Where are 4k 3840x2400 16:10 monitors???

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
40,140
Hey all,

Every 5 years or so, I drop more money than I should on a big ass monitor. It's a trend I started in 2000.

2000: Iiyama VisionMaster pro 510 22" CRT
2005: Dell 2405FPW 24" 16:10 panel
2010: Dell U3011 30" 16:10 panel
2015: ???

The itch is starting to be felt, but I have become so used to 16:10, that I have no desire to drop down to 16:9.

I've been googling for any news of a 16:10 4k monitor (preferably around 30-40", but keep coming up empty.

Is there any reason the 16:10 aspect ratio seems to be abandoned this time around? 16:9 has always been great for media consumption and games, but 16:10 is the king of productivity...

Anyone think we will be seeing any real 3840x2400 16:10 screens any time soon?
 
Yes, I am still using three IBM T221 monitors which are 3840x2400 (though only about 22", so perhaps too small for your requirements). It's a nice aspect ratio in both portrait and landscape orientation. I have a couple of Dell UP2414Q 4k monitors too, which are great, but a bit too skinny in portrait and a bit too letterbox in landscape.

Panasonic have a 20 inch 3840x2560 panel but it is only used in their expensive Toughpad FZ-G1 and related models.

There are the newly released '5k' displays which are 5120x2880, so have a bit more vertical space, but still 16:9 of course.

I'm not optimistic we will see panels being produced in other shapes... there are in fact a quite limited number of hi-res panel manufacturers (the various 24" 4k monitors appear all to share the same panel, as do the announced 5k monitors and the Retina iMac) so there is not quite the competitive pressure to prompt one manufacturer to differentiate their product by making it a different shape.
 
epa said:
Yes, I am still using three IBM T221 monitors which are 3840x2400 (though only about 22", so perhaps too small for your requirements). It's a nice aspect ratio in both portrait and landscape orientation. I have a couple of Dell UP2414Q 4k monitors too, which are great, but a bit too skinny in portrait and a bit too letterbox in landscape.

Panasonic have a 20 inch 3840x2560 panel but it is only used in their expensive Toughpad FZ-G1 and related models.

There are the newly released '5k' displays which are 5120x2880, so have a bit more vertical space, but still 16:9 of course.

I'm not optimistic we will see panels being produced in other shapes... there are in fact a quite limited number of hi-res panel manufacturers (the various 24" 4k monitors appear all to share the same panel, as do the announced 5k monitors and the Retina iMac) so there is not quite the competitive pressure to prompt one manufacturer to differentiate their product by making it a different shape.
Click to expand...

That is very disappointing.

I find 16:9 rather painful to use for productivity.

16:10 is perfect for having two letter-sized pages side by side.

I understand why this happens though. it costs money to make multiple different models, and TV's are all 16:9, so if computer users can be convinced to use 16:9 panels instead of 16:10 (and most can) there is a large cost savings.

Up until this point there has at least been a offering of "professional" monitors in 16:10 and cheaper consumer models in 16:9, so that those of us who value the aspect ratio, can at least pay more and get one, but this doesn't seem to be happening above 2560x1600...

it's probably because huge, high resolution monitors haven't been making their way into offices for professional users as much as smaller monitors have.

I'm still going to hold off I guess.

I will not buy a 16:9 monitor unless I absolutely have to.
 
Yeah, Apple has been slimming down their 16:10 offerings, and I'd bet they were most of the 16:10 volume...
 
Do you do a lot of programming/coding? That would be the one benefit I really see for the extra height over a 16:9 monitor...though really 1440p isn't far from 1600...closer than 1080 is to 1440 at least. You mentioned not being able to throw up side by side word documents at full size on a 16:9 monitor, my rebuttal to that issue Looks like 4 word documents scaled to 100% side by side and some of them even have the extra horizontal for notes margins.

