Curved Ultrawide Monitors

S

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
So, as I mentioned in another thread I got a 21:9 34" LG monitor for my desk at work. The Resolution is 3440x1440. I like it and was noodling over getting one for home, but was thinking a curved one would be better suited for typical computing since it's so wide.

This Monoprice 35" model caught my eye.

It's not glossy and it's got better contrast than IPS screens since it's VA. I can't seem to find any "pro" reviews on it though that measure contrast, color space coverage, gamma, etc.

I did see some forum chatter that people are claiming it's not VA, but actually TN. Other people claim that's not true and that it really is an AUO VA panel. Other people say it's the same as the Massdrop Vast 35" monitor.

I think I will be waiting for some proper reviews before jumping in.
 
Well, I ordered one through eBay. $489.99 - 15% off using the eBay coupon from today = $416.49 shipped. So much for waiting... :bomb:
 
Tannin still misses his 4:3 displays. I've found that 4k 16:9 screens work just like dual 8:9 screens. And that is very nice for productivity.
 
ddrueding said:
Tannin still misses his 4:3 displays. I've found that 4k 16:9 screens work just like dual 8:9 screens. And that is very nice for productivity.
Click to expand...
Well, 21:9 is like dual 10.5:9 screens which are pretty well suited for for viewing PDFs, documents, webpages, etc. Further, because the pixel pitch isn't super tiny like the "4k" variety of monitors you don't have to us any font scaling and can leave all the GUI elements at 100% and not strain your eyes to read stuff. So you effectively have two 1720x1440 screens with no border between them.

I've been pretty happy with the flat 34" 3440x1440 monitor at work treating it as two monitors I decided to try the same thing at home.
 
Stereodude said:
Well, 21:9 is like dual 10.5:9 screens which are pretty well suited for for viewing PDFs, documents, webpages, etc. Further, because the pixel pitch isn't super tiny like the "4k" variety of monitors you don't have to us any font scaling and can leave all the GUI elements at 100% and not strain your eyes to read stuff. So you effectively have two 1720x1440 screens with no border between them.

I've been pretty happy with the flat 34" 3440x1440 monitor at work treating it as two monitors I decided to try the same thing at home.
Click to expand...

Do you work from home frequently?
 
Two side-by-site 4:3 monitors would be 8:3 (2.6666) while a single 21:9 is (2.3333) so that's fairly close. 21:9 monitors used like a large 4:3 monitor don't make much sense. Too much wasted space if one app/window is centered on the screen. But if you use side by side apps/windows it makes sense.

At first I thought these ultra-wide monitors would quickly fade away. But as I see more and more desktops with multiple monitors I think the single ultra wide monitor makes more sense. Easier for the IT people to deal with. Only one power and signal cable. No bezel in the middle of your virtual desktop. Multiple monitor arms no longer needed. No multi-monitor O/S configuration to set up. Less IT support calls. Etc, Etc.
 
And with Windows having native support for partitioning the screen (keyboard shortcuts: Win+arrow keys). It is a really nice experience.
 
I'm of the opinion that for general computer using wide color gamut is useless. In fact it's worse than useless. It's a negative that causes needless problems. Nearly all computing assumes a sRGB color space. That means nearly all colors are wrong when you have a WCG monitor. I have a WCG monitor at home now. I had to create a profile to limit the gamut in software so that the colors aren't all messed up. Nothing like a feature with virtually no benefit and only downsides.
 
Historically Windows has suffered from poor color management, but it's acceptable for most purposes now. There is not much excuse to use that awful sRGB on a decent wide gamut monitor unless you are trying to emulate how webs look on crappy displays or something.
I don't suppose you've seen the 5K Mac? It's very impressive.
 
LunarMist said:
There is not much excuse to use that awful sRGB on a decent wide gamut monitor unless you are trying to emulate how webs look on crappy displays or something.
Click to expand...
I'm so confused... On the one hand you want a calibrated monitor, but you also apparently don't care about getting accurate color and like garish inaccurate over-saturated colors.
 
