Interesting new panels coming this year (Tftcentral news)

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

  1. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Gawd

    Messages:
    661
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Huh? We're already getting a 120hz 4k 30" OLED screen THIS year. How the fuck would it take 10 years just to get HDR on top of that? You're grossly estimating how long it's going to take.

    The prices of OLED monitors will drop like a rock as soon as production ramps up.
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  2. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,860
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Is it 120Hz input, or does it use frame interpolation to turn a 24-30Hz input and spit out a 120Hz image?
     
  3. x3sphere

    x3sphere 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,626
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    The Dell OLED is supposed to be 120 Hz input. There are no details on how they're achieving that yet - the monitor has a USB-C port though so it could be through that, or it's using DP 1.3 or DP 1.2 MST

    Should know more soon considering it's coming out end of March.
     
  4. OP20

    OP20 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    It has an algorithm its using to do pixel shifting for panel health. My guess is its 60hz input but the panel itself is refreshing at 120 to allow the algorithm to room to work.
     
  5. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    So you realize manufacturers are screwing you? Don't be a sucker!

    Actually, with this offering, ultra widescreen enthusiasts are ready to become 3x suckers.
    1. The first generation of ultra widescreen were 29" 2560×1080. Still there were plenty of fools who didn't mind to pay more for what was essentially QHD display with top and bottom cut off.
    2. The second generation of ultra widescreen are 34" 3440x1440. Still dupes were plentiful who didn't mind to pay huge premium for a screen which is a joke compared to 4K.
    3. This 3840x1600, as you correctly noticed, is essentially UHD with cropped top and bottom. As I have demonstrated, this is not the first time manufacturer did this trick. It would be not surprising at all if they overcharge you for the privilege of having a screen with odd shape.
     
  6. General Lee

    General Lee Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    245
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    After hearing that OLED is finally coming to desktop I have a hard time being enthusiastic about any of these LCD panels. Maybe if I could get a better 40" 4K VA with FreeSync and maybe even 120 Hz input for a similar price as the current 60 Hz models I just might upgrade. Too bad the prices don't seem to drop, and all we get is more expensive 21:9 panels.
     
  7. cbf123

    cbf123 n00b

    Messages:
    50
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    You insist on comparing these ultrawides to the next larger size. It's entirely valid to compare them to the next smaller size:
    1) 2560×1080 is like a 1920*1080 16:9 monitor but with a third more horizontal space
    2) 3440x1440 is like a 2560x1440 16:9 monitor but with a third more horizontal space
    3) 3840x1600 is like a 2560x1600 16:10 monitor but with half again more horizontal space

    Some people *don't care* about the extra height. For them, an ultrawide is just fine. Many of them are coming from multi-monitor setups, so an ultrawide (or two) just reduces the number of bezels.
     
    Pocatello and Daniel_Chang like this.
  8. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    This is wrong on so many levels. Here, fixed it there for you:
    1) 2560×1080 is like a 1920*1080 16:9 monitor but 3 times the price
    2) 3440x1440 is like a 2560x1440 16:9 monitor but 3 times the price
    3) 3840x1600 is like a 2560x1600 16:10 monitor which has been available more than decade ago

    Yes, back in CRT days multi-monitor setup was the only way to get decent screen real estate. Today, you can easily have ginormous 4K screen with IMAX experience at your desk, so there is no excuse for those shorty abominations as substitution for multi-monitor setup.
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  9. MokrySedeS

    MokrySedeS n00b

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Guys... Please stop responding to tegirinenashi. He's clearly a filthy troll. Ignore him, he'll give up eventually.
    I'm sure no one is falling for his stupid biased opinions, there's no point arguing about them.
     
    Daniel_Chang likes this.
  10. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,123
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    I have been very interested in the idea of a 32:9 monitor for some time so I'm hoping these two new panels will be monitors and not just obscure digital signs.

