The Dell u3415w could be the first Dell 21:9 monitor with a resolution of 3440x1440?

[Kilerbomb]

oooo, tempting. been looking at the 21:9 1080p monitors but haven't been able to justify staying at 1080p but changing aspect ratio. this however might just make the pig squeal when i smash it.

Kind of the same way with me. I've been looking at both 1440p monitors and 2560x1080p monitors, but depending on the price of this one, I might go for it.

[Kirihuna]

You'll miss the vertical pixels tbh.

[zinfinion]

sorry but I'm confused now. Is this monitor 2.5k or 3.5k?

3.5K Scope. The 3.5K signifying that it is nominally 3500 pixels wide, and the Scope denoting that the aspect ratio is somewhere between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 yielding a possible vertical resolution of between 1434 and 1464 pixels given the width of 3440 pixels.

 

3.5k

 

1920x1080 = 2k 16:9

2560x1080 = 2.5k Scope (21:9)

 

2560x1440 = 2.5k 16:9

3440x1440 = 3.5k Scope (21:9)

3840x2160 = 4k 16:9

5040x2160 = 5k Scope (21:9)

 

Fixed that for you. the (x)K system goes by width, not height. Also, 5040x2160 is not even possible with DP1.2 or HDMI 2.0, so not really sure what that's doing in the list.

 

What will most likely appear larger than the 3440x1440 is a 4K Scope 3840x1600 display which is precisely a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. It would also be easily derived from existing 2560x1600 production, just as this 3440x1440 is derived from existing 1440 production.

[Maskot]

3.5K Scope. The 3.5K signifying that it is nominally 3500 pixels wide, and the Scope denoting that the aspect ratio is somewhere between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 yielding a possible vertical resolution of between 1434 and 1464 pixels given the width of 3440 pixels.

Fixed that for you. the (x)K system goes by width, not height. Also, 5040x2160 is not even possible with DP1.2 or HDMI 2.0, so not really sure what that's doing in the list.

What will most likely appear larger than the 3440x1440 is a 4K Scope 3840x1600 display which is precisely a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. It would also be easily derived from existing 2560x1600 production, just as this 3440x1440 is derived from existing 1440 production.

You do know that when a person denotes a monitor as being 2k, they're referring to its horizontal in a 16:9 aspect ratio.

[TheProfosist]

i wouldnt mind some cheaper 1440p pannels dell....

thanks not going to happen for a while as there has to be a demand in the mass market.

[miyabwah]

I think 21:9 monitors are only made for people who like it "wide".

[TheProfosist]

i really dont understand the point of this when they have announced there 4k 24" and 28" monitors i would not buy this when there is a true 4k option.

cheaper maybe? Just to have a 21:9 option maybe?

You'll miss the vertical pixels tbh.

Hey man I miss 16:10 and 5:4

You do know that when a person denotes a monitor as being 2k, they're referring to its horizontal in a 16:9 aspect ratio.

yep I think maybe people are confused about this because its going from 1080p to 4k for most people. Cinema has always for digital gone by K or just straight resolution. Truthfully the p in 1080p is basically useless now days for the most part under normal usage scenarios.

I think 21:9 monitors are only made for people who like it "wide".

Their meant for consumption not creation.

[JAKEBAB]

cheaper maybe? Just to have a 21:9 option maybe?

That's the thing 2560x1440 (16:9) is the same price as 2560x1080 (21:9) or cheaper its like a no brainer imo so im assuming it will be the same with these higher resolutions even if 3440x1440 (21:9) is cheaper than 4k (16:9) i doubt it will be by much even tho in theory panels should be cheaper as its a lower resolution but its not a very mainstream aspect ratio like 16:9.

[TheProfosist]

That's the thing 2560x1440 (16:9) is the same price as 2560x1080 (21:9) or cheaper its like a no brainer imo

not for everyone and especially if you have a lot of wider content. The reason 21:9 monitors are more is because 21:9 is so new and hasnt caught on yet.

[JAKEBAB]

not for everyone and especially if you have a lot of wider content. The reason 21:9 monitors are more is because 21:9 is so new and hasnt caught on yet.

yea i fixed what i was saying i went full retard and didnt realise what i was typing we were talking about a higher res lol i have 5 hours sleep in 2 days a bit out of it lol i get what u are saying tho but i really doubt general consumer like my mother etc would opt for 21:9 over 16:9 and gamers as ive heard some things about 21:9 but as u said that could just be because its so new and hasnt caught on yet so theres still bugs.

[atomicmonkey101]

thanks not going to happen for a while as there has to be a demand in the mass market.

 

a man can wish cant he?

[TheProfosist]

a man can wish cant he?

No never.

[JaeDee884]

Well I was going to get a 2560x1080 but I think I'll need to change that, and get a second 7970 or upgrade to r9 290's

[atomicmonkey101]

No never.

lols. I WILL PREVAIL!!

