Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K?

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the not-for-a-tray-table-it-isn't dept.

Displays 304

Iddo Genuth (903542) writes "Forget about 4K displays, are Ultra Widescreen 'cinematic' displays the real deal? Earlier this year LG announced its new 34UM95 – a 34-inch Ultra Widescreen monitor with a cinematic 21:9 aspect ratio and a generous 3440 x1440 resolution — a recent hands-on review suggests that this monitor might be the new productivity king, for those who simply can't stand that annoying bezel between their multiple monitors. Linus Sebastian had a chance to play with the new LG 34UM95, and although he seems to start as a skeptic (after all, how really useful can a 21:9 display be right?) he ended up his review fully converted, with no going back. We still think that pro graphic users will not rush to switch over their EIZOs and NECs for this baby, but video editors, gamers, programmers and basically anybody who loves multitasking, might be very tempted — what do you think?"

cancel ×

304 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is this an ad ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083331)

I still can't see the appeal of 4K, and maybe that's just me.
But what's the point of posting about a monitor having a somewhat larger resolution ? It doesn't seem like a technological achievement to me.
They just decided to sell a TV with large numbers.

Re:Is this an ad ? (4, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083365)

It might be just you, but are you basing that on the "idea of 4k", or actual experience using it?

I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"

So why don't I own one now? The source material from most media isn't 4k, so what's the point? For TV use, it will be a few years. For computer use, that time would be now if a good IPS 4K display wasn't crazy priced.

But when the prices come down, it will make total sense.

Re:Is this an ad ? (0)

antsbull (2648931) | about 4 months ago | (#47083413)

I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#47083471)

I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.

It's not that large of a screen you can plainly see the difference, especially sitting at a few feet (as you do with a computer monitor).

You should go to CES sometime where you can see lots and lots AND LOTS of different displays all using the same source material, then you can tell for yourself...

Re:Is this an ad ? (3, Informative)

sabri (584428) | about 4 months ago | (#47083759)

You should go to CES sometime

I don't need to go to CES. I bought that monitor three weeks ago when Fry's had it for a little under $1k. It is huge, I did not really like it. Much of the monitor is in my peripheral view, and moving the mouse from far-left to far-right is a pain. I decided to use my "old" 1920x1200 again and use my 34UM95 for my flight simulator.

The idea of having a gazillion xterm's next to each other is great, but it didn't work for me.

Re:Is this an ad ? (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083931)

But you do need to go to reading comprehension school right?

So, since you have one, can you contribute to what is being discussed? Which is whether or not you can tell a difference, not whether it works for you in computer use.

Re:Is this an ad ? (3, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#47083959)

Actually, it is - if you sit 8-10 foot away from your screen you need a 60" TV to see a resolution higher than 1080p.

4k is pretty much useful for monitors only (where it's useful because you sit 2 feet away from them).

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47084001)

It's not just pixel resolution, it's color depth and gamut range too.

Re:Is this an ad ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083483)

Which of course is no more valid than the old conventional wisdom about refresh rates ("60 Hz is the fastest refresh rate any CRT will ever need. Your eyes can't perceive anything that changes faster than that.")

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083493)

Belief?

What an interesting way to live your life.

Re:Is this an ad ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083595)

At standard viewing distances for monitors, we will have a use for 8K. That is, 7680x4320, on a monitor roughly in the 40-50 inch range, flooding your visual field with medium-to-high-density pixels. For TVs, we will never reach 8K, in fact I expect TVs to either eschew 4K entirely or stagnate at 4K for even longer than we stagnated on 1080p (with 1440p for the premium consumer market). And since TV standards dictate monitor sizes now... Urgh.

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | about 4 months ago | (#47083811)

I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.

You must have poor eyesight. The difference is actually profound.

4k at viewing distance isn't that special (2)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 4 months ago | (#47083607)

I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"

Only if you're looking at it too closely. At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in. Up close, yeah, it's obviously going to look astounding, and most people have "too large" a screen for their viewing distance, so in a way, I guess it works out :)

The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (4, Informative)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083667)

At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.

Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...

I speak from experience...

The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)

More wrong information. 60hz 4k panels are out now, and they don't have poor viewing angle or color. You simply need DisplayPort to get 60hz (which anyone buying such a monitor today should have).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]

http://www.tomshardware.com/re... [tomshardware.com]

60hz, IPS viewing angels, just crazy expensive at $3,500 (actually below $3K now, give it a few years to get cheap).

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#47083977)

Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...

No, it's nothing to do with his eyes sucking, it's to do with the angular resolution that 20/20 vision can pick up. at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen.

I speak from experience...

How sure are you you don't speak from placebo?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | about 4 months ago | (#47083815)

Only if you're looking at it too closely.

