How Wide is too Wide?

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, May 17, 2018.

  1. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,555
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    I wrote many articles for the [H]ardocp front page and never got a cramp in my neck. The only thing that annoyed me was the Steam notification that announced that a friend has signed into the service. It used to be really tiny on my screen but I would always catch it in the corner of my eye. Steam fixed that in a Beta version of Steam awhile ago.

    I play BF4, Warframe, Civilization, Black Desert Online, etc on this thing and never had an issue. Well sometimes I run it in 1440p mode because I don't want to turn down the visuals. 1440p on these Samsung TVs looks great! 1080p although "big" looking is just fine also.

    Here is my desktop right now. I use 125% scaling in Display Settings. Warning 4K jpeg.

    2018-05-17.png
     
    WhoMe likes this.
  2. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,477
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    and DARIUSBURST CS, this would be perfect for that.

    ex-2png-9b41d6.png
     
  3. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    When your eyes start to stretch I would say anything over 27" is too big. It's harder to focus on stuff on big screen mentally visually and spatially.
     
  4. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    I liked G Darius alot for the PS1 and it was in the arcade.
     
  5. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I'd like that too, but the problem is that Nvidia doesn't support Freesync, and - at least currently - no other GPU maker has anything that is even halfway decent at 4k.

    Maybe once Navi launches this will change? We'll see.
     
  6. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,031
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    A few games like Overwatch lock the aspect ratio, but most AAA games support Hor+ which means they work on any aspect ratio.

    This monitor is basically 2x 27" 1080P monitors fused into one panel. Lots of people run dual monitors and people don't freak out.

    Here is my take:

    1. I have no use for Freesync.

    2. 21:9 is not enough of an improvement over 16x9

    3. 3x 16:9 is nice because you don't have a center bezel, but it's too wide. Center bezels are a deal breaker

    4. 2x 16:9 would be about perfect except the center bezel ruins it - which is why this screen is appealing.

    5. LG is making a 1440p version which might be perfect.

    6. LG has also decided to ruin theirs by going Freesync

    7. A single Ti 1080 can drive 3x 1440P panels on lighter or older games (like driving games) so an 1180Ti on a 32:9 monitor might be ideal.

    8. Pixel density is not the end all, be all. Some people want a wide aspect ratio for RPG/Driving/FPS games

    9. SMH when people say they like the width/aspect ratio but too bad it's so short.


    https://www.pcgamer.com/philips-is-giving-its-insanely-wide-49-inch-monitor-a-resolution-bump/

    https://techreport.com/news/33360/philips-492p8-49-double-wide-display-gets-a-spec-bump


    Samsung is working on a 1440P 120Hz 32:9 - if they make it G-Sync, I'm ditching NV Surround for good.
    https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gp...orking_on_a_49-inch_120hz_5120x1440_monitor/1
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
  7. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    It all comes down to personal preference, desk size and seating position.

    I sit at arms length from my 48" Samsung JS9000, which is about 2.5ft. To me it is just a tad large. I think it would be perfect if it were 42-44", so a 43" screen would be perfect for 4k for me. I don't scale or anything. Run native res.
     
  8. MrDeaf

    MrDeaf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    It might be useful for streaming, as you would want a lot of screen space for that.

    Have the game in a traditional 1920x1080 window, running OBS, have discord open, have youtube/twitch opened in a browser.
    yes, all that can easily eat up 5120x1440 pixels
     
  9. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,650
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Yep.
    Games will need to take advantage of the real estate in a different way to make that much width usable. Which will involve turning your head and might not work out too well.
    Otherwise you have to sit further away from it, everything becomes smaller and as you pointed out, the lack of vertical estate lessens the experience.
     
  10. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    Yeah, but you could do that more effectively with one or more side monitors.

    IMG_20180304_220555.jpg


    Besides, streaming is lame :p
     
  11. sadsteve

    sadsteve Gawd

    Messages:
    551
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    For me it's too wide for gaming, but just about perfect for work. I would rather have it 32x10 just to get the extra vertical resolution.
     
  12. EODetroit

    EODetroit [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,486
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Sorry, but that monitor is too THICC for me.
     