[zinfinion]

You do know that when a person denotes a monitor as being 2k, they're referring to its horizontal in a 16:9 aspect ratio.

In every instance where I have used 2K/4K/(whatever)K notation I have always been using it correctly. Please point out where you think I made a mistake if you truely believe I have no idea what I am talking about. And 16:9 has nothing to do with K notation, only the horizontal width.

1920 wide = 2K

2560 wide = 2.5K

3440 wide = 3.5K

3840 wide = 4K

4096 wide = 4K

Simple as.

If you want to make it more complex:

1920x1080 = 2K

1920x800 = 2K Scope

1998x1080 = 2K Flat

2048x1080 = 2K

2048x858 = 2K Scope

So no, 16:9 has jack all to do with something being called 2K/4K/(whatever)K. Before trying to correct others, maybe check your facts first to make sure you aren't the one that is in the wrong. EOT

[Maskot]

In every instance where I have used 2K/4K/(whatever)K notation I have always been uising it correctly. Please point out where you think I made a mistake if you truely believe I have no idea what I am talking about.

1920 wide = 2K

2560 wide = 2.5K

3440 wide = 3.5K

3840 wide = 4K

4096 wide = 4K

Simple as.

 

3.5K Scope. The 3.5K signifying that it is nominally 3500 pixels wide, and the Scope denoting that the aspect ratio is somewhere between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 yielding a possible vertical resolution of between 1434 and 1464 pixels given the width of 3440 pixels.

 

 

Fixed that for you. the (x)K system goes by width, not height. Also, 5040x2160 is not even possible with DP1.2 or HDMI 2.0, so not really sure what that's doing in the list.

 

What will most likely appear larger than the 3440x1440 is a 4K Scope 3840x1600 display which is precisely a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. It would also be easily derived from existing 2560x1600 production, just as this 3440x1440 is derived from existing 1440 production.

Your whole post.  As I will state again, when you denote a monitor as #k, it's referring to it's horizontal in the 16:9 aspect ratio, not 21:9 like you are stating, please, do not argue with me any further. Also, Display Port 1.3 can do 21:9 4k, wrong there too.

[zinfinion]

Your whole post.  As I will state again, when you denote a monitor as #k, it's referring to it's horizontal in the 16:9 aspect ratio, not 21:9 like you are stating, please, do not argue with me any further. Also, Display Port 1.3 can do 21:9 4k, wrong there too.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Look up the Digital Cinema Initiatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives if you don't believe me. I know WTF I am talking about. And seeing as 4K scope is 3840x1600 (or 4096x1716 for theatrical), even DP 1.2 can handle that since it can clearly handle 3840x2160.

Check your facts before trying to correct others who clearly know what they are talking about.

[Maskot]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Look up the Digital Cinema Initiatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives if you don't believe me. I know WTF I am talking about. And seeing as 4K scope is 3840x1600 (or 4096x1716 for theatrical), even DP 1.2 can handle that since it can clearly handle 3840x2160.

Check your facts before trying to correct others who clearly know what they are talking about.

You must not know how denoting a monitors resolution works. Referring to something as 4k on a consumer grade product is always in 16:9, everyone I know refers to a monitor resolution in 16:9, 21:9 just gives a larger degree field-of-view without adding to the vertical dimensions.  If you are going to call this monitor 4k, call it a 4k widescreen display if anything, which is not true 4k, just stretched 2.5k.

[zinfinion]

You must not know how denoting a monitors resolution works. Referring to something as 4k on a consumer grade product is always in 16:9, everyone I know refers to a monitor resolution in 16:9, 21:9 just gives a larger degree field-of-view without adding to the vertical dimensions.  If you are going to call this monitor 4k, call it a 4k widescreen display if anything, which is not true 4k, just stretched 2.5k.

Well the DCI made the rules for the xK naming system, so if you don't want to use it the proper way, that's your call.

[TheProfosist]

Well the DCI made the rules for the xK naming system, so if you don't want to use it the proper way, that's your call.

Cinema resolutions which you are speaking of are different that consumer ones. But yes i do know what your getting at as I have done a fair bit of resolution research a year or so back.

[totjup5]

I wan't a curved version of one of these.

[FluffyNuggets]

I'm so buying this once it releases! It's gonna cripple my 780 but it will be worth it. 

[ThePackMan]

I haven't heard any news on this recently, does anyone here know anything?

I like the Dell design much more than the LG 34", so if I were to buy one of these expensive monitors I also want it to look good.

[JAKEBAB]

I haven't heard any news on this recently, does anyone here know anything?

I like the Dell design much more than the LG 34", so if I were to buy one of these expensive monitors I also want it to look good.

The LG is already out no word on the dell tho.

 

[Notional]

Hey... HEY DELL!... support adaptive sync on DP 1,2a. K?