Is ultrawide a Meme?

Is ultrawide a Meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

displaywars.com/29-inch-21x9-vs-24-inch-16x9
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

a glorious meme

how can it be a meme if it aint popular?

it shouldnt be, if you buy one, make sure it is at least 34 inches diagonally for best viewing.

Very cinematic aspect ratio. Hard to go back to 16:9 once you get used to it.
16:9 starts to look like 16:10

I'm considering to buy one just for Movies

But I don't want to spend a miracle for a decent 34 inch UW with 1440p resolution

For example the 29um68 cost the same as a decent 24 inch IPS panel in my country

(The meme 144hz LG 34 inch Ultrawide is only $500 while in the US is 699)

>Cinematic Aspect Ratio

I only have a GTX 750 ti. With that resolution I can play games in Cinematic 26 fps as well

Definitely not. I only wish there was a 16:9 monitor with the same width as a 34-inch ultrawide.

I've been testing 2560x1080 resolution on my 32" 1440p monitor but it feels too small. But by experimenting with other resolutions I found 2560x1200. There's some magic in it, I can't explain.

When a game supports it properly its way good.

Everything a Meme OP

Expect the Playstation 2, that was pretty solid

It's great for photo editing and working with different programs opened at the same time. I guess video editing also benefits from it.

It is kind of a meme, but it's an okay one.
3440x1440 a best.

Switched from three Dell U2711s to a PG348Q, haven't missed the old shit even once. I love this display.

Ultrawide is so freakin amazing. I don't know why people still buy 16:9 monitors. Even movies are made for 21:9, at least many of my downloaded ones are on this aspect ratio and it's just awesome.

The problem is games, movies, your OS, things like that will look natural. But when you watch YouTube and other videos you're going to get black bars until the rest of the world catches up and ultrawide becomes a standard.

That is the only thing holding me back from buying an ultrawide. I don't want to see black bar bullshit when I'm watching YouTube videos.

Holy shit this nitpickery. You do realize that you still get a 27" 16:9 video with a 34" ultra-wide screen? I have zero issues with it, even if more of my content is 16:9 than 21:9...

It's good for movies and for first person shooters. In 16:9 I feel like the gun takes up 40-50% of the screen. But in 21:9 you get a good amount of space to view the scenery.

But for movies, its great. I hope manufacturers keep making them. I want an OLED HDR 4k ultrawide monitor one day.

It's only a meme in vertical mode where I can read your shit thread without scrolling.

it will never become a standard. "4k"/uhd is the next standard

For anyone that somehow missed it:
Anything that isn't 4:3 is meme.

> mfw my gpu can't into 1440p 21:9

>t. 1060 owner

it's a good meme

best monitor i've ever owned

>not having two windows open
>watching youtube shit while 4channing or other browsing
>that way no black bars and you can get even more intellectual stimulation

that's how i do, ultrawide is fucking dope for this

the curved part is the real meme

I'm using two for editing and it's a breeze. The LGs have an app to split it like 10 diferent ways. Very useful.

Not if you own one larger than 34". Past 34" even lines seem convex on a flat screen.

Photoshop and Lightroom on one screen?


Yes daddy!

It's much better than two smaller monitors: you can organize your windows as you want instead of having a split exactly in the middle.

Having two is a meme though, but I'm still glad I fell for it.

>$1500
I could buy and setup a small array of monitors with thin bezels and configure them to watch my kino in ultra wide glory for the cost of that

I doubt it

You'd have to be a retard to actually believe a single 1440p ultrawide is an acceptable replacement for THREE 1440p 16:9 monitors.

3440x1440p vs 7680x1440p

Yeah I know which setup i'd have if I were actually using my computer for work and not just watching anime or movies.


For watching media, ultrawide is nice, for actual work? Lol no.

>thin bezels
Don't kid yourself

fine, a single 4k 40"

3840x2160 is more res than 3440x1440

Now you have no bezels AND more res, for less money.

I could show you 1440p ultrawides for less than 500 USD but since you're so set on disproving its worth, I'll just leave you be. Enjoy your 4K TV. Also leave the thread while you're at it.

>4K TV
who the fuck is that retarded?

Good job trying to conflate my argument though, no I am talking about 4k MONITORS, not TVs.

still waiting for that asus 4k 144hzt monitor

the only problem was its size... I think 27" only.....

Yeah no thanks, 36" would be the minimum for me to go to 4k.

I don't want increased pixel density, I want increased desktop workspace.

16:9 is the worst ratio.
Give me 4:3 or much wider.

21:9 for media
4:3 for work

16:9 for mutliuse.

Ultrawide is just multiple 4:3 put together with no stupid bezels inbetween, why can't you realize that?

>21:9 for media
> 16:9 for mutliuse.
Most media these days is for 16:9, you're delusional.

Streaming media sure, actual production media??

Lol no

K TV
>who the fuck is that retarded?