So I got the monitor today. The fit and finish of the rear housing and the stand are not so great. It's not really on par with any other LCD monitors I've bought, but it's functional. From the front it looks fine, so it's not a big deal. Thankfully it comes with an IR remote because the buttons on the back to control the OSD are poorly placed and have an odd layout.

The contrast (black level) is noticeably better than IPS monitors. Overall, it looks pretty nice. The uniformity is decent. There's a hint of clouding in the upper left corner, but it's not too bad.

I do have a single stuck red subpixel on a black screen, so it will be getting exchanged since they have a "PixelPerfect™ guarantee".
 
Stereodude said:
I'm so confused... On the one hand you want a calibrated monitor, but you also apparently don't care about getting accurate color and like garish inaccurate over-saturated colors.
Click to expand...

That may be caused by a mismatched profile due to a program that is not aware of the color space.
 
I agree..something that large I want more than 1440P on the vertical. I also don't care for scaling as I'm using it today with my 31" 4K and it has issues.
 
ddrueding said:
The vertical needs to be at least 2k pixels. What is this, 2016?
Click to expand...
I don't care about the number of vertical pixels so much as I do about the pixels per inch. If I'm doing my math right, this monitor only has 109 ppi. Not much better than the dual 20" 1600x1200 monitor I'm using which is 100 ppi. The vertical height isn't much better, either, at only 13.33", versus 12" for my monitors. For a decent pixel pitch a monitor this size really needs to be something like 14000 x 4000. Or maybe closer to something like 8000 x 4000 as I don't really see how the extra horizontal real estate is in your field of view at normal monitor viewing distances, even with the curvature.
 
Handruin said:
I agree..something that large I want more than 1440P on the vertical. I also don't care for scaling as I'm using it today with my 31" 4K and it has issues.
Click to expand...
It's not that large. It's just really, really wide. It's basically the same as a QHD 27" monitor, just MUCH wider. The 34" I have at work and the 35" I have a home are the same way 21:9 vs 16:9 at the same vertical height and resolution as the QHD 27" instead of 32:9 like this new 49" Dell.

jtr1962 said:
I don't care about the number of vertical pixels so much as I do about the pixels per inch. If I'm doing my math right, this monitor only has 109 ppi. Not much better than the dual 20" 1600x1200 monitor I'm using which is 100 ppi. The vertical height isn't much better, either, at only 13.33", versus 12" for my monitors. For a decent pixel pitch a monitor this size really needs to be something like 14000 x 4000. Or maybe closer to something like 8000 x 4000 as I don't really see how the extra horizontal real estate is in your field of view at normal monitor viewing distances, even with the curvature.
Click to expand...
Clearly you haven't tried sitting in front of one of these monitors. You have to move them further away simply due to their sheer width. At a comfortable viewing distances the PPI is fine and is not visually objectionable.
 
Stereodude said:
Clearly you haven't tried sitting in front of one of these monitors. You have to move them further away simply due to their sheer width. At a comfortable viewing distances the PPI is fine and is not visually objectionable.
Click to expand...
That's fine if you either have 20/20 vision, or don't mind corrective lenses, plus you have the desk space to move your monitor back. None of those apply to me.

Also, if the monitor is far enough away so you don't see the pixelation, that means it's not filling up your field of view. Take vertical height, for example. At my viewing distance of about 12 to 14 inches, the 12 inch vertical height of my monitor just about fills my vertical field of view. I'm estimating if I had a curved monitor it could be roughly 24 inches wide and it would fill my horizontal field of view. In terms of diagonal measurement that would be about a 27" 2:1 aspect ratio monitor. Anything wider will give me unusable horizontal real estate unless I move it further away. However, if I do that then I lose potential vertical real estate. Let's use the 49" Dell as an example. It's about 47" wide, so it needs to be viewed at roughly twice my normal viewing distance to take full advantage of it's width. However, the ~13.33" vertical height at that distance is now equivalent to a vertical height of only half that, or well under 7", at my normal viewing distance. Sure, a 7" high monitor at my normal viewing distance with 1440 vertical pixels won't have noticeable pixelation, but there would also be a lot of potential lost vertical real estate. This is a convoluted way of saying these ultra-wide monitors really don't match our visual fields.

