LG 25UM5x - black sheep of the UWs

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
“It’s too small.”
“it’s only 75 hz”
”Its cheap.”
“It’s only 1080p”

If you google this panel you’ll probably hear those things a lot. In that same sense, let’s look at the season of winter.

“It’s too cold.” You’ll hear some say. “The snow is unbearable!” Many will also say. But then you think of the special, unique things that makes winter, winter, in most places that experiences a decent winter, like: Hot chocolate, ice fishing, sledding, snow boarding, ice skiing, snowball fights.. and so forth.

The aptitude of the average consumer often stumps me. Let’s analyze this panel a little bit closer.

it has a display height of 9.85 inches with a width of 23”.

At work, I personally use, 2x 21.5” monitors. Which I sit about 2 feet away from and even at such a close distance both monitors stretch out of my main vision into the peripheral area.. It was this observation that made me switch my panel hunt from 32/34” monitors to the “lowly” 25” LG.

Let’s check out its specs.
Fluctuates between $120-150
AH-IPS
TRUE 8 bit no frc
75 Hz (requires OC)
Freesync with a range of 48-75Hz
111 PPI/DPI
99% sRGB, no over saturated “Quantum dot” shit. It’s because of Quantum dot I thought my OLED tv looked washed out when I hooked it up to my PC. But that’s besides the point.

it also has a Somewhat modern design with 3 sides being without an extruding bezel. And finally It’s the only panel in the world of this nature. I’m sure I missed some other keynotes but you get the idea.

what really throws people off though is the specs. But it’s actually offers a very comfortable viewing experience when used. The high pixel density and squat size means you can have the monitor closer. It fills your vision and it seems so natural you don’t have to move your eyes to see information being presented to you in outer portions of the screen.

it doesn’t have 120 hz, or even 100 hz but it does offer 75 and I’d be damned if that’s not good considering most of us have our roots at 30 hz and below and we all agree anything above 60 is to be grateful of.

returning to the size, you HAVE to use this with a monitor arm. Have a closed off back for a desk? Pull out the drill and grommet mount. There shall be no other way to use it. The arm is what allows the monitor to sit in that perfect viewing range. Thanks to the IPS technology used you won’t have to worry about color shift.

System driving this panel has been specced for UWFHD 75-95 Hz gameplay:

32 GB DDR4
Radeon VII
i9-9900
Ax1200i


3440 x 1440P which is a staggering 80% increase alone in pixels just from 2560 x 1080p, coming from FHD it’s well over a double in pixel count for the same pixel density and image rendered yet the panel has to be placed much further away, costs upwards to ten times as much or more, and taxes your system magnitudes more. PC gaming isn’t really multiplayer physically. It’s way more intimate than console gaming which is why we use monitors and not television sets. It’s so much more comfortable being able to be closer to your screen. No pun intended.

When I first set out for this build I was originally aiming to do 4K/60 with a 2080 Ti, I hadn’t decided on the panel but i likely would’ve ended up with the LG 32UD99. I also had my eyes on 38”. Because I was going to buy a desk to fit the setup I was looking at desk depths of 30” and greater. I scrapped that and then one morning I woke up and I thought about the LG 25” it crossed my mind randomly. Shot over to micro center and bought it. I knew it was the one when I saw the box size alone.

I was able to combine a 20” deep, 48 inch wide desk along with a monitor arm. It’s right in the middle with a lil under a foot of space between each side for speakers. I sat my pc off to the side. As soon as I booted it up i immediately wrote an email to Lg urging them to modernize this line.

it doesn’t get bright but I don’t have a sun bathed room during most hours of the day. Also, I never game in pitch blackness so I’ve never even seen BLB occur..

So to those of you shopping for monitors remember, size isn’t always what matters.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
48
I don't get it. Why not go for 29" or 30" at a greater distance? And why would you want so little vertical display area?
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
I don't get it. Why not go for 29" or 30" at a greater distance? And why would you want so little vertical display area?

