4k Ultrawide?

[deaddudaman31122]

I know I am probably going to sound really dumb, but are there 4K ultra wide monitors? Is 3440x1440 is 4K? If the first two answer's are no can there be a 21:9 4K ultra wide monitor, or is the resolution to high?

[GDRRiley]

No 3440x1440P is 1440P ultra wide. I don't know of any 4K ultra wide monitors at the moment 

[toasty6776]

1. none that I know of 2. no it's not. It's basically 1440p stretched to ultrawide. 4k ultrawide would be something like 5040*2160 3. There is no thing as too high resolution. It just hasn't been engineered yet. Will be in future though (probably)

[Glenwing]

4 hours ago, deaddudaman31122 said:

I know I am probably going to sound really dumb, but are there 4K ultra wide monitors? Is 3440x1440 is 4K? If the first two answer's are no can there be a 21:9 4K ultra wide monitor, or is the resolution to high?

There are none. There are some 3840×1600 panels in development, which would be a 4K ultrawide resolution.

 

If you mean a 21:9 extension of 4K UHD (3840×2160), that would be a 5K resolution. These terms like "2K" and "4K" refer to the width of the resolution (~2000 or ~4000 pixels) so if you had a resolution that was wider than 4K, it wouldn't still be a 4K resolution. Sticking with past patterns, extending 4K UHD to a 21:9 ratio would be 5120×2160, a 5K resolution.

 

Either way, there aren't any ultrawide monitors beyond 3440×1440 yet.

[IMI4tth3w]

As of now the best way you could do 4K ultrawide is to do a PLP (portrait - landscape portrait) setup with two 1080p monitors in portrait mode on the sides. Unfortunately it still won't be perfect as the 4K monitor would be 2160 pixels tall and the 1080p monitor would be 1920 pixels tall. Also it will depend on what size 4K screen you have whether or not you will be able to find a similar DPI 1080p monitor for portrait.

 

Of course there is always doing three 4K monitors.. but it just seems like such a waste of GPU horsepower to run two extra 4K screens that really aren't doing a whole lot..

 

I'm currently waiting on parts for my 1440p PLP setup. The monitors themselves (laptop replacement screens) with the controller board and power supplies from ebay were only ~$100 for both which is why i'm doing it. Another $50 in mounting materials and other odds and ends and it should be good to go. That way i can have my 144Hz where i need it with the peripherals being just that, peripherals.

[deaddudaman31122]

Thanks all of you for helping me out. Was thinking about setup including a 4K monitor and an ultra wide on top, but i wanted them to both be 4K resolution.

[deaddudaman31122]

6 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

There are none. There are are some 3840×1600 panels in development, which would be a 4K ultrawide resolution.

 

If you mean a 21:9 extension of of 4K UHD (3840×2160), that would be a 5K resolution. These terms like "2K" and "4K" refer to the width of the resolution (~2000 or ~4000 pixels) so if you had a resolution that was wider than 4K, it wouldn't still be a 4K resolution. Sticking with past patterns, extending 4K UHD to a 21:9 ratio would be 5120×2160, a 5K resolution.

 

Either way, there aren't any ultrawide monitors beyond 3440×1440 yet.

does this mean a 5k monitor could be run in a 21:9 aspect ratio, or that 5120x2160 is a stretched resolution of 3840x2160?

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, deaddudaman31122 said:

does this mean a 5k monitor could be run in a 21:9 aspect ratio, or that 5120x2160 is a stretched resolution of 3840x2160?

Both? It just means 5120×2160 would be classified as a 5K resolution, because it is ~5000 pixels across. So it shouldn't be called "4K ultrawide", if that's the kind of resolution you meant when you said it (4K 16:9 extended to a 21:9 ratio).

