Are Ultrawide's A CON? Are they basicaly a TV CHOPPED IN HALF?

[El Diablo]

Are they?

 

im seeming to think they are

 

u can run the ultra wide aspect ratio on any tv and just do with the black bars instead of going for an ultra wide which is a tv chopped in half

 

someone please tell me im wrong and xplain something i dont see here

 

i got mad respect for this guy because his benchmarks and temp tests are so technicall and accurate but

can someone elaborate the point of an ultra wide to me because i dont get it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBiXOntqXo  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBiXOntqXo

 

ps youtube isnt working here

[Glenwing]

2 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Are they?

 

im seeming to think they are

 

u can run the ultra wide aspect ratio on any tv and just do with the black bars instead of going for an ultra wide which is a tv chopped in half

 

someone please tell me in wrong and xplain something i dont see here

 

i got mad respect for this guy because his benchmarks and temp tests are so technicall and accurate but

can someone elaborate the point of an ultra wide to me because i dont get it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBiXOntqXo  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBiXOntqXo

 

ps youtube isnt working here

You can also run 16:9 or 4:3 ratios on an ultrawide; are standard aspect ratio monitors a scam? No; if you run a different aspect ratio than the screen, you have to do so in an area smaller than the screen itself. So you might be able to get a 16:9 monitor to simulate a 21:9 monitor, but if you wanted to be equivalent to a 29" 21:9 screen you'd need like a 36" 1440p monitor, which would be much more expensive than just getting a 29" 21:9 monitor in the first place. In the same way, you can run 2560x1440 on an ultrawide 3440x1440 monitor, but you'd need to get a 34" ultrawide in order to be equivalent to a 27" 16:9 monitor.

[PlayStation 2]

Ultrawide monitors have more screenspace. They can still display [resolution] content, just they also have the ability to fit more on screen. This is especially effective in gaming, video editing, and watching most movies.

[ImBleu]

I use an Ultrawide. I can't stand 16:9 aspect ration (or 16:10) because it feels confined. I prefer 21:9 over multimonitor. I do a lot of graphic design work on banners up to 30ft wide by 7ft tall to send to print. That's why I like ultrawide.

[Tech_Dreamer]

there's the pixel density difference between commercial tv & a desktop monitor right? the whole "watching distance" thing

[El Diablo]

2 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

You can also run 16:9 or 4:3 ratios on an ultrawide; are standard aspect ratio monitors a scam? No; if you run a different aspect ratio than the screen, you have to do so in an area smaller than the screen itself. So you might be able to get a 16:9 monitor to simulate a 21:9 monitor, but if you wanted to be equivalent to a 29" 21:9 screen you'd need like a 36" 1440p monitor, which would be much more expensive than just getting a 29" 21:9 monitor in the first place. In the same way, you can run 2560x1440 on an ultrawide 3440x1440 monitor, but you'd need to get a 34" ultrawide in order to be equivalent to a 27" 16:9 monitor.

exactly

 

it will look smaller because u will get black bars on the top and bottom

 

but u will see the exact shit u see on an ultra wide

 

without wasting money on it which is a tv chopped in half...

 

?????????????/

[El Diablo]

2 minutes ago, ThatCoolBlueKidd said:

I use an Ultrawide. I can't stand 16:9 aspect ration (or 16:10) because it feels confined. I prefer 21:9 over multimonitor. I do a lot of graphic design work on banners up to 30ft wide by 7ft tall to send to print. That's why I like ultrawide.

but u can run that aspect ratio on a normal 60"  tv or big gaming monitor

[El Diablo]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Ultrawide monitors have more screenspace. They can still display [resolution] content, just they also have the ability to fit more on screen. This is especially effective in gaming, video editing, and watching most movies.

realy? ok im guna post a pik of my desktop on my 60" sony tv which is so small it looks 4k.. brb guna show u guys what i meen

 

AND ITS 1080P

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, El Diablo said:

realy? ok im guna post a pik of my desktop on my 60" sony tv which is so small it looks 4k.. brb guna show u guys what i meen

 

AND ITS 1080P

ok

[Trey222]

 

1 minute ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

there's the pixel density difference between commercial tv & a desktop monitor right? the whole "watching distance" thing

Yes a 1080p TV running in ulttrawide mode will has a lower pixel density because the "black bars" at the bottom and top are wastede pixels a 1080p ultrawide monitor uses all of it's pixels. Also they are more convenient to put on a desk. 

