Why doesn't someone make a curved 4k 36"

Discussion in 'Displays' started by zzz, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Tych-0

    Tych-0 Gawd

    Messages:
    543
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    I think it's more too stubborn to admit that he is wrong. Yes, the merits of 4k are debatable when you are talking TVs and TV viewing distances, but when it comes to monitors you are typically going to keep the monitor about the same distance from you. I'm not a fan of the curved screen TVs either, but again it's different for a monitor. We're talking about filling up more of your view for better immersion in games and more usable desktop space for productivity. The bigger size and higher resolution a 4K 36" monitor gives you exactly that, you would keep it about the same distance away as you would a 27" 1440p. The curved screen would ideally keep most of the display's surface about the same distance (and angle) from your eyes making the large size and resolution even more usable.
     
  2. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    I had often burnt myself with overly optimistic expectations. I still haven't heard even once anywhere mentioned if next gen ati/nvidia gpus will support HDMI 2 (and cinic in me whispers, that if they supported it then these vendors would have already started boasting about such heavy win, but i don't hear that happening yet). If Murphy's laws still work, that support might as well appear only in gen after this next gen, potentially pushing that support even further. And in two years there certainly will be better and cheaper 4K displays & TVs then current ones including that by Samsung. So i am again returning to Panasonic 4K TVs with DP support as only big displays that support 60Hz output now with current gpus included. And 50" for 1900$ also sounds better then 40" for 1700$.
     
  3. Octavean

    Octavean [H]Lite

    Messages:
    70
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Same here or should I say I have had a similar experience.

    In the past I've used and still do use 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 27" monitors. I've recently purchased a 28" Samsung U28D590D 4K display and a Seiki 39" UHDTV (used as a monitor). I use approximately the same arms length viewing distance regardless of which display I am using.

    I can honestly say,....

    You'd have to have something seriously wrong with your eyes not to be able to distinguish the difference.

    Its nothing against #Grey but I just don't think his experience at his local shop with 4K TV's is directly applicable to a 4K desktop viewing experience (on ~28" to ~40" 4K desktop displays).

    However, it still goes beyond this distinction and goes on into how the display will be used. Take what cbf123 said for example:

    combined with this:

    http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers

    For those of whom that do not need this kind of functionality, the benefits of such a thing might otherwise easily escape notice. That doesn't mean that the benefits aren't there.

    Edit:

    As for curved,...I don't really care for curved at least not on the scale that a typical consumer level monitor would be on. If I wanted curved I'd rather setup some multi-projection configuration,.....and dedicate a entire room to it. Thats not about to happen if the Wife has anything to do with it,... ;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
  4. wabbitseason

    wabbitseason [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,511
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Curved displays: cool for immersion in video games. Otherwise don't see the point. The fact that fancy curved displays get so much attention is a bit of a mystery to me. Companies, though, are acutely aware of this, and they're pandering to you instead of actually improving display technology. Seen in that light, the consumer who buys into "curved display hype" is enabling display makers to get away with yet another marketing gimmick (Thin! Light! 240Hz! 600Hz! 40,000:1 'dynamic' contrast! ..) and continue to put off the development of affordable, next-generation display technology.


    4K: Can be useful in large desktop monitors. Usually we sit 2-3 feet away from our monitors, and at that distance the pixels of a 27" 1440p display are just a tad larger than "retina". 4K at that screen size is "retina" down to about 20 inches away. So you certainly gain something. Is it worth the trade-off, though?

    You have to consider the computational cost of those additional pixels when gaming. If money is no object you can ignore that (to a point), but you still have to recognize that beyond a certain resolution, the rendering quality of the content matters way, way more. For example, Wall-E on my 50" 1080p HDTV looks way better than any game on my 1440p desktop monitor. Or, you could imagine playing Doom at 4K.

    The one place that 4K is exciting is in big TVs. You can sit six feet away from a 100" 4K TV and STILL see content displayed at visual acuity.

    These new developments in display technology, while cool, are diverting attention away from more important issues. Black level, motion, shadow detail, input lag, etc. Why we are heaping more pixels onto LCDs, instead of ditching the fundamentally-limited technology altogether, is an open question. Curving displays and adding more pixels are not technologically impressive.
     
  5. kache

    kache Gawd

    Messages:
    723
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Well, being interested in curved 4k 120hz 50"+ monitors doesn't mean we don't want OLED/SED/FED on top of that! :D

    Though it's fairly clear at this point that we'll probably get a 4k sAmoled+ Oculus Rift before we get any 20"+ OLED consumer display...
     
  6. zzz

    zzz Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Not necessarily, because with 50" you can't center your head with the screen, unless your table is only deep enough for your keyboard and the screen sits on a lower table in front of it, which isn't very practical. Btw, the dollar signs go in front of the number.

    Why do you only want curved from projectors? Either way your eye is looking at pixels.

    Tych-0 just explained the point: The curved screen would ideally keep most of the display's surface about the same distance (and angle) from your eyes making the large size and resolution even more usable.

    Not necessarily. Having a 4k screen doesn't stop you from gaming at a lower resolution, and if you choose to do it 1:1 with the same pixel density, it would look just like a 24", for example. And you still get the benefit of 4k on the desktop. That's what I've been doing for years on my 30"; if my graphics card can't put out the frames at 2560x1600, I just run lower res (but full screen, not 1:1). Opposite to your point, 4k will stimulate more powerful graphics development, which ultimately leads to getting hardware that is closer to achieving Wall-E.

