Interesting new panels coming this year (Tftcentral news)

Discussion in 'Displays' started by igluk, Jan 19, 2016.

  1. igluk

    igluk Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    LCD and TFT Monitor News

    Some really crazy stuff here, thanks to Tftcentral who have access to some of the panel makers Roadmaps.
    Some details are not fully clear yet but here's whats coming

    LG.Display:
    37.5'' 3840x1600 IPS
    Samsung:
    31.5'' curved 2560x1440 144hz SVA?
    31.5'' 7680x4230
    41 & 49'' 32:9
    AU Optronics:
    30 & 35'' curved 144hz 3440x1440 VA

    Update 6-8-2016
    LCD and TFT Monitor News

    LG.Display:
    31.5'' 7680x4230 IPS
    34'' curved 144hz 3440x1440 IPS
    Samsung:
    23.6'', 27'', 31.5'' curved 144hz 1080p SVA
    34'' curved 100hz+ 3440x1440 SVA

    Update 6-22-2016
    Here is yet another update to the TftCentral articles, only concerning AUO:
    LCD and TFT Monitor News

    In short:
    - 25'' & 27'' 1080p 240hz TN panels end of 2016
    - 35'' 3440x1440 now 200hz VA end of 2016
    - 31.5'' 1440p 144hz VA Q4 production (same as planned Samsung panel)
    - 27'' 1440p 144hz VA in planning phase
    - 27'' 4k 144hz AHVA (IPS) mass production in 2017
    - 240hz 1440p planned in 2017

    No word on HDR yet
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  2. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Dammit LG, make a UHD panel wider, not shorter. 5120x2160, not 3840x1600.
     
    Ahriman4891 likes this.
  3. Quix

    Quix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Speak for yourself, I like squarer panels. They're a lot better for productivity applications. I would actually prefer monitors that are 16:10.

    P.S. Wider IS shorter, you mean narrower.
     
    Rustynuts likes this.
  4. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    I think you misunderstood my complaint.
    UHD panels are 3840x2160, they just announced a 3840x1600 "ultrawide" - which is a short UHD panel.
    If they were truly making an "ultrawide" UHD panel, they should be increasing the horizontal resolution - making it 5120x2160.
     
  5. cbf123

    cbf123 n00b

    Messages:
    50
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    The 32:9 panels are interesting. The smaller one is roughly equivalent to two 23" 16:9 monitors side by side.

    Personally I'd love a curved 44"-48" 4K monitor, but there aren't very many of those available yet.
     
  6. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    21:9 sucks big time already, imagine how atrocious 32:9 embrasure view would be! 32:9 is monumental waste of pixels on the sides.

    There is only one 4K curved display offering and it is TV. Manufacturers, please don't f**k around with perverse aspect ratios and deliver what people actually want.
     
  7. igluk

    igluk Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    These 32:9 panels are also called Bar-Type displays
    They're usually used for digital signage
     
  8. Quix

    Quix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Anthing wider than 16:9 is "Ultrawide" E.G. ultrashort. I totally understand your complaint, you like your screens very short.
     
  9. treckin

    treckin n00b

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Tall <--> short

    Wide <--> narrow
     
  10. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,939
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    None of the monitors in the OP would make me want to upgrade my current LG 34UM95P monitor. There isn't a 4k monitor worthy of a upgrade yet either IMO. So far it looks like more mediocre stuff.
     
  11. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Not sure how I skipped over this before, that's very exciting.
    31.5" is a little bit larger than I'd like, but preferable to 27" which seems to be the two sizes that manufacturers have settled on for large monitors.
    It's not like you're going to have an issue with seeing pixels at that density/size, things will just appear a bit larger than I prefer - equivalent to a 93 PPI display.

