ultrawide Samsung apparently is working on 32:9 and 29:9 ultra ultrawide panels

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

Turning off each monitor is a pain in the ass though

3x 2420z

and 2 other samsungs over the top of them

not a problem,with all 5

plug all into same powerstrip if  you really want to get technical

[XenosTech]

DFHD = Definitely Fucking HD... that popped into my head first

[Notional]

Still don't really get these. A 49 inch, that should be like a 24-27" monitor in height with just 1080p vertical resolution? The 44" makes more sense with 1200 vertical pixels, but it's still not that much.

 

Biggest problem however is the extremely poor advancements towards proper HDR monitors. These panels say they are 8 bit, but I'm pretty sure the "8" bit CF791 (21:9) is just 6+2bit FRC. Wide colour gamut my DP socket. Why is a high end 2017 monitor not 10 bit by default already?

[Stefan1024]

Give me >= 1600p vertical resolution, otherweise I'm not interested

[tlink]

i just want tv sized computer monitors.

[Notional]

16 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

Give me >= 1600p vertical resolution, otherweise I'm not interested

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/eizo-unveils-bizarre-square-shaped-monitor/

 

There you go.

[Stefan1024]

12 minutes ago, Notional said:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/eizo-unveils-bizarre-square-shaped-monitor/

 

There you go.

It is only 1920x1920

I'm working on a 30” 2560x1600 monitor and it is great for circuit design.

[dizmo]

I was interested in this, until I saw those resolutions. Not exactly cutting edge.

The 49" might be interesting if it works out to the height of a 24" monitor.

[AnonymousGuy]

I make this post every time, but I really just want like a 50" 4k+ monitor at 144Hz.  Something to make triple monitors obsolete.

[escape093]

 

[pas008]

2 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I make this post every time, but I really just want like a 50" 4k+ monitor at 144Hz.  Something to make triple monitors obsolete.

Still 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio

How would that make them obsolete?

 

[AnonymousGuy]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

Still 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio

How would that make them obsolete?

 

Having 3 monitors is really more about having the ability to have 3 separate tasks going at the same time, not about the aspect ratio or spanning.  With a big ass high resolution (4K+) screen, you don't need to fullscreen everything anymore, you just make it as big as you need it, and can fit 8 programs on one display no problem.  You're overall maintaining the same surface area of monitor and similar PPI, just making it so it's all right in front of you with less head turning and no bezels.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Having 3 monitors is really more about having the ability to have 3 separate tasks going at the same time, not about the aspect ratio or spanning.  With a big ass high resolution (4K+) screen, you don't need to fullscreen everything anymore, you just make it as big as you need it, and can fit 8 programs on one display no problem.  You're overall maintaining the same surface area of monitor and similar PPI, just making it so it's all right in front of you with less head turning and no bezels.

Do you have a clue on how aspect ratio works on gaming or multi monitor gaming?

[lvh1]

That's nice I suppose, would buy it if it had at least 1440 vertical pixels, 1080 isn't really much at that size.

[Sauron]

Completely pointless in my opinion, no matter how they spin it there is a fundamental difference between having one monitor (no matter how wide) and having 2 or 3. 

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Completely pointless in my opinion, no matter how they spin it there is a fundamental difference between having one monitor (no matter how wide) and having 2 or 3. 

Not if you use screen split software.

[Carclis]

10 hours ago, Stefan1024 said:

Give me >= 1600p vertical resolution, otherweise I'm not interested

You mean this?

[Stefan1024]

21 minutes ago, Carclis said:

You mean this?

Thats a perfect screen, exept from the price tag

[LAwLz]

This seems like a terrible idea. Just get two monitors dammit!

The only thing I can see this being kind of cool for, is gaming.

 

For "productivity" it is far better to have multiple monitors since you can actually run multiple programs in full screen, and it is not akward as hell when you have toolbars on the far left and far right side of the window. Not to mention thta when you work with multiple programs you typically don't mind the bezels (at least I don't do).

[AlwaysFSX]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The only thing I can see this being kind of cool for, is gaming.

I think this would be kind of terrible for gaming because you're still warping a flat image on a curved monitor, and a larger monitor will only exaggerate that.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, Notional said:

Not if you use screen split software.

Still hardly ideal, and you still have limitations on the screen's resolution due to using a single video input.

[Notional]

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Still hardly ideal, and you still have limitations on the screen's resolution due to using a single video input.

Works great. ANd you have the flexibility to choose whether to use the monitor as 1 or more. You get to define the resolutions/size, so it's very flexible.

 

What resolution/refreshrate do you need to run that a single DP cannot handle?

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Works great. ANd you have the flexibility to choose whether to use the monitor as 1 or more. You get to define the resolutions/size, so it's very flexible.

 

What resolution/refreshrate do you need to run that a single DP cannot handle?

4k in the middle with two 1080p on the sides. with newer dp standards that's feasible with one connector, but you'll always have the possibility of running more pixels by using more connectors. what if you want 4k 120hz in the middle? why would you spend so much money on this ultrawide instead?

[Notional]

Just now, Sauron said:

4k in the middle with two 1080p on the sides. with newer dp standards that's feasible with one connector, but you'll always have the possibility of running more pixels by using more connectors. what if you want 4k 120hz in the middle? why would you spend so much money on this ultrawide instead?

No ultrawide monitor can even come close to 4K + 2x1080p, so it's kind of a moot discussion.

 

At this moment there are no 4K 120hz monitors on the market either. If you need that many pixels, there are no other alternatives than multi monitor setups (unless you want to buy the upcoming 8K monitor for more than a car).

[Flavio hc 16]

imho i don't get why everyone is complaining about it. It is a great option because it's beautiful to have 1 big screen instead of multiple one and you have more room on your desk and no bezels, the only real underside that i can see is not as flexible as a multi-monitor setup can give you in terms of screen positioning and layout and of course the vertical resolution. 

About the input cable: HDMI 2.1 is coming with support of even 10k 120hz display with g-sink-freesink, so i don't see the problem