You gain just under 6" horizontally (if you exclude your portraits, lose 18" if you count them - but that can be remedied by additional monitors if required) but on the downside you do lose about 2.8" vertically. Additionally, (I don't know how you run your desktop/games) the issue of additional monitors if that's how you roll is pretty futile without spending once again large amounts of cash. As 1440x900 panels won't come as 17" IPS panels to match your pixel density of ~110ppi for the 21:9 ultrawide. Based on your purchase history and current setup though I guess you aren't opposed to spending $1k+ but I'm not going to assume you're good spending $1500+.

TLDR: I'm offering up a potential option based on your described usage scenario/problem of going to 16:9 - but retaining PLP triple monitor is pretty much impossible and going a triple monitor setup for surround (if you use that) is going to run you more than a pair of Titan's...which still won't be able to drive that ridiculous resolution you'd end up with from (2560+3440+2560)x1440.
 
You're most likely not going to find 4K panels manufactured in 16:10, as the tv and monitor industries have conformed around 16:9. It just is what it is.

I'm curious why people are still equating greater productivity with 16:10 at 4K resolutions. You're currently using a Dell U3011, which is 16:10 but 2560x1600 native resolution. Fair enough. But unless you're going to be doing scaling, 4K @ 3840x2160 > WQHD @ 2560x1600 both horizontally and vertically.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041363784 said:
I find 16:9 rather painful to use for productivity.

16:10 is perfect for having two letter-sized pages side by side.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this argument fall apart after a certain vertical resolution? Once you hit x1440, you can view 2 entire pages whether the aspect ratio is 16:9, 16:10, or 21:9.

Are you trying to say you can't view 2 letter-sized pages side by side at 2550x1440 or 3840x2160 (both 16:9) or 3440x1440 (21:9)?

I certainly agree with you that there is a difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, but the difference in terms of productivity between 1920x1200 and 2550x1440 just isn't there. I say this as someone who has 2x 1920x1080 at work and a 2550x1440 and a 1920x1200 at home.

I much prefer programming on my 2550x1440 because M0AR P1X3L5!!! is always better. I suspect your productivity wouldn't drop off any going from what you have to 4k 16:9.
 
Last edited:
gangolfus said:
Doesn't this argument fall apart after a certain vertical resolution? Once you hit x1440, you can view 2 entire pages whether the aspect ratio is 16:9, 16:10, or 21:9.
Click to expand...

Well, the argument is that the aspect ratio closely resembles that of two Letter sized pages next to each other, with just a little bit of extra space for a menu bar. 9the fit is similar for European A4 page sizes)

In other words, if you snap one page to the left and one to the right and have a letter sized document in each of those windows, zoomed to fit the window you waste a minimum amount of screen real estate.

If you do the same with a 16:9 monitor you get pillarboxing on both documents due to scaling down the height, also making them narrower, and thus either have to scroll up and down or use your screen real estate less efficiently.

It sounds like a very minor deal, but I find that when I am working, it makes a much bigger difference than one would expect.

I also find that snapping web browsers to half a 16:10 screen produces a very pleasing aspect ratio for reading, and slightly less so at 16:9 as it feels to short.

if we got all the way up to 32:10 monitors, and there were an easy way to snap four windows (far-left, center-left, center-right, far-right) that would be pretty awesome too, but to me 16:9 (and 21:9) just don't do the trick.
 
I recently did some measuring and research to try to determine whether I could get an increase in the size of Word and PDF docs on-screen by moving from my current 24-inch 16:10 displays to a 27-inch 16:9 display. The conclusion was that I would gain about 3/8th's of an inch in the vertical dimension.

The additional space at far right and left is wasted. Whole pages in Word will scale as large as they can go and are constrained by the vertical dimension. To some extent this depends how you have your default page designed, but in general Zarathustra[H] is correct that a 24-inch 16:10 display puts a Word page on-screen at an actual size of 8.5 x 11, with room for another Word or PDF doc of the same size alongside and no wasted space at far right or left. This is not the same thing as scaling--my 8.5 x 11 Word docs are supposedly at 79% scaling.