    I'm glad to see smaller 8K panels, because 8K basically suits every size of display from 22" and up.
    8K can support perfect scaling of 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, so it's a very flexible resolution for monitors - unlike 4K where you have to decide between huge text and icons (1080p@2x - equivalent to a 70 PPI display) or text and icons which are too small to be comfortable if you're looking at the screen all day. (2160p@1x - 140 PPI)

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
    If we are talking about monitors, the majority of which target ~110 PPI density now, 3840x1600 would be shorter than a 3840x2160 panel, while a 5120x2160 panel would be wider.
    That would make it the largest monitor available, so I don't see how anyone could call it "short".
    Aspect ratio is not what determines if a display is going to be "short" or not. I agree that any "ultrawide" which has less than 2160 vertical pixels is a short display though, since those 40" UHD monitors are both widely available and often less expensive than ultrawides.

    I'm a fan of big displays and I like to sit up close to them, but once you hit about 20" or so tall (2160p at ~110 PPI) that's about the limit of what is comfortable to use, so going taller wouldn't do anything except move parts of the display into your peripheral vision - which might be nice for gaming, but not as a monitor.
    I'm currently sat 2-3ft from a 46" screen, and there's no way that I'd want anything taller - but I could go wider, especially if it were a curved panel.
     
  12. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    5120x2160 would be short compared to 16:9 8K or even 5K monitor. Ultrawide monitors are woeful waste of pixels on the sides.

    Your idea that 20" of vertical dimension "is enough for everybody" is just as ridiculous as infamous "640K (of RAM)". In the mean time, the world has inched towards wider adoption of VR sets (which cover entire field of view). Ultrashort screens are a niche which is destined to die. (Ultrawide TVs already did).
     
  13. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Opinion is Opinion.

    I love ultrawide panels. I would jump at a properly made 32:9 screen with 2160 vertical resolution.
     
  14. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    It is not opinion, it is fact. I gave numerous reasons --
    [1] [2] [3]
    -- why ultrashort screens are ludicrous.

    Love is blind.
     
  15. ZeqOBpf6

    ZeqOBpf6 Gawd

    Messages:
    591
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Jesus that guy is a douche.
     
  16. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Opinion is Opinion.

    You reference how a game has a 'bug' if a 16:9 resolution has less FOV than a 21:9 resolution. Thats not a bug, its WHY these monitors are so popular.
     
  17. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
  18. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Logical fallacy.

    That means either,

    A: Smaller screens decrease FOV to the point of notebook screens only having 40 degrees of view or less, which is not the case, nor should it be.

    or

    B: Large enough screens will offer more than 360 degrees of FOV which is physically and computationally impossible.

    Neither of these things happen in real life because windows, the games nor the developers care how big your screen is, nor is that any indication of FOV. as someone sitting 10 feet from a 40" screen will have a much narrower view of the screen than someone sitting 3 feet away.
     
  19. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,065
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    I see no news about: 31.5'' 7680x4230
     
  20. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Yes, game developers have no idea how close to the monitor you sit. The monitor dimensions is another unknown which is important (is it even sent down the wire to OS during HDMI/Display port handshake)? Both values are required for correct FOV calculation.

    Yet, FOV is objective number. You can take protractor and measure the horizontal and vertical angles towards your display in your current setup. If your real FOV is different from what is set by game engine, this is a bug -- as simple as that. The bottom line is that game FOV is just a parameter which can be trivially changed, so ascribing "wider" FOV to higher aspect ratio monitors doesn't make any sense.
     
  21. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011

    How does measuring the H:V ratio give you an FOV?

    Are you saying that you measure the FOV from your own viewpoint to your screen? and you are then extrapolating that to say that if the game's FOV does not match that arbitrary and always-changing number, that is different for every single person and display on earth, than it must be a piece of code producing a result in a way the developer had not intended?
     
  22. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    It doesn't. There are two FOV numbers: horizontal FOV, and vertical FOV. However, the customary convention is to talk about horizontal FOV. Then, vertical FOV is just horizontal FOV divided by AR.

    Yes.

    What is big deal about it? The number of user setup permutations is already out of control. There are more than 50 display resolutions
    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
    multiplied by variations in screen diagonal sizes from 11" to 60".