There is no such thing as too closely.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (4, Insightful)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47083837)

At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect

The obvious solution is to reduce the recommended viewing distance, as the resolution of the screen improves.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47083871)

That depends entirely on the size of the screen. I think the rule of thumb is that for watching movies most people need to be sitting one screen-diagonal away from the screen to really notice the difference between a 720 and 1080 monitor. But that's for movies. Try reading text on the same screen, where fine high-contrast small-radius curved lines abound, and the low pixel density will become far, far more obvious. Especially since you're unlikely to be sitting 40" away from a computer monitor, even if it does have a 40" diagonal.

In fact look carefully at your monitor right now - if you're using a decent laptop you're probably getting ~1080 on a 15" screen from about 20" away, and I bet you you can see jagged edges on the letters. Triple that to 45" and the pixels will be honking huge, even if you back up another 10" or so to a healthier reading distance.

Re:Is this an ad ? (4, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47083395)

More pixels is always better if you're coding. However 21:9 does nothing for me, they should double down and go 32:9 and allow two host controllers (and selectably just one to drive both). It'll save me a bit of desk space and one power cord...

Re:Is this an ad ? (2)

umdesch4 (3036737) | about 4 months ago | (#47083553)

No mod points, so I'll just reply and say "me too". On the other hand, I'd consider taking one of these displays and turning it 90 degrees so I can see more of my code at once without scrolling.

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47083911)

I was about to say the same - I do similar with 16:9 monitors now and it's wonderful. But I have a sneaking suspicion that 21:9 might be pushing the line of too much of a good thing. Maybe not crossing it, but 31% more height at the same width is starting to get a little ridiculous.

Re:Is this an ad ? (2)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 months ago | (#47083791)

Agreed. Needs to be at least 6 foot wide, same as three decent sized LCDs, and should be a reasonable resolution, 5760x1080 which is what three HD monitors would be. Then I would be interested, but 3440 isn't even 2x1920, so you're actually losing horizontal real estate compared to 2 cheap HD monitors.

Why buy this 34" at $1,500 when it has less space than two $200 $26" LCDs? I would have 52" total, 3840x1080 resolution and spend $400 instead of $1,500.

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

fortfive (1582005) | about 4 months ago | (#47083481)

If you use a retina macbook pro for any length of time, the appeal will dawn on you. 4K enables pixel doubling, which makes text amazing to look at. All the other details, too.

It's a first world problem, mind you, but I find it quite unpleasant to view a non-pixel-doubled display, now. I mean even the Apple cinema display* looks outdated and primitive.

I kick myself for buying the retina machine before it could drive/I could also afford an external 4k display.

*I referenced the Apple display not because of any inherent superiority, but rather it's the nicest display I've viewed while actually doing stuff (as opposed to viewing an in-store demo video, which, incidentally, are not any less unpleasant to view post retina).

Re:Is this an ad ? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#47083619)

I can see the point of a really wide monitor though - which is what this is about......

like, no bezel in the middle, less software going hordky dorzky.

I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 4 months ago | (#47083333)

So yea... I get the whole "more resolution captain!" Absolutely. Every day all day. But I use a 27" monitor that only does 1920x1200... "Only." That's plenty for work and pleasure - i'm playing the new wolfenstien at that resolution, and its beautiful.

However, I would love some ultra widescreen for more real estate. To me, 4k is just too faddish, and thus too expensive for the poor nerds amongst us to justify purchasing.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (4, Informative)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083353)

I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".

I use a trio of Dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600, I can most assure you that it makes a difference. I've had to, from time to time, use another computer with a pair of older Dell 27" monitors at 1920x1200 and it is horrible to go back.

The idea that 4k is "faddish? Really? Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?

You simply don't know what you're missing.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | about 4 months ago | (#47083385)

I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (4, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 months ago | (#47083527)

High resolutions at a moderate price have been available for some time via Korean sellers... I have a Catleap Q271 Retina and I love it.

Even better, Monoprice now offers similar gear without the overseas seller worries! http://www.monoprice.com/Categ... [monoprice.com]

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083625)

Good post... $400 to $450 depending on what connections you want on it, much nicer panels than the cheap 27" 1080p TN panels being sold for half the price.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083617)

No worries if lack of money is the reason... we have all been there at one time or another...

The issue is when someone says, "oh, that isn't needed and is "faddish", the current ones are fine.

Yea, they are fine because they really want the good stuff, but have no money, so instead of just admitting that, they claim they don't want the new stuff to feel better about themselves. :)

Harsh perhaps, but true...

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 months ago | (#47083835)

I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)

Kidding, right? I have three 22" 1680x1050 monitors, only $50 each on craigslist. That's 5040x1050 compared to 1920x1200. Games in eyefinity are beautiful when the screens wrap around you and all you see from the corners of your eye is more of the video game. Looking at one flat screen is annoying now, it's like I'm missing the rest of the game. I don't know why the new consoles don't have two more video outputs for two more screens.

three 30" though.... I don't know if I would want all that, I would have to turn my head to look from one side to the other, I would be exhausted from constantly looking around LOL. 22 to 24" is about the limit with three screens on a desktop if you don't want to have to turn your head to look from one corner to the other unless you're placing the screens several feet away.

