At which size ultrawide screens begin to make sense?

T

tegirinenashi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
140
Lets start with postage stamp screen sizes, increment and see when (if ever) ultrawide screen makes sense.

1. Smart watches. Do you want letterbox smartwatch? You must be kidding.

2. Smartphones. That is one unique category, that literally begged for ultrawide AR, because phones are elongated thingies. Did you ever see any letterbox smartphone?

3. Tablets. Apple (the coolest/hipstest vendor out there) makes 4:3 devices. WTF?

4. Laptops. There are several ultrashort offerings in this category! If I were one those employees who peddled those products within their companies, I would seriously worry about being fired (due to disappointing sales).

5. Desktops is currently the only niche where ultrawide gained some momentum. I repeat once again: this is momentously stupid development.

6. TVs. After brief Phillips and Vizio honeymoon with ultrashort TVs, they are discontinued. Do they still employ people who proposed those ventures?

7. Projection screens at movie venues. Most of multiplexes are width constrained, and therefore are 16:9. The 2.35:1 AR format is a ridiculous waste even in movie venues!

8. IMAX
 
I don't think I ever would get an ultrawide monitor myself. I guess if you do video editing where most of your video are such, might make some sense. otherwise, it just more limitations for regular usage.

For a given perimeter, the closer the screen is to a square, the more surface area.... No one wants a true square screen of course. But 16:9 seems to be the ideal for most things. My preference is 16:10 but I guess that's now only a minority voice.
 
I have an ultrawide. And, now I wont buy a monitor that isn't. It is amazing. Makes much more sense than a triple monitor setup. I am fully submerged in gaming, no bezels to always be a nuisance, and desktop viewing is great with all the extra side space. And... My monitor can do dual pictures, so the extra space can be used for 2 computers/consoles/whatever.
 
To me the only sense they make is if you 23ish-27Ish inch surround or single monitors and just want something like that but single screen no bezels. They are still tiny monitors to me, same height as 27"
 
I've been contemplating an ultra-wide monitor above my triple monitor setup, I don't think it's a stupid development. I wish that TV manufacturers would give ultra-wide another shot, at least in the 60"+ range, would be really sick.
 
Ultra-wide makes some sense for people that currently have multi-monitor setups and like them but want to get rid of the bezels. In fact I'd argue that the upcoming 32:9 panels actually make more sense for this use-case than the 21:9 we have now.

Also, there are people with older video cards that just can't drive a 4K screen, but that *can* drive a 21:9 ultrawide.

Personally I'd like a 44-48" curved 4K, but my work laptop can't support it (I work from home) so I'm stuck waiting on a laptop refresh.
 
What is the reason for multi-monitor setup? Back in CRT days you have to mortgage your house in order to get display larger than 21" diagonal. So having more than one display was the only way to get decent screen real estate. And why people aligned them horizontally? Because those thingies weighted a ton, and placing them side-by-side at the desk was reasonable. BTW, those gadgets were 4:3 , so people went little bit crazy, when they started to do the same with 16:10, and later with 16:9 LCDs. Their screen work area started to resemble embrasure view...

Today, 4K monitor provides plenty of screen real estate, with 4x screen surface of 1080p monitor. Plus they are not height constrained. And they are relatively cheap too.

I don't know what is about people liking those short thingies... Do they ever enjoy watching gorgeous standing woman (naked, or otherwise)? Why would they want to diminish their experience? Or they just are afraid of heights? Don't be scared [of monitor height], this thing is not going to fall and harm you.
 
my opinions echo those who prefer ultrawide vs multiple monitors.

i really really wanted to dual monitors for the longest day. last december, i plunkered down for 2x dell p2414h. ever since seeing those LGs fall in price, i wish i wouldve wanted and gone with the ultrawide screen.
 
I came from a 23 inch 1080p monitor to a 34 inch 2560x1080. LOVED the change even though the pixel density was a bit low. Now I am using the 34" 3440x1440 34UM95c and I love it even more. I don't understand where the "momentously stupid development" opinion comes from. I often run two windows, one with a video going and another where I am doing something productive (or browsing [H], etc) Pixel density is a little better than my 23" at 1080p and gaming is just SO MUCH more interactive. I never wanted the headaches that came with multi-monitor gaming and dont like the borders. When I want my primary information in the center of the screen I can do that with one window and still have a window on either side, although I usually use two big windows side by side. I would hate going back to a smaller screen. The only downside I have seen so far is some games dont work well with the ultrawide format even with the "Flawless Widescreen" program. So I change the screen to 2560x1440 and still have a large screen with two black bars on the side. No problem.
 
Just FYI the full IMAX resolution is 1.35:1 or 1.43:1 depending on venue (but I believe the latter is the standard), which is just a little wider than 4:3. Although most Hollywood movies filmed in IMAX maintain the standard 1.89:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio, some movies have inserted scenes utilizing the full height of the screen (The Dark Knight comes to mind, particularly the opening scene). 21:9 makes much more sense in a smaller form factor, in my opinion, and is the perfect aspect ratio for desktop use (whether gaming or productivity).
 
I have three Ultrawide monitors at 25", 29" and 34" sizes. (1 Dell, 2 LG) They all make sense to me at those size factors. The 25" I picked up for the TiVo/Fire TV in my study. I'm big fan of the LG's Cinema mode for watching anamorphic movies without letterbox bars.

I too wish the TV manufacturers would give 21:9 a chance.
 
Ulltrawide is the best. I have a 25" that I bought first to see if I would like it and then bought the 34" since I love the shape.
I used to use dual and triple screens but the ultrawide is wide enough not to really need a second display.

if I had the money, I'd have this,
LG-105UC9.jpg
 
I'd be using it for movies, not the desktop, lol
 
Whoever pays this $99999 sticker, deserves starring at this huge waste of space at the bottom. He also deserves starring at black side bars for all TV footage. I imagine friends coming to his gorgeous house to watch superball (or whatever) and asking "What's up with these stupid black bars?" Some may even say "You paid $99999 for what is essentially 80"TV? Do you know that they run about $4K in Costco?"

Next time he would be careful to zoom the image to fill in the entire screen. But then some smart ass would be making jokes about commentators heads chopped off. He would end up stretching the image horizontally. Then, those smarty pants would not stop teasing about fat players.
 
Last edited:
tegirinenashi said:
Whoever pays this $99999 sticker, deserves starring at this huge waste of space at the bottom. He also deserves starring at black side bars for all TV footage. I imagine friends coming to his gorgeous house to watch superball (or whatever) and asking "What's up with these stupid black bars?" Some may even say "You paid $99999 for what is essentially 80"TV? Do you know that they run about $4K in Costco?"

Next time he would be careful to zoom the image to fill in the entire screen. But then some smart ass would be making jokes about commentators heads chopped off. He would end up stretching the image horizontally. Then, those smarty pants would not stop teasing about fat players.
Click to expand...

Or he could just use it for movies alone. I mean if you pay $100,000 for a tv, I'm sure you could afford another set for just sports.
 
I switched from a 16:10 (2408wfp) to an ultrawide LG 34UM95P and with that I don't think ultrawide works for anything below that size and resolution. I made the leap because I was missing my old dual monitor setup and adding another monitor to my old screen didn't make much sense. The larger screen and higher resolution prove good enough for my need to have multiple documents on my screen easily and I know having a vertical resolution 1080 is not enough for good productivity (scrolling up and down). It might be ok for gaming or movies though, but those are secondary and I really like watching them on my bigger screen.
 
endlesszeal said:
Or he could just use it for movies alone
Click to expand...

A dedicated set for movies alone, nice.

Wouldn't it be just easier for Hollywood cut the crap, and start releasing all new movies in 16:9? Who in the right mind would shoot a film in 4K, and then crop top and bottom to show it pillarboxed in 16:9 multiplexes? (Or zoom cropped 2.37:1 image cropping it one more time on the sides).

Why on earth would they would cut top and bottom on blue-ray? That's right, to appeal to widescreen Nazis who marched during VCR 4:3 days demanding to see irrelevant stuff on the sides. "That is director's artistic intent -- how dare you to butcher it (pan and scan)".

Once again, in any other industry if you pull out the thing that Hollywood is doing -- creating confusion among consumers by releasing movies in incompatible aspect ratios -- people would suspect you are plain incompetent.
 
I actually like the iPad at 4:3. It's pretty close to a standard sheet of paper (8.5x11, not legal) or a book, and reading is what I do most on it (both books and web pages) I thought it worked well, although a lot of people thought "WTF" about it not being 16:9 or 16:10 for movies and whatnot.
 
tegirinenashi said:
A dedicated set for movies alone, nice.
Click to expand...

I dont know if youre being sarcastic, but I think those are called theater rooms.

My well-to-do friend has a dedicated room with sound deadening, no windows, appropriate soft lighting with an amazing projector and huge speakers. Never bother to ask what model and makes. Then in one of the 3 living rooms, he has "regular" large sized LCDs where we drink and hang out.

Now if youre going to say he is stupid for spending money on a theater room, then I can tell you he doesnt care and he enjoys what he has.
 
4/3 = 1.33
21/2=10.5
10.5/9 = 1.17

1.17 = ~1.33

Therefore 21:9 is almost as good as two 4:3 monitors!
 
endlesszeal said:
I dont know if youre being sarcastic, but I think those are called theater rooms.

My well-to-do friend has a dedicated room with sound deadening, no windows, appropriate soft lighting with an amazing projector and huge speakers. Never bother to ask what model and makes. Then in one of the 3 living rooms, he has "regular" large sized LCDs where we drink and hang out.

Now if youre going to say he is stupid for spending money on a theater room, then I can tell you he doesnt care and he enjoys what he has.
Click to expand...