[deaddudaman31122]

2 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Both?

okay

 

[Zyndo]

5120x2160 would be, basically, the pixel density of a current 4k monitor, but at a 5k resolution (same with how 3440x1440 is the same density as a 2560x1440)

 

The problem with doing that is currently 4k gaming is still very taxing and demanding for our cards. It's not really possible to run a monitor like that effectively, since the hardware isn't quite good enough yet (maybe SLI titan P or 1080ti could do it, or whatever AMD will have in that range). Since its not possible to run yet, at least for a year or two, its unlikely that anyone will produce such a monitor.

[Glenwing]

7 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

5120x2160 would be, basically, the pixel density of a current 4k monitor, but at a 5k resolution (same with how 3440x1440 is the same density as a 2560x1440)

 

The problem with doing that is currently 4k gaming is still very taxing and demanding for our cards. It's not really possible to run a monitor like that effectively, since the hardware isn't quite good enough yet (maybe SLI titan P or 1080ti could do it, or whatever AMD will have in that range). Since its not possible to run yet, at least for a year or two, its unlikely that anyone will produce such a monitor.

Pixel density just depends on monitor size. If you make a 3440×1440 monitor the same physical height as a 2560×1440 monitor then it will the be the same pixel density, but otherwise it won't be. It's just that monitor makers tend to make them that way because the vertical pixel counts are the same, so they match densities when at the same height, and so they go well together side-by-side. But they could make them different pixel densities if they wanted to.

[Zyndo]

29 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Pixel density just depends on monitor size. If you make a 3440×1440 monitor the same physical height as a 2560×1440 monitor then it will the be the same pixel density, but otherwise it won't be. It's just that monitor makers tend to make them that way because the vertical pixel counts are the same, so they match densities when at the same height, and so they go well together side-by-side. But they could make them different pixel densities if they wanted to.

I'm aware. I simply said "pixel density" because I do not know the correct term.

 

so then what is the term then for equating the same apparent sharpness across varying resolutions and screen sizes? you mentioned that a 4k ultrawide is 3840x1600, but that wouldn't look as sharp as a current 4k monitor (all other things being equal).

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Zyndo said:

I'm aware. I simply said "pixel density" because I do not know the correct term.

 

so then what is the term then for equating the same apparent sharpness across varying resolutions and screen sizes? you mentioned that a 4k ultrawide is 3840x1600, but that wouldn't look as sharp as a current 4k monitor (all other things being equal).

Two screens have the same apparent sharpness when the pixel densities are the same, it's just that you can't say two resolutions (like 3440×1440 and 2560×1440) have the same pixel density, because it depends on size as well as resolution. A 34" 3440×1440 monitor has the same pixel density as a 27" 2560×1440 monitor specifically. But if you had a 25" or a 32" 2560×1440 monitor, it wouldn't have the same pixel density as those 34" 3440×1440 monitors.

 

They only have the same pixel density when the physical sizes of the screens are related the right way, given the resolutions. Which is to say, they only have the same pixel density when they have the same pixel density.

[othertomperson]

2 hours ago, Glenwing said:

There are none. There are are some 3840×1600 panels in development, which would be a 4K ultrawide resolution.

 

If you mean a 21:9 extension of of 4K UHD (3840×2160), that would be a 5K resolution. These terms like "2K" and "4K" refer to the width of the resolution (~2000 or ~4000 pixels) so if you had a resolution that was wider than 4K, it wouldn't still be a 4K resolution. Sticking with past patterns, extending 4K UHD to a 21:9 ratio would be 5120×2160, a 5K resolution.

 

Either way, there aren't any ultrawide monitors beyond 3440×1440 yet.

Can we just all agree to ignore the "4K" numbering marketing bullshit and go back to defining resolutions by the number of vertical pixels again? Or even better, both horizontal and vertical?

 

"2160p ultrawide" has one unambiguous, obvious meaning. "4K ultrawide" does not.

