Corsair Xeneon Flex 45" likely to cost $1800+

[SolarNova]

Seems Lg has unveiled its price tag for their 45GR95QE-B. This uses the same panel as the Corsair Xeneon Flex 45".

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-45gr95qe-b

 

Both panels are effectively identical but one has a static 800r curve (very curved). While the other has the option to be flat.

 

Considering the LG display was expected to be the cheaper option, it bodes poorly for the Corsair unit. The bendable gimmick + 'Corsair tax' is likely to push the thing right up against the $2000 limit indicated to influencers when announced.

A shame to, I was actually hoping to nab one should the price be more reasonable.

 

UPDATE : 08/12/22:

Price is official. it is below $2000 like they said it would be ..... its $1999 -.-

Way to expensive for what it is. I don't expect many to sell.

At this price I wont be getting it.

[Stahlmann]

Wow that is really expensive. This panel comes with other downsides like the 80 ppi pixel density but that price tag is hard to justify imo when you can already buy a 42" or 48" TV for sub $1000.

 

Also, this is just ridiuculous:

[Doobeedoo]

It's meh to me. Low res for that size. Why just why everyone making these huge sizes now. Also making it flex a good portion of cost is there for no reason.

Waiting CES and more normal sizes, 32" 4K 240Hz and such.

[Andrewtst]

45" for Ultrawide in such resolution of 3440x1440 is basically very bad. The PPI is only 82.87. The monitor need at least 100 PPI to get sharpen text clarity and reduce the aliasing to minimum.

 

Both LG 45GR95QE-B and Corsair Xeneon Flex is mediocre quality to me. Some more both is OLED and with possible not in standard RGB pixel arrangement which even further decrease the clarity. Totally avoid.

[SolarNova]

@Stahlmann @Doobeedoo @Andrewtst

 

While i absolutely agree the PPI is on the low side, and ideally should atleast be 5120 x 2160 ...PPI isnt EVERYTHING.

 

Whether PPI is high enough depends on view distance. If ur face is pressed up against the screen then yes your going to need an incredibly high PPI to ensure u cant see any pixels, oppositely if ur in a football stadium and look at a stadium display, you can get away with lightbulbs acting as your pixels lol. Bit of an extreme but im sure you get the point.

 

The Corsair Xeneon Flex , for me, is OK. I already use a very low PPi display, a 42" 1080p Plasma TV. Which the knee jerk reaction to that would be,. "OMG that must look terrible with text and the like". Well no, because i sit roughly 5 feet from the screen, not the 'ideal distance' but enough that the low PPi doesnt bother me THAT much, I certainly want to upgrade though.

 

Here is what ultimately matters.

PPD (Pixel per degree)

 

http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDensityCalculator.html#find:density,pxW:3440,pxH:1440,size:45,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:46,distUnit:in

 

A measurement based on Pixel density and View distance. The above link also shows FoV,
FoV :Info

Spoiler

Other sources online put ideal FoV at 70, but thats for the most part un-reachable with even standard 21:9 displays, the THX standard advises at least 40 degrees FoV for movies, and Sim setups with multi monitors tend to aim for as high as 190 degrees which more or less encompasses the entirety of the human eyes ability to see movement in the each individual eyes monocular vision.

However for non sim scenarios you want the all of the screen to be within a FoV that u can actually tell what your seeing. 120 degress includes peripheral vision, 60 degrees is your primary field of view. So with an ultrawide you want to be able to look at the center of the screen and have almost all of it within ur primary FoV, then when you move your eyes to focus on something to the far left or right, u want the opposite side to at least be within ur peripheral FoV so u can notice movement. Hence the final value to around 70 degrees.

The exception to this 'rule' is competitive gaming, where u want to reduce eye movement and have the entire screen in your primary focused FoV which is as low as 10 degrees when focusing on text, so below 40 degrees is actually desirable in those scenarios.

Obviously the higher the FoV requirement the harder it is to achieve with a single display, especially when taking into account PPD.

TLDR: FOV: Ideally

40+ for movies

~70 for Ultrawide gaming

up to 190 for multi-monitor surround

~40-50 target for single 16:9 display for average gaming.

 

As for PPD:

60 is your minimum value, its not ideal but usable. 80 is your ideal value, any more and its not really worth it. 70 is the middle ground.

 

A 'standard' 2560 x 1440 27" display at a rough arms length ~ 29" gets about 58  PPD, which isn't ideal but is obviously good enough for most people since its so popular. and has a FoV of about 44 degrees. A good middle ground for watching movies, and playing games of all types but lacking that immersive felling.