Too Small (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47083659)

I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".

I'm all for higher resolution. And I do think 4k is overkill for TV. But not for computer monitors.

But size and resolution are two different things. 3440 x 1440 is the picture size, not the resolution. Resolution is expressed in dpi. (Or dots per whatever, it doesn't have to be inches.)

34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics. If I wanted the same "effective resolution" at the same distance (across my deep desktop) as my 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA), which is just fine, this new monitor would have to be about 47" diagonal. At only 34" diagonal, in order to get the same effective pixel size as my existing monitors, it would have to be about 18" from my face.

Sure, smaller pixels might make for smoother games or videos, and "smoother" fonts, but when it comes to actually working on your computer, you don't want the text to be too tiny or the buttons to be too small. 4k or bigger is fine with me, but for work, the physical size has to be in good proportion to the pixel size. Smaller pixels are not always a good thing.

Re:Too Small (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47083679)

I should clarify: I use two monitors, not just one. And I do use all of that "real estate" in my work and then some. I could use more.

But if it isn't big enough to see, at sufficient distance to prevent eyestrain, then it's not good for work. Even though this monitor has more dots than my two monitors, it is physically smaller than my two monitors together. Text would be too small to see comfortably and so on, unless I just made the windows bigger, which defeats the whole purpose of the higher resolution.

Re:Too Small (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083713)

Text would be too small to see comfortably

At the default DPI scaling of Windows, you're correct. And that is an issue that Microsoft needs to fix.

The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...

Right now I run my web browser at 200% zoom, rather than adjust the DPI of Windows 7, because DPI scaling in Windows 7 is still broken.

At 200% zoom, the screen is nice and clear, the text is large and easy to read.

Compare this to if I just cut the resolution in half and ran at 100% zoom. Everything would be physically the same size, running at 1280x800 instead of 2560x1600.

But I assure you that it looks like crap. That is a perfect example of how more pixels will help, you simply need a high-DPI aware OS.

Re:Too Small (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47083795)

The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...

While I explained the difference between size in pixels and resolution, I managed to muddy the waters myself a bit in my comments.

The problem is that yes, while better resolution will make for fewer jaggies and so on, most modern OSes do not allow you to scale your windows (including text size, and so on) properly.

And as I say: even if they did, it would use up some of that useful SIZE. So to get the same work done you still need a bigger monitor.

My text and video looks just fine to me with a 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200, across my desk. I use more than one for more space. The thing is, if I want a finer resolution, great, but I still want the same physical size, or more, not something that is physically smaller. As I say: in order to get the same work done, regardless of other factors, this monitor would have to be 47" diagonal, even if the resolution were higher than it is.

Re:Too Small (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083903)

A 24" monitor sounds like it fits your needs, if so, more power to you.

A resolution of 1920x1200 is ok on that screen, but 2560x1600 would be nicer.

Assuming a high-DPI aware OS of course. :)

At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.

It is easy to say that what you are used to is "just fine", but so was B&W TV once. :)

Real life is much higher resolution than any current computer monitor, when the monitor is 600dpi, then I'll probably be happy. My $130 printer can put out a much higher resolution image than my $1,000 monitor can, we have far to go...

Re:Too Small (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083701)

Several points...

And I do think 4k is overkill for TV.

Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...

A 65" 1080p TV and a 65" 4K TV, from 10 feet away, playing a proper 4k video source from a hard drive, the difference was "smack you in the face" obvious which one was better. (hint, it was the 4k)

The lack of current 4k content from Netflix, Bluray, Amazon Prime, etc. is the real problem.

34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics.

Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...

A 30" screen is just about perfect to put up 2 pages in Word or Acrobat, in "real size", meaning 1-to-1 compared to their real world size. That resolution is also high enough to at least make them sort of look like printed pages.

4k will get us there, I really would love to get a trio of the Dell 32" 4k panels, those would be outright PERFECT for previewing 2 letter sized pages side by size on one panel, and at 4k resolution, they would look like printed pages as well (or really close to it).

The thing is, Windows sucks at DPI scaling, Microsoft knows this and is finally starting to work on it. Windows 7 was supposed to fix that, but clearly didn't. The new Surface Pro 3 tablet is clearly adjusted with Windows 8 to compensate, Windows 9 may be where it finally gets fixed properly.

Smaller pixels are a great thing, if your application supports DPI scaling properly.

Re:Too Small (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47083875)

Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...

Okay. I admit that I haven't. But I'd have to see them right next to each other, showing the same picture or video, before I made up my mind.

Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...