With Excel, the user sets the scaling according to how many cells he wants to have in view. It's a matter of personal preference, but here again you gain nothing with 27-inch 16:9 vertically and the space at far right and left is of doubtful value. Even with 24-inch 16:10 displays it is slightly uncomfortable to start a spreadsheet in cell A1. Peripheral vision may be great for gaming but not so much for desk work.

With 28-inch and larger displays, you finally start to gain some vertical space compared to a 24-inch 16:10 display, but if it's a 16:9 or 21:9 display, that gain comes at the cost of so much width that it becomes physically obtrusive in an office setting, to say nothing about whether the dot pitch is ideal.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that gaming/movies and office work have inconsistent requirements.

Personally, if someone came out with a quality 27-inch, 16:10 display, I'd take a look. I'm not suffering with 24-inch, but footnotes in 9-point text might be easier to see. I tried a 25.5-inch NEC LCD2690WUXi and got a 7% increase in document size on-screen. There were other reasons why I sold that unit.
 
Last edited:
SD45 said:
I recently did some measuring and research to try to determine whether I could get an increase in the size of Word and PDF docs on-screen by moving from my current 24-inch 16:10 displays to a 27-inch 16:9 display. The conclusion was that I would gain about 3/8th's of an inch in the vertical dimension.

The additional space at far right and left is wasted. Whole pages in Word will scale as large as they can go and are constrained by the vertical dimension. To some extent this depends how you have your default page designed, but in general Zarathustra[H] is correct that a 24-inch 16:10 display puts a Word page on-screen at an actual size of 8.5 x 11, with room for another Word or PDF doc of the same size alongside and no wasted space at far right or left. This is not the same thing as scaling--my 8.5 x 11 Word docs are supposedly at 79% scaling.

With Excel, the user sets the scaling according to how many cells he wants to have in view. It's a matter of personal preference, but here again you gain nothing with 27-inch 16:9 vertically and the space at far right and left is of doubtful value. Even with 24-inch 16:10 displays it is slightly uncomfortable to start a spreadsheet in cell A1. Peripheral vision may be great for gaming but not so much for desk work.

With 28-inch and larger displays, you finally start to gain some vertical space compared to a 24-inch 16:10 display, but if it's a 16:9 or 21:9 display, that gain comes at the cost of so much width that it becomes physically obtrusive in an office setting, to say nothing about whether the dot pitch is ideal.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that gaming/movies and office work have inconsistent requirements.

Personally, if someone came out with a quality 27-inch, 16:10 display, I'd take a look. I'm not suffering with 24-inch, but footnotes in 9-point text might be easier to see. I tried a 25.5-inch NEC LCD2690WUXi and got a 7% increase in document size on-screen. There were other reasons why I sold that unit.
Click to expand...

I think you guys are getting too hung up on aspect ratio, when resolution and (to a somewhat lesser extent) panel size are more important to consider. The OP would be going from 16:10 1600p to 16:9 2160p. That's an increase of 560 pixels vertically, despite going from a higher to lower aspect ratio. The OP also is currently using a 30" 1600p monitor. I assume he has gotten quite accustomed to using a monitor of that size, and as such would prefer a 4K monitor at least 30" or larger, so he's looking at something like a 31.5" 4K of some brand.

So that's an increase in resolution, an increase in size, and a decrease in aspect ratio. But whatever you are able to fit on screen now is what you'd be able to fit on screen at 4K, plus some. Anything else is personal preference.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041364503 said:
Well, the argument is that the aspect ratio closely resembles that of two Letter sized pages next to each other, with just a little bit of extra space for a menu bar. 9the fit is similar for European A4 page sizes)
Click to expand...

Ah yes, ye olde A4, slightly thinner and slightly taller, that makes more sense than it did before, you can't quite get A4 vertically at proper scale even at 1440on the vertical, its really damn close though.

Honestly, you might just feel the way you do because you came from such a large and high resolution monitor; 30" and 2560x1600 is impressive (especially since you've been rocking it for 5 years now). Just by doing the sheer mathematics behind screen sizes and pixel densities I can see where you would think even a very large 21:9 would be too much of a sidegrade to warrant another $850-1k - especially at the expense of abandoning all hope of a balanced PLP setup without spending another $1k+ on top of that.