As I mentioned in my post above, gaming on a PC is much more intimate than just gaming via a console. For starters it’s much closer and the panels are built for this otherwise monitors would not exist and we would be gaming on small televisions instead - but this is only half true because once you start going beyond 27 monitors begin to become quite massive and burdensome to ingest.
My ideal viewing is to be able to comfortably see everything on screen without having to move my eyes or neck. This is only possible via smaller screens. I’m saying this because I have never had a smaller UW than 34” and I have gone as large as 38”. I was actually considering another larger panel for this build as well until I became set on the 25”.

secondly, vertical height doesn’t matter if you sit the pane close enough to you. With a pixel density of 111 compared to its 29/30” cousins 90~ ppi it’s not going to be burdensome to stare at closely and more importantly, unlike its 34” 1440P cousins who do share the same 111 PPI density it’s easier to run to output the SAME image.

this panel is literally stress free.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
Where can you buy this mysterious thing? when you put the model number into Google, this thread is the top result.

No product page on LG's site or shopping links.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,104
Where can you buy this mysterious thing? when you put the model number into Google, this thread is the top result.

No product page on LG's site or shopping links.

The thread title refers to the fact that there's a number of versions of this, LM25UM57-p, 58, etc.
 

CaptainClueless

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
151
So to those of you shopping for monitors remember, size isn’t always what matters.

Having used numerous size monitors over the years, I completely disagree. Size does matter, and 25" ultra wide is simply too damn small.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
Yeah,having the same vertical screen space as a 20" equivalent is fine for office apps on a small desk, but going to be hrd to get into for gaming.

If you have a small desk, this is easier to install/cheaper than two 20" monitors, but there's a good reason why gaming monitors tend to start at 24" 16:9!
 

HardUp4HardWare

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
4,274
I had this before I upgraded to the ASUS PG348Q

I agree with the OP 100% the LG 29" version of this and it was excellent. The colors and image quality was great. 25" seems a bit small but I know what he is saying. For the money it is an excellent budget display.
 

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,906
I had one about 4 years ago - it made a great topper for an NV Surround system, but since I was running it through an older AVR using HDMI, I couldn't really use it at full resolution so I gave it to my dad. He seems to really like it.

I didn't know it could do 75Hz, that would be nice - he just got an RTX 2060
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
Having used numerous size monitors over the years, I completely disagree. Size does matter, and 25" ultra wide is simply too damn small.

One of the most common arguments I encounter is about size when it comes to this monitor. Which is hard to press on because it’s personal experience. It’s like me lecturing you on how to sit in your car. I can’t do that. However what I can do is offer my honest advice.

Usually what’s misunderstood is the understanding and correlation between monitor size and resolution. You can move up in monitor size however this does not mean you are actually getting an actual increase in useable screen. Rather the image just gets stretched out.

The reason I like and actively promote the 25” UW as been the holy grail is because it’s combination of sizing, and resolution Is perfect for media consumption. It becomes Retina at a distance of 2.5 feet away. The closer you can view your monitor the more immersive it becomes as elements such as your desk, and peripherals are phased out. In addition not having to move your eyes or neck allows for continued and interrupted immersion.

for reference my 34” UW is also retina at this same distance but because of the massive increase in size it is not feasible.

my argument is, if you’re not able to see all of your monitor and intake it’s information in a given moment then you are not getting the visuals you paid for.
This same argument is similar to traction control for cars. Every time your car spins the wheels you’re not getting the power you paid for. but rather a panel that you can actively see everything without eye movement means you are in fact getting your money’s worth.

if my eyes spend 200 hours looking at a panel I would not want for only 60% of those hours to apply to only the center of the screen.



I had this before I upgraded to the ASUS PG348Q

I agree with the OP 100% the LG 29" version of this and it was excellent. The colors and image quality was great. 25" seems a bit small but I know what he is saying. For the money it is an excellent budget display.

Thanks for getting my point.

what I’m trying to advertise here is, size doesn’t matter if you know how to set the viewing distance up. I might sound crazy, but I’m not joking, when I say this monitor has given me the best gaming experience I have had in a long time it’s so comfortable.

my biggest issue with my 34” Uws was having to put them so far back to consume the entire screen.

I had one about 4 years ago - it made a great topper for an NV Surround system, but since I was running it through an older AVR using HDMI, I couldn't really use it at full resolution so I gave it to my dad. He seems to really like it.

I didn't know it could do 75Hz, that would be nice - he just got an RTX 2060

yep! It also has freesync. All he has to do is update the firmware and OC the panel. Some people have mentioned PCs as high as 85 hz on it. The freesync range is 48-75 though so no LFC but with the 2560 x 1080 I don’t think that’s needed.

this is also why I like this panel so much. High ppi.
 
Last edited:

CaptainClueless

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
151
Usually what’s misunderstood is the understanding and correlation between monitor size and resolution.

