Super Ultra Wide Thread

>Discord
>League of Faggots
>Aero

Commit knife in heart you stinky jew

>Would you want to use a 55" TV as a monitor?
Why yes I would, it's like having a quad monitor array without the bezels

Attached: 2013.jpg (1920x1280, 396K)

>Would you want to use a 55" TV as a monitor?
Why not? It's like 4 24-inchers with no bezels. The only issue I see is the fact that it's like 50lb

depending on manufacturer some of them are all the way down to 20 pounds

Calling bullshit on that. 32" monitors weight like 18, there's no way a 55" TV weights a mere 20lb

>Not running crysis on fullscreen
pleb

no one has issues with 5120x1440p ultrawides, they're just overpriced.

>suddenly you have big gay
Is the resulting monitor curved? Because curved monitors are retarded.

Why do these always have to be curved?

This is the real problem. They cost as much or more than some of the better mid range 4k TVs like the 55" x900f. For $500 it'd be a more compelling buy for people need the productivity of 2 monitors without the imbalanced lay out

55" is actually perfect for whole screen view at a glance.

(for me)

I use 2x 2560x1600 at work. Works perfectly for me. Will only drop it for an ultrawide if it comes in 1600 height. 2169 would make the screen too tall anywoy

?

Attached: 0271.jpg (1920x1440, 428K)

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

It's actually for work, not gaming.
5120x2160, it's not just 4k with cut off pixels, it's 4k with added pixels.

A quick Amazon/Walmart search reveals that 55in TVs can weigh anywhere from 25-60 pounds with 4k being heaver than 1080p
20lb isn't outside the realm of possibility but that would be a really stripped down TV

Yeah, i'd love to buy one even for $700-800.

~$300 a pop for 2560x1440p 27" is reasonable to me, I wouldn't mind a $100-200 premium to lose the bezel and make it a single panel.

But currently it's LG's 49WL95CW at $1500.

Or Dell's U4919DW at $1500.

Actually WHY shouldn't I get a 4k 44 inch or lower tv for a monitor if it's light enough?

>xf900

Attached: oh baby.jpg (200x314, 10K)

if it's not for gaming, no real reason.

If it's for gaming, the input lag will be shitty compared to a monitor.

I see I have a 66 inch 4k TV in my room which I play fighting games on.
Seems fine to me desu

user.... you realize it's about aspect ratio? A 1600p ultrawide wouldn't be any slimmer than a 2160p ones at the same aspect ratio.

lol then you obviously aren't very high level.

Or it's a higher end QLED/OLED set. Some of the nicer higher end panels can get down to sub 20ms.

But many of the budget tier panels will be upwards of 40ms.

different folks different strokes

Not really
TVs are still mostly stuck at 60Hz (120hz TVs exist but HDMI 2.0 can't do 4k at 120hz, 2.1 can but that is another story) so if you compare a 60Hz TV with any other 60Hz monitor the input lag is really about the same when you actually measure the input lag

lol input lag and refresh rate are not the same thing.

Are you an idiot?

OLEDs aren't the best with input lag. There are plenty of midrange units that have 10ms response times in 120hz mode (usually at 1080p) or Samsung TVs with VRR in 1080p go down to 6ms

well yeah, IN 1080p, not many people change the res of their panel when playing games, they just play at native res.

If you're the type of autist doing that type of shit, you had no reason to make this post () to begin with, you know the answer.

No I'm not
the reason why I mention hz in the first place is because when people compare input lag from TVs or monitors, autists love to compare ultra fast 144hz monitors to TVs which are still 60hz and makes the issue look alot worse than it is since 144hz displays tend to have lower input lag
So in order to have a fair comparison for input lag from a TV vs a monitor both models need to be the same refresh rate and when you account for that you find TVs are very close to a monitor in terms of input lag,
TV is maybe a little bit slower but only by a few ms

>TV is maybe a little bit slower but only by a few ms
It's really only been the last year or so this has been true.
12-18 months ago he'd have been totally correct.
Most 2016 models have 40ms+ 100% response times, with ~15-20ms 80% response time. compared to ~15ms 100% response time for a normal 60hz monitor, and ~4-5ms 80% response time.

Just not the same league at all.
However, the last year or so, TVs, even cheap ones, have improved a LOT on the response time, you can get a $300 TCL that will do sub 16ms 100% response time, which is just as good as most decent 60hz monitors.

Vizio from 2016 vs Vizio from 2018, same exact series, just different years.