    Currently, I'm running NV Surround on 3 1080P monitors. While I do like NV Surround very well, I think 5760 is a bit wider than really needed for the immersive/panoramic gaming experience. At the same time, I've tried 21:9 and I actually find it worse (than 16:9) for some games because some games place HUD elements against the outer edges when you use a single screen and centered when you use NV Surround - so a 21:9 screen places key visual information just out of my gaze and I have to actively look back and forth to see the HUD.

    A single "double wide" panel would give me the most useful portion of NV Surround and if it were addressable as a pair of discrete monitors (with separate inputs!) it could be ideal.

    However, I'm not sure about curvature and off axis viewing - that could be an issue, depending on the type of panel.

    Now, if you could give me single panel that was the equivalent of two 27" 1440p monitors and (since I'm dreaming) if it could be OLED and run at 120hz, I could die happy. Maybe in 5 years...?
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  11. aeliusg

    aeliusg Gawd

    Messages:
    752
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    I'd agree with Tegiri that a 4K Vert+ experience with a large-format display is more immersive now and more economical even than triple-wide or ultra-wide. Unfortunately the input lag and 60 hz experience is prohibitive for anything but single-player games without regard for player performance. Ultra-wide still has its purpose, being that triple-wide is usually a waste of space and processing power for the extra peripheral vision as well as having the bezel issue.

    Still, who could go wrong with a triple-wide 4K OLED setup, even at 60 hz? You'd be too awed by the visuals to play anything properly anyway.
     
  12. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    18,567
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
  13. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
  14. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,123
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
  15. aeliusg

    aeliusg Gawd

    Messages:
    752
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    That's funny because DCI 4K is actually a 1.9:1. You'd have a better time displaying that and cinematic 2.39:1 on an ultra-wide than UHD 4K. Any wider than that, though, and it'd be a waste of horizontal resolution. Pillarboxing is worse than letterboxing.
     
  16. insoc123

    insoc123 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    279
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    I love Benq displays and in gaming monitors I think right now they are a little behind Asus and Acer. What a better way to get ahead if this year or the next one they could release a 32" IPS 165hz G-Sync 1440p or 4K display...
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  17. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,123
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    I am almost crazy enough to try one of those, but the scars of my early years of Commodore/Amiga enthusiasm have rendered me unwilling to invest in orphan products and platforms.
     
  18. BearOso

    BearOso [H]Lite

    Messages:
    102
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Pixel shifting just means the panel has a few extra lines and columns, and it changes the image offset at occasional time intervals. If it operated at a sub-second speed it would be extremely irritating.
     
  19. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,470
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Pixel shifting will only blur the edges, but it won't prevent burn in or IR.
     
  20. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Its really a shame DLP monitors never took off like it did for TV's. Seemed like the perfect way to get large, decent quality, and fast response time monitors for cheap back then.

    My 73" DLP TV still holds up fairly well today for movies and is still awesome for couch console gaming and was around $900 when new. Now I think you can find them used for hardly anything. Bulbs seem to last about 3yr and I use it constantly.
     
  21. jbltecnicspro

    jbltecnicspro [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,410
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Damn! That contrast ration and that response time!
     
  22. HA5

    HA5 n00b

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    I sure would love a 52-55" 21:9 5120x2160. At 52" it would be about 48"x20" 107ppi. 55" would be 51"x21" 100 ppi. I normally prefer a flat screen, but curved would probably be better with something this wide.
     
  23. Lender

    Lender Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    183
    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    I don't mind 4k due to its high resolution, but I have a limit with which I can stand in regards to horizontal and vertical size. Personally I like more horizontal size than vertical size. It is much easier to deal with and utilize day to day.

    So far I have tried PLP with the good ole Dell 30" 16:10 in the center. This was quite nice for many years as the extra space horizontally was great but the bezels were lame. Then I tried a 40" 4k and that was not bad because of the resolution and usable desktop space but I missed having a second monitor for separate content. It was almost too big also tbh. After that it was a 43" 4k which was way too tall and overall too large for me. I often would leave the top section of the screen unused as it was not comfortable to look at. Now I'm on a 34" 21:9 and it is my favorite size so far, but I feel I need a 2nd monitor for separate content, so 27" 4k on order.