However, for a poor bloke (at least back in 2010 I was) something over $150 was putting the wallet between a rock and a hard place much less the amount of money a U3011 cost. I came from a pair of 23" 1920x1080 monitors to my 34" 21:9s and holy balls...lets just say if I knew then what I did now about monitors and productivity I would've made a greater endeavor to stop being poor back then. But I'll let pictures do the talking - mind you these are screen caps from just one screen. I'm not saying go out and buy one of these, but do take a look and see that just because its an X:9 ratio doesn't mean productivity is ruled out of the equation. Though I can see where already owning a 30" 16:10 would make it difficult to justify such an expensive purchase when the gains are minimal.

1%20Big%20Excel.png

1%20Word%20%26%201%20Browser.png

2%20Excel.png

1%20Excel%20%26%201%20Word%20with%20Comment.png

3%20Split%20Right%20Focus.png

3%20Balance.png
 
Last edited:
I don't think the prevalence of 16:9 monitors can be traced only to wanting to use the same panel for televisions. 4k televisions are mostly quite big - 40 inches and above. As far as I know there is no 24 inch 4k television, so that cannot be the reason why the 24 inch hi-res monitors are all 16:9. Likewise 5120x2880 is not a standard television resolution, so there's no reason the panel could not have been made as 5120x3200 (for example) at a certain increase in cost.

It's just that the industry has standardized on one rather arbitrary aspect ratio at the expense of another. There isn't really the market pressure to encourage panel makers to try other shapes because they don't sell direct to consumers, and in any case the majority of PC buyers are not that bothered. Google's Chromebook Pixel has a 3:2 aspect ratio, and Panasonic's Toughpad has 4:3, but more mass-market laptops are sticking with the "standard".

Eizo have come out with a square monitor, which is excellent, but sadly at only 1920x1920 resolution. If they had made it 3840x3840 I would snap up several.
 
epa said:
Eizo have come out with a square monitor, which is excellent, but sadly at only 1920x1920 resolution. If they had made it 3840x3840 I would snap up several.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about this one.

That could be pretty fantastic in PLP if there are appropriately sized 1920x1080 screens to fit perfectly in portrait on either side :p
 
16:10 is basically a dead aspect ratio at this point, and honestly using a 4K monitor it doesn't seem necessary. What is necessary is making sure your 4K monitor is large enough that you can use it without a lot of scaling, though. I wouldn't really bother with anything less than 30" if your primary purpose is work. The 32" 4K screens are ideal.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041370563 said:
I hadn't heard about this one.

That could be pretty fantastic in PLP if there are appropriately sized 1920x1080 screens to fit perfectly in portrait on either side :p
Click to expand...


If my calculations are correct, this corresponds to a 21.5" 1920x1080 panel.

This could be the next awesome PLP setup...
 
Zarathustra[H];1041370573 said:
If my calculations are correct, this corresponds to a 21.5" 1920x1080 panel.

This could be the next awesome PLP setup...
Click to expand...

Or even better, a 22" 1920x1200 screen (but I have never seen one of those).


The more I think of it though, while the pixels would line up well, a 4:3-16:10-4:3 setup is still more useful, IMHO.

Best of both worlds.

4:3 in portrait is perfect for a full screen full page document, and half a 16:10 screen snapped to side is also perfect for a full screen document, so you get four full documents at the same time, while at the same time the 16:10 center screen is still great for watching movies with only a small letterbox, as opposed to what you would get on a 1:1 screen.

I don't code, but I understand that is the motivation behind tall screen setups, but I'd imagine that 4:3 screen in portrait would be OK for this as well. At least it has been pretty good for terminal windows when I work in linux, and there are some parallels.
 
If you want a three-monitor setup with a square one in the middle, why not have three square monitors?

