Is Ultrawide a meme?

He did the Newegg sale...

can 4k bros recommend me a monitor based on this list
Acer ET430K
LG 27UK600-W
Dell P2715Q
BENQ EW3270U
Viewsonic VX-3211-4K
LG 32-UD59-B
i like gaymen and editing videos for my stupid ass vlog

Attached: 465135294_super.jpg (1200x800, 333K)

Yeah it's 99% for work.

Might fire up gaymen like once a year for fun, though.

Guilty as charged.

It's probably because the 5k version is coming soon.

Dell and LG are both good

Doesn't Dell use LG panels?

Literally everyone uses LG panels.

I got a 38inch LG too
When i get a new monitor i will just buy a larger ultrawide

Never going back to regular resolution

Yes, Dell uses the LG panel.
Watch out though, the Dell monitor doesn't play well with Macs. Some sleep/wakeup issue.

>"aging" dual 2560x1440
>gets replaced with an ultrawide of the same PPI
scum

>Is Ultrawide a meme?
>Did I make the right choice?

It depends on what direction you're coming from.
For anybody who has only ever used ~HD resolution, it feels great, but for anyone who has used >40" UHD it feels like a joke. Hence "cropped" and "ultrashort" bantz.

Consider that your monitor vs. a comparable UHD:
LG 38CB99-W - $800 - 38" IPS - 3840x1600 @ 75 Hz - curved, vs:
LG 43UD79-B - $500 - 43" IPS - 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz - flat

You payed 60% more for 26% less vertical resolution, with 25% higher refresh rate and a bit of a curve. More than a little retarded IMO, famalam.

5120x1440 is a lot nicer than 3840x1600 in my opinion.

5120*1440 = ~7.3M pixels
3840*1600 = ~6.1M pixels
3840*2160 = ~8.2M pixels

So you "upgraded" to lower overall resolution with the only benefit being a single panel vs dual panel.
Should've just got a 40 or 43 inch 4k monitor.

>LG 43UD79-B - $500
I got mine for $445. Ultramemes at the time were $800-1000+ for less resolution. Seemed retarded to me.

The LG 43UD79-b is an excellent monitor.

>Did I make the right choice?
no

I use a U3417W, and any non-ultrawide screen I used afterwards feels like a joke, despite muh pixels. This format just feels right, and if you haven't tried it, your opinion is invalid.
I also have a 1080p secondary screen for USB hub and entertainment / documentation while working, so pixel real estate isn't an issue really.

>This format just feels right, and if you haven't tried it, your opinion is invalid.

I've tried 3 different ultramemes, all were garbage, especially compared to my 43" 4k.

38" 3840x1600 was the best of them, but even it was shitty compared to the larger 4k, no reason to limit myself with less vertical resolution.

34" 3440x1440 and 29" 2560x1080 are both garbage as well.

THe 38" 3840x1600 is basically just a 43" 3840x2160 but with 560 vertical pixels cut off for no fucking reason and then you're charged an extra $300 for the "service". It's a total ripoff, anyone defending it is simply rationalizing their purchase.

I am sometimes rationalizing the purchase of the GTX 1080 last christmas, but this screen - never.
The ratio is just perfect for media and vidya and working on it (at least for me), is fucking bliss.

I'm glad you like your TV, user, just don't think you're some sort of display connoisseur after trying out three of them.

which 43 inch do you own

It's great for gaming.

I don't think i'm a connoisseur, but I know for sure I picked the best monitor for my situation.

Nothing is stopping me from running a custom resolution at 3840x1600 either. I'll just have black bars on the top and bottom, and since video playback software automatically adds the blackbars when i'm running at 3840x2160, there isn't really much point at running it at 3840x1600 for 21:9 movies.

If black bars are THAT big of a problem for you, i guess you made the "right" choice.

But essentially you've paid more money for less pixels.

LG 43UD79, the only logical choice for a large format 4k panel over the past 2 years. Though options should get better going forward.

