Are there any 5k Ultrawide G-Sync Monitors?

[Enderman]

1 hour ago, Lathlaer said:

The problem is that "4K" and ultrawide don't really mix well. It's like asking to take 3840x2160 and to extend it - so it will not really be a 4k anymore, right?

1080p ultrawide = 1080p monitor but wider = 2560x1080 (as you can see, the vertical height is still 1080p)

1440p uptrawide = 1440p monitor but wider = 3440x1440

4k ultrawide = wider than 3840x2160 = 5120x2160

[Lathlaer]

41 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1080p ultrawide = 1080p monitor but wider = 2560x1080 (as you can see, the vertical height is still 1080p)

1440p uptrawide = 1440p monitor but wider = 3440x1440

4k ultrawide = wider than 3840x2160 = 5120x2160

It calls for some consistency. If you refer to the first two as vertical pixel count-but-wider then why is the last one suddenly 4k? Why not simply 2160p ultrawide?

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

1080p ultrawide = 1080p monitor but wider = 2560x1080 (as you can see, the vertical height is still 1080p)

1440p uptrawide = 1440p monitor but wider = 3440x1440

4k ultrawide = wider than 3840x2160 = 5120x2160

"4K" refers to the width. If you make it wider, it isn't 4K pixels wide anymore.

 

It's like saying 29-inch ultrawides should actually be called 23-inch ultrawides, because it is an ultrawide version of a 23-inch 16:9 display. The size number has physical meaning, it's not an expression of a relationship to some other resolution/format, and the same goes for notation schemes like "4K" or "1080p".

 

"1080p" only works for resolutions that are the same height, but different widths, like 1920×1080 and 2560×1080. If you had 1920×1440 you wouldn't call it 1080p extra-tall. It's in the 1440p class (although, since "1440p" alone generally refers to the 16:9 format, you'd probably want to call it 1440p 4:3 just to be clear, or more likely, just write the actual resolution).

 

"4K" refers to the other dimension, so the reverse is true; it works for formats that are different heights, but the same width, like 3840×2160 and 3840×1600. Something like 5120×2160 is in the 5K class.

[Enderman]

30 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

"4K" refers to the width. If you make it wider, it isn't 4K pixels wide anymore.

Neither is 3840, that's only 3.84K.

When talking about ultrawide monitors you don't take it as a literal description of the resolution, it's a category.

There is 1080p, 1440p, 4k, and 5k categories.

1080p ultrawide is a standard 1080p display that has been widened.

You do not call it 2.5k because the top and bottom are cut off.

 

30 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

"4K" refers to the other dimension, so the reverse is true; it works for formats that are different heights, but the same width, like 3840×2160 and 3840×1600. Something like 5120×2160 is in the 5K class.

No, that would be ultrawide 4k because it is a standard 4k display with extra width.

The 5K labels put on the 105" tvs is just for marketing to emphasize that it is larger than 4K, it is not true 5k which is what the apple and dell monitors do (5120x2880)

 

 

Not everything in the display industry is literal face value.

Just like 4k is not the same as UHD but everyone calls it 4K anyway.

That's what convention is.

 

49 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

It calls for some consistency. If you refer to the first two as vertical pixel count-but-wider then why is the last one suddenly 4k? Why not simply 2160p ultrawide?

4K or UHD is just another way of saying "2160p", pretty much nobody calls it 2160p.

Just like nobody calls 1080p "2K"

It's just convention, don't take it literally.

Obviously it doesn't have 4000 pixels of width.

[Glenwing]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Neither is 3840, that's only 3.84K.

People don't use that level of precision when using this notation scheme.

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You do not call it 2.5k because the top and bottom are cut off.

Actually, that would indeed be a 2.5K resolution.

Spoiler

 

10 minutes ago, Enderman said:

No, that would be ultrawide 4k because it is a standard 4k display with extra width.

4K is simply a class of resolution approximately 4000 pixels wide. A resolution with different width would not be in the 4K category.

 

12 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just like 4k is not the same as UHD but everyone calls it 4K anyway.