 

A 3440 x 1440 34" display at the same view distance (arms length) gets you to about 60 PPD, again not the ideal 70 but good enough, however it increases FoV to 57 degrees.

 

A super ultrawide 32:9 display like the Oddessy G9 (5120 x 1440 at 49") at the same arms length distance would get you to 65 PPD, and a high 78 degrees FoV.

Here you could arguably sit further back to increase DDP and lower FoV back down closer to 70. That would require a distance of about 32" Inches which for some people would still be around arms length. That would increase PPD to 70 and put FoV to 73.

 

As for the Corsair 45" 21:9 3440 x 1440 display.

Your not going to get all the numbers to an ideal state..but you can do the following.

Sit 45" away from the screen, thats about 4 feet.

There, your PPD is more or less 70, which is good.(better than most peoples 1440p setups)

And your FoV is about 50 degrees

 

Alternatively, lower PPD down to the same as a standard 27" 1440p display mention above ..of 58 and you can get FoV up to 60. Personally i'd prefer the 1st option or somewhere in between.

 

So ..yes the PPi is 'bad' ..BUT ..if u adjust ur viewing distance around its size, and dont just try sit as close as you would a smaller sized monitor .. the PPi isnt an issue,

 

i would have liked to have tried it out, but i suspect its going to be way to expensive judging by what LG has priced their version at.

 

 

 

 

[Andrewtst]

10 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

PPI is high enough depends on view distance

My seating distance won't change nor matter how big the screen are, I won't tolerant the distance to fulfil the low PPI. So it is not for me.  

[Doobeedoo]

50 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

@Stahlmann @Doobeedoo @Andrewtst

 

While i absolutely agree the PPI is on the low side, and ideally should atleast be 5120 x 2160 ...PPI isnt EVERYTHING.

 

Whether PPI is high enough depends on view distance. If ur face is pressed up against the screen then yes your going to need an incredibly high PPI to ensure u cant see any pixels, oppositely if ur in a football stadium and look at a stadium display, you can get away with lightbulbs acting as your pixels lol. Bit of an extreme but im sure you get the point.

 

The Corsair Xeneon Flex , for me, is OK. I already use a very low PPi display, a 42" 1080p Plasma TV. Which the knee jerk reaction to that would be,. "OMG that must look terrible with text and the like". Well no, because i sit roughly 5 feet from the screen, not the 'ideal distance' but enough that the low PPi doesnt bother me THAT much, I certainly want to upgrade though.

 

Here is what ultimately matters.

PPD (Pixel per degree)

 

http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDensityCalculator.html#find:density,pxW:3440,pxH:1440,size:45,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:46,distUnit:in

 

A measurement based on Pixel density and View distance. The above link also shows FoV,
FoV :Info

  Reveal hidden contents

Other sources online put ideal FoV at 70, but thats for the most part un-reachable with even standard 21:9 displays, the THX standard advises at least 40 degrees FoV for movies, and Sim setups with multi monitors tend to aim for as high as 190 degrees which more or less encompasses the entirety of the human eyes ability to see movement in the each individual eyes monocular vision.

However for non sim scenarios you want the all of the screen to be within a FoV that u can actually tell what your seeing. 120 degress includes peripheral vision, 60 degrees is your primary field of view. So with an ultrawide you want to be able to look at the center of the screen and have almost all of it within ur primary FoV, then when you move your eyes to focus on something to the far left or right, u want the opposite side to at least be within ur peripheral FoV so u can notice movement. Hence the final value to around 70 degrees.

The exception to this 'rule' is competitive gaming, where u want to reduce eye movement and have the entire screen in your primary focused FoV which is as low as 10 degrees when focusing on text, so below 40 degrees is actually desirable in those scenarios.

Obviously the higher the FoV requirement the harder it is to achieve with a single display, especially when taking into account PPD.

TLDR: FOV:

40+ for movies

~70 for Ultrawide gaming

up to 190 for multi-monitor surround

~60 realistic target for single 16:9 display for average gaming.

 

As for PPD:

60 is your minimum value, its not ideal but usable. 80 is your ideal value, any more and its not really worth it. 70 is the middle ground.

 

A 'standard' 2560 x 1440 27" display at a rough arms length ~ 29" gets about 58  PPD, which isn't ideal but is obviously good enough for most people since its so popular. and has a FoV of about 44 degrees. A good middle ground for watching movies, and playing games of all types but lacking that immersive felling.