Don't tell me what's "horribly wrong" with my work setup. How arrogant! I've been doing this shit for a living for many years.

Currently I have 2 x 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200. That's 3840 x 1200. And the diagonal measure (screen only) is approx. 41".

As I explained elsewhere: the dot pitch on these monitors, sitting across my desk, is just fine for work. I use this screen SPACE for my work, which is often text (I have only 4 windows open right now but I'm not working... one of them is full-screen on one monitor).

A smaller dot pitch would be just fine, to smooth out the text, and video, and so on. As I explained. But the SIZE of my windows and text still needs to be the same, for work. But Windows and OS X don't allow you to scale that properly. Regardless of the resolution, I still use all of that 41" diagonal for my work. And could use even more.

So let's not get the two things confused. I'm not saying the resolution is "too high". I'm saying the physical size is too small. If they made it bigger, and kept the same dot pitch, that would be fine with me. But that would mean a lot more pixels than 3440 x 1440.

Re:Too Small (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083993)

It was at a high end home theater store, couch was setup in front of two Sony TVs, same content on both.

The 4k really is incredible, once you see a proper 4K source material. But it isn't ready for prime time yet due to a lack of consumer facing content. But that will change.

------------------

Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.

I'd love the new 32" 4k panels, but they need another revision or two and a price drop before I buy. But I fully expect in 3 years, when my current panels are out of warranty, I'll have them.

You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.

Yes, in a perfect world, Windows would render everything, toolbars, mouse cursor, text, all a the same physical real world size, regardless of your monitor size or resolution.

Look at the iPad 2 and the iPad 3, the resolution doubled in both directions, yet the OS knows to display stuff at the same physical size. That is what Windows should do.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083737)

Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?

Hey, I'm using a 17", 1280x1024 monitor* right now, you insensitive clod!

* ViewSonic VP171s, if you're wondering.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083929)

:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...

As it stands, I would be thrilled with a 300dpi computer monitor at the 30" size, shame no one makes one. :(

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083649)

27" at 1920x1200 is a signficiantly lower pixel density than standard pixel densities on 22" monitors, which have the same resolution.

For the record, if you want screen real estate, you want 4K, not this stupid ultra-widescreen bullshit. For the record, the Ultra-wide 1440p panel is signficiantly shorter in width and especially height compared to a true 4K monitor.

At your current display size class, you can buy a Samsung U28D590D, or any of the other comparable monitors from Asus/Acer/Lenovo whenever they ship, and get literally your same monitor with double the pixel density. If you seriously still believe that Windows has a problem with DPI scaling (it doesn't), then you can buy larger 4K displays at 39". All of these are displays under $1000, albeit with some compromises (TN panels, and the 39" panels don't run 60hz at 4K because of HDMI limitations).

Speaking of fads - I would not be suprised if we see prices on 4K monitors - at least the cheap displays we're getting now - drop below the price of 1440p and ultra-wide 1440p displays.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#47083987)

Speaking as someone with a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and a 15" 2880x1800 monitor... No, 2560x1440 is not high enough resolution on 27", and 1920x1200 certainly isn't.

what do I think? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 4 months ago | (#47083339)

I just bought my first 16:9 display 3 months ago, wide is handy but resolution is where its at for multitaskers, but considering this thing cant decide if its a high end monitor or a gimmicky TV, resolution? whats that?

Objectively Inferior in Every Way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083349)

This resolution is smaller in *both* dimensions than 4K, it's not even wider.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083603)

Well, except for the fact you can drive the monitor at a higher refresh rate over hdmi. You can drive it with ONE modern graphics card. The aspect ratio IS wider.

So, as per usual, the AC is an idiot.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47083991)

What does refresh rate have to do with the pixel-dimensions of the screen? Yes, there are bandwidth limitations with the current HDMI spec, but that's irrelevant. to what your eye can see, and if 4K catches on either HDMI will be updated, or things will move to DisplayPort, where the tentative next-gen standard can already handle 8K displays at 60Hz.

Meanwhile the AC is absolutely correct, at 3440 x1440 this new display is smaller in both dimensions than a "standard" 4K at 3840 x 2160. And for most computing applications refresh rate is largely irrelevant for modern displays that don't "pulse" the image like CRTs did - 30Hz is quite sufficient for everything but 3D games. DVDs are only encoded at 30fps (NTSC), or even 25fps (PAL). Hell, even a traditional movie theater only runs at 24fps.

Vertical Resolution (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 4 months ago | (#47083357)

My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

As a TV display, I'd be hesitant to buy nonstandard resolutions as current HDMI has a bandwidth problem with 4k at a decent frame rate let alone finding media for it. I've seen 4K resolution playing 4K media. It's very beautiful but it also suffers from the industry or whoever announcing 8k already, so I'm in wait mode if economical models ever come along.

Until then, 1080p is good enough for TV and I'll find something not quite so wide for computers.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47083429)

My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical. I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.