  13. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,031
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    I'd say don't knock it until you try it. The trick to really wide gaming (like Eyefinity / NV Surround) is that you look at the center and the extra width is for immersion and peripheral vision. You shouldn't be scanning around 3 screens - that would drive you crazy and give you neck problems. However, it can take a day or three to get used to it. Your brain adapts, the bezels mostly disappear and when the game runs well, there is nothing like it. (I know, VR - but VR is different)

    You get a much better sense of speed and space in a driving game and more of a sense of place and immersion in games like Guild Wars 2. I think FPS games are a mixed bag and have come to prefer a single monitor for most of them.

    If it's too wide for your game, just set the game to 2560x1440 and it should run in the center with black bars (or run it windowed)

    I think these are the future of high end gaming monitors.
     
  14. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    Yeah, I get the peripheral vision thing. That is the main selling point of sitting 2.5ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

    Why wouldn't you want to have that peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side though?

    Sitting close to a 48" screen I get all the peripheral vision I need or want in both axes.

    If I ever don't have enough GPU to power the framerate at 4k, I actually use a custom 21:9 ultrawide resolution (3840x1646) letter boxed, and it's still better than with one of these ultrawides.
     
  15. northwoodsf

    northwoodsf [H]Lite

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2018
  16. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,537
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Exactly. You need height as well. I've tried 7680x1600 and 7680x1440. I didn't use 100% of the width often, but ofyen wished for vertical space in both cases. 1440 was a big no go immediately.
     
  17. TheHobbyist

    TheHobbyist Hugs Hard Johnnies [H]ard

    Messages:
    456
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Fascinating

     
  18. Burticus

    Burticus 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,832
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Too wide. Me no like.
     
    Krenum likes this.
  19. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,031
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Forza 3A FOV example.jpg
    Because getting a bigger 16:9 monitor might fill your vision more, but it doesn't give you more visibility into the gaming world.

    When you play on a 32:9 or triple screen system, you see more of the game.

    I would also argue that simply getting a bigger/closer screen is counter productive because the the human eye has a relatively small area where we perceive things in high detail and scrunching up to the screen can have the effect of making you see less, not more.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
  20. knowom

    knowom Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    424
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    I always figured 49" would be about the sweet spot for a curved display my 43" 4K display I've always felt could be bigger, but desk space is a bit of a limitation so a curved display is the only work around to that problem. Perhaps 49" is bit of a over estimation and something more like a 44-46" curved display is the right sweet spot balance.

    You want it close enough to see the detail and not so distant that you need to crane your neck to focus it's a balance. I think curved displays when set to close are much more susceptible to neck craning and claustrophobia. As for 16:9 vs 32:9 it depends on the task. Bezels also suck it I'd never go with that type of display setup you can get a 4K display and set a custom either 4096 x1484 or 4080 x 1478 resolutions with a 2.76:1 aspect ratio that require less rendering power than 3840x2160 and look a ton better.

    https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....326/328558466B4E732B18842CF6E1C9CDFED394B44F/
    328558466B4E732B18842CF6E1C9CDFED394B44F.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
  21. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,223
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Looks like it would be better than 2 separate monitors, side by side. That thing is bigger than my 43 Inch Samsung 4K TV I am using as a monitor.
     
  22. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    12,850
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    DSC04908_0.JPG


    People don't complain how small their cell phone screen is......unless it's a flip phone. Bigger isn't better it's going to take people about 20 years to figure that out.
     
  23. knowom

    knowom Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    424
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Yeah tons of people watch Netflix on their cell's over their large screen TV's who'd want to watch on one of those by comparison!?
     
  24. Nallexi

    Nallexi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    136
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2017
    We need to go...wider!
     
  25. Damar

    Damar [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,539
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    For gaming, I love my 21:9 display, for anything else... depends on what I'm doing.

    Work is 3 different screens (varying resolutions) each that is for a specific thing.