UW is pretty comfy for gaming and productivity. Compared to two monitors side by side it's nice to be able to put something in the middle without being broken up by a bezel. Sometimes it seems like it would be even better to have a super UW but there's no demand for that yet.

>I use a U3417W
>I also have a 1080p secondary

I'd rather have the best of both worlds

A 43" 4k 60hz, and a 27" 1440p 144hz.

Ok

Attached: 1471549804907.jpg (3000x2000, 1.4M)

Attached: 1449674201069.gif (280x210, 1.41M)

I use an ultrawide in the middle with a 16:9 on each side.
It is fucking awesome but the amount of tilt needed for those side monitors is severe. They're tilted to about 45 degrees relative to the center monitor. Also I have a large computer desk and still BARELY enough room for the three monitors even at full tilt on the sides.

I don't like vesa mounts for multi monitor setups but I intend to build a shelf for monitors that sits about 4 inches above my desk surface. maybe a tad bit wider than the desk.

I've been very happy with my AW3418DW but i'm also coming from a Playstation 3D Display so anything is really an upgrade.

I want to say the ultrawide is great for gaming, but the only game I play, Factorio, actually suffers a great deal from the ultrawide. Unfortunately the only game I play is best played on a 1:1 square monitor.

Does it have windowed / borderless mode?
And what's the penalty exactly?

Get a one 1:1 1920 x 1920 monitor

>spend $1400 on a monitor with half as many pixels as a 4k panel that costs 1/3rd of the price.

Wew, you've gotta be pants on head retarded to think that could ever be a good idea.

Attached: 2018-09-07 12_21_32.png (1759x708, 253K)

Seriously just get a 4k 43" panel. It's the same pixel density, but twice the pixels and less than half the cost.

Attached: 2018-09-07 12_22_57.png (2358x138, 25K)

Factorio lets you zoom out really far if you have a square monitor, if you have a rectangular monitor you can only zoom as far as the square would have allowed.
Essentially a 21:9 monitor can only get less than half the zoom level of a square monitor, or a windowed mode instance in 1:1 aspect ratio.
Its actually quite sad, its really tedious to play the game when you can't zoom out far enough

If a 1:1 monitor existed with enough resolution, that would be correct. But you're limited by what actually exists as a product.
And for 1:1 monitors, the only one that exists is the 26.5" 1920x1920 monitor.

You'd actually get a larger image using a large format (38-46") 16:9 4k panel.

Attached: aJbUmhF.jpg (2304x1296, 838K)

I've got a x34 and I'll never go back to 16:9 for my main monitor.

I used to play with a 4k tv but stopped because I was having the same issue, couldn't zoom enough. I was hoping for a glorious 4k extreme zoom out and never got it... that was years ago, though, maybe its been patched. That tv was a 3840 x 2160.

I don't see why the actual "large format" would make any difference at all. seems to me like a 4k phone screen and a 4k 10ft tv would be able to zoom the same in factorio, as long as the native resolution was the same.

Attached: mm.jpg (220x165, 13K)

>I don't see why the actual "large format" would make any difference at all. seems to me like a 4k phone screen and a 4k 10ft tv would be able to zoom the same in factorio, as long as the native resolution was the same
Because you can't use a phone screen at the same viewing distance you would a monitor. You wouldn't be able to see anything.

Same with 4k and 27" panels, at 4k res you simply can't make out GUI text, in games it can be a non-issue if it's been programmed properly. But if you're looking to get the most from 4k, a large panel size is required.

Also, factorio before 2015 didn't support 4k properly, so if you were playing it back then, you were probably having issues.

If I really felt like it, I could run my 4k monitor at 2160x2160 res for a 1:1 aspect ratio, and that for sure is going to be larger than a 1920x1920 res 1:1 monitor.

However, I have a feeling factorio prefers 16:9 aspect ratio, as I have played the game and it has no issues zooming out on my 4k monitor. I'm not sure how exactly you think 1:1 would help this.

I think even with your setup, you could get more zoom out of the game playing in windowed mode, with the window sized to a 1:1 aspect ratio.