To fill our visual fields and not have noticeable pixelation, you probably can't go much over 2:1 if the monitor is curved. In either case, you need about 4000 vertical pixels. The physical size doesn't matter here. That will depend upon your intended viewing distance. For me a ~27" 8000 x 4000 monitor would work. If you're comfortable viewing from 24" then maybe something like a ~50" size of the same resolution would work. The only way lower resolutions work is if you're either fine viewing the monitor from such a distance that it doesn't fill your entire field of view, or just accepting pixelation. It's normal to view TVs at distances where they don't fill your visual field so you don't notice the pixelation. However, I don't find working on a computer that way to be comfortable. If I can see anything but just the monitor then I'm either sitting too far away, or the monitor is too small or too wide. Here is a good description of all this. This source gives the aspect ratio of human vision at around 1.87:1. That's the widest any flat monitor should be. 2:1 or so works if you have a slight curvature.
 
Tannin said:
I don't still miss them. I have three, and use them often. I also have a superb (and mega-expensive) big Dell 16 x 10, which is the next best thing.

Cold dead hands, Dave, cold dead hands.
Click to expand...
I'm going to miss my 16:10 HP monitor when I replace it....
 
I tried a 4k 43" for a couple months. Worked much like having two normal monitors.
When I played movies in 4k, they are clearer, and more detail. After a couple months, I decided it wasn't a great value, since the cost of 4k TV's is dropping like they are in the stock market.

Also most of my video content works better in 1080p, since that's what it was designed for.

I'll go to a 4k TV/monitor when there is more 4k content.
I must say I don't see the value in these ultra wide screens, or for that matter, why with 4k TV's being so cheap, people don't use the TV's for work?

I do see the value of the 4k in doing work since it's easy to fit the windows on the screen without constant overlapping and auto resizing, which I've turned off.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0033.JPG
    DSC_0033.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 14
  • DSC_0029.JPG
    DSC_0029.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 14
For Tannin:
Moving the 70 pound, 21" was not something I want to do now.
 

Attachments

  • Music (38).jpg
    Music (38).jpg
    389 KB · Views: 8
Santilli said:
I tried a 4k 43" for a couple months. Worked much like having two normal monitors.
When I played movies in 4k, they are clearer, and more detail. After a couple months, I decided it wasn't a great value, since the cost of 4k TV's is dropping like they are in the stock market.

Also most of my video content works better in 1080p, since that's what it was designed for.

I'll go to a 4k TV/monitor when there is more 4k content.
I must say I don't see the value in these ultra wide screens, or for that matter, why with 4k TV's being so cheap, people don't use the TV's for work?

I do see the value of the 4k in doing work since it's easy to fit the windows on the screen without constant overlapping and auto resizing, which I've turned off.
Click to expand...

Those images are quite random and not at all about 4K or any monitors. Are you PUI or something?
 
Multiscan e400 isn't a monitor?
What's that other, 19" thing next to it?
It was intended for Tannin as I too have fond memories of a tri-monitor system, with a 21" in the middle, and two 19"s on the side, and all 1080.
Also relevant in that it made my cat quite happy. She loved being the center of attention, and laying on a nice, warm tube monitor. She sure can't do that now...

Don't be afraid not to type ad homs....
 
Of course the cat image is understandable, but I quoted the earlier post with an image from a room with a workout machine and another maybe inside a garage.

Does nobody else see this?
 
It was a mistake. I was trying to remember where I put the cat image. I attached files that were wrong. Before I posted, I thought I had removed them from the post.

Since they are a waste of bandwidth, I've already reported them and requested they be removed.
 
Decided to step up from my old Dell 2405 (1920*1200). Ordered two of the Dell S3220DGF (32" curved 2560*1440 with native 144Hz support/Freesync), on sale for around $350 each. Considered the Dell 49" 32:9 (U4919DW) but it has quite a few compromises in addition to the price of around $1100. Only downside seems to be a ship date in May but hopefully will ship prior to then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top