3840 x 1080 needs to be a format

DoubleTap

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,991
I'm not really interested in a 4K monitor but I wonder if a double-wide 1080P screen with no seam in the middle would not be a superior replacement for 3X 1080?

I don't know a lot about LCD manufacture, but shouldn't they be able to cut one of the 55" 4k panels in half and build something like this?

Ideally it would be curved but that's probably asking too much.
 
Spazturtle said:
You mean like this?

http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-29EA93

2560 x 1080
Click to expand...

I've seen the 21:9 panels and they are only 1/3rd wider than a regular 1920 panel - that gives you 1/6th more screen on either side which is not enough.

A 3840 wide panel would give you a half of an extra screen on either side which, in my opinion is where you start to see diminishing returns from a 3 panel setup anyway.
 
I want a 360 degree display that truly surrounds you
 
No way, needs more vertical pixels. I can't stand 1080 screens. Shit, give me a square screen.. 2560x2560 and I'd be happy
 
Cryptic1911 said:
No way, needs more vertical pixels. I can't stand 1080 screens. Shit, give me a square screen.. 2560x2560 and I'd be happy
Click to expand...

Yea, I really can't comprehend the idea that a monitor should be sized so it's like I'm squinting out of the horizontal slit wind-shield of the taxi in The Fifth Element.

I'm all for a more encompassing width but, goddamnit, I want to be able to have TALL windows as well without having to resort to LCD arms and portrait orientations in order to review hundreds of lines of code!

I would totally buy a 2560x2560 display.
 
I'd rather have triples because I have been spoiled by the surround gaming experience.

I can run a 179' FOV in iRacing, and BF4 is a fantastic experience with trips.

The only reason I went with trips is because of Iracing, now I can't live without them.
 
Lith1um said:
I'd rather have triples because I have been spoiled by the surround gaming experience.

I can run a 179' FOV in iRacing, and BF4 is a fantastic experience with trips.

The only reason I went with trips is because of Iracing, now I can't live without them.
Click to expand...

Yea, but wouldn't things be even better if the vertical FOV was expanded as well? ;)
 
cortexodus said:
Yea, but wouldn't things be even better if the vertical FOV was expanded as well? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, it definitely would. Especially in sims.

I'd have gone with 3 30's except for the high cost, I prefer 16:10 over 16:9.

I'm not sure I'd want to drive those extra pixels though, because right now I'm doing pretty well with a single 290x.
 
2560x2560? Really??
A square monitor is not a good idea as the field of vision of most human is closer to 16:9 or 16:10.
 
RadXge said:
2560x2560? Really??
A square monitor is not a good idea as the field of vision of most human is closer to 16:9 or 16:10.
Click to expand...

Yes, but our eyeball's FOV is about 130 degrees vertical and almost 180 degrees horizontal. How much of that FOV is filled with any given display?

The point I'm making here is this:

Instead of this: "Let's mimic a human FOV inside the game engine and then project that onto a flat panel and then the human can sit and look at something which mimics a real human FOV but actually only encompasses 25% of his real eyeball's FOV."

Why not this: "Let's fill actual real eyeballs with more visible pixels!"

2560x2560 means more stuff in front of my eyeballs. I don't only look left and right like I'm this dude. I want to be able to look all over and see awesomeness. Sure, I'd love to dink with a 2560x1080 display, that's great. But wouldn't it be even better if it had more pixels? I think so. :D
 
RadXge said:
2560x2560? Really??
A square monitor is not a good idea as the field of vision of most human is closer to 16:9 or 16:10.
Click to expand...

Really. A wide screen is basically useless if you have no height to go along with it. Just about everything on the internet, or business related is vertical, and not horizontal. I'm staring at 5 monitors in front of me, and I have 4 of the 5 turned portrait, and one landscape for connecting to other computers. I don't watch 16:9 movies on my computers, and I don't play games, so why have such limited height? I'd rather be able to look up and down to read more of what is on the screen without having to scroll every 10 seconds

cortexodus said:
Yes, but our eyeball's FOV is about 130 degrees vertical and almost 180 degrees horizontal. How much of that FOV is filled with any given display?

The point I'm making here is this:

Instead of this: "Let's mimic a human FOV inside the game engine and then project that onto a flat panel and then the human can sit and look at something which mimics a real human FOV but actually only encompasses 25% of his real eyeball's FOV."

Why not this: "Let's fill actual real eyeballs with more visible pixels!"

2560x2560 means more stuff in front of my eyeballs. I don't only look left and right like I'm this dude. I want to be able to look all over and see awesomeness. Sure, I'd love to dink with a 2560x1080 display, that's great. But wouldn't it be even better if it had more pixels? I think so. :D
Click to expand...

I'm with this guy. Gimme more height, and stop squeezing the goddamn vertical resolution! I cringe every time I see a new laptop with a 1366x768 screen. Such a waste

I feel like this every time I sit at a vertical height impared screen:

agoraphobia-2012.jpg
 
DoubleTap said:
I've seen the 21:9 panels and they are only 1/3rd wider than a regular 1920 panel - that gives you 1/6th more screen on either side which is not enough.

A 3840 wide panel would give you a half of an extra screen on either side which, in my opinion is where you start to see diminishing returns from a 3 panel setup anyway.
Click to expand...