Well yes, 4K is a class of resolution, UHD is a fully-defined image system that includes parameters like frame rate, color depth, etc., not just resolution. Of course, when people say "UHD" it's usually (based on context) taken to mean "the resolution used by the UHD format", which is fine (that could be either 3840×2160 or 7680×4320, but again right now people mostly only talk about the lower one, so we assume as much when they say "UHD"). But anyway, 3840×2160 is both a 4K resolution and also the resolution used by the UHD format, so either is correct.

 

19 minutes ago, Enderman said:

4K or UHD is just another way of saying "2160p", pretty much nobody calls it 2160p.

Why would "4K" be a way of referring to formats 2160 pixels in height? And you do realize that the UHD standards define two resolutions, 3840×2160 and 7680×4320, right?

20 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just like nobody calls 1080p "2K"

Some people do, just not in the consumer space, because consumers misunderstood how the notation works. Refer to the image I posted above.

21 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's just convention, don't take it literally.

Obviously it doesn't have 4000 pixels of width.

The convention was already well established many years ago, 2K refers to images approximately 2000 pixels in width, 4K refers to images approximately 4000 pixels in width. That is the convention; look into it.

[Motifator]

20 minutes ago, Enderman said:

4K or UHD is just another way of saying "2160p", pretty much nobody calls it 2160p.
Obviously it doesn't have 4000 pixels of width.

It does, actually, if you buy an LG panel that does 4096x2160, or a TV. I've had them.

But yeah, when somebody says 4k, they generally mean 3840x2160, because that's what most the panels are capable of.

OP, the glow is a little noticeable on a completely black background. You can't really see it in games with significant lighting effects.

[Enderman]

12 hours ago, Glenwing said:

People don't use that level of precision when using this notation scheme.

 

Actually, that would indeed be a 2.5K resolution.

 

4K is simply a class of resolution approximately 4000 pixels wide. A resolution with different width would not be in the 4K category.

 

Well yes, 4K is a class of resolution, UHD is a fully-defined image system that includes parameters like frame rate, color depth, etc., not just resolution. Of course, when people say "UHD" it's usually (based on context) taken to mean "the resolution used by the UHD format", which is fine (that could be either 3840×2160 or 7680×4320, but again right now people mostly only talk about the lower one, so we assume as much when they say "UHD"). But anyway, 3840×2160 is both a 4K resolution and also the resolution used by the UHD format, so either is correct.

 

Why would "4K" be a way of referring to formats 2160 pixels in height? And you do realize that the UHD standards define two resolutions, 3840×2160 and 7680×4320, right?

Some people do, just not in the consumer space, because consumers misunderstood how the notation works. Refer to the image I posted above.

The convention was already well established many years ago, 2K refers to images approximately 2000 pixels in width, 4K refers to images approximately 4000 pixels in width. That is the convention; look into it.

1) 3.8K then?

 

2) No, it's a naming convention whether you like it or not.

"1440p ultrawide"

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Description=1440p ultrawide&Submit=ENE

Majority of them are 3440x1440.

"1080p ultrawide"

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=1080p+ultrawide&N=-1&isNodeId=1

Majority are 2560x1080.

4k ultrawide is 5120×2160 because 4k is the next standard class up from 1440p.

 

3) UHD is 3840x2160, 4K is 4096x2160, nobody cares how many horizontal pixels you're talking about, 99% of people call it 4k because it's easier.

 

4) "4K" does not refer to the number of pixels in height, it refers to the average 4k monitor which is the next step up above 1440p, aka 4 times 1080p, aka UHD, aka 3840x2160

It is basically a blanket term that covers all of those for ease of communication.

A "4k ultrawide" monitor is a standard 4k resolution display that is wider than normal and has 21:9 aspect ratio.

 

5) By your "logic" a 4k ultrawide would be 3440x1440, a 1440p ultrawide monitor would be 2560x1080 and there would be no 1080p ultrawides.

As you can see from searching for "4k ultrawide", that is not the appropriate name for a monitor that is 1440p (aka 2560x1440) but has been stretched horizontally.

[Glenwing]

30 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) 3.8K then?

Generally, people round to a multiple of 0.5K for lower resolutions (i.e. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 3.5K, 4K, etc.). It's just a convention of course, there are no hard rules (things tend to get a bit loose as the resolution gets higher), but that's just what I observe in terms of real world usage, at least in the industry that these terms originated from in the first place. Refer to the image I posted earlier.