    In a word, there is no excuse for game not setting FOV properly, the issue is not that hard -- it is just one extra parameter in the setting. I even provided a simplified method how 3rd person shooter game engine can do it. Just render a hand/fist on the graphics options setup panel and ask the user to zoom it in/out to get realistic size.
     
  23. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    So your standpoint boils down to 'games should have FOV sliders'?

    It has nothing to do with ultrawide versus wide, or any of that. Because a player can set their FOV to a high number, like 120 degrees and claim their monitor offers a higher FOV than your 16:10. Then you can set the FOV to 121, then claim YOUR monitor offers a higher FOV than their Ultrawide.


    When really, it has NOTHING to do with the monitor.
     
  24. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Slider is only required if game engine can't do correct FOV calculation automatically. Microsoft kinect --or even rudimentary image recognition software utilizing ordinary camera -- should be able to determine distance to the viewer. If a player is not interested in realistic FOV, then nobody really cares about their bogus FOV settings claim. Once again, bigger screen provides wider FOV, and this is simple geometric fact.
     
  25. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    So an ultrawide with more overall screen surface area provides a higher FOV than a 16:10 screen with an overall lower surface area???
     
  26. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Such a thing does not exist. 5120x2160 at ~110 PPI would not be shorter than any existing monitors, it would be wider. However you are not being rational about this, your biases are clearly showing.

    8K in a monitor is still only going to make sense up to ~20" vertical height. 8K's purpose in a monitor will be to enable high DPI displays with a large workspace.
    Right now you have to choose between workspace and pixel density with 4K. 8K gets you both.

    I said that there are potential uses to filling your peripheral vision with the display, such as gaming. I've done just that with projectors and 12ft screens.
    As a monitor it seems completely impractical to go any bigger than about 21" tall. I'm already pushing the limits of that by sitting so close to a 46" display. (22.5" tall - which is more than I'd like)
    Though some people are using larger displays than this as monitors, they tend to sit farther back to compensate for it - at which point panel resolution/scaling becomes a factor, instead of sticking to ~110 PPI.
    Most people that I have seen using 55/65" 4K monitors tend to enable a bit of scaling, while people with 40" 4K panels typically do not. In my experience, it becomes more difficult to read small text at 100% size as you get farther from the display, even if the larger display size keeps your FOV the same.
    Most people with multi-monitor setups go wider - not taller - unless they don't have any more room whatsoever. Or they might add a screen up top if it's used as secondary display, e.g. a row of monitors on the bottom and a TV up top for when they want to watch a movie or play a game. But you generally don't see people going taller with multi-monitor setups before they go wide. It just isn't that comfortable.

    We aren't talking about 40" 2160p panels vs 34" 1440p ultrawide.
    What I said in my very first post is that I was disappointed to see LG take a 40" UHD panel (3840x2160) and make it shorter (3840x1600) to sell as an "ultrawide" instead of taking a 40" UHD panel and making it wider. (5120x2160)
    Good job missing the point entirely with your desire to rant about how awful 21:9 displays are, and how they must be "shorter".

    And to your point in that post, I agree with you.
    If you are actually setting up the display to match your real-world FOV, the bigger your display is, the better. A 40" UHD panel is better than a 34" ultrawide for that.
    That's why I've been hoping for ultrawides which are actually wider.

    But I would say that few people actually set up their FOV to match the real world outside of simracing with multi-monitor setups, or VR headsets which combine displays optimized to provide a large FOV with head-tracking.
    If you're just gaming on a single monitor setup, using your real-world FOV is often very restrictive - especially if you don't have any head-tracking.
    Instead of gaming at 100° FOV it's going to drop to 60° or lower on a single 16:9 display - often as low as 25-30°.
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  27. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Let's simplify discussion. I want my entire field of view covered. VR does it, but
    1. There is some thingy strapped to my face, and I'm uncomfortable even with headset.
    2. There is inferior resolution.
    Now, besides VR, the closest gadget that approximates VR experience is IMAX -- the screen that takes as much of your field-of-view as possible.