No, it's not. Most people, myself included, understand the concept of pixel density.
You can move up in monitor size however this does not mean you are actually getting an actual increase in useable screen. Rather the image just gets stretched out.

Stretched out? Are you changing aspect ratios? Why are things being stretched?
It becomes Retina at a distance of 2.5 feet away.

It becomes an Apple product marketing word once you hit 2.5 feet? Interesting. Very interesting.
for reference my 34” UW is also retina at this same distance but because of the massive increase in size it is not feasible.

Sitting 2.5 feet away from a 34" monitor isn't feasible? How is it not? That's pretty ideal.
The closer you can view your monitor the more immersive it becomes as elements such as your desk, and peripherals are phased out. In addition not having to move your eyes or neck allows for continued and interrupted immersion.

I don't see how looking at a tiny screen is "immersive". I'm not going to disagree that gaming on a smaller screen would be beneficial because it's easier to focus on, because I think it would help. For me, 40" definitely felt a bit too big. Moving down to a 32" display certainly helped, and going further down to the normal 27" size would probably further help if I were a diehard competitive gamer. But I'd be lying out of ass if I tried saying the smaller 32" display is somehow MORE immersive. Because it's not.

For reference, I sit about 2.5 feet away from my displays. Using a 25" would S U C K. I sit a similar distance from 2x 24" 1080p monitors at work, and while it's fine, I'd love larger screens. I'd love a higher resolution more for the sole sake of productivity, but I certainly wouldn't complain if I walked in one morning and had larger 1080p monitors.
This same argument is similar to traction control for cars. Every time your car spins the wheels you’re not getting the power you paid for. but rather a panel that you can actively see everything without eye movement means you are in fact getting your money’s worth.

No, not even close.
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
back with an updated review:

in comparison to my previous CF791 setup. I prefer this one 100x more. I’m a gamer and don’t so much outside of that so this monitor is designed to fulfill that purpose easily.
This is why I chose this monitor. I was looking to do 16:9 gaming for this build. Ideally I was going to do 2080 Ti + LG 32UD99 ( I might end up doing this in the future) however when I was checking out some 21:9 screenshots I decided against 16:9. 21:9 is just much more natural on the eyes. I opted to get the Radeon VII because I got it for a good price over the 5700 XT. The reasoning behind this is so I could use a Freesync monitor with the appropriate hardware. As I was coming away from a 1080 Ti build, which worked for the cf791 In terms of just raw power and hitting the 100 FPS cap.

The biggest problem, no pun intended, was finding a proper panel size. I’m very familiar with 34” ultrawides having had quite a few of them. However those monitors are quite massive. I could never properly place my 34”s away far enough to have a comfortable picture. They certainly require inch for inch distance from the user. I would say they need about 3 feet minimum to be viewed properly. Heres a photo of comparisons between my old 34” and my 25” for reference.. the CF791 is on the bottom with a 24” deep desk, the 25UM58 is on a 20” deep desk


AED3C22D-31D8-4CAF-A2B0-E798DFC17B37.jpeg


The 25UM58 is a really nice monitor for this specific purpose. It’s a 21:9 monitor that mimics the 16:9 “viewing experience” well. It’s about as wide as a 27” but about as tall as a 20” monitor. It’s so awesome. It also allows for shallow viewing experience as I sit within arms length of this monitor and am able to take in the entire picture without having to move eyes. I bought the monitor and desk together and planned the distances out.

The best part is the resolution, 256 x 1080 at this size provides 111 PPi, which is second highest to the 5K ultrawides, with the 1440P panels following behind. So the pixel density is there as well for that up close viewing, in addition to this, UWFHD, is half the pixel weight nearly of UWQHD, so the resources to push it aren’t that taxing.

The problem is cost. 25” UWs costs between 120-150 with MSRP of $200. This specific size panel is only made by LG. The issue is, if they were to give this panel 100/120 hz it would cannibalize the 29”/34” market. This is my theory. Once you step into the 34” market you start seeing 500/600/700 panels, even more depending on the tech added on. In comparison, I could buy, 8 of these for the price I paid for my AW3418DW.. and the only difference between that monitor and this one is it’s much larger, harder to run and can do 120 Hz with an OC.