That said, some programs are hideously wasteful of vertical space. I've had the curious experience of using Windows (for the first time in any meaningful manner since Windows 95) and Visual Studio (never reallu used before), and that combination eats vertical space likt it's going out of fashion. On a mere 1600x900 screen it's like programming through a letterbox. It begins to feel more comfortable at 2560x1440, but it's ont particularly great. Certainly worse than a better system at 1920x1080.

Yes Really (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#47083453)

Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

Yes really. I use multiple monitors most of the time, but I find my current second display (A cheapish HD monitor) at 1080p, is jet a bit too short. I've been looking at second monitors that offer more vertical resolution (looking strongly at 4K).

Although extra space to either side is nice in the end vertical space is often more useful for the task at hand.

Re:Yes Really (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47083567)

3 1080p monitors turned 90 degrees.

3240x1920. Cheaper then my first VGA monitor.

Re:Yes Really (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 4 months ago | (#47083771)

That doesn't work well for many people because the subpixel high-resolution is the wrong way.

Re:Vertical Resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083615)

Well, I have two monitor/ noth are atouf ad in 2034x231708. the fit and are good. Not they said, I would a good replacement but it needs to be BIVE 1441

Re:Vertical Resolution (2)

swillden (191260) | about 4 months ago | (#47083639)

Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation [google.com] . Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.

I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.

I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.

With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another couple of columns. I'd like that.

Re:Vertical Resolution (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 months ago | (#47083623)

My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

Or how about lack of resolution in general?

A consumer 4K monitor is 3840x2160. This screen is 3440x1440. Neither dimension is as big as a consumer 4K screen - it's 400 pixels too skinny, and 720 pixels too short.

So no, a regular 4K screen would get you more pixels.

And let's not even talk about the difference between consumer 4K and cinema 4K - the latter being 4096x2160.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083671)

1080p is "good enough" right now simply because the content isn't ready.

When Netflix and Amazon Prime start streaming the majority of their content in 4k, it will be time...

As it stands, there just isn't enough to watch on one, which is why they aren't selling.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 months ago | (#47083905)

The same "chicken and egg" dilemna faced 3D capable televisions, yet they sold. 4K is what movies and television is shot in these days, so it's really an "if you build it, they will come" problem.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47083953)

Yes, but other than at the very start, the price difference is so small, the "why not" factor comes into it.

Last Christmas I replaced our 60" Sharp Aquos TV with a 70" Sony 3D TV.

Partly to get a bigger screen, but mostly to put the 60" TV upstairs and replace the small TV that was there.

I paid about $2,200 for that new TV. Sony also makes a non-3D version of that exact same TV, for $100 less.

For a 4% price difference? Sure, I'll get 3D. We have used it a few times, it is cool, but not something we will use often.

4K? Yea, we will use that all the time, once the content arrives.

Re:Vertical Resolution (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 4 months ago | (#47083721)

So rotate your monitor already. That's been an option for 20 years. Sure, only a few specialty products were available back then but now it's available with just about every video driver. I can do it on my laptops with AMD and Intel video and my desktop with Nvidia. If your monitor's stand doesn't allow rotating, get a VESA stand for $35.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

kesuki (321456) | about 4 months ago | (#47083845)

three hdmi 1080p monitors in 24" resolution for $130 per screen and a $120 gpu (ati 7770) and two display port mini to hdmi adaptors and a decent computer will do just fine for most people and be a fraction of the price because it's standard screen size. if the 7770 isn't fast enough for gaming then a r9 280x is only $300 and is 4 times faster than the 7770. i still play old games though, so there are many models for me to chose from. technically i don't do multi screen except to play back blurays to a 40" hdtv. but i don't have the room for them, and if i were to game with multiple screens i would likely use 3 40" tv sets ($300-400 on sale compared to $700 per screen for monitors) rather than pay for 'only' monitors. but 24" is plenty big. i use 1080p on my best laptop which has a 17.3" display but if i had room for 3 screens i would definitely go big, on a budget. and i am not sensitive to flicker, from crts, florescent lights and other flickery things have never ever bothered me so latency and refresh rates don't apply to me to be willing to spend more for something that doesn't bother me.

Re:Vertical Resolution (1)

Misagon (1135) | about 4 months ago | (#47083949)

This monitor is pretty big. It has about the same height as a 27" 16:9 monitor or a 22" 4:3 monitor.
Resolution is 109.7 PPI which is the norm for desktop displays.

BTW, I think it is about time we start comparing vertical sizes instead of diagonal.

Oculus rift or similar (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 months ago | (#47083369)

Want bigger screens and more of them? Wait for the next gen oculus rift type devices.

Too bad Microsoft and the Desktop Linux bunch have their heads too far up their butts or are too busy forcing tablet and other crappy UIs onto Desktop users to actually provide us with an environment that will take full advantage of such hardware.