(BTW, the T221's diagonal is 22.2 inches and it makes an excellent 1920x1200 monitor using pixel doubling... but that's probably not what you were looking for ;-p)
 
Zarathustra[H];1041363429 said:
Hey all,

Every 5 years or so, I drop more money than I should on a big ass monitor. It's a trend I started in 2000.

2000: Iiyama VisionMaster pro 510 22" CRT
2005: Dell 2405FPW 24" 16:10 panel
2010: Dell U3011 30" 16:10 panel
2015: ???

The itch is starting to be felt, but I have become so used to 16:10, that I have no desire to drop down to 16:9.

I've been googling for any news of a 16:10 4k monitor (preferably around 30-40", but keep coming up empty.

Is there any reason the 16:10 aspect ratio seems to be abandoned this time around? 16:9 has always been great for media consumption and games, but 16:10 is the king of productivity...

Anyone think we will be seeing any real 3840x2400 16:10 screens any time soon?
Click to expand...
Panelook.com lists no 3840x2400 resolution panels in production.
http://www.panelook.com/modelsearch.php?op=advancedsearch&order=panel_id&resolution_pixels=38402400

The only 16:10 4K+ panel available is innolux 30-inch 4096x2560 (grayscale - no colour)?

http://www.panelook.com/modelsearch.php?op=advancedsearch&order=panel_id&resolution_pixels=40962560
 
epa said:
If you want a three-monitor setup with a square one in the middle, why not have three square monitors?
Click to expand...

Well, the great thing about PLP is typically cost effectiveness.

One big main screen, with one dirt cheap one on either side.

Problem with three square screens is that it is less flexible. For instance, watching media content will either involve serious letterboxing, or widescreen with two bezels :p
 
shades said:
Here you go:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/reference_displays/4k_displays/dp_v3010

30", 4096x2560, 2000:1 contrast, 60hz, RGB LED.

Price: Punishing!
Click to expand...

No kidding!

I wonder which panel they use...

I've made some financially irresponsible computing purchases over the years, but never to the tune of $40k. :p

I see what's going on here though.

16:10 screens are generally preferred in the professional market.

Professional users generally don't have a need for this type of high resolution, and I don't think I've ever seen a 30+" monitor in an office. They are mostly 24" screens.

Home users - however - don't care as much about aspect ratio and those who are enthusiasts want high res and large screen sizes.

4k 16:10 is currently caught in an awkward spot between these two markets, and anything to come out in this wi be niche and very expensive :(

Hopefully this will change over time.

Meanwhile my U3011 got its first stuck pixel the other day (and it is out of warranty and none of the repair techniques I have been reading about online seem to fix it.)

What is crazy to me is that if this is a first sign of trouble and the monitor is going downhill, and I need to replace it, my best bet would be the mostly equivalent U3014, and it actually costs about $300 MORE than my U3011 did 4 years and 2 months ago...

Isn't tech supposed to get cheaper over time? :p
 
at least one of those monitors linked to is designed for medical imaging, where a more square aspect ratio makes sense.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041374468 said:
No kidding!

I wonder which panel they use...

I've made some financially irresponsible computing purchases over the years, but never to the tune of $40k. :p

I see what's going on here though.

16:10 screens are generally preferred in the professional market.

Professional users generally don't have a need for this type of high resolution, and I don't think I've ever seen a 30+" monitor in an office. They are mostly 24" screens.

Home users - however - don't care as much about aspect ratio and those who are enthusiasts want high res and large screen sizes.

4k 16:10 is currently caught in an awkward spot between these two markets, and anything to come out in this wi be niche and very expensive :(

Hopefully this will change over time.

Meanwhile my U3011 got its first stuck pixel the other day (and it is out of warranty and none of the repair techniques I have been reading about online seem to fix it.)

What is crazy to me is that if this is a first sign of trouble and the monitor is going downhill, and I need to replace it, my best bet would be the mostly equivalent U3014, and it actually costs about $300 MORE than my U3011 did 4 years and 2 months ago...

Isn't tech supposed to get cheaper over time? :p
Click to expand...


THIS IS THE most hilarious post ever....