32 minutes ago, Enderman said:

2) No, it's a naming convention whether you like it or not.

"1440p ultrawide"

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Description=1440p ultrawide&Submit=ENE

Majority of them are 3440x1440.

"1080p ultrawide"

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=1080p+ultrawide&N=-1&isNodeId=1

Majority are 2560x1080.

I agree that "1440p ultrawide" refers to 3440×1440 or similar, and "1080p ultrawide" refers to 2560×1080 or similar. I think most people interpret the term "ultrawide" as meaning "21:9-ish aspect ratio". So, calling 3440×1440 "1440p ultrawide" makes sense, because it is 1440 pixels in height with a 21:9 aspect ratio. However calling 5120×2160 "4K ultrawide" does not make sense, because 4K refers to the width, not the height. I understand your idea of "4K ultrawide means an ultrawide version of the resolution people usually refer to when they say 4K", but it doesn't really make sense to do that unless you're using a number that stays the same, such as the height.

39 minutes ago, Enderman said:

3) UHD is 3840x2160, 4K is 4096x2160

No. "UHD" doesn't refer specifically to 3840×2160, and "4K" doesn't refer specifically to 4096×2160. Both of those claims are factually inaccurate, and were just completely made up by consumer journalists when 4K TVs were first coming out and everyone was scrambling to be the first to write a "4K EXPLAINED" article.

45 minutes ago, Enderman said:

4) "4K" does not refer to the number of pixels in height, it refers to the average 4k monitor which is the next step up above 1440p, aka 4 times 1080p, aka UHD, aka 3840x2160

4K refers to the width in pixels (approximately 4000, or 4K). It has nothing to do with how many times 1080p it is. Otherwise 5120×2880 wouldn't be called 5K, and 7680×4320 wouldn't be 8K.

47 minutes ago, Enderman said:

5) By your "logic" a 4k ultrawide would be 3440x1440, a 1440p ultrawide monitor would be 2560x1080 and there would be no 1080p ultrawides.

As you can see from searching for "4k ultrawide", that is not the appropriate name for a monitor that is 1440p (aka 2560x1440) but has been stretched horizontally.

In what way would my "logic" suggest those things?

[Enderman]

12 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Generally, people round to a multiple of 0.5K for lower resolutions (i.e. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 3.5K, 4K, etc.). It's just a convention of course, there are no hard rules (things tend to get a bit loose as the resolution gets higher), but that's just what I observe in terms of real world usage, at least in the industry that these terms originated from in the first place. Refer to the image I posted earlier.

I agree that "1440p ultrawide" refers to 3440×1440 or similar, and "1080p ultrawide" refers to 2560×1080 or similar. I think most people interpret the term "ultrawide" as meaning "21:9-ish aspect ratio". So, calling 3440×1440 "1440p ultrawide" makes sense, because it is 1440 pixels in height with a 21:9 aspect ratio. However calling 5120×2160 "4K ultrawide" does not make sense, because 4K refers to the width, not the height. I understand your idea of "4K ultrawide means an ultrawide version of the resolution people usually refer to when they say 4K", but it doesn't really make sense to do that unless you're using a number that stays the same, such as the height.

No. "UHD" doesn't refer specifically to 3840×2160, and "4K" doesn't refer specifically to 4096×2160. Both of those claims are factually inaccurate, and were just completely made up by consumer journalists when 4K TVs were first coming out and everyone was scrambling to be the first to write a "4K EXPLAINED" article.

4K refers to the width in pixels (approximately 4000, or 4K). It has nothing to do with how many times 1080p it is. Otherwise 5120×2880 wouldn't be called 5K, and 7680×4320 wouldn't be 8K.

In what way would my "logic" suggest those things?

1) The "1440p" part does not need to literally mean the vertical resolution. As I said 17 times before, it can refer to the typical 2560x1440p 2.5k display, and the "ultrawide" part is what indicates that it has a wider resolution than standard.

You could say "X-format ultrawide" where "x-format" refers to a standard 2560x1440 monitor.