 

A 3440 x 1440 34" display at the same view distance (arms length) gets you to about 60 PPD, again not the ideal 70 but good enough, however it increases FoV to 57 degrees.

 

A super ultrawide 32:9 display like the Oddessy G9 (5120 x 1440 at 49") at the same arms length distance would get you to 65 PPD, and a high 78 degrees FoV.

Here you could arguably sit further back to increase DDP and lower FoV back down closer to 70. That would require a distance of about 32" Inches which for some people would still be around arms length. That would increase PPD to 70 and put FoV to 73.

 

As for the Corsair 45" 21:9 3440 x 1440 display.

Your not going to get all the numbers to an ideal state..but you can do the following.

Sit 45" away from the screen, thats about 4 feet.

There, your PPD is more or less 70, which is good.(better than most peoples 1440p setups)

And your FoV is about 50 degrees

 

Alternatively, lower PPD down to the same as a standard 27" 1440p display mention above ..of 58 and you can get FoV up to 60. Personally i'd prefer the 1st option.

 

So ..yes the PPi is 'bad' ..BUT ..if u adjust ur viewing distance around its size, and dont just try sit as close as you would a smaller sized monitor .. the PPi isnt an issue,

 

i would have liked to have tried it out, but i suspect its going to be way to expensive judging by what LG has priced their version at.

 

 

 

 

Thing is for this Xeneon flex you'd need to sit at least 1m away from it to look decent and not absolute trash and 1m+ for a so called monitor distance is retarded. Thing is all these displays are supposed to be monitors aka you're going to sit at around regular "fixed" distance arms length or about in general. Not a TV where people sit at many different distances and all that. While PPI isn't everything in terms of monitors it's more 'fixed' per say of what is good and what is not. Because monitors are used at more expected distances on desk. I should not be able to see pixels even at much closed distance if I want to get closed to read something or inspect detail. Apple gets this. I'd never get a 4K monitor larger than 32" it's just not good anymore. I won't put such display meter+ away from me, defeats entire purpose of getting larger display and res.

 

I've known about PPD for long time now, it gives you more of an insight, but if you already  know how each res and size looks in monitor land you don't need any special measure anymore. Without seeing XYZ monitor knowing it's size and res I already know how it will look at normal distance used. So using monitor a around arms length distance you can't so to speak increase PPD because you want it at certain physical distance from you. Only thing that can increase that is higher resolution.

Also you seem to put your display more further than most though.

 

Ideally for super sharp close up text and minute details be it games or whatever and even looking close ideally it would be like 32" 8K monitor. But in more reasonable other spec gaming wise and all 4K 32" is solid.

 

Switching from 24" 27" 32" you slight put larger monitor a bit further, just enough so that each appears the 'same' FoV wise more or less.

 

I'm aware many of these companies want to compete with wow factor at first with new teach and going big and all, as well as consuming content and action games, but yeah still, if you want monitor anything outside that and appreciate sharpness or read more or work with something detailed, you want much higher res.

[Stahlmann]

On 11/26/2022 at 4:11 PM, SolarNova said:

@Stahlmann @Doobeedoo @Andrewtst

 

While i absolutely agree the PPI is on the low side, and ideally should atleast be 5120 x 2160 ...PPI isnt EVERYTHING.

 

Whether PPI is high enough depends on view distance. If ur face is pressed up against the screen then yes your going to need an incredibly high PPI to ensure u cant see any pixels, oppositely if ur in a football stadium and look at a stadium display, you can get away with lightbulbs acting as your pixels lol. Bit of an extreme but im sure you get the point.

All in all the pixel density shouldn't be a problem for it's main usecase: gaming. But combine the suboptimal subpixel layout with this comparatively low pixel density and it will be a problem for desktop useage. This monitor is big enough that most people will use it at 100% scaling, and then you will run into visible text issues with LG's WOLED panels.

[SolarNova]

Updated OP, price is official at $1999, way to expensive.

[Stahlmann]

On 12/8/2022 at 1:10 PM, SolarNova said:

Updated OP, price is official at $1999, way to expensive.

Ouch. I guess you're paying for the flexible screen gimmick. LG's fixed 800R one sits at $1699. Better, but still way too expensive imo. But come on, who the fuck asked for 800R curved monitors. Why do they always have to handicap great displays with these fucking ridiculous curves.