supposedly goes for sale for 1500 USD in july? will update as information is provided.
buy here:
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Screen-LED-Lit-Monitor-LC49HG90DMNXZA/dp/B072C7TNC5
more info here:
Source
drm8627
supposedly goes for sale for 1500 USD in july? will update as information is provided.
buy here:
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Screen-LED-Lit-Monitor-LC49HG90DMNXZA/dp/B072C7TNC5
more info here:
Source
It is 3840×1080 basically just two 1080p panels glued together. But it is a HDR 144hz screen. If it was 5120x1440 id be slightly interested.
![:D]( ":D")
Quote:
the vertical dimensions of this monitor, counteracted by how far back you will need to sit in order to see the entire thing, the 1080 vertical resolution will not be noticable. It would be a waste to use 1440, especially since this is aimed at gaming,and not productivity (not that it would be bad at productivity). More likely to be able to achieve higher refresh rates with this resolution.Originally Posted by ozlay
It is 3,840×1,080 basically just two 1080p panels glued together. But it is a HDR 144hz screen. If it was 5120x1440 id be slightly interested.
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
As a flight sim nut, I'm a huge fan of ultrawides. I'm glad companies are making them. Having said that, 1080 seems a bit low.
Quote:
you are not going to be able to sit as close to this monitor if you want to be able to see the sides. So youll have that. ALSO, the vertical measurement of this monitor, is quite small. So, you will most likely not notice the 1080 vertical resolution. if this were a 49 inch 16:9 id be screaming about huge the pixels are, but since its an ultrawide, with a very small vertical measurement, you would get diminishing returns by making it 1440, since you shouldnt be able to see the pixels. ALSO, since its a gaming dedicated monitor, the 1080 is necessary, in order to be able to push the screen to 144hz. My thoughts anyway.
I mean, I use the x34, and i got my girlfriend the 29 inch lg ultrawide, and i expected to be seeing pixels left and right, but due to the low vertical dimensions of the screen, i really cannot notice any pixels, the image looks quite clear. And ive got 20/20 vision. I think, 1080, on an ultrawide, for the vertical resolution, always looks better than it would on a 16:9, and is better for gamers since you can achieve higher fps easier.
Just my view, maybe im wrong somewhere.
IIRC, 3 things determine how we percieve a monitors pixel density. how close you sit to the monitor. how big the monitor is. and the resolution of the monitor.Originally Posted by LancerVI
As a flight sim nut, I'm a huge fan of ultrawides. I'm glad companies are making them. Having said that, 1080 seems a bit low.
you are not going to be able to sit as close to this monitor if you want to be able to see the sides. So youll have that. ALSO, the vertical measurement of this monitor, is quite small. So, you will most likely not notice the 1080 vertical resolution. if this were a 49 inch 16:9 id be screaming about huge the pixels are, but since its an ultrawide, with a very small vertical measurement, you would get diminishing returns by making it 1440, since you shouldnt be able to see the pixels. ALSO, since its a gaming dedicated monitor, the 1080 is necessary, in order to be able to push the screen to 144hz. My thoughts anyway.
I mean, I use the x34, and i got my girlfriend the 29 inch lg ultrawide, and i expected to be seeing pixels left and right, but due to the low vertical dimensions of the screen, i really cannot notice any pixels, the image looks quite clear. And ive got 20/20 vision. I think, 1080, on an ultrawide, for the vertical resolution, always looks better than it would on a 16:9, and is better for gamers since you can achieve higher fps easier.
Just my view, maybe im wrong somewhere.
The CHG70 has a 23inch 1080p and a 27inch 1440p. I would like to see this CHG90 in two different sizes. So it would be nice to see this series with a higher resolution version.
Quote:
cant argue with that. options are always good.Originally Posted by ozlay
The CHG70 has a 23inch 1080p and a 27inch 1440p I would like to see this CHG90 in two different sizes. So it would be nice to see this series with a higher resolution version.
Quote:
what do you mean? I embedded the video.Originally Posted by ozlay
Also you formatted the OP wrong. But i am not sure how you format it for a youtube video?
The only monitor I am interested in right now, is the 3880 x 1600p 38" Acer.
I already have34" 3440x1440p @ 100hz on two of my systems. And I want more height, not a wider screen.
I would prefer a 16:10 monitor, but 4k will do. (Once it hits 100hz.)
I already have34" 3440x1440p @ 100hz on two of my systems. And I want more height, not a wider screen.
I would prefer a 16:10 monitor, but 4k will do. (Once it hits 100hz.)
For me 16:10 was great at 24" but going above 30" I would go with 16:9 or 21:9.
16:9 24" = 531x299mm that's roughly 300mm height, and I would classify it as insufficient
16:10 24" = 517x323mm and borderline acceptable height
Resolution wise the bigger the height the better as more text can be fit on a single page.
A Samsung 49" 32:9... was rumored to be only 40", still at this 49" size the width and height is...
1198x337mm which seems OKish but that's 1080px height... making it even worse density wise than a 1080p 24"
![frown.gif]( "frown.gif")
A 16:9 27" is 598x336mm, so the 49" 32:9 is similar height as a 27" 16:9 and many will agree that 1080px on a 27" is unacceptable density.
A 5120x1440px would have been the way to go at minimum for this large 32:9 especially at the outrageous $1500.
Also cannot see these monitors to be classified as HDR as the contrast ratio is probably the same low as has been for years for anything but OLED and the like? Rendering HDR on a 2000:1 contrast panel is useless. Maybe if it had 200K:1 or 2M:1, 20M:1 etc. contrast. then we can talk about HDR.
