Is ultrawide a Meme?

>>58898215
a glorious meme

>>58898215
how can it be a meme if it aint popular?

>>58898215
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

>>58898236
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)

File: 1-o7CuH1Ub7TIa-xy3Kvw6Cw.png (35KB, 212x255px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 212x255px

>>58898236
>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.

>>58898215
Everything a Meme OP

Expect the Playstation 2, that was pretty solid

>>58898215
It's great for photo editing and working with different programs opened at the same time. I guess video editing also benefits from it.

>>58898215
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.

>>58898263
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.

>>58900571
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.

>>58900571
it will never become a standard. "4k"/uhd is the next standard

>>58898215
For anyone that somehow missed it:
Anything that isn't 4:3 is meme.

File: 1486835666624.png (208KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 500x375px

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

>>58900973
>t. 1060 owner

File: IMG_20170211_134752.jpg (189KB, 1705x1279px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1705x1279px

>>58898215
it's a good meme

best monitor i've ever owned

>>58900571
>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

>>58898215
the curved part is the real meme

>>58898599
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.

>>58901626
Not if you own one larger than 34". Past 34" even lines seem convex on a flat screen.

>>58898215
Photoshop and Lightroom on one screen?


Yes daddy!

File: 1486725656142.jpg (276KB, 1152x1257px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1152x1257px

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.

>>58901574
>$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

>>58899705
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.

>>58901744
>thin bezels
Don't kid yourself

>>58901786
fine, a single 4k 40"

3840x2160 is more res than 3440x1440

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

>>58901806
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.

>>58901846
>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.

>>58901868
still waiting for that asus 4k 144hzt monitor

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

>>58901899
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.

>>58901930
21:9 for media
4:3 for work

16:9 for mutliuse.

>>58901941
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.

>>58901968
Streaming media sure, actual production media??

Lol no

>>58901868
>>4K 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.

>>58902037
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.

>>58902105
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.

>>58901747
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

>>58902442
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

>>58902499
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.

>>58902540
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.

>>58902540
>>58902714
also you can get two, sometimes 3 on sale 1440p monitors for the price of a decent IPS 34" 1440p ultrawide.

>>58902733
>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?

File: hp_omen_x_35_curved_monitor_2.jpg (60KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x960px

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.

>>58902765
Unsupported. Blizzard believes the additional peripheral vision is an unfair advantage over other players.

>>58902810
Welp, I'm not gonna buy OW then.

>>58902821
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

File: dayswithoutjewishtricks.jpg (23KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 439x290px

>>58902810
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.

>>58902836
It's also not supported in d3 the non pvp game I actually play for the same reason.

>>58902540
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!
>>58902931
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).

>>58902962
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.

>>58902975
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

>>58902975
4k ultra wide? So it's 4k or not? 3840x1600 isn't 4k and 3840x2160 isn't ultrawide.
T. 4k user

>>58902962
>hurr durr, gtfo

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

>>58902968
2560x1200 and 3440x1600 screens already exist.

>>58903073
didn't know, that's fucking glorious

>>58898215

>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.

>>58898215
yes

>>58903049
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?

>>58903037
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.

>>58903107
I literally can't see who is writing what, since there are no fucking IDs.

>>58903110
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

>>58903073
Do games have support for them?

>>58903146
No idea.

File: fa6dfcb3c3284e6a9a01f0b4ba76c87c.jpg (252KB, 1152x1536px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1152x1536px

>>58903146
Some newer games have Dynamic Resolution/Aspect Ratio support, which supports anything

>>58903179
Hmmmm, what about older stuff? Will there be fixes like there are for normal 21:9?

>>58903221
Don't buy a non-standard resolution screen if you want to use it for content, that doesn't scale to it.

>>58903221
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

>>58903291
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.

>>58903135
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.

>>58902760
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?

>>58903097
>29 inch cost $231
>29 inch with Freesync cost $265
Anything over 29" at 1080p looks terrible.

>>58903381
>imblyign
fuck off now for real

>>58903503
>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.

File: BlueRed.jpg (372KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1920x1080px

>>58903528
I'm planning to replace the right monitor. Should I go with the 29 inch Freesync to match sizes?

>>58903618
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.

>>58903684
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.

File: 1444684461745.jpg (213KB, 463x477px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 463x477px

>>58901574
>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.

>>58903729
29" 21:9 is closer to 24" 16:9. If you are confused use this: http://www.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?