If the 21:9 panels sell well, there will be more of them and it will open the door to even wider stuff, all the curved OLED stuff that people are hoping for in 5-10 years time.

But, if the 21:9 panels don't sell well then all that stuff is less likely. So if you want a 3840x1080 panel, go buy a 21:9 monitor. Show them that there is a market for it.
 
I'll echo the "not enough vertical" sentiments of others. If I saw 21:10 I'd be more enthusiastic vs 21:9.

16:9 I can handle although I prefer 16:10.
 
cortexodus said:
Yea, I really can't comprehend the idea that a monitor should be sized so it's like I'm squinting out of the horizontal slit wind-shield of the taxi in The Fifth Element.

I'm all for a more encompassing width but, goddamnit, I want to be able to have TALL windows as well without having to resort to LCD arms and portrait orientations in order to review hundreds of lines of code!

I would totally buy a 2560x2560 display.
Click to expand...

You can have something along those lines Eizo makes one. Probably not what you want though :D
 
The difference is content creation vs content consumption. Wide is great for consumers because most content is wide. Creators want more vertical since they want to see more than just the content itself. The VAST majority of buyers/users are content consumers so a vast majority of monitors sold are wide. Its just us geeks in the trenches that want taller aspect ratio monitors.
 
push said:
Just flip them vertically you big babies ;)
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but then you end up with a shitty 1080 width on *most* monitors. If they would make them reasonably tall, then using them portrait would be better as well. I have oldschool 1600x1200 monitors, and even at that, 1200 pixels width is the minimum I'd go. I couldn't go with a 1920x1080 monitor because I'd lose 10% of the width that I currently have. a 1920x1200 wouldn't be terrible, but there aren't too many of those these days. I just broke down and bought a 27" 2560x1440 monitor yesterday for home
 
Cryptic1911 said:
That's all well and good, but then you end up with a shitty 1080 width on *most* monitors. If they would make them reasonably tall, then using them portrait would be better as well. I have oldschool 1600x1200 monitors, and even at that, 1200 pixels width is the minimum I'd go. I couldn't go with a 1920x1080 monitor because I'd lose 10% of the width that I currently have. a 1920x1200 wouldn't be terrible, but there aren't too many of those these days. I just broke down and bought a 27" 2560x1440 monitor yesterday for home
Click to expand...
That's why you get two :)
 
I run 5760x1080 and while I'm basically satisfied with it, it's an extreme solution - three screens, an expensive stand, managing settings on 3 monitors and while I love NV Surround, in most games, the very outer edges tend to get more distortion and for lack of a better term, "diminishing returns" in terms of your view port.

The reason I think 3840x1080 has potential is because there are currently panels being manufactured that are exactly double this size. I'm pretty sure you can't just slice a 2k monitor horizontally (to use half of a flawed panel) but I bet it wouldn't take too much to rework the manufacturing.

This is what I like about the idea:

No gaps / bezels
One signal cable
One device to calibrate
One mount/stand to worry about
Less GPU power "wasted" driving the extreme edges of a three monitor system
More accessible ultra wide gaming

It's not really something that is going to appeal to professionals and content creators or those of you obsessed with pixel density.

I didn't even mention that it should be 120+ hz

This would be the size of two 27" monitors merged into a single panel:
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-55-inch-16x9

There would be significant off angle issues with a TN panel so it would need to be IPS or something else - I suspect that a curved screen would create all sorts of challenges for proper backlighting.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the point of this thread. Isn't this at best a half measure of 4K?
Why wouldn't you want 3840x2160 over 3840x1080?
You note at the beginning you aren't interested in 4K. But at the same time you could just have black bars on your screen all the time if that's what you really want. You'd still have your desired resolution, there wouldn't be increased cost with having to create a niche specific format just to meet your needs, and everyone that doesn't want to look through a slit wouldn't have to.
 
I'm thinking it'll have to wait until curved OLED before we see proper ultra wide monitors. Until then 16:9 and 16:10 will have to serve.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I don't get the point of this thread. Isn't this at best a half measure of 4K?
Why wouldn't you want 3840x2160 over 3840x1080?
You note at the beginning you aren't interested in 4K. But at the same time you could just have black bars on your screen all the time if that's what you really want. You'd still have your desired resolution, there wouldn't be increased cost with having to create a niche specific format just to meet your needs, and everyone that doesn't want to look through a slit wouldn't have to.
Click to expand...

I'm with Double Tap on this one. I have a bit of a hodgepodge of monitors. One 2560x160, three 1680x1050 in portrait at a custom resolution of about 3820x1680. Also a 40 inch 1920x1080 LCD TV. The TV sits above the 30 inch and the Surround setup next to them. I mainly run Prepar3D flight instrumentation on the 30 inch and use the TV for the out of the window view. The surround setup I use for DCS A10 and other flight combat simulations. The quality of the Surround setup is less than the 30 inch but is much more immersive. If they came out with a 3840x1080 for around $1000 I would get it in a hardbeat.No screwing around with Surround, easier SLI implementation and no bezels. At that resolution I also know that I don't need to upgrade my hardware for a while. Now 3840x2160 @60hz would be better but I don't see those to be at around the 1k pricepoint anytime soon knowing what the ASUS PQ321Q is going for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top