The problem is that I've tasted those tasty zoom levels and I dont want to settle for less. Ultrawide should be able to at least see super far side to side, so you could maybe have some sweet horizontal builds with wrap around monitors.

>I think even with your setup, you could get more zoom out of the game playing in windowed mode, with the window sized to a 1:1 aspect ratio.

Wouldn't be any different from setting a custom res of 2160x2160 and running it in full screen.

And i'd be losing out on all of the horizontal resolution i'd normally be able to see.

I was playing it before then. I'll have to try again. Thanks for the tip, hombre

Here is factorio fully zoomed out on the intro level at full 4k. res

Next image will be the same thing at 2160x2160 1:1 aspect ratio.

Attached: 2018-09-07 12_56_03.png (3840x2160, 1.38M)

Pixels are pixels, having more pixels will give you more zooming out, that's just how it works. 1:1 wont help with anything.

Attached: 2018-09-07 12_57_55.png (2160x2160, 560K)

>my aging 27" Dual 2560x1440 monitors.
Kill You're Self

This resolution is not just fine, but actually better than what you replaced it with.

Also your autistic and your retawded. This might be the stupidest post on Jow Forums I've ever seen. Congratulations on a successful bait.

>Also your autistic and your retawded
No that'd be you. I bet you're not even viewing them at full resolution, probably because you don't have anything high enough resolution to actually view them on.

newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=curved monitor&ignorear=0&N=-1&isNodeId=1

What an incredible waste of money

>viewing them at full resolution
Viewing what at a full resoution? 1:1 pixels? Sorry I don't play autism simulator.

It has nothing to do with screen res, its just the way factorio renders. Obviously you're retarded for taking screengrabs of the blacked out campaign tutorial

These both were taken fully zoomed out on the same monitor in windowed mode. both shrunk down well below 1920x1080. the one on the left i just resized to look more square, the one on the right to look more like a 16x9. Its not a scientific analysis I just want to show you what I'm talking about.

The "widescreen" version doesn't even show above the lake or below the iron patch. Its just the way factorio draws the screen. both images have already maxed out the maximum width displayed, while only the image on the left can show you the maximum height (its still a little bit non-square, whatevs)

Attached: sloppyscreengrabs.png (2463x946, 2.57M)

Also If i maximize the window, or fullscreen the game on my 1920x1080 monitor it still zooms to the same level as in the 16x9ish pic, in terms of how far on the landscape the player can see. This whole topic is only barely related to this thread because this quirk about Factorio has to do with your monitors aspect ratio

his point is that there only exists a single 1:1 aspect ratio monitor, and it's 1920x1920.

No matter what you do, a 3840x2160 panel will provide more resolution and thus provide more zoom.

So you'd have to be a gigantic retard to buy that 1:1 display instead of a 4k display at 1/3rd of the cost.

As he said, it doesn't matter if it's 1:1 or 16:9, the 3840x2160 will provide a larger zoomed out area than 1920x1920, or anything else.

1920x1920 is probably better than 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. But not 3840x2160.

basically this Regardless of how factorio actually works, a 2160p panel is best option, even if you end up running the game windowed with 1:1 aspect ratio, having 2160 vertical pixels is the most vertical pixels of any current monitor. 1920x1920 is a meme resolution, and the price far exceeds the comparable pixel density 4k monitors.

Ohh, i gotcha
sorry for being so dense

ITT: People shit on ultrames because MUH PIXEL DENSITY

People buy ultrawides for the aspect, not the ppi. Anyone who doesn’t get that is a big dum dum. It’s the same reason so many thinkpad lovers hate having 16:9 on a laptop. Sure it’s a higher pixel density on newer displays, but they like the older aspect ratios more because of the way they display what your email looking at.

This thread shouldn’t be for talking about dollar/pixel ratios. The real question is how the aspect compares and whether it’s favorable for gaming, work, etc.

Also anyone who suggests you should just buy a 4K and crop it: b u r n.

That shit makeshift your retinas melt.

>People buy ultrawides for the aspect
But what's the point? You can run 21:9 aspect ratio on a 4k panel at a cheaper price.