Attached: 2019-02-19 20_33_14.png (1691x992, 817K)

Response time and input lag are 2 different things, with bad input lag being solved on TVs for years now and often being just as good as monitors (depending on make/model. looking at you sony)
Not saying response time isn't important but input lag I'd argue is somewhat more important

okay, here is input lag comparison.

2016 4k e-series vizio
2018 4k e-series vizio
random 2015 1440p 60hz dell

wow TVs are amazing /s

Attached: 2019-02-19 20_56_07.png (1797x441, 135K)

>4k HDR with full chroma
>22ms

>1440p, sRGB/SDR
>10ms

Wow, that monitor sure is impressive.

Lmao, for fast paced gaming, who the fuck cares about anything besides the input lag and response time?

BOTH of which monitors are superior to TVs, sure 2018 TVs have gotten better, but they still can't match monitors from 2015. It certainly hasn't gotten worse with monitors over the last 4 years either, it's improved there too.

So again, for serious fast paced gaming, you'd be retarded to get a 4k TV, even if it IS one of the higher end sets.

Came close to buying a few weeks back but that 1080 after 4 years of 1440 would be too much of an ouch personally. Enjoy the immersion though dude I'm sure it's great.

Not everyone is into fast paced gaming and if your looking at 4k your not looking for fast paced gaming which makes a TV really not a bad option
for the amount you can spend on a basic bitch 4k monitor you can instead get a something that does alot more
won't be long until TVs undercut monitors in the high end space with high refresh rates and VRR

>and if your looking at 4k your not looking for fast paced gaming
lmao this is bullshit, the only reason this is true is because you can't currently buy 4k monitors that are good for fast paced gaming

Get me a 40" 4k 144hz with good input lag and response times, i'd buy it no problem assuming it wasn't something retarded like $5,000 for the new 65" 4k 144hz panels being released.

here's the TV I bought a few weeks ago. a low end Samsung. I didn't even look up the input lag before buying because I didn't plan on using it for gaming.

Attached: samsung nu7100.png (423x664, 45K)

and double the response time of a monitor

Like I said, TVs are improving for sure in 2018/19 models, but that doesn't mean they're JUST as good as monitors yet.

Attached: 2019-02-19 21_28_42.png (391x322, 31K)

>Get me a 40" 4k 144hz with good input lag and response times
Those are coming and whats funny is that it's not going to come (at least not cheaply) from a monitor manufacturer
LG has a 4k 120hz VRR OLED slated for this year and it's not going to be long until the feature set trickles down to LCD models

Shoulda bought a TCL. Samsung has the worst price structure if you're after value.

Attached: tcl.jpg (423x690, 71K)

TCL and Vizio win on value, Sony on the fact that they have one of the best mid-range entries, and LG on OLED. Samsung is richfag dickstroking with their high end Q9FN shit

Attached: tcl2.jpg (433x704, 50K)

>55" screen
That's a big keyboard user.....

>using anything other than 4:3

ishygddt

The Vizio P Quantum, which went on sale a few times for like $1200 for the 65"

Attached: viziopq.jpg (418x732, 50K)

The plain, cheaper P looks like it has very similar values.

Attached: viziopq2.jpg (437x782, 68K)

>lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34WK95U-W-ultrawide-monitor
gimped 5k screen

how many ultra wides to make a 360 degree screen array? also need a barbers chair to raise yourself up into your station.

4:3 is garbage, not everybody is a cyclops

how are movies on super wide? black bars?

user... Is that Vista?

>having a meme screen where three quarters of it is in your peripheral vision
>asking why most people don't use one
>disgusting curvature
>shit tier aesthetics
>the sausage dog of monitors

The current ones are 1080p and over $800
For that I'd rather save a bit more, get a vive pro and use that as a monitor instead.

Having part of the screen in my peripheral is trivial if I can just move my eyes and I actually prefer the experience. I do hate the curved meme though.

>I do hate the curved meme though
After using a curved panel for half a year, I really don't get the hate.

You literally don't notice the curve at all after about 5 minutes.

It adds nothing, but it also doesn't make anything worse, I would buy another curved panel without a second thought. There is no issue with them.

That being said, I'd be perfectly happy to buy the same panel but flat. It makes no difference to me.

wtf why is this so expensive?

wow i can finance it for $50 a month for 24 months!

because almost no one makes the panels because almost no one buys it.

hard to reduce the cost of manufacturing when you're only producing 500-1000 units in total.