Amazon now has the LG 34'' 3440x1440 21:9 Monitor in stock

[4960X]

2expnsive4me.jpg

[dizmo]

Not so expensive? The Dell U2713HM is almost half the price. You could get a 30" 2560x1600 for the same price (which would actually be bigger than a 34" 21:9 monitor).

The U2713HM is also LARGER (in cm²) if you display 16:9 or narrower content (which, let's face it, most content is). I don't really see 21:9 as being that useful. Most website are designed for 1024x768 displays still, which means that 2560x1440 is more than enough for 2 web pages side by side (even 1920x1080 is usually enough for that). Most videos are 16:9 so you will have huge black bars in a lot of stuff, gaming support seems pretty limited, a lot of websites will just display longer rows of text (which is actually pretty bad) or more dead space.

Trust me, if you're planning on having website open for side by side comparisons, or spreadsheets and a browser open at the same time, just get two monitors. It is far better. Multiple monitors are better for productivity.

You could get one U2713HM and two Dell U2414H for just 130 dollars more (which would probably be what a decent mount for the LG monitor would cost). Or just two U2713HM....

 

 

I just don't get why anyone would want this for 1000 dollars when 2560x1440 monitors are so much cheaper, and far better support in terms of content.

Uhm...the Dell is a 27" monitor. Not a 30". And is 1440p, not 1600p.

I don't want 2 27" monitors. I've had a 27" before, and two would take up too much space, not to mention the cost. $1400 vs $1100 with stands. I need a desk mounted monitor stand because I use the desk space.

In my use scenario, this monitor makes the most sense. It might not to you, and that's great, but fact of the matter is that it fits what I need better.

Just trying to maybe open your mind to why people might want such a display.

 

Have you ever used a 21:9 monitor?

A genuine question.

[LAwLz]

Uhm...the Dell is a 27" monitor. Not a 30". And is 1440p, not 1600p.

I don't want 2 27" monitors. I've had a 27" before, and two would take up too much space, not to mention the cost. $1400 vs $1100 with stands. I need a desk mounted monitor stand because I use the desk space.

In my use scenario, this monitor makes the most sense. It might not to you, and that's great, but fact of the matter is that it fits what I need better.

Just trying to maybe open your mind to why people might want such a display.

 

Have you ever used a 21:9 monitor?

A genuine question.

That's why I first said that the Dell U2713HM is half the price, and then in the next sentenced said that you could get a 30" 2560x1600 monitor for the same price (as the 34" LG one).

OK, if you can't afford the extra ~30cm of desk space then I get it. Those are some pretty damn rare circumstances though.

 

Yes I have used a 21:9 monitor. It was only for a very short time at a demo though, and it wasn't a 34" model (and I am pretty sure it was a 1080p model, not 1440p like this one). I still don't get why so many people want it though. For most people it would make far more sense to get multiple monitors instead (if they want multitasking) or a single big one with a more square aspect ratio.

 

 

this needs to be about $200 cheaper and come with a stand that does not suck balls before id even consider it. for $1000 there is no excuse to have such a crappy stand.

If it was 800 dollars and had a decent stand then I would make a lot more sense to me.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

What is the point of an ultrawide screen? They look pretty awful for anything except playing games

[LAwLz]

What is the point of an ultrawide screen? They look pretty awful for anything except playing games

And some movies. Even for gaming you will run into compatibility issues though.

[Michael McAllister]

And some movies. Even for gaming you will run into compatibility issues though.

 

Many movies are shot in an ultrawide aspect ratio.  No more black bars on a lot of Blu-ray content for example.

[RuecanOnRails]

Many movies are shot in an ultrawide aspect ratio.  No more black bars on a lot of Blu-ray content for example.

 

Instead you will be getting black bars on the sides more often than not.

[Michael McAllister]

Instead you will be getting black bars on the sides more often than not.

 

The 21:9 (2.37:1) aspect ratio is still much closer to the theater than the current 16:9 (1.77:1/1.78:1) standard.  Many Blu-ray's are using 2.39:1 or 2.35:1.  Black bars would be minimal.

 

Source

[RuecanOnRails]

The 21:9 (2.37:1) aspect ratio is still much closer to the theater than the current 16:9 (1.77:1/1.78:1) standard.  Many Blu-ray's are using 2.39:1 or 2.35:1.  Black bars would be minimal.

 

Source

 

I'm aware that's becoming the primary filming ratio and optimal theater display. I'm suggesting that it's a trade off; You're reducing the black bars on a few recent movies but adding larger black bars to just about every other content you view. 

