Not sure there's much point since 4K displays are inbound.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Not sure there's much point since 4K displays are inbound.

Because aspect ratio

 

Can you say motion blur out the wazoo. I'll take the Swift!

 

BF4 looks dope on that monitor.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallsignVega

Can you say motion blur out the wazoo. I'll take the Swift!

But the Swift is a TN panel

 

I need this in my life.

 

1,000 Euro = $1,300 USD.

So at least $1,000 here in the States.

I love it. I want it. But not for THAT much.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Not sure there's much point since 4K displays are inbound.

it comes down to personal preference. The 21:9 resolution for 4K screens is actually 5k @ 5120 x 2160 . At that resolution it would be better to move to a 40" version giving roughly 32" 16:9 height but two monitors wide with no Bezel and still a very high PPI

it will happen soon enough. For now though with this 34" you have easily high enough PPI and the aspect ratio, plus your GPU should be able to handle games a bit better than with a 16:9 4k screen.

 

This looks like a great monitor to use for multitasking. I may keep an eye of this to avoid desk space constraints as I'm thinking about getting three 1440p monitors. However, I'm still looking for certain information if anyone can provide...

It seems to come with an HDMI cable...can I possibly use a DVI -> HDMI adapter to connect with my video cards?
Thunderbolt and display port should be able to support its full resolution...can HDMI provide that as well at 60Hz or is it forced to 30Hz?
The response seems to be around ~5ms...how is the actual input lag compared to a single input monitor?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowgun

Because aspect ratio

You could just set a 4k monitor to something like 3840x1600...

This would also give you the benefit of being able to use the full 3840x2160 when you want it.

(disclaimer: I commonly run my 4:3 Trinitron CRT at 16:10 resolutions when playing polygonal 3D games)

 

Sitting in my Amazon shopping cart, waiting for the bounty that is Uncle Sam's "free loan repayment" that he owes me to come in.

...Actually I don't have to wait, but I can't have too many large boxes show up at once or the wife gets mad.

Thanks - T

 

Looks like he needs to tweak the FOV in BF4.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thrasher1016

but I can't have too many large boxes show up at once or the wife gets mad.

Even one of those boxes will be hard to hide...
And ofc the contents are also pretty obvious once out...nothing like that secret GPU upgrade. Best luck.

 

TL;DR: I like 21:9, but I absolutely cannot recommend it to the vast majority of people. Too many downsides, not enough upsides. The people that will enjoy it and are willing to deal with the cons are going to already be on board, so a recommendation isn't needed.

Speaking from personal experience owning a 29" 21:9 for over a year, these 21:9 displays are only good for a full screen wider FOV in games that handle the aspect ratio well. Once a better format than Blu-ray (which is limited to 1290x1080, so ~1920x800 for 2.35-2.4 aspect ratio movies) emerges it will also be better for full screen movies for those who can't stand letterboxing.

Link to my prior discussion on the subject in the 29" 21:9 thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/1336980/anandtech-lg-29ea93-ultrawide-21-9-display-missing-its-target/0_50#post_22074597

And once last thing, if the latency and pixel response times are bad, then it's out for gaming and good for practically nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Not sure there's much point since 4K displays are inbound.

Physical form factor is the only benefit as mentioned in the above link, and that is very much a personal preference, and likely a niche one at that. Some could even consider it a detriment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

You could just set a 4k monitor to something like 3840x1600...

Exactly, the only downsides being the letterboxing and as I was mentioning in the LG 29" thread, the physical size and how much of the eye's field of view is filled. With 23", 27", and 29" it's easy to make comparisons since those physical sizes are pretty much set in stone. With the massive range of sizes that 4k displays are coming in, presumably there will be one where 3840x1600 is physically wider/taller than these 34" 3440x1440 displays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littledonny

Looks like he needs to tweak the FOV in BF4.

Much past 80 and fisheye becomes readily apparent. Whether that's an issue is obviously up to personal preference. The wider aspect ratio already has a 33% wider FOV (that's probably not 100% accurate due to angles) so adjusting it much further with the slider is somewhat redundant.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinfinion

the only downsides being the letterboxing

I must ask, what's wrong with letter-boxing on LCD displays?

(Disclaimer: Again, I use a Trinitron CRT as my PC monitor, so I do not have much experience with desktop LCD monitors)

 

21:9 is op. said the EA.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallsignVega

Can you say motion blur out the wazoo. I'll take the Swift!

whats the swift?

ether way im keeping my eye on this screen unless they release a curved version

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

I must ask, what's wrong with letter-boxing on LCD displays?