I would like to see this product line updated. Atleast 85/95 Hz. That’s literally all it needs. It’s already a solid panel, the color accuracy is there, no back lighting issues. They’ve been selling the thing 5 years too so it’s def reaches product maturity. They recently updated it to have 75 hz/Freesync in 2016.. so here’s hope to another refresh soon.
 
Last edited:

Panel

Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
512
Having used numerous size monitors over the years, I completely disagree. Size does matter, and 25" ultra wide is simply too damn small.
The OP doesn’t contest that size matters. He simply says that smaller is better. That’s fine.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,329
I have both and the 25" is really too small for me. I initially bought the 25" to see if I would like the aspect ratio and I did and got the 34" when it was on sale.
IMG_1503.JPG IMG_1699.JPG
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
I have both and the 25" is really too small for me. I initially bought the 25" to see if I would like the aspect ratio and I did and got the 34" when it was on sale.

I bought myself the 34" for at home and loved it. I then put in a request with our buyer at work for 2 of the 25" versions. I felt that two of the 34" side by side would have been way to wide. To be honest, after using those two 21:9 25" monitors at work for a couple of years, I would rather go back to a set of triple 16:9 monitors. The hassle of resizing windows just got old. On Windows 7 & 10 there is a sweet utility called "MaxTo" that works great for splitting your desktop, but on Linux, I have not found anything similar.

https://maxto.net/en
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,903
The reason I like and actively promote the 25” UW as been the holy grail is because it’s combination of sizing, and resolution Is perfect for media consumption. It becomes Retina at a distance of 2.5 feet away. The closer you can view your monitor the more immersive it becomes as elements such as your desk, and peripherals are phased out. In addition not having to move your eyes or neck allows for continued and interrupted immersion.

for reference my 34” UW is also retina at this same distance but because of the massive increase in size it is not feasible.

my argument is, if you’re not able to see all of your monitor and intake it’s information in a given moment then you are not getting the visuals you paid for.

if my eyes spend 200 hours looking at a panel I would not want for only 60% of those hours to apply to only the center of the screen.

this is also why I like this panel so much. High ppi.

The low resolution means that it cannot resolve as much small detail. This becomes easily apparent when going up to a 1440p ultrawide or above. So even though it has good PPI this is an area where it suffers.

I also disagree that your screen should be 100% in your view. I have a 49" ultrawide at 5120x1440 and in gaming it allows me to just turn my head a little to see more and also to have peripheral vision. I find this more immersive. For work it’s the equivalent of multiple monitors without bezels. I don’t see myself going back to small monitors, ideal for me would be a 4K ultrawide (5120x2160) 38".
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
The low resolution means that it cannot resolve as much small detail. This becomes easily apparent when going up to a 1440p ultrawide or above. So even though it has good PPI this is an area where it suffers.

I also disagree that your screen should be 100% in your view. I have a 49" ultrawide at 5120x1440 and in gaming it allows me to just turn my head a little to see more and also to have peripheral vision. I find this more immersive. For work it’s the equivalent of multiple monitors without bezels. I don’t see myself going back to small monitors, ideal for me would be a 4K ultrawide (5120x2160) 38".

So you're saying 2 devices with the same PPI spread won't have the same visual quality? Thats not right. A 3440 x 1440 panel does have an extra line of pixels, but that doesn't mean they'll have a better image than someone with a 21" FHD monitor.. Yeah theres more pixels, but thats because the resolution is suited for a larger monitor. In the end, both resolutions have a set economy of pixels to ration out per the aspect ratio and size of panel. Larger resolutions just allow for larger screen sizes with the same clarity as a smaller screen.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,903
So you're saying 2 devices with the same PPI spread won't have the same visual quality? Thats not right. A 3440 x 1440 panel does have an extra line of pixels, but that doesn't mean they'll have a better image than someone with a 21" FHD monitor.. Yeah theres more pixels, but thats because the resolution is suited for a larger monitor. In the end, both resolutions have a set economy of pixels to ration out per the aspect ratio and size of panel. Larger resolutions just allow for larger screen sizes with the same clarity as a smaller screen.

On higher res displays you have more pixels which means being capable of resolving more detail because there are more pixels to represent them. This becomes apparent mostly in games like say RDR2 which has a ton of small detail in trees etc. How sharp those details look depends on the size of the pixels and of course viewing distance.
 