So you'll have to resort to some 3rd party software.

Re:Oculus rift or similar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083765)

Really? Are you implying that Apple is leading the way to using the Occulus Rift as your new main desktop PC display?

Not only does that sound absolutely terrible, but many people do not want an Occulus, especially now that it is owned by Facebook.

Re:Oculus rift or similar (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47084011)

As much as I'm looking forward to VR for various applications (games, 360* movies, etc) - work isn't one of them. If I'm working I want lots of screen real estate, and I don't want to have something strapped to my head cutting me off from my work environment. Not to mention the physical discomfort of wearing it for 8 hours a day, and the fact that if I did so I almost certainly wouldn't want to come home and strap the thing to my head again for a few hours of entertainment.

"Productivity"? (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#47083371)

Most documents read are still portrait orientation, most sourcecode is still nicely formatted over multiple lines.
Ultra-wide screens are only "productive" if you make cinema movies. Everybody else needs vertical space for productivity.
Then again, the entire review shows videogames and browser windows, so I guess it's for a different definition of "productivity".

Re:"Productivity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083519)

How about sourcecode + documentation, sourcecode + browser/simulator, document + browser window, your machine and a remote connection, etc etc?

There are plenty of use cases where having a very wide monitor greatly helps productivity.

Re:"Productivity"? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083589)

So 4 documents layed out horizontally in portrait orientation is useless for people working on documents? Audio engineers? Artists and source material? DJ's? etc...

You lack imagination and apparently don't do much with your computer.

Re:"Productivity"? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47083921)

I am far more productive when writing code or designing electronics if I have two monitors. An ultra-wide monitor is similar to having two separate monitors side-by-side, so it should definitely be better than a normal widescreen.

The real question is if this is better than having two widescreen monitors. On the plus side you only need one stand and because there is no bezel you can do three "pages" across without the middle one being annoying. On the other hand it isn't as wide as two widescreen monitors. You only need one cable, but most graphics cards these days have multiple outputs so it is only really systems that use on-board video via the single port on the motherboard that really need this.

Price? (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 4 months ago | (#47083373)

Any discussion like this is pointless without knowing the price. As in, "It's nice, but not for $XXXX." Or, "Since it costs as much per square inch as the two monitors it will replace, it's very attractive."

Re:Price? (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083663)

Well, he did say that if you're worried about price, you can get more resolution for cheaper in a multimonitor setup including a monitor stand.

So, not cheap. Then again, when is the first iteration of anything cheap or affordable for the masses?

Gimme a curved screen (1)

Skarjak (3492305) | about 4 months ago | (#47083403)

You know what would be awesome? If someone made one of these ultra wide screens and curved it, so you'd get the same effect as if you were using 3 screens but without the bezels. Would be great for gaming. Come on, we live in the future, where's my gigantic curved screen?

Re:Gimme a curved screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083645)

It's already been here (and failed). Alienware made one back in 2008 http://gizmodo.com/341413/alienware-curved-monitor-looks-like-its-from-another-planet

Re:Gimme a curved screen (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083743)

Yeah, but Skarjak asked for a curved monitor from the future, not from another planet.

Re:Gimme a curved screen (1)

Skarjak (3492305) | about 4 months ago | (#47083869)

Damn. That screen's size could have been an issue. Maybe it could have succeeded if the back didn't stick out so much? Also it was 8000$... I guess we're not in the future yet.

Nope (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 4 months ago | (#47083415)

This breathless sales pitch for a way too wide screen does not woo me at all over productivity.

The bezel is not a problem, and if anything, is an asset. It allows me to maximize a program on the left, and maximize a program on the right and keep the two separated in my mind. Few programs need such a wide space and will just waste it when maximized. Anything where you have to try and screw with dividing the screen manually sounds like it would be a productivity eater.

I suspect that there are a few applications where such an individual wide screen might be nice, first person shooters would probably benefit from it. But my IDE, my accounting, Photoshop, terminal window, or browser would all be lost and not only wasting the space but just mean that now I would have critical elements on the left so very far away from critical elements on the right.

So nope, these things are extremely niche and while probably get oohs and aahs in showrooms are probably destined for a future like the 17" laptop.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083551)

In Windows, it's very easy to set a window to fill half your screen by dragging it to the edge, giving a similar experience as having two discrete monitors.

I'm seeing this being worthwhile for users who want one big screen for gaming or media consumption, while also having the productivity benefits of having a lot of horizontal space.