Absolutely nothing if it doesn't bother/distract the person playing. There is no technical issue, just personal preference.

And 21:9 suffers from pillarboxing on games that only play in 16:9 (and even worse, 4:3) so there's no real avoiding it either way.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinfinion

if it doesn't bother/distract the person playing.

That's kind of what I'm trying to get at. What is it that would make it distracting?

Are people using monitors with silver bezels or something? I mean, bezels are black and the bars are black, therefore how can it be distracting?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

That's kind of what I'm trying to get at. What is it that would make it distracting?

I don't mind it at all, but plenty of people seem to freak out about it. The upcoming PS4 title The Order:1886 is 1920x800 and people are going bananas that it wont fill their HDTVs.

All sorts of chaos and controversy: https://www.google.com/#q=the+order+1886+resolution

If all games were ~21:9 and all displays were only 16:9 I can see there being a legitimate complaint, but for a one off I see no issue. Art direction/creative vision trumps fixed screen aspect ratio.

Also, just in general I tend to heavily caveat my posts to defuse situations before they can happen since there are so many differing opinions that people can hold. So any remarks I made about letter boxing being a potential issue are for all these people that just don't get it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinfinion

I don't mind it at all, but plenty of people seem to freak out about it. The upcoming PS4 title The Order:1886 is 1920x800 and people are going bananas that it wont fill their HDTVs.

Err, I'm referring to the physical black bars themselves, regardless of aspect ratio.

3D polygonal games can have their aspect ratio adjusted dynamically, so I can kind of understand why people may not be happy with forced aspect ratios. However, for raster-based 2D content like video and sprite-based games you kind of have to use a single aspect ratio.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

Err, I'm referring to the physical black bars themselves, regardless of aspect ratio. Unlike 3D polygonal games, there are some things like 2D sprite-based games where the makers have to choose a single aspect ratio.

I'm not sure I follow, but with The Order: 1886 it's the exact same case as you make with the sprite game, since the developers are forcing 2:4:1 whether players like it or not. There is no option to play it at a screen filling 16:9 and some people apparently can't handle that.

See here for people losing it over the letterboxing: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=603516

It's the same thing with 2.4:1 movies. I watch them in 2.4:1 regardless of the display aspect ratio, but there are plenty of people that would rather have pan-and-scan that fills the screen at the cost of the artistic vision.

There are definitely people out there that hate letterboxing, either through ignorance of its purpose or just obstinately wanting all their HDTV pixels being put to use.

So like I said, any of my comments regarding letterboxing are for those that just don't understand/can't handle the concept for whatever reasons.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinfinion

I'm not sure I follow, but with The Order: 1886 it's the exact same case as you make with the sprite game, since the developers are forcing 2:4:1 whether players like it or not.

It's not the same. Polygonal games are only limited to their aspect ratio by developer choice and not technical limitation because the resulting image is purely what the in-game camera view is set at, which is something that can be changed dynamically as can be seen with widescreen hacks in emulators for various polygon-based consoles. Also remember, resolution != aspect ratio.

For 2D games and movies, the image itself is the content. It is technologically locked into that aspect ratio and there's no way to alter said ratio without reducing or distorting the content.

DISCLAIMER: I do not own nor am I planning to own any console in this current generation.

EDIT:
Quote:

Originally Posted by zinfinion

There are definitely people out there that hate letterboxing, either through ignorance of its purpose or just obstinately wanting all their HDTV pixels being put to use.

But this doesn't answer why they feel that way. This is what I'm trying to get at here.

Contrary to popular belief, people do usually have a reason for why they feel what they feel about something, though they may not be 100% sure of what that is due to not knowing that it may not even have to be that way.

 

To anyone who has experience with a 21:9 montor:

What's it like using for a professional workflow? Being a freelance 3D asset developer, I often have 6 programs open at once, all of which need to be used simultaneously. Is it practical to use for multitasking? Am I better getting one large (4K 16:9) display/triple 1080?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolyMorphist

To anyone who has experience with a 21:9 montor:

What's it like using for a professional workflow? Being a freelance 3D asset developer, I often have 6 programs open at once, all of which need to be used simultaneously. Is it practical to use for multitasking? Am I better getting one large (4K 16:9) display/triple 1080?

In my experience work flow is limited by raw resolution and therefore physical space rather than aspect ratio. So a single physically-large 4k display should provide the most work area unless you use 5x 1080p displays.

DISCLAIMER: I have not used a 21:9 monitor but I've used 16:9 aspect ratios on a 4:3 monitor.