    So, in terms of approximating VR experience 16:9 screen is better (more practical) just because human field of view is close to 4:3. This is human anatomy, not some arbitrary "I like short/wide frame shape" opinion. And, finally, I leave it to you to figure out what is wrong with the idea that "Oh you can enlarge the screen, but are allowed to do it in horizontal dimension only!"
     
  28. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Actually, Human vision is complicated and varied. A human can easilly turn her/his head to essentially observe 270 degrees of view, but can only look up/down really see 170 degrees vertically without moving her/his midsection. psychologically humans value the information spanned horizontally more than information spanned vertically. This is why most written languages developed independently over thousands of years have usually been written out in a horizontal structure.

    So, your point boils down to:

    "ALL GAMES use a webcam to calculate your distance to the screen, as well as calculate the size of the screen and adjust the FOV to match, if this feature does not work its obviously a bug in the coding."

    and...

    "I like 16:9 monitors because opinion"

    as for your final comment:

    Opinion is Opinion.

    Edit: You also did not answer my question earlier:

     
  29. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Did you try dividing 270 by 170 yourself? What aspect ratio are you getting?

    Don't even get me started on the amount of effort required to read text in a wide window.
    You follow
    long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long line
    followed by
    long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long line
    How does it work for you? (Please keep in mind that I could have the line longer but just pity the readers).

    FOV has nothing to do with "surface area", this is why I ignored it. It is one dimensional parameter. It is roughly screen width divided by distance to the viewer (ignoring some trigonometric function). Given horizontal FOV and known screen AR, it completely determines vertical FOV. 40" UHD screen is wider than 34" ultrawide, end of story.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  30. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I didn't ask about 34" versus 40". The 34" is smaller than the 40" in every single measurement.

    I asked about two very specific monitors. have a read.

    So, you agree that the size of the screen matters: You said it yourself. So:

    You have two screens

    One of them is a 16:9

    The other is a 21:9

    The 21:9 is the 'larger screen' in every dimension, more vertical space, LOTS more hoizontal space.

    The Ultrawide will give you a higher FOV.

    Thus, the Ultrawide is better than the 16:9!

    Edit:

    Ah that little website you linked is a gem! So, lets have a look at THIS:

    [​IMG]

    It looks as though when you take a 4K monitor in 16:9, and compare it against a monitor with the same vertical height, and the same number of scan-lines, but in 21:9 ratio, you end up with wider FOV!

    Its amazing!
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    Lender likes this.
  31. tybert7

    tybert7 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,633
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Those displays are not my ideal stopgap to oled.


    I want a 4k 10bit HDR VA panel (for more native constrast).

    with a size range of 32"-43"

    and freesync with a vrr range of 35-120Hz

    Where hdr can still be used over displayport 1.3 @ 4k up to 90-96Hz or whatever the bandwidth allows.


    Someone needs to make and release that monitor.
     
  32. KG-Prime90

    KG-Prime90 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    251
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Hmn, people are really into massive displays. For PC? To me 24" actual usable inches is big for a pc display. 27" is pushing it. The massive displays they are purposing here are TV's imo.

    I don't fancy having to crank my mouse dpi up to 6000dpi just to move across the screen comfortably. And i don't like to move my whole arm around to navigate my screen either. That's the biggest issue with it for me.

    22.5" is basically perfect from two to 3 feet away and encompasses my full view just fine without having to move the eyes or head around much, maybe i'm lazy, lol.. The bigger you get the farther away you have to sit and then it becomes odd feeling.
    I don't like playing console games on 40" tvs 6+ feet away either so guess it's just me, it feels disconnected.

    I am interested in Dells idea of 25" 1440p and would like to see a 28" at most 16:10 display hovering around .23ppi.

    I can't say i'm not smitten with 34" 21:9 1440p though, it is sexy.
    In fact way back when NEC had that 6 thousand dollar curved display, like 10 years ago, i wanted it so bad, because i had dreamed of something like that for a many years.

    But ultimately i think i would be annoyed at the feel of the mouse. I would be using it like a regular 16"10 display with my window resized and centered 90% of the time anyway.