[Zyndo]

1 hour ago, Glenwing said:

Two screens have the same apparent sharpness when the pixel densities are the same, it's just that you can't say two resolutions (like 3440×1440 and 2560×1440) have the same pixel density, because it depends on size as well as resolution. A 34" 3440×1440 monitor has the same pixel density as a 27" 2560×1440 monitor specifically. But if you had a 25" or a 32" 2560×1440 monitor, it wouldn't have the same pixel density as those 34" 3440×1440 monitors.

 

They only have the same pixel density when the physical sizes of the screens are related the right way, given the resolutions. Which is to say, they only have the same pixel density when they have the same pixel density.

thank you for telling me a second time something I already know. That was not my question.

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

Can we just all agree to ignore the "4K" numbering marketing bullshit and go back to defining resolutions by the number of vertical pixels again? Or even better, both horizontal and vertical?

 

"2160p ultrawide" has one unambiguous, obvious meaning. "4K ultrawide" does not.

Yes, I encourage people to say 2160p ultrawide rather than 4K.

 

35 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

thank you for telling me a second time something I already know. That was not my question.

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you want to know. You said:

3 hours ago, Zyndo said:

5120x2160 would be, basically, the pixel density of a current 4k monitor, but at a 5k resolution (same with how 3440x1440 is the same density as a 2560x1440)

But that is only true when the monitor sizes are a certain proportion, it doesn't make sense to say two resolutions have the same pixel density in general. But I guess you know this already.

 

This was your question:

3 hours ago, Zyndo said:

I am aware. I simply said "pixel density" because I do not know the correct term.

 

so then what is the term then for equating the same apparent sharpness across varying resolutions and screen sizes?

and I answered it:

1 hour ago, Glenwing said:

Two screens have the same apparent sharpness when the pixel densities are the same, it's just that you can't say two resolutions (like 3440×1440 and 2560×1440) have the same pixel density, because it depends on size as well as resolution.

Pixel density is the proper term for equating the same apparent sharpness across various sizes and resolutions. If two monitors have the same pixel density, they will have the same sharpness. But it is not true to say the 3440×1440 and 2560×1440 have the same pixel density, that's all.

[Zyndo]

1 hour ago, Glenwing said:

Pixel density is the proper term for equating the same apparent sharpness across various sizes and resolutions. If two monitors have the same pixel density, they will have the same sharpness. But it is not true to say the 3440×1440 and 2560×1440 have the same pixel density, that's all.

Then what. is. the. correct. term.

Because  3440x1440 IS the same as 2560x1440, but just in a 21:9 ratio rather than a 16:9 ratio. it will exhibit the same sharpness as one another. If the term for that is not pixel density, then what is it? they are the same 1440 resolutions, but one is widescreen and one is ultrawide.

 

My question is if "pixel density" is not the right term to express the relation these two 1440 resolutions have, then what is the correct term?

[Glenwing]

2 hours ago, Zyndo said:

Because  3440x1440 IS the same as 2560x1440, but just in a 21:9 ratio rather than a 16:9 ratio. it will exhibit the same sharpness as one another.

Not if the 3440×1440 is a 34" monitor and the 2560×1440 is a 5" phone. One will be much sharper than the other. That is my whole point. Pixel density and sharpness depend on size, you can't make statements about them based on resolution alone.

[Zyndo]

14 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Not if the 3440×1440 is a 34" monitor and the 2560×1440 is a 5" phone. One will be much sharper than the other. That is my whole point. Pixel density and sharpness depend on size, you can't make statements about them based on resolution alone.

 /sigh.

 

I'm just going to stop talking about this. you do not seem interested in answering my question. All you want to talk abut is pixel density. This is going nowhere and will only serve to irritate me.

 

Have a good day

[Glenwing]

37 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

 /sigh.

 

I'm just going to stop talking about this. you do not seem interested in answering my question. All you want to talk abut is pixel density. This is going nowhere and will only serve to irritate me.

 

Have a good day

The answer to your question is pixel density, which I said very clearly twice already. That is why I am talking about it, because you keep asking about it. You just seem to misunderstand what it means.