Search results

It's just that it becomes impractical to achieve high angle of coverage (180° for example) for immersive gaming when radius of curvature is much higher than your viewing distance. Even impossible with flat panels.

Samsung S34E790C - equidistant surface at 3 meter distance. LG 34UC97 - equidistant surface at almost 4 meter distance (3.8). Average Eyefinity / Surround setup - equidistant at ~1 meter distance.

What's the point of making a monitor where every point (horizontally) is at the same distance from you... ...only when you're sitting 3 meters (that's what "3000R" from announcements is) away? Jesus Christ, standard viewing distance is ~70 cm. Bend it accordingly, not this bullshit.

Aging of the white element could cause a color shift.You take for granted that aging of the white element causes only a decrease in luminance while color temperature of the white element might change as well.

Very simple - high immersion above all. Then high motion resolution (crystal clear image during fast movement). Next static resolution. Then color.

But wouldn't you rather buy our new shiny edition after a few years? Now seriously, do you consider non-organic LED to be true CRT replacement, something like Sony's Crystal LED? Then you most likely haven't used a TV for PC gaming / image manipulation. Tricks and intentional(?) limitation. All...

[delete]

Curved with curvature matching usual PC viewing distance (unlike anything on market today).

Would you rather have something like this (in form of projector & screen, LCD, OLED, whatever) or a 32'' 4K display? What is the end-game of displays for you? Is it full immersion and total FOV coverage? Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftlkMGQpS0

And why is that? What about it would make anyone "blind"?

I agree with Brian Hauer here who has a priority list for desktop display features . Displays need to fill as much of my field of view as possible. This means I won't stop until I have a 360 dome. You're doubleclick away from immersive worlds.

I think the evolution of display comparisons, size-wise, goes like this. Compare diagonals. Problem: different aspect ratios. Compare total screen area. Problem: FOV coverage not growing linearly with total area. Final solution: compare total angular area (FOV coverage) of the screen in square...

A cup of laziness + pinch of incompetence + 2 gallons of greed = current state of displays. What do your reckon a board found in those high-end monitors / TVs costs? This is just pathetic. Imagine I need a lot of storage for my desktop. Terabytes and terabytes of storage. All I have to do...

In the terms of apparent size (FOV coverage), 24-inch viewed from 70 cm is comparable to 105-inch display viewed from 10 ft. Both are covering ~42° horizontally. Anyway, you want anything lower than 2 arcminutes per pixel. At 10 ft, that's 15 PPI or higher. No. That's 0.7 arcminutes per pixel...

This. Also, I'd like to add you'll be able to recognize distant objects you couldn't recognize before.

Vega is right. And geometry problems are non-existent. Anything you can experience with flat display, you can experience with cylindrical display. You want straight lines? No problem. You can display perfectly straight lines on cylindrical displays. Using flat surfaces to cover medium or high...

Bullshit. There is no shape or line which can't be shown in its original form on cylindrical or spherical display.

Image distortion is of course the difference between the angle at which a point on display should be seen (0° for orthographic elements and images, higher for rectilinear) and the actual angle at which we're looking at it. Overall distortion can be calculated for any surface (flat, cylindrical...

Math software. Even though comparing angles is fairly simple math which could be done on paper easily.

380 cm radius is mostly there for aesthetics. That minor wraparound effect is really, really minor. From the angles people choose for their peripheral Eyefinity/Surround monitors, I believe many users would absolutely love radius of curvature matching their viewing distance, creating...

Fair point, but it doesn't hold water. I just calculated for a scenario where two users are sharing a display (watching a Youtube video, playing split-screen or whatever). Results? With LG's implementation of curvature, HFOV gain is 2.1%. With "ideal" version, it is 7.7%.

What's the radius of curvature of your ultimate dream monitor?

So you already know from school that concave-curved surfaces can cover higher angle than flat surfaces of the same length. With computer displays, higher viewing angle contributes to immersion. LG's new display is curved [mostly] because of this. But just how curved is it? Good step in the...

Radius of the curvature seems to be 3.8 meters. Not ideal at all. Immersion-wise, this means that you'll improve your horizontal FOV (HFOV) by only few percent.

Actually no. Because you're wrong.

It will increase your horizontal field of view with the same amount of material. So 55'' curved could cover higher angle than 55'' flat. How much higher depends on the [radius of the] curvature. Clearer now?

Anyone with basic knowledge of math (or common sense) sees the potential benefits. But no, "curve will always be a gimmick, no matter what! Kill it now! I don't like it!" Such dumbness, I just lack words.

This news makes me very happy. Though I'm not sure if this means I can manually set my side monitors to lower resolution or if all monitors have to run native. Anyone can clear this up?

This is a joke post, right?

You can't surround yourself with that 21:9 LG :)

Considering limits of flexibility of today's flexible panels, 70 cm is a slight bend. Equidistance is what we're after. If viewing distance is 70 cm, then radius of curvature better be 70 cm. Edit: depth should be less than 5 cm.

I just did some math and it turns out you'd get 10% higher hFOV just by bending it slightly (radius of curvature 70 cm). 59° vs. 65°.

Would it be possible to slide them up & down?

Could you upload any as png?

I'm interested in larger panels, whether they were meant to be used in large laptops or actual PC monitors doesn't matter. Is it possible make an order from LG? Have you tried contacting them?

First, "4K" or 3840x2160 is not "four times clearer than HD". Study resolution. What it meant from the beginning of time. Pixel count is not resolution and never was. Relevant pastebin of quotes I collected from people who got it right. Resolution is a measure of x per unit of length, not...

Sad, isn't it? They could make one you describe in two years.

It finally supports cylindrical rendering! You know what that means, guys? That you can feed it to curved display and it'll look perfect, without any distortions. For those of you with flat displays who like to render at high FOV values (but your displays don't actually occupy the same part of...

Read into resolution, please. Not the bastardized term referring to total number of elements.