whatsmyaspectratio.com

kache said:
I don't understand your point to be honest: why would you have to sit further back?
Click to expand...
Because you would only be able to see a tiny bit of the screen at once if you were sitting at a typical monitor distance from a 110" display.

kache said:
A 110" 8k ultrawide display would be basically a huge screen that can be used as multiple monitor setups, so rotating your head to look at the various parts wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
Most people with multi-monitor setups expand things horizontally. Stacking displays on top of one another is uncommon, and when it's done the top screens are usually angled down.

A 110" ultrawide would be taller than three 27" monitors stacked on top of one another. It would be ridiculous. I don't think you realize just how big that is.

I didn't just pick 55" out of a hat - it's the practical limit for a 100 PPI display without using DPI scaling - and I'm sure that some people would even find that to be too big.

Here it is compared against a 27" monitor.
5557-inch-21x9-vs-27-55sih.png


It's a lot bigger - but not impractically so, when you consider that people are already using 40" 4K panels and setups with 3x 27" panels.

jbltecnicspro said:
We could start calling 4:3 16:12. You think it will make a comeback then? :D
Click to expand...
It's a lot easier for people to visualize if you call it 12:9 (4:3), 15:9 (16:10), 16:9, 21:9 etc.
 
zone74 said:
Because you would only be able to see a tiny bit of the screen at once if you were sitting at a typical monitor distance from a 110" display.
Click to expand...
So?

zone74 said:
Most people with multi-monitor setups expand things horizontally. Stacking displays on top of one another is uncommon, and when it's done the top screens are usually angled down.
Click to expand...
Which means that we'll need screens curved vertically and horizontally.

zone74 said:
A 110" ultrawide would be taller than three 27" monitors stacked on top of one another. It would be ridiculous. I don't think you realize just how big that is.

I didn't just pick 55" out of a hat - it's the practical limit for a 100 PPI display without using DPI scaling - and I'm sure that some people would even find that to be too big.

Here it is compared against a 27" monitor.
5557-inch-21x9-vs-27-55sih.png


It's a lot bigger - but not impractically so, when you consider that people are already using 40" 4K panels and setups with 3x 27" panels.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand the problem, nor from where you took the "practical limit" you're writing about.
DPI calculator is telling me:
Display size: 23.53" × 13.24" = 311.5in² (59.77cm × 33.62cm = 2009.68cm²) at 108.79 PPI, 0.2335mm dot pitch, 11834 PPI²
Display size: 101.35" × 42.76" = 4333.43in² (257.43cm × 108.6cm = 27957.56cm²) at 101.04 PPI, 0.2514mm dot pitch, 10208 PPI²

Which means that, yes, it's 3 27" or 2/3 of a 27" in portrait, and I have seen multiple setups using 27" or even 30" monitors in portrait.

Of course, it would be completely useless for gaming (though by then I assume that HMDs will have monopolized that subset of the market), but gaming is tiny subset of all the monitor sales...

EDIT: though, to be fair, professionals/enterprise is not that big of a slice of the pie either, compared to consumers buying garbage TN panels by the billions, but they are willing to spend way more and, indeed, they have been the first targets of both the 2560x1600 monitors a decade ago and the first targets of the 4k displays last year (TVs aside).
 
tegirinenashi said:
Avsforum CIH is sometimes fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Why go to AVS? Your personal jihad against ultrawide monitors, anamorphic cinemascope movies, and anything that doesn't confirm to a universal standard aspect ratio is far more fun to watch.
 
We are just realists with tegirinenashi. Why to buy 34'' ultrawide 21:9 if you can buy with same money 40''+ UHD 16:9 and you can use it 37-38'' 21:9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top