I was, and I have zero regrets.
As long as you get HDMI 2.0 and no PWM backlight, it's fucking great.
40"-45" UHD is by far the most productive display format for workstation use, unless you require high DPI.

I'm waiting on TV makers to desperately push 8k in a few years just so I can get a cheap as fuck 45" 8k display less than two years later.

as long as it supports 4:4:4 chroma subsampling it's not gonna be too bad, but i bet your input lag is pretty severe. Would be good for productivity only, not great for the occasional gamer.

lag is OK enough to scrape by on TF2 pubs, but I wouldn't even begin to consider it if I was a competitive or regular gamer.

but yeah 4:4:4 chroma @ 60Hz is the primary consideration. 4:2:0 is marginally passable on AMD but looked like complete dog shit on Kepler-era Nvidia at least, forcing me to 4:4:4@30Hz for a while.

I should also add that IPS is probably a good feature to have for a monitor this big/close, provided you use it in lit rooms, since TN and even VA positional color shift matters more at extreme angles.

Had the three U2711s since 2011 and switched last month. I have this at home so I don't do actual work on it, no. But I don't think the extra three monitors would've added much. The 21:9 AR offsets a lot of the missing real estate.

Or you can go ahead and tell me I'm fooling myself lmao

for actual work use?

you 100% are kidding yourself.

Having more shit open at once is my primary issue at work with my monitors, I'm using 5 1440p right now and would gladly switch to 3x4k if my work would pay for it.

I think it's great but they're still too low volume so they're overpriced imo. With any 34" ultra wide you can find a comparable 27" and you realize you're paying several hundred dollars for an extra 900px of width

As opposed to? Several more hundred for an extra 1920px of width you might not even need? I used dual monitors for years before buying a single 21:9 and there was no transition whatsoever, it just worked well and felt natural from hour 1.

I just can't go back to a single display. After using dual monitors for coming up on 2 full decades, my workflow has and is always on two monitors. To change that just wouldn't work with me. Especially for games, I love playing RPGs, I love having maps, walkthroughs, etc, as well as skype/discord open and freely visible while i full screen the game on my other monitor.

also you can get two, sometimes 3 on sale 1440p monitors for the price of a decent IPS 34" 1440p ultrawide.

>cheap smaller monitors on rebate will always cost less than one bigger, better monitor
On other news: water is wet.

How's this ultrawide shit for overwatch?

I'm really looking forward for the HP Omen X35

So clean and nice compared to Acer's and Asus's

100Hz and G-Sync.

Will most likely get two and use my XB270HU and other monitors for Pi projects.

Unsupported. Blizzard believes the additional peripheral vision is an unfair advantage over other players.

Welp, I'm not gonna buy OW then.

I'm not kidding, that's the official statement on why 21:9 is not and will not be supported.

>not just buying a 19:9 or 16:10 screen with a better res than 1080p

Tfw console kiddy ruined pc gaming. It used to be that if buying faster hardware gave you an edge you would need to buy better hardware to compete. Now it's well yea it would be better but most people can't afford a 21:9 display.

It's also not supported in d3 the non pvp game I actually play for the same reason.

As opposed to not having that extra width and saving the money. I'm simply saying that it's not a stellar benefit for the price right now.

You're clearly an ultra wide owner trying to squash any chance of buyer's remorse, not an enthusiast interested in the current state of monitor technology. There are subreddits for people like you, perhaps you should try r/ultrawidemasterrace.

>tfw 21:10 will never be a thing

3440x1440 is glorious but the lack of verticality hurts, at least we might get 19:10 though

and yeah I'm a vidya fag, deal w/ it hipster fucking shits!
2560x1080 is pretty affordable nowadays

In my office I replaced my two monitors with one 4K ultra wide one. Definitely great.

For gaming I wouldn't get one, because no GPU is able to handle high framerates on 4K yet (without sacrificing quality).

Not that guy buy I payed at least a 50% premium for my 120 px of vertical on my two 16:10 monitors. My old one was almost a grand new.
Pc is pay to play unless you are blizzard.

not even a 1080 or the future ti? I think the only thing it couldn't handle is stuff like arma3 maxed out and witcher 3 gameworks, eg stuff that it couldn't on 1080p either

4k ultra wide? So it's 4k or not? 3840x1600 isn't 4k and 3840x2160 isn't ultrawide.
T. 4k user

>hurr durr, gtfo

That's rich, talking about current state when you have a phobia of it.

2560x1200 and 3440x1600 screens already exist.

didn't know, that's fucking glorious

>25 inch cost $150
>29 inch cost $231
>29 inch with Freesync cost $265
>34 inch cost $328
>34 inch with Freesync cost: $390
>34 inch 144hz With Freesync cost $520

Which one? All 1080p.

yes

I literally said they're great but just too low volume causing them to be overpriced currently. How is that a phobia of new tech? Are you ok?

My 1060 plays most of the games I want to play at 4k. If it doesn't you drop it to 1080 with no scaling problems.
The big thing about the well hardware can't even run it crowd is they can't afford a 4k monitor. So they obviously can't afford the hardware to run it.