16:9 24" = 531x299mm that's roughly 300mm height, and I would classify it as insufficient
16:10 24" = 517x323mm and borderline acceptable height
Resolution wise the bigger the height the better as more text can be fit on a single page.
A Samsung 49" 32:9... was rumored to be only 40", still at this 49" size the width and height is...
1198x337mm which seems OKish but that's 1080px height... making it even worse density wise than a 1080p 24"
A 16:9 27" is 598x336mm, so the 49" 32:9 is similar height as a 27" 16:9 and many will agree that 1080px on a 27" is unacceptable density.
A 5120x1440px would have been the way to go at minimum for this large 32:9 especially at the outrageous $1500.
Also cannot see these monitors to be classified as HDR as the contrast ratio is probably the same low as has been for years for anything but OLED and the like? Rendering HDR on a 2000:1 contrast panel is useless. Maybe if it had 200K:1 or 2M:1, 20M:1 etc. contrast. then we can talk about HDR.
Sometimes an idea or concept seems great while it's still in the digital realm, then it becomes a reality and you realize it's kind of stupid. You would think they would have realized this before it became a production ready product.
HDR = high dynamic range = ability to display a wide range of colors but not only in a color richness way which normally is more of a gamut but in a contrast as in how black and how white at the same time can be captured/shown as in blacks won't be crushed and whites not overblown.
Eye doesn't have very high range BUT it can adapt so if the scene is bright the iris closes much like on a camera to see without being blinded and vice versa. A monitor/tonemapping may fake this to make the scene fit sure I would call it acceptable but that's still a 10k-20k:1 for a human eye, ten times higher than common LCDs.
HDR is really more of a wait for OLED etc. that can do high contrast. It's just a fancy name companies will try to sell now a buzzword a trap for customer's money a buy bait.
OLED being called HDR, sure probably fine.
LCD being called HDR... in your dreams Samsung and the like.
Eye doesn't have very high range BUT it can adapt so if the scene is bright the iris closes much like on a camera to see without being blinded and vice versa. A monitor/tonemapping may fake this to make the scene fit sure I would call it acceptable but that's still a 10k-20k:1 for a human eye, ten times higher than common LCDs.
HDR is really more of a wait for OLED etc. that can do high contrast. It's just a fancy name companies will try to sell now a buzzword a trap for customer's money a buy bait.
OLED being called HDR, sure probably fine.
LCD being called HDR... in your dreams Samsung and the like.
Quote:
A monitor with that resolution, HDR and 144hz (or100hz) would cost double the price of this one.Originally Posted by ozlay
It is 3840×1080 basically just two 1080p panels glued together. But it is a HDR 144hz screen. If it was 5120x1440 id be slightly interested.
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
Quote:
You can certainly find out, but first you must defeat his twenty-seven lieutenants.Originally Posted by GoLDii3
Is that even his final form?
Some people forget that the stupidly wide viewing angle will heavily tax a GPU in games. A 32:9 1440p panel would bring every GPU currently on the market to it's knees.
LOL that guy that ranted and raved all over the 21:9 thread about how vertically limiting and market-soon-to-be-defeated it was must be going NUTS at a 32:9. (I wouldn't know, blocked him long ago; more polite for both of us and the board in general...) That's getting kind of vertically skinny even for me.
I'd rather bump up from the 34" 21:9 (3440x1440) to one of the 38" 21:9's that maintain 1440 vertically, than stretch the aspect ratio further (not first to say so in this thread). But I can see why a curved 16:9 side-by-side pair equivalement might be good for some.
Choice is good. And other than aspect ratio features (144Hz, Freesync2 which includes HDR, QD) are getting niiiice.
I'd rather bump up from the 34" 21:9 (3440x1440) to one of the 38" 21:9's that maintain 1440 vertically, than stretch the aspect ratio further (not first to say so in this thread). But I can see why a curved 16:9 side-by-side pair equivalement might be good for some.
Choice is good. And other than aspect ratio features (144Hz, Freesync2 which includes HDR, QD) are getting niiiice.
currently running an LG 34" 1440p ultrawide that i got to replace dual monitors. sometimes i actually wish it was a little wider and taller so that it could be close to two actual monitors. so this 49" looks appealing... EXCEPT for that resolution. sorry but 1080p is just ridiculously low rez for this. even at 1440p i feel the LG is a bit low.
this should have been 5120x1440p at the very least.
EDIT i use it for production not gaming so IDC about the 144hz either. i get the appeal though, so many people use dual monitors or even 3, but this is just too low rez.
this should have been 5120x1440p at the very least.
EDIT i use it for production not gaming so IDC about the 144hz either. i get the appeal though, so many people use dual monitors or even 3, but this is just too low rez.
1080 res? What a waste of $1500....
![kookoo.gif]( "kookoo.gif")
I'm growing tired of this 21:9 trend as well, can we please have some more large-format 16:9 4K gaming monitors?
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
I'm growing tired of this 21:9 trend as well, can we please have some more large-format 16:9 4K gaming monitors?
First I thought this was going to be a really large 21:9.
Hell, lucky when 21:9 works right in a game. This thing is going to be nothing but fisheye. I'd say the price was good but the res is so low that it kind of off sets that. I'd suggest waiting this out because I don't see this res/aspect being supported in most games.
Hell, lucky when 21:9 works right in a game. This thing is going to be nothing but fisheye. I'd say the price was good but the res is so low that it kind of off sets that. I'd suggest waiting this out because I don't see this res/aspect being supported in most games.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