    And really I don't like that much light blasting me in the eyes. In fact that's probably even a bigger issue. I have a fairly vampyric aversion to light. Every program that allows a custom UI i customize to dark colors. Even my browser is all dark background custom style sheets. My text and input boxes are the only thing white. Like this forum, actually.
    Another reason why IPS and IPS glow is shit. Everything is black or dark grey on my display, and that is non negotiable.
     
  33. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    That would be amazing, but could you imagine the price on something like that?

    Lets play the guessing game...

    I don't think we'll see 120hz 4K screens for another 1 to 3 years, and the first ones that come out will be expensive, we're talking $2K plus for a ~32 inch model. You simply won't see them larger than that. That will probably be either an old style TN panel or if we are lucky, an IPS panel. Eventually, the price will get down to reasonable levels (less than 1K), this will be about 3 years after the first batch come out. so this is six years from now, and 8K screens will be a thing you can buy at bestbuy. 8K screens will be only 30Hz at first, and follow the same growth curve that 4K does now, so that's for another post... I don't think we'll EVER see a 4K 32" + OLED screen with both HDR and >60Hz input and refresh. If we do, it will be in 10+ years. 13+ years for it to be affordable.
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  34. tybert7

    tybert7 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,633
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    I want a larger computer display because I tend to watch a lot of media there vs my larger 59" tv. I live in a household with multiple people and don't have solo access to that display in the living room. On my pc I am the sole user and so I want that to have the best tech and go larger so I can have an even better more immersive experience.
     
  35. tybert7

    tybert7 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,633
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Also, and this might be pie in the sky, but it would be nice if a monitor had a "tv mode" where they had roku or some other software baked in with an soc to handle video playback for things like netflix and amazon prime for native 4k streams and hdr streams.

    We all know that viewing this content on the pc via the desktop is not allowed via netflix, presumably due to drm concerns and not wanting those streams easily ripped and torrented. But if the monitor had its own native client like tvs, then you could still use the display for viewing that content.

    That said, if set top boxes get better (can the roku 4 do hdr in addition to just 4k?) than that might not be necessary. But if I bought an lg 32-40" 4k monitor, why not add their own webOS software in a tv mode for streaming content that was drm locked to not go through the normal desktop mode?

    I want to actually be able to SEE hdr content on my computer display, and I don't think netflix is ever going to allow that natively (via desktop).

    ps, for those interested, av club talked about their impressions of HDR relating to tvs here.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzL50wW86Jw#t=20m20s
     
  36. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Don't know about you, but Netflix has an application and a web-based video player in Australia for watching their stuff on phones, PCs, tablets...
     
  37. tybert7

    tybert7 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,633
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    You can watch content, but it tops out at 1080p. You can't get a 4k stream through the web based browser or dedicated windows application, unless something has changed.

    That was why it was kind of a big deal when those 4k jessica jones torrents popped up, because it was the first time we'd seen the 4k streams online.
     
  38. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    AH. I see.

    Yeah, unfortunately nobody cares about that in Australia because our internet is so bad 4K is a pipe-dream.
     
    sboucher likes this.
  39. HiCZoK

    HiCZoK Gawd

    Messages:
    818
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    So panels this year, displays next.

    I still dont know about this new resolution and size trend.
    The place of a monitor is on a desk and after like 24 to 27 inches it gets pretty big. And the resolution... 24inches works best with 1080p imo. Above that its a waste of power and font gets really tiny.
    I would much rather see perfect quality 1080p panels.

    I hope it wont get as stupid as with phones. My lg ge have 1440p screen.... Whilst 720p would be ok. Battery would last longer and performance would be better.... Well ok then, max it at 1080p... But 4k for phones ?!
     
  40. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,790
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I use a 40" 4k screen with two 21" 1080P suppliment screens at home and I REALLY feel cramped when I go to work with two 22" screens. The 40" 4K screens gives you SO much room to get things done. When you want to lean back and watch a youtube vid, its nice and visible.
     
    Doc Doc likes this.