Larger 21:9 - 3840x1600 38"

Wonder if people would find a slightly larger 21:9 interesting, something in between 34" and the 40" 16:9's that many go for.

Around a 38" 3840x1600 giving you about 11% more area without pushing things to the full 4k pixels but giving you a bit bigger field of view and area to work with.

I would suspect that curved would be good for this wide a panel.


So here is a thread to discuss the thinking on the topic to see if it would interesting, or not

well obviously it would be nice. it will start to get close to the graphical demand of 4k though. It would probably also need gsync/freesync in case a game i want to run can't run 60 stable atleast with gsync/freesync the stutter/tearing won't be as bad hopefully.

Well the math says that it's about 74% of the pixels needed for 4K. I'd bet that 970/980 and AMD single card equivalents would manage those pixels quite well. And the 980Ti will do it on a single card with ease. So my thought is that current or near current high end can manage it and by the time we get to the true next gen chips (1 yr away) you'd have 20% more GPU power and an even larger quantity of single cards could manage the resolution.

This resolution could also be managed by Intel built in CPU's on some notebooks (admittedly not for gaming but they could at least hook up for desktop uses). That again makes the possible market uses pretty large.

As an added plus it could be driven by DP 1.2 and HDMI 2.0. I'm not quite certain from memory if HDMI 1.4 would work. Have to check.

It's hard for me to understand the appeal of these cropped resolutions.

720p and 1080p scale cleanly to UHD, and UHD content is already being released in streaming format now and in Blu-Ray this fall. While 3840x1600 could in theory allow some unstretched film content, the same doesn't apply to TV material.
Likewise, there's no shame in running games in letterboxed resolutions if your GPU can't support full UHD.

Black bars won't kill you, guys, and having extra vertical space is pretty valuable for most workstation tasks.

It would be interesting, however, I think they'll jump straight to 5120x2160 for the next ultrawides - that is the "4K" equivalent for 21:9.

I actually tried doing that on 39.5in Monitor I have and was doing 3840x1645.

Some pics:

I feel that it's better to just go 40" 4K and use a custom 21:9 res if you want it for some game. Otherwise using a native 21:9 display just means most content isn't a good fit and some games don't play nice outside 16:9. Personally I don't use the 21:9 option much since the larger 16:9 is more immersive unless the fov in the game is really restrictive and can't be changed.

I have no real use for a 21:9 display.

I spend a lot of time reading. And the shorter the aspect ratio is, the worse off it is. Lots of wasted space around the edges and no real gains in vertical height.

And no, I don't want to turn the stupid thing on its side.

I'd still prefer 16:10 if were available.

I don't understand why 3440x1440 was chosen over 3840x1620. At 3840x1620, you can fit 2 x 1920 wide windows. 3840x1620 also gives you the 64:27 aspect ratio. You can still watch 2.39:1 movies with some slight letter boxing.

A 38" 3840x1620 monitor would also mean less vertical tilting than a 40" 4k monitor.

at this point - panel manufacturers are already moving slow enough - the last thing I would want right now is them adding ANOTHER panel to their production line

I want a 2560x1920 27" 4:3 144hz VA panel as well, while we're at it

My chrismas wish is 1:1 monitor. Wait a minute, such thing actually exists

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8740/...can-ev2730q-monitor-with-1920x1920-resolution

The question is why would a reasonable person go for lower in vertical resolution, significantly lower in horizontal resolution, and pay more for it?

As for ultrawide fad, it is silly both in horizontal
https://www.google.com/search?q=emb...dMNkP_Q&biw=995&bih=883#imgrc=khfrbdqYBpOkcM:
and vertical form
https://www.google.com/search?q=emb...dMNkP_Q&biw=995&bih=883#imgrc=xiS_O7EE-yYyPM: