Monitors and Monitors

Starting a thread relating to only monitors.


Wondering if anyone has used a Ultra wide monitor, was it a 2k, and or curved?

currently debating on getting a 4k or a 2k ultra wide curved monitor in about a year.

would like to hear peoples thoughts because I have yet to have first hand experience with them

 

can't say that I've used those (yet) but I can say from experience that for computer purposes, and gaming especially, you can really get more out of those ultra ultra high resolution screens than most people ever get out of the movie/tv experience. The difference between 2k and 4k I can't really provide much insight in, a curved monitor is going to feel more natural and provide slightly less eye strain in the long run however. I would also make sure when looking at the different models/brands making sure you pay attention to all the specs not just the 2k/4k thing as a lot of tv/monitor companies have a tendency to push the 'buzz' word at the cost of other important aspects (including aspect ratio, refresh rate, resolution versatility, etc...) I spent $1k for a 19" monitor many years ago because it had the highest available resolution, never regretted my choice, it was worth every penny. It lasted 4 years and I had gotten the warranty so when it died I got it replaced with a more current model which I'm still using today ^.^

 

4 years? that seems like a short lifespan for a monitor, I've had some that have lasted way past that.

 

This is about what im looking at, but wont be another year from now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0JC-0007-00D81


there are not many curved ultra wides to choose from. Just need more time and tech to catch up a bit to get better quality and cheaper on the wallet.

4k tvs are already in the 600 to 1000 dollar range. Just need to give it some more time.

 

If you can drop the money for a 4k, then go for it, but as was said above, be sure to look at response / refresh speeds as well. Jumping to a 144hz and 1ms response made a MAJOR difference to me, without changing resolution at all. (I'm on 1080p)

 

This is why im waiting another year, let the tech get a bit better as its still rather new and go from there.

Im good with what I have for right now just want something a lot better down the road.

almost makes me wonder whats the point of a 4k tv with a PS4 or xbone if they will never even reach anywhere near that resolution.

 

plasma has a relatively short lifespan, compared to other techs.

which is -why- I sprung for the warranty extension XD

 

that's one of the things I was referring to in my first comment, the monitor probably -has- 4m pixels, but doesn't offer the screen resolution to make use of it.

 

The only 4k ultra wide I know of right now is from LG and sitting around 1300 to 1500 depending on where you look.

I think that's a typo on that newegg site, spec page says its 2k.


another reason for wanting the ultra wide is because that's another 4 to 5 inches of room for more viewing. can keep games in windowed mode and in 2560 x1440, and have stuff running in the background on the side. don't need to have another monitor.

also the more clear panoramic view because you don't have monitor edges to deal with, though some are really slim now but most are around 600 dollars x 3 =/= 1 good ultra wide monitor for around 700 to 800 dollars. that's a huge difference in money. The ones im referring to are about 1 to 2 millimeters on the edges.

 

Im also one of those people that absolutely cant stand glass type reflective monitor screens. You know where you can literally see a reflection of yourself in the screen, I much prefer the slight dull finish to the screen.

 

matte vs. reflective is almost entirely dependent on the lighting in the room you're in, they both have their pluses and minuses but for the most part it's as simple as, if you expect to get glare, you probably want matte.

 

Get Oculus DK2 ;D

And it's magnificent 960x1080 per eye. (Not that any of the alternatives currently available can top it)

 

while I'd love to see someone squeeze 4k pixels onto a 41mm lens, I think the overall effect would be lost on most ^.^

 

Well yea it would. But still 960x1080 is not enough. I'm not the jedi I should be. I want more.

But if already that passes 90% of time for "omfg this is good", once we get past having problems reading text with the helmet it's all good.

 

And, actually, a 4k screen is divided for the two eyes meaning you only get essentially 2048x2160 per eye. So it's not 'too much'. It's merely what it should be. For 4k per eye you'd essentially need a monitor with 8192x2160 resolution - but I don't know if that would be overkill or not but it makes more sense to have ~1:1 resolution as opposed to 2:1 or so as aspect ratio per eye. And I haven't really tried that much seeing whether the difference can be made out but it is probably most significant when viewing texts and detail and far away objects in VR. You need high res for that, though some people have worse eyesight naturally so they wouldn't as easily benefit.

 

that would only be true for a headset, for a television it's 4k for both eyes simultaneously. Aspect ratio doesn't work that way, 1:1 aspect ratio would simply mean that the screen is square, which is inefficient as our visual area is rectangular (well, really ovular, but you know), we don't see as far up and down as we do from left to right so making screens or lenses at a 1:1 ratio is wasting most of the screen. Which is why screens keep getting wider and not taller.

Now, in 3D it's a different story, depending on the method used to obtain a 3D image it can be true, or it can be false. For the 'theatre style' or polarized 3D they split the image in half polarizing the image so that the glasses block the one half of the image to each eye producing two independent images generating the 3D effect. Alternatively, the active shutter style instead of sacrificing pixel count, sacrifices refresh rate, which is why if you can, you want to find 3D films in high speed (120 fps or better if possible) since most of your personal 3D systems seem fixed on using active shutter most likely because it requires expensive glasses for people to use, undoubtedly a way to recoup some of the loss in selling the TV's themselves.

 

I'd like to change gears on this thread and beseech you all for some feedback on 120/144Hz monitors with FreeSync/G$ync; very interested in refresh rate over higher resolution, personally, so I'm in the market for a 27", 1080p or 2K 120/144Hz monitor. I've been doing some research and mostly just found opinons and not much hard, factual data on it. So if you've got some good technical references on 120/144Hz refresh rate monitors, I'd be interested in those too.

 

this might answer your question, at the same time preventing you from buying a very expensive cable you probably won't ever need.

 

Not necessarily related to the op, however here's dual monitor set for sale for anyone interested.

http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/accessories/apd/469-5365