TCL 57" 7680x2160 superultrawide

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
3,356
https://wccftech.com/tcl-csot-unvei...urved-gaming-display-with-240hz-refresh-rate/

Seems TCL is joining this oddball form factor. While details are just as slim as on the Samsung model, this is probably the same panel because apparently Samsung sold their LCD factory to TCL/CSOT.

I'm all for more competition in this category because let's face it, Samsung often has a pile of issues in their displays.

While the stand is a bit ugly, I like that there is that center space that would be perfect for fitting an audio interface, Mac Mini, game controller etc. If it's more stable than Samsung's stand then that would be another plus.

HDR capabilities are just as unknown but I hope they would be good.
 
Last edited:
Fuck yeah! Been waiting years for manufacturers to pivot to an ultra wide aspect ratio for 4K. Hopefully this supports 21:9 out of the box.

I wonder if this is using the same panel as Samsung's 57" Neo G9.
 
Last edited:
Yes 32" 4k at that height is very good for a desk, but the pixel size in effect is based on the ppi + your viewing distance which also ends up defining your viewing angle. Pixels Per Degree is a better measure. This and the samsung that is probably using the same panel are high PPD for sure but the curvature is 1000R which = 1000mm = ~ 40 inches. That probably means when you are viewing the screen at near the height you might use a 32" 4k on a desk - that the focal point of the curve will be pointed at a location up to 16" behind you which would mean some distortion the farther from the middle of the screen the displayed content is since the pixels will be more and more off-axis from your eyes the farther away the screen curve is. Sitting much farther away than you would a 32" 4k would result in the height of the screen looking smaller and the whole thing looking belt-like so if they were 800R at a ~ 32" focal point it would have been a lot better imo. I'm not sold on the idea of flexible screens that you bend to where you want but in this case I'd probably prefer it if it got me to 800R. I'm still very interested in these screens though. You could even run a 4k game in the middle or slightly less than superultrawide rez on them yet still get a ton of desktop real estate.

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

At a 30" view distance these get around 92 PPD which is very high compared to most screens. :)

https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/screen-size

cIoEkLA.png
 
Last edited:
Super UW panels are all FALD QD-VA, we need FALD QD-IPS for UW.
Imagine PG32UQX as an UW. 1800-nits 360° of madness!
 
Super UW panels are all FALD QD-VA, we need FALD QD-IPS for UW.
Imagine PG32UQX as an UW. 1800-nits 360° of madness!

They'd have to redesign them and change a lot in order to function like the high nit pro art FALD LCDs no matter what lcd tech they used. The ~ 1500nit .. 1600nit + pro art displays have boxy, air vented grille housings. They also have active cooling fans (audible apparently when ramped up), on a cooling profile something like a laptop or gpu would use. Not that I think that is a bad thing. I think more screens should do that, and allow to you pick and manage your peaks vs how aggressive the cooling profiles have to be. The ~ 2000nit peak 4k and 8k screens from samsung are typical thin housing tvs and they suffer aggressive ABL even though they are FALD LCDs. Idk how any screen tech will be able to do hdr 4000 and higher in the future without some kind of cooling. I'm no expert on MicroLED, but even though it is magnitudes more efficient in output vs heat/loss - it will have a ton more emitters.. per pixel like oled but at much higher brightness.

From TFT Central Review of the UCX. Didn't seem to bother them much but it did some amazon reviews so ymmv.

One thing we should mention is that there is a small internal fan in this screen which is needed to ensure it stays cool enough, especially during high refresh HDR gaming. It helps keep the G-sync module and FALD backlight cooler. We have seen small fans used in screens before, including on the first generation 4K 144Hz displays like the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ. You can hear the fan on the PG32UQX if you listen closely for it, and if you have an otherwise silent PC setup you will notice it. It is fairly quiet and certainly we found that it was not audible beyond our normal couple of PC case and graphics card fans which are fairly quiet. We would have course preferred it without the fan, and it’s likely to bother silent PC enthusiasts but it wasn’t a major issue we felt. Perhaps a little noisier than other G-sync module screens like the LG 38GL950G for instance, but nothing major.
l6lpapm3wfc2wjdx_setting_xxx_0_90_end_800.png



. . .