[ImBleu]

1 minute ago, El Diablo said:

but u can run that aspect ratio on a normal 60"  tv or big gaming monitor

 

But then either the pixel density is larger or the monitor or larger, both of which i don't want. I sit roughly a foot from my monitor and having a 60'' tv instead of my 29'' ultawide makes no sense to me. I don't want vertical screenspace, i want horizontal screenspace.

[Glenwing]

Just now, El Diablo said:

exactly

 

it will look smaller because u will get black bars on the top and bottom

 

but u will see the exact shit u see on an ultra wide

 

without wasting money on it which is a tv chopped in half...

 

?????????????/

Yes, you will see the exact same thing as you would on a small ultrawide. But small ultrawides are not that expensive, so you aren't really saving money getting a 16:9 monitor instead. If you wanted to get the same experience as a 34" ultrawide, you'd need a 40" monitor, so yes you would still have to waste money, getting a much larger screen than you normally would.

[El Diablo]

this is with the dpi scalings zoomed up abit

 

once i have finished installing max payne 3 ill set it to 100% 

 

and watch the screen shrink even more

 

this is 1080p btw

 

[Enderman]

24 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Ultrawide monitors have more screenspace. They can still display [resolution] content, just they also have the ability to fit more on screen. This is especially effective in gaming, video editing, and watching most movies.

This is actually not true

you look at any ultrawide resolution and its just a larger 16:9 resolution with the top and bottom cut off

2560x1080 is the same as 1440p (2560x1440) with less vertical space

 

31 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

You can also run 16:9 or 4:3 ratios on an ultrawide; are standard aspect ratio monitors a scam? No; if you run a different aspect ratio than the screen, you have to do so in an area smaller than the screen itself. So you might be able to get a 16:9 monitor to simulate a 21:9 monitor, but if you wanted to be equivalent to a 29" 21:9 screen you'd need like a 36" 1440p monitor, which would be much more expensive than just getting a 29" 21:9 monitor in the first place. In the same way, you can run 2560x1440 on an ultrawide 3440x1440 monitor, but you'd need to get a 34" ultrawide in order to be equivalent to a 27" 16:9 monitor.

 

How useful ultrawide is actually depends on the content

A lot of movies arent native 21:9 so on a widescreen monitor they look like this

because its rendered in 16:9 with blacked out top and bottom

 

For productivity you get more space with a larger 16:9 monitor, more pixels, more realestate

 

For gaming is actually depends on the game

Racing games are good

Some games can only change horizontal FOV (which is stupid)

But games that can change both vertical and horizontal FOV you get a more immersive experience from having more vertical view, not just "squat" horizontal view

 

For youtube and regular non-cinema-style content, you get a MUCH better experience with a large 16:9 screen, because almost all content is 16:9, and watching it on 21:9 would make it a lot smaller

 

 

OP's argument is that you can just use a 16:9 tv and get a better experience, which is true if a few conditions are met:

 

1) the tv is 4k, 1080p isnt enough if youre using the tv at monitor-viewing distances of a couple feet

 

2) 60hz, because gaming at 4k 30hz is crap

 

3) you have room for it, an ultrawide takes up less vertical space than a equivalent-width 16:9 tv

 

4) you dont play competitive games, because input lag will make you perform worse than you could with a monitor

 

5) you can afford to spend $500-1500 on a 4k tv that size

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Enderman said:

This is actually not true

you look at any ultrawide resolution and its just a larger 16:9 resolution with the top and bottom cut off

2560x1080 is the same as 1440p (2560x1440) with less vertical space

I'd really say this depends on the perspective on how you look at it. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1440p is not gonna be favorable. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1080p is a better outlook on it.