If he ever sells his house I would bet that he will get back what he put into it and then some. :D
 
tegirinenashi said:
A dedicated set for movies alone, nice.

Wouldn't it be just easier for Hollywood cut the crap, and start releasing all new movies in 16:9? Who in the right mind would shoot a film in 4K, and then crop top and bottom to show it pillarboxed in 16:9 multiplexes? (Or zoom cropped 2.37:1 image cropping it one more time on the sides).

Why on earth would they would cut top and bottom on blue-ray? That's right, to appeal to widescreen Nazis who marched during VCR 4:3 days demanding to see irrelevant stuff on the sides. "That is director's artistic intent -- how dare you to butcher it (pan and scan)".

Once again, in any other industry if you pull out the thing that Hollywood is doing -- creating confusion among consumers by releasing movies in incompatible aspect ratios -- people would suspect you are plain incompetent.
Click to expand...
The choice of aspect ratio is an artistic decision by the director, and the film stock is budgeted with the rest of a film's production. However, when it comes to cinema it would not be practical to maintain auditoriums to accommodate these different aspect ratios, so a standard for the viewing of content is maintained as a compromise. Since the "skinniest" aspect ratio maintained by the DCI for presentation of digital content is 1.85:1, this is typically the screen size used by cinemas.
 
endlesszeal said:
...My well-to-do friend has a dedicated room with sound deadening, no windows, appropriate soft lighting with an amazing projector...
Click to expand...

Home theater rooms are typically width constrained. Look how much space below the screen is wasted. Wouldn't be picture even more spectacular if it were taller?

Then, projectors lenses are circular. Therefore, projectors are the most efficient delivering 1:1 picture. With idiotic 2.35:1 format a lot of light is wasted and the picture is dimmer than it could be otherwise. With so called anamorphic lenses waste of light is reduced, but this abomination would cost you arm and leg.

I have 2 media rooms and both are width constrained. I also have corner desktop where 40" monitor is squeezed between the walls. Should I start bringing down the walls to make those Hollywood "progressives" happy? They need to change, not millions of viewers.
 
I prefer ultrawides because I have artwork on the wall above my desk and a larger 16:9 screen with different aspect ratio would get in the way.

I also use an ultrawide for watching movies in my bedroom because I have a bookshelf at the end of my bed with fixed shelving. The best monitor for this space is an ultrawide. If producers still made film in 4:3 aspect ratio I'd have to use an 19 inch monitor and in doing so would loose about 43% of the surface viewing area I currently enjoy: http://www.displaywars.com/29-inch-21x9-vs-19-inch-4x3

But maybe I should just replace all my artwork and furniture, hey OP?
 
Last edited:
This really seems like a bunch of effort to bitch about something g the OP is not being forced to buy.
 
I upgraded to the Dell 34" ultrawide Ultrasharp in November, from a 24" Ultrasharp. I now consider my most dramatic PC upgrades the SSD, the ultrawide display, and the dual core CPU - in that order.
 
Zangmonkey said:
Is there a reason to prefer an ultrawide to a masked 4k?
Click to expand...

Ultrawide monitors are available in 100+hertz refresh rates? Ultrawide monitors are more appealing to some from a aesthetic perspective. The elimination of black bars is one of the big reasons 21.9 was developed:

hqdefault.jpg


A lot of blurays and DVDs run in the 21.9 format, which means a 21.9 monitor with the same number of horizontal scanlines and the same PPI of an equivalent 16.9 monitor will give a larger, more well-defined movie experience.
 
KazeoHin said:
Ultrawide monitors are available in 100+hertz refresh rates? Ultrawide monitors are more appealing to some from a aesthetic perspective. The elimination of black bars is one of the big reasons 21.9 was developed:

hqdefault.jpg


A lot of blurays and DVDs run in the 21.9 format, which means a 21.9 monitor with the same number of horizontal scanlines and the same PPI of an equivalent 16.9 monitor will give a larger, more well-defined movie experience.
Click to expand...

It seems like comparing them on height isn't really valid.
A large format 4k will have more horizontal pixels *and* more vertical pixels but will have black bars.

refresh rate is a good point!
 
Zangmonkey said:
It seems like comparing them on height isn't really valid.
A large format 4k will have more horizontal pixels *and* more vertical pixels but will have black bars.

refresh rate is a good point!
Click to expand...

Personally, if you are comparing them on anything other than vertical resolution/size, you are making an apples/oranges comparison.

2560*1080 is still a 1080p classed monitor. It's not a 1440p classed one. 3440*1440 is a 1440p classed monitor, not a 2160p one. So comparing a 1440p classed product versus a 2160p classed product doesn't make a lot of sense.

To be fair, I use 4K 16.9 at home, and I love it; but if a 2160p Ultrawide monitor came out that was about the same vertical size as my 40" screen, I would pounce on it.
 
I'll buy ultrawide if or when they are larger than the current crop of 34". Ideally same height as 32" 16*9, so around 40" or larger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top