    This is about where I will stop with increasing size goes and the only things I will be looking forward to is higher resolution, higher refresh rates and better panel types (OLED?).

    Only my opinion but 21:9 is my favorite of the ratios that I have used so far (4:3, 16:9, 16:10, 21:9). Also appreciate the extra FOV provided in supported games. Here is to hoping that ultrawides are here to stay and those naysayers don't force it out of existence.

    Perfect monitor size for me? 34-38". Resolution and aspect ratio? 5120x2160+ 21:9. Refresh rate? 120hz+. Panel type? OLED.

    The only things that even begin to peak my interest is the Acer 37.5" 3840x1600 but it is only 75hz so I just don't see anything for me this round.
     
    Pocatello likes this.
  24. Rustynuts

    Rustynuts [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,370
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    I'll take wider, just don't make them shorter. Feels like looking through a window with the shades halfway down. The latest ultrawide gaming monitors are a joke.
     
  25. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,972
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    I love my 34" 21:9 monitor but I sure would like to try something in the 40"-45" range and still 21:9 to game on. I use a separate 1920x1200 monitor to read/surf the Internet. I'm not really excited by 4k yet. As far as a gaming goes they just have too many issues still for my liking.
     
  26. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,329
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.

    4k will always be stuck in the mud frame rate wise for the foreseeable future on any demanding games.

    For example, according to this benchmark , shadows of mordor with the hd texture pack on ultra gets only 50fps at 4k with a single GTX 1080. Even with dual 1080 gpus in sli, it gets 87fps. And that is a game from "last" generation in relation to these cards. At 2560 x 1440 a single 1080 gpu almost gets 100fps though at 97fps. The htc vive is 2160x1200 at 90hz too btw.

    100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
    ~40% / 50% / 60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less' smearing blur)
    5:3 / 2:1 / 2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
    g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .


    Personally I'm looking forward to 21:9 , 3440 x 1440 dp 1.3 monitors at 144hz+. I'll probably get dual 1080ti to feed one when available and I'm willing to dial in (down) my graphics settings as necessary to hit 100fps-hz average or so. Hopefully only down to very high or very high+(custom).
    An example of a frame rate graph running around 100fps average.

    People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using a high hz display or high hz + variable hz to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance. Most notably on 1st/3rd person games where you are constantly moving the entire game world around relative to your viewpoint movement-keying and mouse looking.

    Of course 4k has a lot more desktop/app real-estate, but it has the same 16:9 perspective in games at a frame-rate crushing cost for the pixel density.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2016
    Pocatello and HA5 like this.
  27. metempirical

    metempirical n00b

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    What id really like to see is something like 32" 3440*1440 curved screens, but 3 of them in a continuous panel.

    that or 27" 2560*1440 in a continuous set of 3 panels.
     
  28. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,132
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    If the 3840x1600 37.5" can reach 75Hz and offer sync, it will be a very good option, adding another 110PPI to the market. 34" 1440p are still the Nirvana, but they do not have a strobing backlight to complete the technical trifecta. Then we hve the price issue: those are possibly defective 40" 4k that were cut to 37.5" , but will be sold above the 34" current price tag...By Q3 2016 , DP 1.4 cards will be in the wild
     
  29. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    18,567
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
  30. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,132
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    still waiting for AMD's response. For quite a long time, HDMI 2.0 was a green team exclusive, now DP 1.4 . This is very bad for users, among other things because green team does not support freesync. and Gsync is ~ $200 more expensive...

    I just noticed that the 30" 3440x1440 at 124PPI sits between the 24" 2560x1440 122DPi and the 137PPI of 32" 4k. As my eyesight worsens, even my beloved 117PPI 25" begins too feel to small for confortable reading. If price is right, the 30" can be a market sucess.
     
  31. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    That seems pretty slow for the resolution considering that there are now 3840x2160 panels supporting 144Hz.
    It should be able to hit at least 180Hz.

