Overclock.net banner

Big Korean monitor or 34" Ultrawide?

10K views 37 replies 13 participants last post by  MuscleBound 
#1 ·
Should I get a large size 40"+ Korean UHD monitor or an LG 34 curved ultrawide.

This would be for graphics design, movies and gaming in that order.

If Korean what would be the best model and brand for above usage?

Thank You.
 
#2 ·
40" UHD, why it is even a question?

For design work you would be annoyed by ultrawide lack of height. Imagine 3D CAD work where most objects are roundish. Imagine designing a character, do you think laying it down just to fit it into available screen area is an option? Add ridiculous toolbars, ribbon and status bars eating into vertical space deficit and you'll be cursing in no time at huge useless voids at the screen sides.

For movies, just crop that awkward 2.35:1 format to fit 16:9 -- you'll be not missing anything.
 
#3 ·
It's all about personal preference/needs when it comes to 21:9 vs 16:9/10. Nobody will be able to 100% answer what you should get because it just comes down to opinion and what makes an enjoyable experience for you. I have gamed and worked on both and have two setups now each using one. There are pro's and con's to each. Personally I enjoy gaming and working more on 21:9. My work is more dev work rather than design, but you will find plenty of people in the design/CAD world that do enjoy 21:9. I'm also lucky in that all the games I play natively support 3440x1440, but am annoyed when there are games that do not support it... Just have to do your homework.
 
#5 ·
For gaming definitely ultrawide, 21:9 it is not only much better for gaming but also 4K is totally useless for gaming since there is not way to get good performance.

But for certain purposes bigger 40" screen may be better. This depends on your preference, on what you want to do on this monitor, will your benefit from more horizontal view of 21:9 or not, how far from screen you sit (40" is very huge for a desktop monitor) and things like that. There is no perfect solution for everything, you need to define your needs and requirements. I don't think that this is hard to define if you need more horizontal work space or not and its better to get big 16:9.
 
#10 ·
Get a large 4K monitor and run a custom resolution. I think for 4K, it's 3840x1620, give or take a few pixels. You will then get the size of a 40"+ monitor, but with the aspect ratio of a 21:9 and a slight resolution bump. I just tested it on my UHD550, and it is definitely wider in games, but you may get a fisheye look in some games.

In desktop usage, you will get less screen real estate because you're basically cropping the top and bottom set of pixels (so set it at normal resolution), but in gaming, it will render to the aspect ratio of the resulting resolution.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiNet View Post

Curved 21:9 isn't meant for graphics design at all.
Personally, only time I've actually got reason for curved 21:9 existing was racing sims. That does look nice and provides 180 view, trumped by vr now, but still.
Graphic design is all about the quality anyway.
So curved screen will have a problem with doing graphics work??
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuscleBound View Post

So curved screen will have a problem with doing graphics work??
No, it won't have any problems...
You're getting narrow screen and curved won't benefit in any way.

Left side is 29" LG and right side is phillips 27"


In some application it could be beneficial to have wide screen. You didn't specify what you do and what applications you gonna use.
In games it gives you more peripheral vision, alas I foudn that extremely good only in racing, but I'm not playing a lot of games lately anyway
smile.gif

I've seen adds that show two applications side by side on big 21:9 screens, which is dumb IMO. And add that shows this widescreen to be simply 2 smaller monitors in one. 2 smaller screens will be bigger/cheaper, more functional and better than 1 expensive 34" screen.
Again, I'm not saying it won't work or will ahve a problem, just don't see it to be good investment if you're serious about doing graphical work.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiNet View Post

No, it won't have any problems...
You're getting narrow screen and curved won't benefit in any way.

Left side is 29" LG and right side is phillips 27"


In some application it could be beneficial to have wide screen. You didn't specify what you do and what applications you gonna use.
In games it gives you more peripheral vision, alas I foudn that extremely good only in racing, but I'm not playing a lot of games lately anyway
smile.gif

I've seen adds that show two applications side by side on big 21:9 screens, which is dumb IMO. And add that shows this widescreen to be simply 2 smaller monitors in one. 2 smaller screens will be bigger/cheaper, more functional and better than 1 expensive 34" screen.
Again, I'm not saying it won't work or will ahve a problem, just don't see it to be good investment if you're serious about doing graphical work.
This comparison is bad imo. The 29 inches 21:9 should be compared to a 22-24 inches as they are the same height. The 27 inches needs to be compared to a 34 inches 21:9 as they are the same height.

The 21:9 34 inches is basically a 27 inches 16:9 with more horizontal estate. So you're only gaining in that department.

Now comes the question of vertical estate. If that's really important then I guess it's better to invest in a 32+inches 16:9 monitor (probably 4k).

That was my biggest dilemma between the Asus PG348Q and the Philips BDM4065UC. Finally decided to try the PG348Q as the only upside of the Philips one was vertical estate. I was losing on refresh rate, GSYNC and all the other features. Should arrive next week. It's still early to go 4k but I still wish the PG348Q had the height of, let's say, a 32 inches monitor
smile.gif
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiNet View Post

No, it won't have any problems...
You're getting narrow screen and curved won't benefit in any way.