I have no problem with VA normally at normal viewing angles and prefer the higher native contrast but the way curved uw, super-uw are designed has the focal point way behind where you'd sit so it causes a distorted image and most likely also makes the uniformity worse the farther away the pixels are from the center of the screen because they are more and more off axis.

. . . .

Think of the pixels on the screen like small laser pointers. In a room with a fog machine you'd see the shafts of laser light. When sitting at the focal point of the curve, all of the lasers would be on axis to you and pointed directly at you so that for the most part you'd be seeing the points of light. The nearer you sat than that, the more you'd see the shafts of the light beams more sidelong. From your nearer position, the farther the pixels were from center of the screen, the more of the side of the laser beams you'd see. In a graduated fashion the pixels would be more and more off axis the farther they were away from the center and towards the outer ends of the screen.

This will make the screen distorted. Practically all uw and super ultrawides are designed lacking an aggressive enough curve and/or long enough semi-circle segment screen length to be able to sit at the focal point of their curve without making the screen look short and belt like. (Outside of maybe the adjustable curve model monitor that could do up to 750R ~> 30" focal point but I didn't like the overall specs of that screen). So practically everyone is sitting with the focal point way behind them with current curved screens. The ark is a big 16:9 so it is actually tall enough where you could mount it on a floor tv stand and get enough distance to be near the focal point with the screen not being shrunk to a narrow belt to your perspective. It's rez is too low for it's size imo though. Perhaps someyear we'll get an 8k available in that format for higher PPD and quads of something near 4k real-estate (maybe a little less if scaled slightly for clarity/visibility).

Theoretically, they could design an uw or s-uw screen better so that you still get immersion on the sides when sitting at the focal point of a curve. For example, the red line being a 120degree arc of a semicircle:

2a2X3eB.png



I think the problem is the curvature is wrong vs the seating distance on practically all uw screens. The radius of the curve is the focal point, as if it were a lens. For 1000R it is a 1000mm radius. That would be around a 40" view distance screen surface to eyeballs. That wouldn't work for this screen b/c it would shrink the height to your perspective and it would end up looking like a short belt. People would likely keep this screen viewed at a distance like a single 32" 4k would be in the center, but with the longer sides added like wings. A 750R, 750mm curve would be around 30" radius/focal point so would be a lot closer to optimal, especially for screens mounted onto and/or sized for a desk.

When sitting at the focal point of a curve, all of the pixels are equidistant from your eyes and all of the pixels are on axis, pointing directly at you. When you sit closer than that the focal point is pushed well behind you. Then the pixels are off axis more and more the further away from the center of the screen they are, almost like a gradient. This will cause distortion like a fun house mirror. It also exacerbates uniformity issues the farther toward the ends.


The curved black line is what sitting at the 1000R/40inch radius of a screen would be with the solid blue viewing angle being your human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees.
The red line here would be a very long uw screen that provided immersion into the periphery beyond your 60 to 50 degree central viewing angle.
The transparent blue viewing angle is where people sit closer, distorting the curve and pushing the focal point behind them.

2a2X3eB.png

. . . . . .
The game devs can warp the game to compensate, but really the screens should be designed for viewing at the focal point imo. But it is what it is for now. The only screen big enough to view from 1000R, 1000mm, 40 inches without turning into a short belt to your perspective would be the 55inch 4k ark if it was decoupled from the desk and set back that far. It gets around 62ppd at that distance which is ok for 4k but not stellar, and it wouldn't have multiple 4k worth of desktop real estate. Also wouldn't be wider into your periphery for immersion at that view distance.
I really hope that they would eventually design curves to the target view distance and make the screens wider into the periphery as necessary but I don't see that happening any time soon. There was that curvable, varying curve screen that could do 750R though which is about 30 inch focal point but I didnt like the rest of the specs. 750R, 30 inch focal point would be a lot better layout wise, especially ifor desktop sized screens mo.

Some games have warping of the game output to compensate, but it's not standard by any means. Nvidia could probably come up with a tool for that if they wanted to as well but afaik there isn't any. Imo it would be better if the screen design didn't have you sitting where the curve would warp(and also exacerbate uniformity issues)in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top