Panel

Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
512
So you're saying 2 devices with the same PPI spread won't have the same visual quality? Thats not right. A 3440 x 1440 panel does have an extra line of pixels, but that doesn't mean they'll have a better image than someone with a 21" FHD monitor.. Yeah theres more pixels, but thats because the resolution is suited for a larger monitor. In the end, both resolutions have a set economy of pixels to ration out per the aspect ratio and size of panel. Larger resolutions just allow for larger screen sizes with the same clarity as a smaller screen.
You’re right for text, but wrong for games. You would be right if it weren’t for the fact that games render the amount of information they display based on the aspect ratio. This 25” and a 34” will render the same exact image. You won’t get more rendered image on top/sides with the 34”, you’ll get the same image but bigger. Thus, with a 34” you have more total pixels to represent that same image, so it turns out more detailed.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,329
You’re right for text, but wrong for games. You would be right if it weren’t for the fact that games render the amount of information they display based on the aspect ratio. This 25” and a 34” will render the same exact image. You won’t get more rendered image on top/sides with the 34”, you’ll get the same image but bigger. Thus, with a 34” you have more total pixels to represent that same image, so it turns out more detailed.
The ppi is nearly the same on the 25 and 34, so they should look the same, quality-wise.
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
On higher res displays you have more pixels which means being capable of resolving more detail because there are more pixels to represent them. This becomes apparent mostly in games like say RDR2 which has a ton of small detail in trees etc. How sharp those details look depends on the size of the pixels and of course viewing distance.

You’re right for text, but wrong for games. You would be right if it weren’t for the fact that games render the amount of information they display based on the aspect ratio. This 25” and a 34” will render the same exact image. You won’t get more rendered image on top/sides with the 34”, you’ll get the same image but bigger. Thus, with a 34” you have more total pixels to represent that same image, so it turns out more detailed.

But you guys are not factoring in panel size to the equation. A 3440 x 1440 might have an extra line of pixels, but the advantage would only come into play if the panel was 29” or smaller. Then you would be resolving more details because the pixel spread is much more dense. However because the 25” equals the exact same density as the 34” the image remains at the same amount of clarity, actually the 25” has a marginally clearer image (111 ppi vs 109). Larger resolutions exist to only allow larger monitors to have clearer images. Hence why scaling issues arise when you have too large of resolution on too small screen. 16” @ FHD is the same image as 32” 4K .. If you wanted to enjoy that same image with a 20” sized monitor then you would have to do 21.5”. All of these monitors are locked into an aspect ratio which decides that X and Y axis for the pixel economy. The 38” UWs actually see a tiny bit more than the typical 21:9 ones. That’s it. The UWFHD monitors render the same image as the UWQHDs. It’s all about the size of the panel you wanna view it on. What I’m proposing in this thread is to also consider smaller panels as they offer incredible viewing experiences.

Right now the 25UM58 is pretty barebones.. But LG did update it to have Freesync and 75 Hz since I’m guessing it comes from the same yields as the 29” ones. What’s needed is a 95 hz Refresh rate bump, so it can get LFC, and freesync 2 and 10 bit color. It would be incredible. 95 hz consistently isn’t hard to obtain @ UWFHD and it would be able to harness all of its video capabilities without any reduction due to HFR issues. It would be such a great viewing experience.
 
Last edited:

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
I have one of these as a throw away for random stuff like managing my security cameras or lending it out to someone in a pinch.

I'd never in a million years actually use it.

Not much difference in panels amongst anything else out there IPS wise these come straight from LG. The only limiting factor is their dated design language stemming from earlier in the decade. LG is certainly withholding the potential of this panel intentionally as they refreshed it through firmware for 75 hz and freesync. Likely enough I see the next level of its product life cycle as being a 95 hz panel with 10 bit colors and their new oxide design.

Also, the 25” Is the one of the few true 8 bit panels of the line ups + it has freesync and 75 hz, so it’s even technically better than their entire 29” line up which all but one require FRC to run 8 bits. The larger sibling of this panel appears to be the WL500..

In fact let’s compare this to the gaming gear 34”, which is 1200, or roughly 10x what I paid for my “lowly” 25” monitor
  • Radeon FreeSync™ 2 Technology
  • 144Hz Refresh Rate
  • DCI-P3 98% with Nano IPS
  • VESA DisplayHDR™ 400
Right off the bat you notice they don’t advertise accurate srgb because the dci extends that aka over saturation like the quantum dot panels.

it has freesync cool! But get this, the caveat is, you can’t run 144 hz with it on, and the monitor has to lower contrast and brightness to push that as well. Now you have a crappy picture on a $1200 panel just for a smidgen of extra fidelity.