 

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

"A resolution of 3840 × 2160 (UHDTV1) "

"In the movie projection industry, 4096 × 2160 (DCI 4K) is the dominant 4K standard."

 

As I mentioned before already, 4k can simply be used as a blanket term.

"The term "4K" is generic, and refers to any resolution with a horizontal pixel count of approximately 4000 pixels."

 

 

3) Maybe you didn't understand the analogy...

People know that 4k is four times 1080p resolution, because IT IS. Just like it can also stand for 4096x2160, 3840x2160, UHD, etc.

My point is that it is a blanket term.

I never said that X-K is always X times 1080p, just that in the case of 4k it is and people can think of it like that instead of "oh this has 4000 pixels of width"

[Glenwing]

10 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) The "1440p" part does not need to literally mean the vertical resolution. As I said 17 times before, it can refer to the typical 2560x1440p 2.5k display, and the "ultrawide" part is what indicates that it has a wider resolution than standard.

As I said, I understand where you're coming from. You could take "1080p ultrawide" to mean "an ultrawide version of a standard 1080p monitor", or you could take it to mean "an ultrawide (21:9) display with 1080p height". Both interpretations lead you to the same resolution, something around 2560×1080. However, when you switch to using terms based on width, like "4K", they will lead to different resolutions. "An ultrawide version of a standard 4K display" would lead you to 5120×2160, while "an ultrawide (21:9) display with 4K width" would lead you to something like 3840×1600. I understand where your argument comes from.

14 minutes ago, Enderman said:

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

"A resolution of 3840 × 2160 (UHDTV1) "

"In the movie projection industry, 4096 × 2160 (DCI 4K) is the dominant 4K standard."

 

As I mentioned before already, 4k can simply be used as a blanket term.

"The term "4K" is generic, and refers to any resolution with a horizontal pixel count of approximately 4000 pixels."

You may want to read the page more carefully instead of just selecting bits that will appear to make your point.

 

As I said, "UHD" doesn't refer specifically to 3840×2160, which is exactly what the sentence you just quoted says, if you select the whole sentence instead of just a piece of it.

Quote

A resolution of 3840 × 2160 (UHDTV1) or 7680 × 4320 (UHDTV2)

UHDTV standards also define other parameters such as color depth, framerate, etc. It isn't just a name for the resolution of 3840×2160, it's an entire format. Of course in practice, "UHD" resolution is taken to mean "the resolution used by the UHD format", but that still refers to both 3840×2160 and 7680×4320.

 

Also, further down if you go by the CEA definition:

Quote

In October 2012, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) announced their definition of the term Ultra High-Definition (or Ultra HD) for use with marketing consumer display devices.[20] CEA defines an Ultra HD product as a TV, monitor, or projector with the following characteristics:[21]

• A resolution of 3840 × 2160 or larger
• An aspect ratio of 1.77∶1 (16∶9) or wider
• [...]

The CEA definition does allow other terms, such as "4K", to be marketed alongside the Ultra HD logo.[5](p9)

Since the resolution in CEA's definition is only a minimum requirement, displays with higher resolutions such as 4096 × 2160 or 5120 × 2880 also qualify as "Ultra HD" displays, provided they meet the other requirements as well.

And again, UHD isn't just a name for the resolution; the CEA definition of UHD is a term that applies to displays rather than image formats, and includes requirements such as 4K-capable HDMI inputs.

 

4K, as noted on the page, is generic, and does not refer specifically to the DCI 4K standard. Yes, the DCI format is one example of a standardized 4K resolution, but it is not "the definition" of the term 4K. Sounds like you agree with that, although if that's the case, I must have misunderstood you when you said

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

3) UHD is 3840x2160, 4K is 4096x2160

a few hours ago.

 

In any case, terms like "4K" go way back, and the conventional usage is to indicate approximate width, as shown in the cinema camera manual I posted above. "4K 16:9" is 3840×2160, "4K 2.4:1" is something like 3840×1600 or 4096×1728, and so forth. You're saying that because consumers commonly recognize "4K" as meaning 3840×2160, we should use "4K" to refer to other resolutions that don't have around 4K width, which I don't agree with. The numbers do mean something, and it's not "the width of the 16:9 format with the same height".