>>58903826
Yes, it has a range of 40-75hz (Which can be lowered down to at least 35. Some people got 28)

>>58903826
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"

File: Robert Breer’s BANG.jpg (32KB, 480x347px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x347px

> 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.

>>58905193
except for movies and games where it's way superior to 16:9

>>58900910
>>>58898215 (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.

>>58906078
>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.

>>58906078
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.

>>58906078
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

>>58900571
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.

>>58906192
Why?

For the same price you can get a 4k monitor which would be much more useful if you need to work on any 4k editing.

>>58903179
>half-life 1 supports 21:9 ratio fine
>unreal 1 (with directx10 mod) supports 21:9 ratio fine
>only "some" newer games have dynamic resolution/aspect ratio support
I blame consoles.

>>58906228
true, but all dat timeline space tho

>>58906251
You can set a 4k monitor up with an ultrawide resolution if you want.

3840x2160 is 16:9, 21:9 on that panel would be 3840x1600. Then you just have black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.


This is why I can't get behind the 34" 1440p monitors, just get a 4k and set a custom resolution if you really want an ultrawide aspect ratio. You're going to have to deal with black bars with half your content anyway on a 34" ultrawide. Might as well spend the same amount for 4k and have the option for more resolution.

>>58900571
If you are gonna be such a lil bitch why don't you just kill yourself

>>58898215
You're a meme.

>>58901744
the PG348Q is actually $1200. you can get the acer x34 predator with the same specs for the same price, but you'd be buying a fucking acer.

also when you buy this you're getting 100Hz and G-Sync

>>58898215
I'll just have 3 (1920x1080) monitors and extended desktop as a chosen option.

>>58898215
Beats the shit out of 16:9 in any way you can imagine, entertainment or work.

>>58898236
>16:9 starts to look like 16:10

That's a good thing though. 16:10 is the superior aspect ratio.

>>58898215
As much of a meme as 3D tvs. They are a side upgrade which will quickly be abandoned as more people get 4k displays. Never get an inbetween generation upgrade like I did with my 3D tv, wait for the real thing.

>>58910766
I love my 3D TV. Imagine if SimulView actually caught on and made it to PC gaming too, shit's cache

>>58906236

I stopped going to /v/ years ago since it nearly gave me cancer, but yeah, consoles set gaming back about 10 years, as nothing has really changed since the year of our lord, 2007.

Game play has gotten worse and graphics have stagnated.

Are there any good korean 21:9 monitors out there? Im not from the states so monitors are pricey here.

File: JS69400272.jpg (54KB, 615x439px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 615x439px

>>58898215
Objectively? No
Subjectively? Depends on who you ask
pic unrelated

>>58910621
Not for the price per pixel.

Is it nice for media? Sure. But at the end of the day, it is less resolution than you could get by buying two 16:9 monitors, or a single 4k 16:9.

MOST people when working don't need a SINGLE 3440x1440p workspace without bezels. About the only thing that is super useful for is movie watching and maybe certain types of side by side editing. But the vast majority of people would rather have 5-6 different things open at once, and it doensn't particularly matter if they need to move something across a 10mm bezel between two screens. As long as the extra resolution is there, bezels are a non-issue.


The only people who truly care about bezels in their setup are generally gamers who want a seemless ultrawide image. And guess what? In the professional world, that RARELY if ever matters.

What makes good monitor:
-resolution of 1440p or 4k. Ideally as close to 90-100 ppi as possible , as those are the ppi where windows OS's and 99% of its applications are designed for.

-This means that depending on the resolution, the ideal monitor would have to be minimally 27-28" for 1440p, whilst for 4k resolution a 40" is best choice, unless user wants to throw away extra resolution workspace due to necessity of scaling.

-static contrast higher than 1000:1 . This means either oled or VA, VA have come a long way in terms of color, and better panels (non tv panels) have minimal ghosting. Just don't buy philips panel.

-latency low enough for generic gaming, so measured latency (not manufacturer reported) should be in 8-14ms at most, anything closer to 30 is starting to be too much

-Good luminance uniformity. This filters out the otherwise good candidate http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/monitors/90008-iiyama-prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/

The aren't many out there, but this is indeed a good place to start when looking for something of quality. You can start eliminating stuff if there's something that's not a "must have".

>>58913324
>-resolution of 1440p or 4k. Ideally as close to 90-100 ppi as possible , as those are the ppi where windows OS's and 99% of its applications are designed for.
This isn't really true.
90-100 PPI happens to be a good pixel density for most peoples viewing distances, but something like a 25" 1440p with 117 PPI according to you is too dense, but as long as you sit ~5 inches closer than a 27" 1440p, it will look basically identical (for text legibility).

