21:9 2160p?

[Trav_X]

When do you think we will see it? Do you think it will ever be a thing? CAN I GET EXCITED? Has there been any news? I just want to know your thoughts on this.

[blueballs]

2064

[byalexandr]

It's bound to come sooner or later. Nothing can really drive it right now so there's no point in releasing it.

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

2 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

It's bound to come sooner or later. Nothing can really drive it right now so there's no point in releasing it.

Pretty much.

[Big-G]

With the new DisplayPort 1.4 standard, I think this will come sooner than later

[darealsoulless]

6 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

It's bound to come sooner or later. Nothing can really drive it right now so there's no point in releasing it.

Your 5.5L mini PC isn't 5500cc.

 

Therefore it doesn't suit my taste

[byalexandr]

Just now, GR1MES said:

Your 5.5L mini PC isn't 5500cc.

 

Therefore it doesn't suit my taste

20cm*21.2cm*13cm=5,512cc. I think it's within margin

 

It was actually going to be 5.3L but my GPU was taller than I expected.

[darealsoulless]

Just now, byalexandr said:

20cm*21.2cm*13cm=5,512cc. I think it's within margin

 

It was actually going to be 5.3L but my GPU was taller than I expected.

A 5500cc engine block is gigantic. I guess they're rated by the volume of the pistons themselves, not the blocks?

[Enderman]

its called "5k" ultrawide

even though its not native 5k, its just widescreen 4k

 

only TVs have it currently and it costs $120k and only comes on 105" screens.

 

but yeah, it already exists, you just need the $$$

[byalexandr]

Just now, GR1MES said:

A 5500cc engine block is gigantic. I guess they're rated by the volume of the pistons themselves, not the blocks?

Ain't no 7.4L Powerstroke . They are rated by the maximum cylinder volume.

 

But for a case 5.5L is tiny. The smallest production case I've seen is 7.8L and it's not even out yet, and then a step up from that is around 11-14L.

[byalexandr]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

its called "5k" ultrawide

even though its not native 5k, its just widescreen 4k

 

only TVs have it currently and it costs $120k and only comes on 105" screens.

 

but yeah, it already exists, you just need the $$$

Anything exists if you have the $$$

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

Anything exists if you have the $$$

thats actually far from true...

[Trav_X]

40 minutes ago, Enderman said:

its called "5k" ultrawide

even though its not native 5k, its just widescreen 4k

 

only TVs have it currently and it costs $120k and only comes on 105" screens.

 

but yeah, it already exists, you just need the $$$

Good, it's within my budget at least. 

[Trav_X]

39 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

Anything exists if you have the $$$

Except, you know, if it hasn't even been discovered/invented yet ._.

[byalexandr]

59 minutes ago, Trav_X said:

Except, you know, if it hasn't even been discovered/invented yet ._.

$$$ with a bit of extra $ will make it exist.

[visitor2015]

It would be nice to have real 4k displays in 16:10 AR first!. This would be 4096x2560 pixels. My Dell U3011 needs a real 16:10 successor with higher resolutions. But there is any.

[Trav_X]

2 hours ago, visitor2015 said:

It would be nice to have real 4k displays in 16:10 AR first!. This would be 4096x2560 pixels. My Dell U3011 needs a real 16:10 successor with higher resolutions. But there is any.

That would actually be really nice  I like that idea

[Glenwing]

2 hours ago, visitor2015 said:

It would be nice to have real 4k displays in 16:10 AR first!. This would be 4096x2560 pixels. My Dell U3011 needs a real 16:10 successor with higher resolutions. But there is any.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/reference-displays/4k-displays/dp-v3010

[visitor2015]

Thanks Glenwing for the link. I've also found that only display some months ago. But this display from Canon costs a fortune compared to other 16:9 "4k" displays. Eizo also has monitors with that resolution, but only as grayscale version for medical purposes (like viewing x-ray photos, MRI results or whatever).

Seriously, why does anyone sacirifce vertical pixels when using a 16:9 display over an 16:10?

Examples: 1366x768 vs. 1280x800 | 1600x900 vs. 1680x1050 | 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 | 2560x1440 vs. 2560x1600 | 3840x2160 vs. 4096x2560 etc.

Is it just me that feels ripped off vertical pixel space? This is more important than ever when using Windows and Microsoft Office (that with ribbons) in it's default settings.

The only reason for 21:9 is that it feels like two displays next to each other without annoying bezels in the middle. But 16:9 should not exist at all.

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, visitor2015 said:

Thanks Glenwing for the link. I've also found that only display some months ago. But this display from Canon costs a fortune compared to other 16:9 "4k" displays. Eizo also has monitors with that resolution, but only as grayscale version for medical purposes (like viewing x-ray photos, MRI results or whatever).

Seriously, why does anyone sacirifce vertical pixels when using a 16:9 display over an 16:10?

Examples: 1366x768 vs. 1280x800 | 1600x900 vs. 1680x1050 | 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 | 2560x1440 vs. 2560x1600 | 3840x2160 vs. 4096x2560 etc.

Is it just me that feels ripped off vertical pixel space? This is more important than ever when using Windows and Microsoft Office (that with ribbons) in it's default settings.

The only reason for 21:9 is that it feels like two displays next to each other without annoying bezels in the middle. But 16:9 should not exist at all.

I think you and I will get along