height.  My main point is just the last part though:

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I don't want people to think the 4 in 4K means 4x 1080p.

Even though the common 4K resolution we all use is 4x 1080p, and even though that was done on purpose, the naming is a coincidence.  8K isn't 8x 1080p for example

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well, not really, but that is also something to keep in mind.  4K is just a class of resolutions roughly more or less 4000 px wide and any height.  My main point is just the last part:

Even though the common 4K resolution we all use is 4x 1080p, and even though that was done on purpose, the naming is a coincidence.

yes, the naming. I mean it's technically less than 4k, just 4k class at that point. I'm sure the though process of naming "4k" had nothing to do with whoever came up with the resolution. In fact whoever did it, as imperfect as it is, still did a better job than "Hd" and "true hd" I mean what the fuck. 

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

yes, the naming. I mean it's technically less than 4k, just 4k class at that point. I'm sure the though process of naming "4k" had nothing to do with whoever came up with the resolution. In fact whoever did it, as imperfect as it is, still did a better job than "Hd" and "true hd" I mean what the fuck. 

oh yes, the whole "HD" nonsense lol  You don't really see that much anymore in my experience but I remember the confusion of 720p being called "HD", and people then wondering what the point of 1080p is

[Syntaxvgm]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

oh yes, the whole "HD" nonsense lol  You don't really see that much anymore in my experience but I remember the confusion of 720p being called "HD", and people then wondering what the point of 1080p is

1366x768, for so many years the lowest end panel you can order from a panel manufacturer in that size, marketed as "beautiful HD screen" when it was literally a screen door too because the quality was so bad. I hated that shit. Used to make it so hard to laptop shop for myself or others. 

[Lathlaer]

42 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

But you can't say "4K ultrawide" to mean something wider, because 4K already specifies the resolution.  It would be like saying "I'm not 6 ft, I'm 5ft ultratall".

When using the horizontal system, ultrawide switches to meaning shorter, not wider.

I think people have problem with that particular aspect because of the usage and connotation of "ultra" - it suggests something extra, something more, something beyond normal. So when they see 4K "ultrawide" they can't imagine it's actually less pixels than a typical 3840x2160  

 

The problem appears only because people are perfectly fine with calling lower resolutions 1080p and 1440p so there is no mistake when you say 1080p ultrawide (you take a typical 1920x1080 and make it wider), 1440p ultrawide (same) and if we were to be consistent then we would call it correctly 2160p ultrawide and everything would be fine.

 

But no, had to go for that vertical 4K and here we are

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

1366x768, for so many years the lowest end panel you can order from a panel manufacturer in that size, marketed as "beautiful HD screen" when it was literally a screen door too because the quality was so bad. I hated that shit. Used to make it so hard to laptop shop for myself or others. 

I found it made shopping easier because you could just eliminate all options that used it, which was most of them, thus saving you time filtering through more models

1 minute ago, Lathlaer said:

I think people have problem with that particular aspect because of the usage and connotation of "ultra" - it suggests something extra, something more, something beyond normal. So when they see 4K "ultrawide" they can't imagine it's actually less pixels than a typical 3840x2160  

Yeah, and that worked when it was 1080p, 1440p, etc. but now it's misleading unfortunately.  imo, the best way to deal with this is to educate people to understand what they're seeing rather than piling even more garbage on top so they remain confused, but that's just me.

[Syntaxvgm]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I found it made shopping easier because you could just eliminate all options that used it, which was most of them, thus saving you time filtering through more models

Yeah, and that worked when it was 1080p, 1440p, etc. but now it's misleading unfortunately.  imo, the best way to deal with this is to educate people to understand what they're seeing rather than piling even more garbage on top so they remain confused, but that's just me.

 

but ALL resolutions were marketed as "beautiful HD", and become a problem since many sites didn't list resolutions and you had to search for the laptop M/n manually, many of which had multiple options under the same m/n, especially stuff like dell latitudes and precisions.