Ultra WQHD? (4, Interesting)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 4 months ago | (#47083455)

OK, so I now have three WQHD displays and the 1440 vertical pixels are nice... while I cannot stand the 21:9 1080p monitors, because they are only useful for watching movies, I can see 3440x1440 being somewhat useful, but realistically, nothing beats multiple monitors for development. There are times when you need to go full-screen with your application while debugging. Having a 7680x1440 (and 3440x1440 still means at least 2 monitors to match what I currently have) display won't help me at all there (which is why I don't use nvidia's "Surround"). The problem with the 2560x1080 monitors is the lack of vertical real estate for "everything else" outside of games and movies. We took a minor step backward with 1080p to synch up with our home theater TVs, and as a developer, it was truly miserable to develop in. Even if I went with two of these monitors, it means I don't have a center monitor - I either have a primary and a secondary off to the side, or I'm staring at a bezel in the center. Maybe a developer on a budget could get one of these, and a WQHD monitor as a secondary... all I know is that I'm no longer miserable debugging full screen and mobile apps with my current setup.

While I'm ranting...

For home theater, ultra-wide is fine. Curved, on the other hand, is a crappy gimmick unless you are the sole viewer in your lazyboy at the focal point. In this usage, I can also see curved ultra-wides as a possible ideal gaming monitor.

Lock your doors (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47083475)

If you get one, lock your doors or they'll come in and saw half of it off while you sleep. LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale.

Re:Lock your doors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083569)

"LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale."
That would be because they can. They even do it.
Blame LG and whoever allow them to.

Is it like their Antiprivacey TV's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083495)

If you plug a flash drive into its USB hub does it try to send the contents back to LG?

4K is dead to me too (1)

Cantankerous Cur (3435207) | about 4 months ago | (#47083555)

I don't understand this impulse to make the monitor wider and wider. I'd like my monitor taller so I can see more of my webpages, not less. Maybe I'm just an old fogy so get off my digital lawn.

Re:4K is dead to me too (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083757)

Our vision is made for horizontal viewing, not vertical. The only thing that requires taller monitors is websites, everything else needs to be wide.

Get yourself a monitor that can be rotated 90 degrees.

Re:4K is dead to me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083907)

citation, please?

Re:4K is dead to me too (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083927)

Of course, here it is [youtube.com] .

Ads in /.? It's more likely than you think. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083597)

This article is an ad.

TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck! (1)

Dekonega (1606763) | about 4 months ago | (#47083635)

I want 24' IPS 4:3s or 16:10s. Especially 16:10 is a beautiful widescreen aspect ratio. It's very good for working on a computer. 16:9 is only good for watching movies and perhaps some games which are in a movie aspect ratio. Try doing work with one and you'll get frustrated and annoyed. Even if you turn it 90 degrees it's still horrible. 16:10 for life! (If you absolutely need widescreen). Now excuse me, I need more beer.

Re:TV/Movie-Widescreens fcksck! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083763)

If you ever find 4:3, 24", IPS monitors, please tell me.

Pro users will not switch away from IPS (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 4 months ago | (#47083655)

Pro users want 8 bit (or better) color and wide viewing angles (this is important because contrast/gamma/color balance doesn't shift with slight viewing angle shifts.)

Gamers won't switch because of 30hz refresh rates and poor response time.

At this size, featureset seems to be jumping back a couple of years at least, which isn't surprising. If you're a programmer or spend all day looking at text, yes, by all means, switch! Ditto for CAD. But if you do graphics/photo work, like to watch a lot of video/animation, or game - wait. For a while. You'll need to wait until ~4K IPS panels come out on the high end, and then trickle down to low end.

Re:Pro users will not switch away from IPS (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#47083807)

So, you missed the part where it's IPS and has wide viewing angles?

Or where you can drive it @50hz (hdmi) or @60hz(display port)?

The best feature it seems to have is you only need 1 graphics card.

I have one and it's great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083751)

I actually have one of these screens and I'm a huge fan. For coding work it's significantly better than the 30" Dell that I used to have. I can put two files side-by-side in my IDE and still have room to the side for a browser.

Having something like a 36" 4k screen would be nice for the extra vertical pixels, but I'm not expecting to see any of those out for a while. The trend seems more towards ~27-32" 4k screens and for me that just doesn't help. I have to scale the image up or sit super close to the screen. The smaller 4k tvs (~42") are only 30hz and that's a non-starter for me.

For $1k it's pretty hard to beat for coding work. I'm going to get another one to replace the 27" Cinema Display that's on my desk at home.

Never buying LG again. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 4 months ago | (#47083787)

I didn't know they used to be Goldstar, or I wouldn't have bought their monitor in the first place.

I fell asleep with Dragonball Z paused one night, and Goku's hairline got permanently burned in; along with the still legible "Kaenneth has won a cultural victory!" from play 'one more turn' on Civ 4 a bit too much.

Playback&viewership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083813)

I'm aware some games have the 21:9 option but what about the streamers and content creators for other streaming media, will we be given options so our viewers can enjoy the native resolution without cropping issues?

Even now yt doesn't handle portrait videos very well, my 720p videos are native at '1440p' because of the vertical resolution, I'm not against the form factor just wondering why I'd shoot myself in the foot at this point in time.