If you REALLY love ultrameme aspect ratio, nothing is stopping you from running 3840x1600 or 3440x1440 on a 3840x2160p display.

It looks like ass when you crop ultra wide into a 4K because of the physical panel. Ultra memes are built considerably wider than 4K panels are, even big ones.

That’s the point, you sacrifice vertical space for a much longer monitor. If you crop a 4K it does work resolution wise but you’re basically shrinking your display down on either side. It’s a shorty ultra wide experience compared to an actual ultra wide.

Crop a 4K into ultrawide*

The point is, when you make your display bigger with the same ratio, at some point your neck is going to hurt from looking up and down. Humans have much more head movement in horizontal plane so at that point you just go wider. And when you go wider at some point you need to make it curved (but I don't think displays reached the sizes where you need the curve).

By the way, "pixels are screen estate" is a meme. What's more important is just the physical size because you need the letters to be big enough physically to read them so you're going to scale it. More pixels at the same physical size will make it look nicer though.

43" 3840x2160 16:9
>Display size: 37.48" × 21.08" = 790.08in2 at 102.46 PPI
38" 3840x1600 21:9
>Display size: 35.08" × 14.62" = 512.66in2 at 109.47 PPI
34" 3440x1440 21:9
>Display size: 31.36" × 13.13" = 411.76in2
at 109.68 PPI

The 43" 4k is wider than both a 34" UW and 38" UW, when cropped to 3840x1600 your image will take up the entire 37.5" width and leave black bars on the top and bottom, compared to the 38" UW which would only be 35" wide, or the 34" which would only be 31.3" wide.

Oh yea, and the 4k monitor is ~1/2 the cost.

Oh, and if you're curious, a 40" 4k panel gives the following
>Display size: 34.86" × 19.61" = 683.68in2 at 110.15PPI

So 34.86" width, just slightly smaller than the native 38" UW which would give 35.08" width.

I can get a 40" 4k for ~$300-400.
Or you can get an extra 0.22 inches with the 38" UW for only ~$1000

Mac are fucking useless

I love playing games in ultrawide. I can't imagine why anybody would say it's a meme.

Personally, I love ultrawide.

I've got an LG 34UC79G-B
2560x1080p
144hz freesync
34' curved ips panel

I have no complaints about it. It is the perfect screen for my setup.

Because of the price compared to a similar non-ultrameme monitor.

As posted just above you, a 40" 2160p panel costs $400. It is perfectly capable of running at 3840x2160, 3840x1600, 3440x1440, 2160x2160, etc.
But a native 38" 3840x1600 panel costs $1000.

That's why it's a meme.

First off, stop bringing up PPI, it's not about density. It's about physical construction. I just pointed this out and so did another user. You aren't reading what we're writing, you're just talking about density which isn't the point.

Not only is this not the point, but beyond a certain point higher density is basically worthless for most applications. You end up having to massively scale everything up or sit uncomfortably close. The point is that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so you're not getting more screen real estate at that point, you're just upping the "crispiness" of your display. You're having a fundamental issue in understanding display tech. This is like the "megapixel" argument of cameras. Megapixels are certainly not the "end game" point.

Anyways, these are meme measurements you've provided. amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-43-Multi-Client-P4317Q/dp/B01F80FSKS
37.1 x 20.8 inches

amazon.com/Dell-FR3PK-34-Inch-Led-Lit-Monitor/dp/B01IOO4TIM
16.42 x 32.03

Real world monitors aren't built like the dimensions you provided. You literally just pulled numbers out of your ass so you can could make up a ppi measurement no one cares about. You do not understand monitors my boi.

In response to:

>You literally just pulled numbers out of your ass
Lmao are you an idiot?

I used a pixel density calculator, which calculates the exact panel sized based on the aspect ratio and resolution, this discounts bezels.

You can do the math yourself.

a 38" 3840x1600 panel is 35" across. You can back this up by looking up the LG 38UC99-W, on the product page in the product dimensions it clearly say it has a width of 35.3" that 0.3" is the bezel on each side.