Left side is 29" LG and right side is phillips 27"


In some application it could be beneficial to have wide screen. You didn't specify what you do and what applications you gonna use.
In games it gives you more peripheral vision, alas I foudn that extremely good only in racing, but I'm not playing a lot of games lately anyway
smile.gif

I've seen adds that show two applications side by side on big 21:9 screens, which is dumb IMO. And add that shows this widescreen to be simply 2 smaller monitors in one. 2 smaller screens will be bigger/cheaper, more functional and better than 1 expensive 34" screen.
Again, I'm not saying it won't work or will ahve a problem, just don't see it to be good investment if you're serious about doing graphical work.
What about when u trying to do straight lines in illustrator or technical drawings? Wont the curved edges make the lines look warped??
 
#15 ·
As a Dell U3415W owner: get a 21:9 display with a high resolution (3440x1440).

The dell is "only" 60Hz, but does fine for pretty much everything, including fast paced FPS. It comes pre-calibrated, which is a big plus.
As for curved, don't worry about it: it's a bit weird for the first 1-2 weeks, but after that your brain gets used to it and it feels perfectly natural.

Not all content supports it: a lot of media is still 16:9, not every modern game supports it flawlessly. I won't lie about it. But with games that really have issues, just run them at a (non-streched) 2560x1440. Yes, you'll have black bars at the side, but you'll still be running a 27"
thumb.gif


I actually feel "constrained" when I'm using a 16:9 now
rolleyes.gif
 
#16 ·
The comparison illustrates fairly ok the difference, but yea I couldn't remember "direct" comparison so used this image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuscleBound View Post

What about when u trying to do straight lines in illustrator or technical drawings? Wont the curved edges make the lines look warped??
Sorry, have not experimented that much with curved screen. AFAIK you won't see a difference on properly working curved monitor, the curve is very subtle. If anything I would see only circles having potential to appear slightly oval-ish.
If you're working with technical drawings and/or blueprints you would benefit more from 16:9 bigger screen at higher res. Depending on the scale of course, got only experience of a very big blueprints. Not direct experience, feedback from client. They bought dell 28" 4k screens.
Same goes for illustrator and rest of the adobe package.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merranza View Post

This comparison is bad imo. The 29 inches 21:9 should be compared to a 22-24 inches as they are the same height. The 27 inches needs to be compared to a 34 inches 21:9 as they are the same height.
Yeah, right, the comparison is unfair. How much 29" costs, and what 22-24" run these days? So the fair comparison in your opinion is $500 monitor vs. $100 one?

The ultra widescreen videophiles assertion that the only way you can extend monitor real estate is to add on the sides is just plain ridiculous. Today, you can easily buy 40" UHD cheaper than 34", have better resolution, almost twice the screen area, run custom resolution if you feel that there are "too many pixels". Therefore, the decision to go for 34" when you can easily buy a superior "IMAX at your desk" product is not quite rational. "It is about your preference" say some. Sure: if you drink too much cool aid.
 
#18 ·
I've been running a 29" LGum55, its 2560x1080 although it has a nice picture, I cant stand the lack of vertical height... I always feel like my game world is getting cut off... The 21:9 isnt a game changer for me.. What I would like is a 3440x1440 center monitor and two 27" 1440 monitors on the sides.. or one large 40" or bigger 4k for alot cheaper
wink.gif
..

I'm going to a 32" 2560xx1440 with freesync, its suppose to be here today... http://www.ebay.com/itm/Perfect-Crossover-32S-QHD-DP-Freedom-32-2560x1440-WQHD-DP-HDMI-Monitor-Remote-/322040746357?hash=item4afb1fd175:g:pRcAAOSwZ8ZW57VF

I may end up going up to a 40",42" or 44" 4k if this Crossover 32s is good.. I like Matte screens though and I dont think any of them are matte..
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Yeah, right, the comparison is unfair. How much 29" costs, and what 22-24" run these days? So the fair comparison in your opinion is $500 monitor vs. $100 one?

The ultra widescreen videophiles assertion that the only way you can extend monitor real estate is to add on the sides is just plain ridiculous. Today, you can easily buy 40" UHD cheaper than 34", have better resolution, almost twice the screen area, run custom resolution if you feel that there are "too many pixels". Therefore, the decision to go for 34" when you can easily buy a superior "IMAX at your desk" product is not quite rational. "It is about your preference" say some. Sure: if you drink too much cool aid.
I haven't weighed in price in my comparison that's true. I took a physical specs/features angle.

I know you are a die hard non 21:9 person. I've seen posts that go back a couple years where you hold the same position.

Everytime I look at a 21:9 monitor in store, I also get that feeling it's missing some height. Like I said, it all came down to vertical estate vs everything else. I'm coming from a 16:10 22 inches 1680x1050 monitor so the jump to 3440x1440 will be as amazing as the jump to 4k in terms of resolution. So it's 6 inches more vertical estate vs 100hz, GSYNC and all the other features the PG348Q brings to the table. For sure I would have preferred the height of a 32-34 inches 16:9 monitor on that 21:9 one but it doesn't exist unfortunately and PPI would have been affected.