[Michael McAllister]

I'm aware that's becoming the primary filming ratio and optimal theater display. I'm suggesting that it's a trade off; You're reducing the black bars on a few recent movies but adding larger black bars to just about every other content you view. 

 

With the exception of satellite and cable, there are a ton of video sources that use 2.39:1.  While 21:9 may not be the best aspect ratio for a monitor, it makes a lot of sense for a television, considering that Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, and others utilize that aspect ratio.  Within ten years, do not be surprised to start seeing digital Blu-rays.  That is to say that if ISPs can deliver enough consistent bandwidth within that time, you may be able to purchase a complete 1:1 copy of a Blu-ray through a streaming service like Vudu without sacrificing quality.  Most BDs need 20-30 Mbps.

[LAwLz]

With the exception of satellite and cable, there are a ton of video sources that use 2.39:1.  While 21:9 may not be the best aspect ratio for a monitor, it makes a lot of sense for a television, considering that Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, and others utilize that aspect ratio.  Within ten years, do not be surprised to start seeing digital Blu-rays.  That is to say that if ISPs can deliver enough consistent bandwidth within that time, you may be able to purchase a complete 1:1 copy of a Blu-ray through a streaming service like Vudu without sacrificing quality.  Most BDs need 20-30 Mbps.

1:1 bluray needs far more than 20-30Mbps. To be honest, I have no idea why you're bringing that up to begin with, the aspect ratio won't change because of the bit rate.

The fact of the matter is that only movies (and not even close to all of them) are ~21:9 (and a lot of the ones that are aren't quite 21:9 so you still get small black bars).

 

For a TV I could kind of understand it (if you REALLY like movies and little else) but for a desktop monitor I just don't get it.

[Michael McAllister]

1:1 bluray needs far more than 20-30Mbps. To be honest, I have no idea why you're bringing that up to begin with, the aspect ratio won't change because of the bit rate.

The fact of the matter is that only movies (and not even close to all of them) are ~21:9 (and a lot of the ones that are aren't quite 21:9 so you still get small black bars).

 

For a TV I could kind of understand it (if you REALLY like movies and little else) but for a desktop monitor I just don't get it.

 

1. I know aspect ratios and bit rates are different. The future of BDs was merely an aside commentary. 
2. Small black bars are still better than big ones.  Less space is wasted.
3. Here are some examples of BD bit-rates:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Revenge-of-the-Nerds-Blu-ray/56155/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blazing-Saddles-Blu-ray/94370/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-3D-Blu-ray/82748/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Wizard-of-Oz-Blu-ray/7704/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sin-City-Blu-ray/398/

 

Unfortunately, not all studios release video bit-rate data.

[LAwLz]

Small black bars are still better than big ones.  Less space is wasted.

And no black bars (which you get on a lot of movies and TV shows if you view them on a 16:9 screen) is the best. This 34" monitor wastes so much space on black bars that it becomes smaller than a 27" 16:9 monitor when viewing 16:9 content (again, most TV shows and a lot of movies).

 

 

Here are some examples of BD bit-rates:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Revenge-of-the-Nerds-Blu-ray/56155/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blazing-Saddles-Blu-ray/94370/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gravity-3D-Blu-ray/82748/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Wizard-of-Oz-Blu-ray/7704/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Sin-City-Blu-ray/398/

 

Unfortunately, not all studios release video bit-rate data.

Oh sorry, but some reason I thought most bluray movies were 36-54Mbps (audio and video combined). Looks like a lot of movies aren't though.

[Michael McAllister]

Is the aspect ratio standard slightly different in Sweden?  TV shows and perhaps YouTube are major sources of true 1.78:1 goodness in the States.  Other than that, black bars galore.

[LAwLz]

Is the aspect ratio standard slightly different in Sweden?  TV shows and perhaps YouTube are major sources of true 1.78:1 goodness in the States.  Other than that, black bars galore.

We get the same movies and TV shows you get in the US, and a lot of them are 16:9. ~21:9 is pretty much only limited to newer movies (and not even all of the newer ones). Even most of the movies you posted to show bit rate would be better on a 16:9 monitor.

Better support for games. No black bars in TV shows, YouTube videos or a lot of movies (yes a lot of movies are ~21:9 but a lot of movies are also 16:9). Better for web browsing. Much cheaper. These are all reasons why 16:9 is better than 21:9.

 

Like I said before, it only makes sense to me if you want it to watch some modern movies. For everything else, just get one or two 16:9 monitors.