It's a factor of viewing distance, GUI scaling, AND pixel density.

I generally find the average user can deal with ~80-120 PPI before it is too dense, or not dense enough depending which side of the spectrum you're on.

Under 80 PPI and you can see the pixels, over 120 PPI and it requires GUI scaling from normal viewing distances in order to read small text.

>>58913466
You may be correct. I found that setting 110% scaling seems to work for my current 1080p 23 monitor, viewing distance around 65-75cm . It would seem that for my current viewing distance a 86ppi monitor is good

File: Woolwich-attack.jpg (39KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 615x409px

>>58912017
it "werks"

>>58898215
Yes, too little vertical space

>>58898215
should i get a good ultrawide or vr?

What are some good ultrawides that arent ridiculously expensive?

>>58898236
Why not just get one of those monitors with almost no bezel?

>>58901905
>>58901905
>>58901899
4k wont be worth it until its as expensive as high end 1080p stuff now. So in what, 3 years maybe?

>>58902037
HDMI 2.1 came out with game variable refresh rate that makes gsync/freesync battle irrelevant.

So if you are still 1080p with a 960 or something, just save your $$ until 1440p or 4k is cheaper, and gpu's all have hdmi 2.1 output. Also monitor needs to be hdmi 2.1

>>58915579
benq has 32" 4k monitor that costs 800-900 . It's kinda high price, but it's made of quality.

>>58902810
Little facts like this is why its better not to be the trail blazer with meme monitors, you buy it then you realize nobody wants to support you.

>>58915610
Considering how most content online isnt 4k, and you'd also need a much better gpu to drive 4k, and its preHDMI 2.1 which will be badass...its a lot of $ for not much bang yet.

If you already have two monitors it is
less utility + lack of support = no bueno

>>58898215
I love it.
25" IPS LG UltraWide was as much as any other 24" IPS.

Bought it.
Now I have a fucking wide glorious angle in games, and I have much more space for programming and work.

10/10.
Would buy again.

>>58916514
What?
I have the 25" + my 1080p laptop extended.
What other kind of support would you even want?

Games work, things work... I cannot find anything that didn't work with it so far. Didn't even had to touch stretching yet.
Kikewatch is the only game that has a weird ass (crippled) 21:9 support, but to be honest? The game sucks dicks anyway. There is no proper anti-cheat whatsoever (Actijew as publisher? Big surprise.)

>>58915536
LG ones? If you sort them by price, they cost the same as normal IPS panels...

>>58911967
Define good.
What size?
I bought mine in Europe and LG for example has very good prices.

(Not an LG shill, I know ASUS has that ROG thing, but I looked for cheaper models. I didn't want to spend 2000$ on a monitor.)

>>58901994
Since you have space for the tools, and can have the picture 100% in the middle, it's perfect for production.
It's the reason why Apple came out with the 5K iMac.
4K content + tools / extra space.

>>58898413
If you have 26 fps in 2560x1080, you won't have a solid 60 in 1080p either. Stop joking nigga.

>>58900571
>But when you watch YouTube and other videos you're going to get black bars

who the fuck cares youre gonna either have black bars or fucking nothing there whats the difference

ultrawide is nice if you do video editing. for everything else it's a meme

>>58917108
or programming.
or virtualization.
or server administration.
or gaming.
or doing office work.
or browsing.

>>58917381
all of those depends on your window layout and personal preferences.

only video editing is more guaranteed better for pretty much every user because of how they all use a horizontal timeline.

>>58917436
Of course everything depends on the user, but hey, you just have more space. I don't see how that can be a bad thing in any way.

>>58917446
>everything depends on the user
except vidoe editing, because of the reason i just mentioned.

>>58917475
some guy claimed 16:9 is better for that too.
so yeah.

>>58917436
not everyone uses windows.
Other window managers works fine with multiple applications.

>>58917497
i said window layout not window manager, as in how the user resize the application window.

>>58917489
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0a0eAPT7s

>>58917544
yes, and most other window managers can adjust these things in a way that using any screen ratio is workable.

File: facepalm.gif (269KB, 269x255px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 269x255px

>>58917624
you're fucking retarded just leave if you dont know how to read.

>>58917687
window managers are applications that manager the windows. How retarded are you?