I don’t even have to mention the last key point
About HDR..

They don’t even mention how the monitor achieves the 1.07B or 10 bit colors, it’s probably FRC. Once again, a monitor that is 10x less expensive can technically go toe to toe with marketing behemoths. They’re robbing people. In addition to that, the 25” also offers a picture with more clarity since its technically 111 ppi vs 109. And the 25” is a pretty dated panel that’s the beauty of a MATURED product it’s been polished to perfection. The thing has been selling for almost half a decade. I think the 25” debuted in 2014 so actually it’s been longer, but it wasn’t until the 58 series they got 75 hz and freesync so I know LG can do a lot more with this panel I can’t wait.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,903
But you guys are not factoring in panel size to the equation. A 3440 x 1440 might have an extra line of pixels, but the advantage would only come into play if the panel was 29” or smaller. Then you would be resolving more details because the pixel spread is much more dense. However because the 25” equals the exact same density as the 34” the image remains at the same amount of clarity, actually the 25” has a marginally clearer image (111 ppi vs 109). Larger resolutions exist to only allow larger monitors to have clearer images. Hence why scaling issues arise when you have too large of resolution on too small screen. 16” @ FHD is the same image as 32” 4K .. If you wanted to enjoy that same image with a 20” sized monitor then you would have to do 21.5”. All of these monitors are locked into an aspect ratio which decides that X and Y axis for the pixel economy. The 38” UWs actually see a tiny bit more than the typical 21:9 ones. That’s it. The UWFHD monitors render the same image as the UWQHDs. It’s all about the size of the panel you wanna view it on. What I’m proposing in this thread is to also consider smaller panels as they offer incredible viewing experiences.

Panel size does not matter. A 25" 3440x1440 screen can resolve as much detail as a 34" model with the same res. It’s about the number of pixels, assuming the same aspect ratio.

Detail in this case means being able to represent even the smallest details and that means you need more pixels. Let’s say you play a game and see a tree on a far away mountain. It’s pretty small on screen and on a 1080p display you would not be able to see that there are pears and a partridge in that tree because the display doesn’t have enough resolution to show that small detail. On a 4K screen you would see those details because you can use more pixels to render those details. This applies whether the screens are 25" or 50". DPI scaling is not a factor here as games just ignore it.

How sharp that screen looks at a given viewing distance is a separate issue. You can have a screen that resolves a lot of detail but is not sharp at close range. This would be my 4K 65" TV if I sit as close to it as I do for my desktop display. Your ultrawide would be a screen that resolves less detail but is very sharp.
 

sosab

n00b
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
25
Panel size does not matter. A 25" 3440x1440 screen can resolve as much detail as a 34" model with the same res. It’s about the number of pixels, assuming the same aspect ratio.

Detail in this case means being able to represent even the smallest details and that means you need more pixels. Let’s say you play a game and see a tree on a far away mountain. It’s pretty small on screen and on a 1080p display you would not be able to see that there are pears and a partridge in that tree because the display doesn’t have enough resolution to show that small detail. On a 4K screen you would see those details because you can use more pixels to render those details. This applies whether the screens are 25" or 50". DPI scaling is not a factor here as games just ignore it.

How sharp that screen looks at a given viewing distance is a separate issue. You can have a screen that resolves a lot of detail but is not sharp at close range. This would be my 4K 65" TV if I sit as close to it as I do for my desktop display. Your ultrawide would be a screen that resolves less detail but is very sharp.


That’s true up until you’re using a 32” 1080P panel or a 75” 4K panel.. each lose a lot of detail in their images. That’s why there’s a certain number of pixels per resolution.. that’s whats deciding how much detail is in the image. The screen size is what determines how those pixels are spread out.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,903
That’s true up until you’re using a 32” 1080P panel or a 75” 4K panel.. each lose a lot of detail in their images. That’s why there’s a certain number of pixels per resolution.. that’s whats deciding how much detail is in the image. The screen size is what determines how those pixels are spread out.

Yes there is a point where the resolution is just too low for the size for a specific viewing distance. I would never use a 32" 1080p on a desktop and 75" 4K would be ok only if I am on the other side of the room viewing it. To maintain roughly the same PPI as their 34" brethren for example the 38" ultrawides need to be 3840x1600.
 
Top