I literally can't see who is writing what, since there are no fucking IDs.

When it comes to 144hz the Fury X, 980 ti, 1070 the 1080 and the two Titan X were the only capable cards to run most games in 80-144hz in 1080p

I'm having an R9 390 with a 144hz Panel, and I can only play Rocket League and other Competive games at that framerate.

But remember, the 290/290x/390-390x/970/980 was 1-2 Generation before, and those were considered the high ends.

I'm pretty sure you can run 4K 144hz most competitive games even with a GTX 1070.

I would say 2020 is the year when 4K 144hz will be relevant

Do games have support for them?

No idea.

Some newer games have Dynamic Resolution/Aspect Ratio support, which supports anything

Hmmmm, what about older stuff? Will there be fixes like there are for normal 21:9?

Don't buy a non-standard resolution screen if you want to use it for content, that doesn't scale to it.

Hmm, I think as long is 16:9 (some games support 16:10) the resolution doesn't really mather.

I mean you can play Ut 2004 at 4K, and thats 12-13 year old game

16:10 in competitive games gives you a smaller viewbox. They just crop the sides of 16:9 to give you the 16:10 view. It's self handicapping.

you can clearly see that I referred to my original post in the post you jumped on.

Take a deep breath, regroup yourself and come back when you're 18.

let me put it in another way for you, you can get more resolution for less money. If you're talking to someone like a programmer who is likely more concerned about having more windows open at once than having a seemless image. Why the fuck would they get an UW?

>29 inch cost $231
>29 inch with Freesync cost $265
Anything over 29" at 1080p looks terrible.

>imblyign
fuck off now for real

>like a programmer
Then they should identify themselves as such, and I won't even try to convince them to switch, but then again, they wouldn't be interested in what I have to say about 21:9 now would they?

If you're just gonna go ahead and fill in the blanks yourself instead of asking a fucking question to clarify things, and jump to misguided conclusions then you're mentally not fit to have a conversation, and your attitude just stinks.

I'm planning to replace the right monitor. Should I go with the 29 inch Freesync to match sizes?

34" 2560x1080 is ~80 PPI
29" 2560x1080 is ~95 PPI
25" 2560x1080 is ~111 PPI
24" 1920x1080 is ~90 PPI

so 29" is the closest pixel density to your current monitor.

Ah sweet, bigger PPI altough I'm worried because the 29 inch is the same height as a 23 inch. Wouldn't be in the same level, but oh well. At least I got both LG

Does Freesync Worth it? I got an AMD card.

>best monitor i've ever owned
Absolutely this.
It's great for productivity.
It's great for multitasking.
It's great for modern vidya.

If you have the dosh, it is money well spent.

29" 21:9 is closer to 24" 16:9. If you are confused use this: displaywars.com/29-inch-21x9-vs-24-inch-16x9

Regard Freesync, I have no idea if it is worth it. Doesn't Freesync/Gsync only work in a certain fps range anyway?

Yes, it has a range of 40-75hz (Which can be lowered down to at least 35. Some people got 28)

29" 2560x1080 is 95.8 PPI

23" 1920x1080 is 95.7 PPI
24" 1920x1080 is 91.8 PPI

it's closer to 23" 1080 than it is 24"

> cheapest 1440p 21:9 I can get is 800€
> cheapiest 1080p 21:9 I can get is 250€
the jews can't just get away with this ...

it's great for work, shitty for anything else.

except for movies and games where it's way superior to 16:9

> (OP)
>For anyone that somehow missed it:
>Anything that isn't 4:3 is meme.
Came here to post this

16:9 is literally only good for some games (mostly FPS and competitive games where you benefit from a wider viewing angle) and viewing movies.

4:3 is the king of everything else. Webpages are designed around 4:3, and most modern ones still look beautiful on 4:3 monitors because they're adaptively designed for tablets in portrait mode.

Still on the hunt for a 4:3 144hz/1ms FLAT PANEL. Maybe someday.

>Still on the hunt for a 4:3 144hz/1ms FLAT PANEL. Maybe someday.

only in your autistic fantasies. If there were a market for it, they'd produce it. But it doesn't even warrant the cost of development or the cost to put it into production.

Or you could just take a 16:9 and turn it to portrait mode you dumb cunt. Literally ever more superior to 4:3 for web content.

i actually use a shitty old 4:3 display at work and generally feel more productive on it. don't ask me why, but it just works for me.

thinking about going ultrawide at home because games but i'm not totally sold on it yet

i want one for the editing of videos

Why do people even consider black bars to be an issue? We have had to put up with them for like 20 years.
Widescreen ratio movie on your CRT TV. 4:3 format old movies on your 16:9. 16:10 displays. Cinemascope movies on anything but 21:9.

Black bars really shouldn't be any argument against a display because unless you limit yourself to a certain range of movies (and reencodes that crop or otherwise fuck shit up to put it into a certain ratio) you're always going to have them at times.