Betteridge said it best: No. (2)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | about 4 months ago | (#47083823)

First of all, 3440x1440 isn't better than 3840x2160.
If you really truly believe that a 21.5 aspect ratio is better than a 16:9, you could put a piece of tape over the bottom 500 lines of a "standard" 4k display and still end up with a higher res.

How about building a display panel that doesn't have edges?
Give me a dozen megapixel panels and a let me arrange them however I like.
Make them modular, interchangeable, cheap, and the whole display becomes expandable.
Or improve the power efficiency, or the cabling, or the weight, or the color depth, or... any of a dozen other things I care about more than the aspect ratio of a single panel.

If you absolutely must claim that one aspect ratio is superior to another, then why not go with the golden ratio?
At least that way you can put two together and still have the same ratio.

Re:Betteridge said it best: No. (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47083945)

The golden ratio is too expensive, that's why they're using the silver screen ratio.

Linux compatibility? (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about 4 months ago | (#47083863)

Does it work on Linux, specifically Centos/RHEL? is any particular video card required or should it work with what I already have (Intel graphic something built into the motherboard).

I'm not into gaming but I do like the idea of a bigger desktop and workspace!

Some drawbacks (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 4 months ago | (#47083885)

No bezels is nice. However, I have three 24" ASUS monitors with probably around 1.5" of bezel between them, and it's honestly something you get used to. When gaming, you aren't really supposed to look directly at the other monitors anyway (there tends to be a lot of distortion to the sides), so the bezels aren't as big a deal as you might think. I would prefer to keep 5760x1080 over 3840x1440, but that might just me. The extra vertical space is nice, but not at the cost of almost 2000px in horizontal resolution.

Beyond that, the "ultra-wide" LG monitor isn't as good for a lot of productivity tasks. With three separate monitors, you have the advantage of the window manager allowing you to maximize or snap to multiple points instead of one giant one. So you can have three maximized windows with the click of a couple buttons, whereas on the LG monitor, you have to manually position them to achieve the same effect. If you use the "snap to side" feature found in Windows and at least some Linux WMs, you can quickly have six windows side-by-side filling three monitors. Finally, if you're watching a video in one monitor, maximizing it only fills that single monitor, leaving you two others to use in the meantime.

Aspect ratios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083957)

Neither 21:9 or 3340x1440 are 'cinematic'.
2.40:1 theater anamorphic SMPTE 195-1993
2.39:1 theater anamorphic PH22.106-1971
3440/1440 2.3888 monitors
2.34:1 theater anamorphic PH22.106-1957 aka: 2.35:1
21/9 2.3333
2.20:1 theater "70mm"
1.85:1 theater widescreen
16/9 1.7777 2560x1440 1920x1080 hdtv
16:10 2560/1600 1.600 monitors
1.375:1 theater acadamy 35mm
4/3 1.3333 sdtv

And quite frankly 1440 is not enough vertical space in which to stack a couple apps such as 2 browsers or browser and tall xterm in.

Before buying into some ragefad you need to consider your primary usage and the tradeoffs.
Movies? You're going to hit black bars or lossy/expensive scaling no matter what primary near-ratio you choose... 2.4/1.8/1.3. 16:9 (1.777) is most common.
Apps? Unless you like being confined to a wide yet vertically narrow workspace band, go 1.7-ish.
Such as monoprice 10734 30" LED $690 or 10489 27" LED $461.
And remember to always calculate the physical DPI you're getting before buying.

Aspect ratios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47083985)

Oh, and here's one more...
Seiki SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV $500

I hate odd fractions... (5, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | about 4 months ago | (#47083967)

How about we just use decimals so we can understand this more easily?
5:4 = 1.25:1
Made common with 1280×1024 displays
4:3 = 1.33:1
Old computer monitor standard
16:10 = 1.6:1
Made common with 1280×800, 1680×1050 and 1920x1200 displays
16:9 = 1.78:1
(HD video standard)
Became most common aspect ratio for computer displays in 2012
  A4 paper size = 1.41:1
Movies usually are in 2.39:1, 16:9 or 1.85:1
256:135 = 1.9:1
Since 2011, several monitors complying with the Digital Cinema Initiatives 4K standard have been produced. The standard specifies a resolution of 4096×2160 and an aspect ratio of almost 1.9:1.

Of course 3K is better than 4K ....? (1)

Dantu (840928) | about 4 months ago | (#47083995)

Of course 3440 x1440 is better than 4K, having only 56% of the pixels of a true 4K display (4096x2160) LG can make a lot more money on it. A true 4K screen cropped to 21:9 is still going to give you more pixels to work with. BTW: 4K cinema is 4096x2160, but when then want to show 21:9 they use the appropriate lens to change the aspect ratio without throwing out pixels.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>