I have /had 4 u3014 monitors. So far 2/3 still go one is dead.

So I find myself in this award transition phase when all the new monitors are coming out and I need one.

Upgrade cycle is so damn similar
1999 iiyama 22" cry (was amazing 128hz 2048res)
2003 iiyama ha2dt 22" crt 1 grand again
2008 2 Samsung 2333t 23" crt 150$
2013 4 dell u3014
2015 desire: 16:10 massive screen with 3d so I don't need multiple in surround. Problem is there are no good 50+ inch monitors except the new OLED and those are 8 grand supposedly.

Other option 28" but who wants to go lower when we're used to 30.

Next option 4k acer supposedly has a 34 144hz monitor coming out. But I would want 3 in portrait and my 3 titans most likely will not be able to run surround 4k

Give us our dreams monitor at 5k 55" sold
 
Zarathustra[H];1041374292 said:
I can't possibly be the only person who is waiting for a 16:10 4k panel...
Click to expand...

I'm not waiting for 4K....don't really care about that, but I'm up for some new 16:10 monitors in any rez. I'm still rocking a 1680x1050. The amount of pixels are irrelevant to me. I simply hate 16:9 monitors. They ain't right.
 
Valnar said:
I'm not waiting for 4K....don't really care about that, but I'm up for some new 16:10 monitors in any rez. I'm still rocking a 1680x1050. The amount of pixels are irrelevant to me. I simply hate 16:9 monitors. They ain't right.
Click to expand...

How about a FW900?
 
I think people have to give up on 16:10, just like what happened with 4:3. There just aren't many people that want a 16:10 screen anymore to make the economics of such a panel viable.
 
Vega said:
I think people have to give up on 16:10, just like what happened with 4:3. There just aren't many people that want a 16:10 screen anymore to make the economics of such a panel viable.
Click to expand...

Well, if there were a 16:10 4k panel (for a reasonable amount of money) I would upgrade today.

Without one, I will just wait until my current U3011 dies.
 
dpoverlord said:
THIS IS THE most hilarious post ever....

I have /had 4 u3014 monitors. So far 2/3 still go one is dead.

So I find myself in this award transition phase when all the new monitors are coming out and I need one.

Upgrade cycle is so damn similar
1999 iiyama 22" cry (was amazing 128hz 2048res)
2003 iiyama ha2dt 22" crt 1 grand again
2008 2 Samsung 2333t 23" crt 150$
2013 4 dell u3014
2015 desire: 16:10 massive screen with 3d so I don't need multiple in surround. Problem is there are no good 50+ inch monitors except the new OLED and those are 8 grand supposedly.

Other option 28" but who wants to go lower when we're used to 30.

Next option 4k acer supposedly has a 34 144hz monitor coming out. But I would want 3 in portrait and my 3 titans most likely will not be able to run surround 4k

Give us our dreams monitor at 5k 55" sold
Click to expand...

Wow. Bad experiences with the Dell U3014?

I just can't believe that they still cost over a grand...

When I bought my first 24" widescreen lcd in 2005 it was over $1000. It had a TN panel and was generally not a stellar LCD.

5 years later, a decent IPS 24" lcd could be had for about $200, less for a screen that used lesser panels but still was better than the TN panel in the 2405FPW.

5 years after I bought my U3011, for ~$1,100 I fully expect a 30" 2560 LCD, with a higher quality panel to be in that same $200 range. Huge disappointment there...
 
30-32" 16:10 4k or 5k and I'd buy one too.

Throw a 27" 4K next to it, maybe a 24" 4k and call it good.

Should drastically improve my real estate :) (Currently HP 30")
 
<Hugs my 3007WFP-HC that is still working like day one>

IMO,16:10 works a bit better for me, the other sizes and resolutions I also work in are:

10" 2560x1600 (Galaxy Note 2014 Edition Tablet)
12" 2160x1440 (Surface Pro 3)
23" 1920x1080 (Asus PB238Q) - I use this for the rare times I travel with my mini-ITX gaming box
17" 1920x1200 (Old XPS Core Duo Laptop that I gave to parents)

And every once in a while I have to work on my parents 1280x1024 monitors (I'm glad there's usually alcohol around afterwards).