A 43" 3840x2160 panel is 37.48" across. You can again verify this by looking up the LG 43UD79-b on the LG website, it clearly says it has a width of 38.1", that extra 0.6" is the bezels.

It's just basic math you dumb cunt.

sven.de/dpi/

Imagine being THIS retarded.
He wasn't even talking about pixel density you dumb bastard

The ratio isn't a meme but the resolution is. They're basically the same DPI as normal monitors but more expensive than 4k ones. In 6 years or so I'll be down with buying an 8k 38" one but until then if you want hiDPI you gotta go 16:9.

You did good - $750 is a deal.

It makes me money so who cares what you think.

Anybody want to talk me out of a Samsung C34F791? Looks good to me for about $700.
3440x1440 / 100Hz native

lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34WK95U-W-ultrawide-monitor

This one looks pretty dope desu

It's non-curved 5k (almost) but it's not even out yet and it's only Thunderbolt 3.

What do you think if I get a second one? Is it too much? 38" x2

Depends what you're doing with them. Overkill for most people due to desk size alone.

This is the first ultrameme actually worthwhile, it's not a resolution/pixel density combination you can get with any other display.

I basically have 2x 27" Apple Cinema Displays at 2560x1440 each. They're aging and I can sell them to some plebs and get majority of the funds back for the 38" I just purchased.

I can't live without dual monitors, and I'm just so used to having a second screen with Adobe tools sitting there and the left screen being the master screen.

I'm just worried that Ultrawide is a straight up meme. This is all for productivity I never really game.

in my opinion it's just a total waste of money, but you must consider that I prefer coding over games

It's $1500 tho and comes out january 2019

I have a feeling 5k monitors will be mainstream next year but I couldn't wait so I pulled the trigger on the $750 38" Ultrameme

I sold my dual 27" 1440p 60hz panels for a 43" 4k wall mounted, and then a secondary 27" 1440p 144hz panel.

But to each their own, everyone has their preferences

Actually UW is very good for production work, especially the horizontal scrolling type stuff like DAW or video.
It's the curve that you probably don't need, as that is geared towards "immersion" with gaming.

I don't like HDTV's as computer screens, regardless if they are 4k.

The response rate is just too slow for computing.

I'm really torn, I might just put it on craigslist if I hate it....or better yet maybe put the dual 27"'s on each side of the 38" but I need a bigger desk.

>I don't like HDTV's
Are you dumb? I said a 43" monitor

LG 43UD79-b

It is in no way an HDTV.

>The response rate is just too slow for computing.
What the nigger did I just read...

Response time matters for gaming, for productivity unless you're doing something SUPER niche, you're god damn insane if you think you "need" super fast response times.

Ok calm down.

That's too big for a monitor, the pixel PPI is too low.

It's similar to the 38" i just ordered. Also I'm looking for a dual monitor replacement, not a single one.

You realize that 38" UW has horrible response time...right?? It's like 14ms, far beyond most smaller 24-27" panels.

>Also I'm looking for a dual monitor replacement, not a single one.
Which is why i use two monitors, like my post says, in no way did I suggest you switch to a single 43" 4k panel.

It says 5ms...

So you have 2x 43"? How big is your desk? That shit's huge.

nigger, you aren't even reading.

> 43" 4k wall mounted, and then a secondary 27" 1440p 144hz panel.

I use a 43" 4k AND a 27" 1440p secondary.

Both have similar pixel density. To get even closer pixel density you could go with a 40" 4k instead of 43", but then you're getting a TV which only has HDMI inputs, no Displayport.

43" 4k is 103 PPI
40" 4k is 110 PPI
27" 1440p is 109 PPI

Wow you sound like a dumb faggot. Try to write proper sentences next time.

But anyway, that's a weird fucking combo. The 43" is too tall how the fuck do you put a 27" as secondary?

Can you post a pic of your anime desk?

try fucking parsing a god damn sentence you dumb nigger faggot.

Enjoy wasting your money on ultramemes, you already proven your decision making skills are next to none.

If you like wasting money sure