Any word on widescreen versions of 32" 4K screens

Anemone

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
903
I have a 3818dw now (joined the family) and the entire house likes it very much (110 dpi or so). However we also have 32" 4K and while we scale it up a bit (125%) it provides a much nicer text readability and everyone who looked at both saw it immediately.

So I got to wondering. 29" widescreens were the extension of 24" 16:9. Then they ventured to 34" widescreens which were wide versions of 27's and they definitely hit gold on that one. So with every panel maker under the sun making a 32" 4K panel why hasn't anyone tried for the 39.5 wide version of a 32? (31.5 in reality) It "seems" like an obvious no brainer. Some folks go for dual 32's but that's a great deal of horizontal real estate to dedicate. Certainly they have these dual 27's in a single panel coming that seem to be space saving over dual 27's and give a single screen to output to. There are even gamer versions of that wide panel.

So is there something illogical about a widescreen version of a 32? I did the rough math and it would be approximately a 39.6" panel in 21:9. You'd think that it would be similar to the 5120x2160 that LG has done with the 34" model. That in itself is a wide version of the 4K 27" panels. It just seems like an easy "cut the glass larger" concept to bring a widescreen 4K in one of the most popular sizes FOR 4K (32). But maybe there is something I'm missing.

Thought I'd see what others thought.
 
I don’t know but I have a question for you: If you could only keep one, would you keep the 38” UltraWide or the 32” 4K monitor?
 
Well I'll pose it with what we did with the two. The widescreen is sitting with the "gaming" desktop (liquid cooled 9700k + 2080). The 4K screen became the Surface Book workstation for getting work done and I'll decide later whether to add gaming to that station. If I were going to go in between I'd probably land on the 5120x2160 LG panel. The widescreen is fantastic when gaming so if that's 75% of your life you'll love it. But the fine pitch of the 4K is really nice. That led me to this thread, why not a widescreen based on the 31.5" size.
 
If I had to guess monitor vendors probably are hesitating on bringing any more 5120x2160ish displays until one of HDMI 2.1, Displayport v.next, or displayport lossless compression are out so that they have enough bandwidth to offer 120/144hz versions.
 
I'm sure we will see these eventually, but pushing more pixels than 4K at high hertz is not practical at this time (imho). Also at 43" or 49" 4K panels are really immersive - to each their own but I don't feel like anything is missing, and this is the most versatile format at this time
 
Back
Top