    I stuck with a 16:10 for the longest time... but finally caved in one day and never went back. ;)
     
  26. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,675
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Is it 4pi steradians? No. Then not too wide
     
  27. Dragon_Fire

    Dragon_Fire n00b

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    That's more of a problem with poorly designed games than a problem with monitors; many games do not limit your FOV in that way, and for the ones that do, you can just run a wide and short letterboxed resolution, while with ultrawides, you never get the benefits of height in any application.
     
    knowom likes this.
  28. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,371
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    I don't know but I couldn't see myself using anything wider than my current 32 inch at my desk. Maybe my 55" TV if I were sitting on my couch.
     
  29. Elf_Boy

    Elf_Boy 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,293
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007

    On my old 8350 box I played at 5760*1080 - nv surround had it's moments of joy, the resolution its self was not much of a problem except in very old titles.

    The price is a bit of an issue for me and 1440 rather then 1080 might be nice.

    As for the curve/size - 3x 1080p 40" TV's worked fine - having sufficient desk space and room to sit back a little (use a microwave cart for my keyboard/mouse back a couple feet) I would still happily be using it had I not picked up a 48" 4k - still miss the additional FOV sometimes.
     
  30. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    For many productivity tasks this is a great setup here. I love move triple 24" 1080p setup for work but the single 43" 4k monitor is better for gaming.
     
  31. gwarren007

    gwarren007 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,840
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
  32. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I'd argue that an ultrawide is terrible for productivity, especially one that is 1080p tall. 1080p height is insufficient for a full letter page display, and it is wide enough that snapping windows to the side results in awkwardly sized windows.

    That being said, large amounts of screen real estate are absolutely amazing for productivity.

    Here i have 4 1080p sized windows on my 48" Samsung 4k screen, and one window each at 10" 1600x1200 in portrait at the side,

    Click for the huge size:
    19379744722_eeba503712_c.jpg


    The more you can have everything you are working on visible on screen at the same time the better. It reduces/eliminates switching time which is one of the biggest productivity killers, constantly switching back and forth between multiple windows trying to find the best one.
     
    knowom likes this.
  33. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    More vertical space is a good thing, all I was saying is that having 3 side by side 1080p monitors works well. Individual monitors are easier to control and snap, a breeze in Windows 10 at least, and the horizontal space is enormous.
     
  34. MrDeaf

    MrDeaf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Personally, I would prefer a 3:2 with 3240x2160 or similar.
     
  35. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,031
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Poorly designed or not, most games are Hor+ and don't let you control the vertical FOV at all.

    The large 4k monitor (43-55") seems to work for some people, but for me, it's too vertical and having to look up is hard on my neck. I've been thinking I may have made a mistake by adding a top monitor because anything above my 3 main 24" monitors (top of the screens are eye level) is hard on my neck. I have a very high amount of correction in my glasses and small lenses, so I can't really look up with just my eyes, I have to lift my head so for me, too much vertical is bad bad bad.

    I almost went with a single 34" ultrawide for simplicity and I probably would have except using 3 1440P monitors really helps me in my work.
     
  36. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    The native resolution of a 15" Surface Book 2 15".
     
  37. SamuraiInBlack

    SamuraiInBlack [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,677
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Too wide? No.

    Too short? Yes.

    Too expensive for a niche market item? Hell yes in my opinion.

    This monitor might be great to somebody, or a boon to some kind of profession that needs that kind of ultra-wide real estate on the screen, but for me? Utterly pointless.
     
  38. MrDeaf

    MrDeaf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2017
    Yup, but I want it in a 30" or 45" size.
     
    heatlesssun likes this.
  39. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Sure, ultra-wide, me, baby!

    But I want at least 2160 vertical pixels. I want to be able to watch 4K content at native resolution - just add more pixels to the sides. Give me a 46" 7680x2160, 60 Hz full HDR display that uses two DispalyPort 1.4 connections, that can do 144 Hz with GSync or FreeSync as a 16x9 3840x2160 area in the center or 3840x1920 full-width/half-resolution.
     
  40. I'm one of those people who thinks even 21:9 is too wide.

    I mean, with my 3x24" setup I was already pushing it, which is why my 3x27" setup has them in reading/portrait mode and I have, roughly, a 47" diagonal (albeit broken by two thin bezel lines).