>>58917722
this has nothing to do with window managers and works with every fucking window manager, stop talking about window managers you fucking moron

>>58917475
>except vidoe editing, because of the reason i just mentioned
Lol maybe for your work flow

Your blanket statement that EVERY video editor uses the horizontal space is just wrong. Especially once you go beyond 1080p.

As a video editor, I'd take 4k or 5k over 1440p ultra wide any fucking day

>>58917745
managing windows have everything to do with how you manage windows.
Tiling window managers arrange your windows automatically in a tiled fashion, modern window managers arrange them automatically based on your preferred size and position and the one that is default in the windows operating system does jack shit.
Using a wide screen is not a problem for people who use a proper window manager. It does not matter what the hell you are doing on your system.

>>58898215
Its the dankest meme.
I wish I went full 34in curved

>>58898215
no need for multiple monitors and an ugly bezel splitting up view. Pretty cool, too poor for one though.

>>58903097
>25
>29
>34
>freesync
>all 1080p

Idiot, you can buy a 4k monitor for roughly $350 with freesync.

>>58900571
you tile your windows. so it's like having multiple monitors without the bezel.

>>58918941
oh yeah? what is it 27 or 28"? those are way too small for 4k

File: DSC_0137.jpg (548KB, 1920x875px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1920x875px

>>58898215

I have that exact same monitor and I like it very much as an upgrade from my previous Dell S2440L. It's a nice meme and you should own memeware in the current year.

>>58918941
>>58919152
1440p is the best to do at 34" 21:9 which is a ppi of 109

1080p works is totally ok for 1080p 29" 21:9 which is a ppi of 95. which is more than a 1080p 24" 16:9 by the way

>>58898215
look at your available workspace
now look at the amount of space not presently taken up by a display

which dimension do you have the least abundance of
which dimension can we call the "premium dimension", as there isn't much space left for it
>LOL I PUT IN EVEN WIDER SCREEN IN SPACE WHERE WIDENESS IS PREMIUM

do you really have a 4ft tall ceiling where it makes sense to go with a squattier display, rather than a taller display?

>>58919275
The ppi of 1440p with 32 or 34 might be nice, but I'd still like a proper 4k monitor, since it's going to be new standard. 2-3 years from now panasonic will release 8k on their cameras (not sure if consumer mirrorless or "pro video" series), so it would be nice to have a look with 4k too..

>>58919407
you won't buy a 21:9 for photo editing though. you are on /g/, the majority here are speaking about gaming, or atleast movie watching

>>58919436
I know I wont, but what I'm on about is that for someone who's into photo (or possibly later video too) editing, 4k makes more sense than a 1440p monitor.

I have panasonic mirrorless ILC that does "basic" 100Mbps 4k , and I bet it would be nice to edit or watch that footage on a native 4k mon.

Hell, even phones have very nice 4k capabilities nowdays. Phones can take better video than "normal" 1080p dslr if the light is good, and there are compact cameras that take very nice 4k too.

>>58919505
i don't do photograph stuff but my guess is that, disregarding the resolution. for 350$ you still opt for TN which is a worser decision i guess related to thep revious posts, stating him as an idiot

>>58902975
if its 4k it isnt ultrawide you dumb fuck

>>58898215
I've been thinking about getting an ultrawide monitor, since my desk can't fit two regular monitors side by side.

>>58919548
>worser

monitor industry is so fucking shit right now

144hz dell ultrasharps when

>>58898215
Yes. Since our eyes are only an inch apart, it's impossible to have an immersive experience when you're looking through a slit.

>>58921374
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/203865/is-worser-correct-grammatically

>>58922103
I refuse to accept this

>>58922103
>>58922175
>Does this mean that using worser is grammatically correct today? Not at all. Shakespeare did have a habit of making up words that precisely matched his meaning and metre when nothing suitable already existed, but in the 17th century worser was not non-standard, though it was arguably unusual. Today, it is definitely non-standard, or at the very least archaic.

>>58922214
so you consider being on /g/ a standard now, fine.

>>58922240
What? Being on /g/ doesn't magically exempt you from proper English.

>>58922318
if think this disqualifies a human being then i have no longer buisness with you my friend :^)

>>58922467
If you think putting words in my mouth is going to win an argument then I'm glad you have no business with me.

>>58901968
No it's not you fucking retard

21:9 is the same as 7:3, three 4:3 make 12:3 which is a lot wider aspect ratio than 21:9

That being said, they're both shit. 8:5 master race.

>question keeps getting asked

>answers are continually mixed and unsure

yes, yes it is

>>58922817
nah