[Enderman]

12 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'd really say this depends on the perspective on how you look at it. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1440p is not gonna be favorable. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1080p is a better outlook on it.

you have to look at it as a function of width

marketing and monitor companies are always comparing vertical pixels so "oh a ultrawide 2560x1080p monitor is wider than a 16:9 1080p monitor"

its all marketing

because you can always get a 16:9 screen that is higher resolution than ultrawide (not including the $120 000 5k tvs)

so if you can afford a $800 34" 3440x1440 monitor then you can also afford a $800 40-50" 16:9 4k tv which has more screen realestate both horizontally and especially vertically

 

the trick is to look through all the marking and advertisements and think about the product as if you were designing it

 

[El Diablo]

[El Diablo]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

you have to look at it as a function of width

marketing and monitor companies are always comparing vertical pixels so "oh a ultrawide 2560x1080p monitor is wider than a 16:9 1080p monitor"

its all marketing

because you can always get a 16:9 screen that is higher resolution than ultrawide (not including the $120 000 5k tvs)

so if you can afford a $800 34" 3440x1440 monitor then you can also afford a $800 40-50" 16:9 4k tv which has more screen realestate both horizontally and especially vertically

 

the trick is to look through all the marking and advertisements and think about the product as if you were designing it

 

so u are agreeing with me here

 

i realy want someone to prove me wrong here

 

its a tv cut in half

[El Diablo]

and my icons are realy big in the picture

 

look at how small the bullshit on my taskbar is

[El Diablo]

20 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'd really say this depends on the perspective on how you look at it. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1440p is not gonna be favorable. Comparing 21:9 1080p to 1080p is a better outlook on it.

but i can make it into 21:9 by changing the aspect ratio of whatever content i want on it and it will have black bars on the top and bottom

 

 

 

am i getting this wrong or am i right

 

im somehow feeling im missing something here and im waiting for that person to log in and tell me what im missing 

 

but no1 has so far

[El Diablo]

56 minutes ago, Trey222 said:

 

Yes a 1080p TV running in ulttrawide mode will has a lower pixel density because the "black bars" at the bottom and top are wastede pixels a 1080p ultrawide monitor uses all of it's pixels. Also they are more convenient to put on a desk. 

Yeah but atleast on a big screen u have the option to have both

 

or even more

 

on an ultrawide u are stuck

 

im comparing this to a big TV not normal gaming monitors which are small

 

ok look at this yeah

 

linus proves this point exactly indirectly

 

brb let me go find the video

[El Diablo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxvu7qf6rDw

 

^^

Look at the tv and then the gaming monitor

 

notice how on a big screen at the same resolution u can see way more stuff further away

 

in battlefield 4 i kept getting blowen up in the tank by some dude far away

 

as soon as i plugged my pc into my tv i hit that guy like it was him in the tank not knowing wat to do

 

maby thats how i was able to get my rank down to 14 in the world 

 

i played on a big screen vs people on gaming monitors/small screen real esate

[Glenwing]

If you're talking about aspect ratios, you't cant't compare by resolution. Otherwise 2560×1080 is just 2560×1600 with the top and bottom chopped off... But then again 2560×1600 is just 3840×1600 with the sides chopped off. But then again 3840×1600 is just 3840×2160 with the top and bottom chopped off. But then again, 3840×2160 is just 5120×2160 with the sides chopped off. But then again 5120×2160 is just 5120×3200 with the top and bottom chopped off. You can go on forever, bringing specific resolutions into an argument about ratios is just nonsense. Otherwise I expect everyone making this argument to also argue that 16:9 screens are a scam since they're just 4:3 resolutions like 2560×1920 with the top and bottom chopped off. But then again I suppose that in itself is just a 1:1 resolution like 2560×2560 with the top chopped off too. Or is it 1920×1920 with extra width? It's a nonsense discussion, since can support ANY position with that argument.

[El Diablo]

so what is the point of a ultra wide then

[Dark_Fuzzy]

How exactly is an ultrawide a "tv cut in half"?

Personaly I don't want  black bars on the top and bottom of my screen,therefore giving me even less screen real estate.

So no an ultrawide is not a "con" its literally just a wider monitor,some people don't want a massive 50" screen sitting on their desk.