    Windows is designed around 96 pixels per inch for 1x scale.
    117 PPI is far smaller than intended. It's not really a matter of "eyesight getting worse".
     
  32. Pocatello

    Pocatello DC Moderator and [H]ard DCOTM x4 Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,175
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Is there anything close to this on the market now, or the near future?

    Thanks.
     
  33. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,860
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    The Acer X34 is 3440x1440 running at 100Hz, that's about as close as we can get right now.
     
  34. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,329
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    There is already news of 4k monitors that will be manufactured at 120hz and higher. The only 21:9 3440 x 1440 144hz monitor I've heard of being developed is by samsung, but it might be a VA panel so there is a chance it's transitions may not be as good even if it's conrast ratio would be superior. The news blurbs I read guessed late this year. I'm sure other ones will come out as the limiting factor was mainly dp 1.2 gpus and monitors previously. Since I've decided my next monitor upgrade is dependent on the release time of the 1080ti more or less, I don't mind waiting on the monitor releases as the 1080tis most likely won't be out until Q1 2017 or later. I'm hoping a good 21:9 144hz monitor comes out by xmas and that the 1080tis come out around tax return time but I will have to wait and see.



    Samsung to release 144Hz 3440x1440 monitors in 2016 (overclock3d.net


    Samsung Readies 144 Hz 3440 x 1440 Ultra-wide Monitors (techpowerup)



    Samsung to launch pair of cinematic 35' monitors with speedy 144Hz refresh rate techradar
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2016
    Pocatello likes this.
  35. igluk

    igluk Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    It's AUO, not Samsung. One site misinterpreted text from the original TftCentral newspiece and from there it spread from one site to the other.
    Samsung are working on some panels as well but haven't officially announced anything yet.
     
  36. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,132
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Refresh and resolution depends on teh connection used. While there are DP 1.4 GPUs on sale, DP 1.4 monitors are not on sale yet.

    And it has everything to do with eyesight getting worse, because as the near visions worsens with age, the ability to read confortably small fonts on a high PPI monitor goes away as well. windows desing and scale are unrelated to display PPI and eyesight capabilities, windows is used natively from 300+ PPI to 50-PPI displays. The market has hovered around the 110PPI for quite a long time and most of the high end displays stay at this pixel density. and no, 110PPi is not " far smaller than intended", at least not in the sense that people would regularly complain about it or be forced to use scaling to read. quite the opposite, 110PPI is big enough to allow even persons with presbyopia to use the displays without glasses.
     
    N4CR likes this.
  37. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,329
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Consider comparable sized text of a magazine, novel, or newsprint. Once it gets below that threshold, I can see where people would complain. Nothing wrong with using glasses to read either if you use them to read the former already.

    btw in the graphic I made posted before, the 4k field at 108.8 ppi is around 40.8" diagonal. 27" 2560x1440 is 108.8 ppi so I used that as a ppi so they were all comparable to each other desktop real-estate wise.
     
    Armenius and Pocatello like this.
  38. igluk

    igluk Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Here we go, Tftcentral just updated the upcoming panels
    LCD and TFT Monitor News

    LG.Display finally joining in with a high refresh panel (IPS 3440x1440@144hz), and also an 8k4k panel
    And lots of 144hz VA by Samsung. Maybe they'll beat AUO in terms of response times
     
    N4CR, Armenius and zone74 like this.
  39. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    621
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Windows is designed around a 96 PPI base resolution. 110 PPI displays everything about 15% smaller than intended.
    That's not so small that it's illegible, but small enough that I get eyestrain at the end of the day working on one vs a lower density monitor.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  40. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,132
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    I totally agree with you. too bad engineers created those tiny pixels monsters that sell like crazy: 25" 2560x1080, 27" 2560x1440, 34" 3440x1440 and 40" 3840x2160. but fear not, for they also created the 32" VA panel with 2560x1440 resolution for cases like yours.

    Laser blended vision and VR headsets will change they way we choose monitors as we age.