    That's an assumption. It's not like a single development group is tackling this. If companies weren't going to 4k and curved, it's not like OLED would be farther along.
     
  7. Octavean

    Octavean [H]Lite

    Messages:
    70
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    People want what they want, there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason,...

    However, in this case I don't care about curved displays in the least unless its on a scale that makes sense to me,..... ~40" and 50" and maybe even a little bigger doesn't spark my interest with respect to curved,...

    This does though:

    http://www.forums.nthusim.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21

    However, thats just me.

    From my perspective a consumer level relatively small curved display is as gimmicky as 3D.

    BTW, we all used to have curved displays,...back then we called them CRT ;)
     
  8. cbf123

    cbf123 n00b

    Messages:
    50
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Your statement doesn't really make sense, the two are essentially equivalent.

    A 40-50" curved screen when used as a computer monitor at close range would be very similar to a giant curved projection screen at long range.
     
  9. zzz

    zzz Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Agree. The FOV is about the same.
     
  10. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Curved might matter for compensating panel flaws (eg. for TN types) with narrow viewing angles. Not sure if it's needed for IPS/AMVA. If curved property comes for free for different screen of same size/quality/features - why not? But i certainly wouldn't want to pay for that few hundred $ more, rather spending it elsewhere, eg. if on displays themselves - on even bigger sized model.
     
  11. kache

    kache Gawd

    Messages:
    723
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Absolutely, if it costs 200 bucks more it wouldn't really be worth it, although that that point it becomes a matter of % rather than absolute values.
    $200 more on a $400 korean monitor would be over 50% more, $200 more on a $4000 Panasonic TV would be less than 5%...
     
  12. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    And while having seen no curved display in person my hunch tells me that for curvature to really work in intended way, one needs to sit at specific distance/focus. Many can use display closer or further then that, so all whatever gains can be got from display being curved might go down the drain, with rather having display with distorted/compressed image proportions at sides. So again .. i wouldn't want to pay for that even a dime more. Feature that sounds good on paper and in marketing materials, but will it turn out this way in real life? Sceptic in me says no. :)
     
  13. zzz

    zzz Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    I guess you've never heard of IPS white glow.

    As long as the curve isn't too aggressive, then it will be better than flat. A gradual curvature won't be optimal for all but 1 person who sits 5 feet from their screen, but for everyone else it would make the sides closer to perpendicular and help combat white glow. (and for a hypothetical person who sits >5ft away, it'd be bad)
     
  14. wabbitseason

    wabbitseason [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,511
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    In no way is a curved display optimal for any usage other than gaming immersion. For productivity work, flat panels actually combat eyestrain relative to curved because your eyes are always making minute focal adjustments because of the distance differences of different points on screen. Having all pixels physically equidistant from your eyes, especially at close monitor distances, will cause more eyestrain.

    If you want a nice surround view to get those peripherals and enhance gaming or video immersion, I get it. But it's not ideal for any kind of productive work, and it's completely useless for more than one viewer.

    Also, developments like this are absolutely diverting funds, talent, and attention away from more important issues. It's not remotely an assumption. When 4K and curved displays are trumped up yet SED falls by the wayside and OLED languishes in perpetual limbo, there's a priority problem. That priority problem is enabled by consumers.

    If everyone, everywhere in the world stopped buying LCDs and demanded next-generation displays for our dollars, I guarantee we'd have robust, relatively affordable next-gen monitors on our desks within 2 years. They're gaming you to milk as much as they can out of LCD before they finally deign to provide us with proper technology.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  15. zzz

    zzz Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    But let's be real: there's been virtually no advancement with monitors/TVs in 7 years as far as I can tell, excluding TVs getting bigger/cheaper. SED and OLED have had 7 years with everything else stagnant.

    In addition, you, consumers, and therefore manufacturers would value SED and OLED above 4k. In other words, if they all involved the same cost increase to manufacturers, manufacturers would be making SED/OLED. 4k seems relatively free for the manufacturer's material costs.
     
  16. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    In 7 years there will be no monitors/TV, just 8K per each eye occulus rift of google glass size/weight.
     
  17. zzz

    zzz Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    That'll be the same year we get fusion energy.
     
  18. Church

    Church Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Imho closer then that. There been lot of VR headset tries in past, they just didn't made it to successful widespread & common commercial product stage. Judging by lot of press coverage occulus is getting and few big name vendors backing it or mentioned alongside, this time might be different. And all required technology bits are almost there. 10-20 years ago miniature ultra-high-dpi lcd screens might cost arm and leg and be affordable only by military, but now? Now almost everybody has reasonably priced smartphone with displays of said properties. Two few inch high-res minidisplays will cost way less then one 50-110" 4K or 8K screen. So it's upto gluing all bits together, ironing out bugs, software to exploit new possibilities such gadgets bring .. and then again yer old evolution with more and more pixels, cheaper end user price, better usability/design/extra features (eg. getting down weight & size, apple-ish design style, new wireless high-speed protocols to pass output without wires, new high capacity small sized batteries to power them). Evolution - game which vendors know how to play, after initial revolutionary steps of new device types are done. Maybe except 8K per eye, but all the rest is rather doable in 5-10 years.