I need to try it. If I don't, I know I'll always ask myself what a 21:9 monitor feels like
smile.gif
If I like it, so be it and I'll enjoy my new PG348Q. If I don't, I'll ask for a refund and change for another model or wait for the next gen of 4k monitors with refresh rates higher than 60hz... no monitor is perfect after all.

Meanwhile when I want 4k, I hook up my pc to my UN65JS9500.

For the OP, a 40 inches UHD might be better for graphics design.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Yeah, right, the comparison is unfair. How much 29" costs, and what 22-24" run these days? So the fair comparison in your opinion is $500 monitor vs. $100 one?

The ultra widescreen videophiles assertion that the only way you can extend monitor real estate is to add on the sides is just plain ridiculous. Today, you can easily buy 40" UHD cheaper than 34", have better resolution, almost twice the screen area, run custom resolution if you feel that there are "too many pixels". Therefore, the decision to go for 34" when you can easily buy a superior "IMAX at your desk" product is not quite rational. "It is about your preference" say some. Sure: if you drink too much cool aid.
I think you mean Kool-Aid... but I digress. No drinking of anything here. I have both setups and just said there are good and bad for both. Some people like the immersion aspect of the ultra wide for gaming. I am one of those. That's not to say that games don't also look amazing at UHD... I just prefer the ultra wide as do many other people. It really does come down to personal preference. This is unfortunate if you can't try out the ultra wide option first because they are so expensive.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam0385 View Post

Some people like the immersion aspect of the ultra wide for gaming...It really does come down to personal preference. This is unfortunate if you can't try out the ultra wide option first because they are so expensive.
Look, the expensive side is only a part of the deal. After all, it is a pocket change compared to house, auto and medical expenses. What you are not getting is that I can easily reproduce 34" ultra widescreen experience by running custom resolution at 40" UHD. If this is not a convincing argument, then I don't know what is. One thing is proven to be bigger than the other (in both dimensions, as 40" is even wider screen than 34" ultrawide); how can one doubt trivial mathematical argument?

And, finally, regarding "immersion", please tell the IMAX and VR people how their vision (pun intended) is wrong. At the end of the day, "ultra widescreen" is just a monitor with height deficiency. This is product defect, and should be labeled as such (together with other flaws, such as light bleeding, color shift, glow, etc)
 
#22 ·
Not sure why everyone is going on about gaming when the OP made it third priority.

In that case I would lean towards either a 32" or 43" IPS flat monitor. Most workspace, reasonable color accuracy, no curve messing with design work. Ultrawide advantages are mostly limited to gaming, such as higher refresh rates, less render load for fullscreen, FoV scaling in fullscreen, none of which are advantages for the 2D desktop.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Look, the expensive side is only a part of the deal. After all, it is a pocket change compared to house, auto and medical expenses. What you are not getting is that I can easily reproduce 34" ultra widescreen experience by running custom resolution at 40" UHD. If this is not a convincing argument, then I don't know what is. One thing is proven to be bigger than the other (in both dimensions, as 40" is even wider screen than 34" ultrawide); how can one doubt trivial mathematical argument?

And, finally, regarding "immersion", please tell the IMAX and VR people how their vision (pun intended) is wrong. At the end of the day, "ultra widescreen" is just a monitor with height deficiency. This is product defect, and should be labeled as such (together with other flaws, such as light bleeding, color shift, glow, etc)
keep on hating the 21.9 master race

Read it and weep

LG's 34-inch 21:9 monitor has convinced me that ultrawide is better than 4K

I will savour your salty tears
biggrin.gif




EDIT:

Oh and hasn't 21.9 res. now over taken 4k on the steam stats? Despite there being how many 4k monitors on the market and for how long now..... bahahahaahahaha

21.9 is here to stay
thumb.gif
cheers.gif
thumbsupsmiley.png
biggrin.gif
 
#24 ·
Please
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno2550 View Post

keep on hating the 21.9 master race

Read it and weep

LG's 34-inch 21:9 monitor has convinced me that ultrawide is better than 4K

I will savour your salty tears
biggrin.gif




EDIT:

Oh and hasn't 21.9 res. now over taken 4k on the steam stats? Despite there being how many 4k monitors on the market and for how long now..... bahahahaahahaha

21.9 is here to stay
thumb.gif
cheers.gif
thumbsupsmiley.png
biggrin.gif
Lets be honest that was a POS review. That article was written by someone who has never used a 40" or bigger 4k monitor (the heights they should be). So i would say he has no clue about 4k immersion. Article also says all affordable 4k monitors are 28". That links stayes quite a bit of BS.
 
#26 ·
and I dont think you will see curved monitors for design work.. I've worked in the tool&die industry for 25yrs, I've never seen a curved monitor in a cad/cam environment.. Actually I dont think I've even seen a single ultrawide monitor in use... All I've seen is large multi-monitor setups, cad/cam on one monitor and email,ftp and internet on the other..

I dont know how the curved monitor would look using wireframe/surface models..
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top