What I've noticed with my preferences are that, when I'm doing productivity I tend to prefer a taller height to read more information at a time and dont have to scroll as much. I notice I have to mouse more on my 1080 screen and split screening on that like I do on my 3007 results in having to zoom out to fit text on the window which results in me leaning in more. But when I do the same thing on the 17 inch laptop, it seems to work a tad better in split screen, likely because I'm already closer physically (the view distances differ because I like the corners of the screen to be such that it fills most of my FOV and text is comfortably readable).

In my introspective analysis, I found that while yes I am a high-res/screen real estate addict (whens the next meeting? ;) ), I realized that I had several possible paths:

- Go 1440p x 3 and deal with the ups and downs of that (bezels, portrait vs landscape, gpu connectivity)
- Go 4k at > 40" (I realized 40" makes the PPI similar to the 3007 I have, which makes setup a tad easier and increases real estate and I could put the screen roughly in the same place my 30 sits).

But now someone posits a case for 16:10 4K, and I actually think it makes a bit more sense. 16:9 vs 16:10 at a 1920 width, you're only talking about a space the size of 1920x120 pixels in difference. Increase to 2560 width and it's 2560x160 swath of real estate. Now at 4k it's a 3840x240 swath.

If PPI and font view (for lack of a better description) is the same for all swaths, the 4k swath would have quite a bit more information comparatively.
 
dpoverlord said:
Next option 4k acer supposedly has a 34 144hz monitor coming out.
Click to expand...

where is your source ? were talking 16:10 here for extra height, if your going to talk about :9 with :21 as the width your in the wrong thread.

I would kill (not litterally) for a really good 34 -34.5"" 16:9 4k fast response IPS screen with flicker free. 32" ( 31.5") is amazing but i feel that i could manage that bit more and it would lower the PPi on 4k to a more resonable level without going insane on a massive 40" panel ( read TV ) that has to touch the desk to be useable and be at meter or so away from the user, it also makes it back to 1440p PPi again.. so for me 40" is just a bit too big as a monitor, but maybe not for others, 34-34.5" would be perfect.
 
Vega said:
I think people have to give up on 16:10, just like what happened with 4:3. There just aren't many people that want a 16:10 screen anymore to make the economics of such a panel viable.
Click to expand...

If stores had a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor sitting next to each other (same size), I think more consumers would buy the 16:10. But they don't have that choice. They buy what's available, like we all do.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041374292 said:
That is very disappointing :(

I can't possibly be the only person who is waiting for a 16:10 4k panel...
Click to expand...

No you're not alone, been using 16:10 at 24', and now at U3014, I hate it when several years ago they reversed back to 16:9 because of the panel cost, personally going for 16:9 4K monitor is like "upgrading" from quad-channel to next-gen triple/double-channel RAM, of which the latter could be faster but somehow just don't feel right. Unfortunately the 16:9 or even 21:9 trend seems irreversible, so might just wait for bigger 4K screen coming out.
 
I consider the pixel height difference negligible in higher resolution displays.


4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
 
it is not about pixel height. it is about content scaling. 3840x2160 scales 1920x1080 and 1280x720 content perfectly, making blocks of 2x2 and 3x3 pixels. 5k 5120 x 2880 scales 2560x1440p/720p content perfectly as well, but there is not much content at this resolution to begin with.

16:10 made a lot of sense 10 years ago, when we used monitors to produce content that was going to be printed on A4 sheets of paper as 16:10 works quite well with side by side pages.

But now we use monitors to deal with content that is going to be displayed in other 16:9 monitors/Tvs hence 4k is the way to go. I qick look at the 3440x1440 monitors thread and you will see owners complaining of lack of compatible content and issues with proper scaling. The same problems arise at the 4096x2160 monitor thread.

I would love to see more option for users, like 36" 4k glossy displays, if only to shut the mouth of matte haters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top