Does anyone here have this monitor (LG 34UM88C-P)? Considering

File: BXnnfdnCEAAbSw0.jpg (52KB, 599x798px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 599x798px

>>60164315
>ultra-wide
>not curved

File: mjcqjfZ.jpg (233KB, 1080x1420px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1080x1420px

>Was looking for a 40" 4k
Why do you people keep doing this ?

By stretching the display to such a large size you are negating the main benefit of a high PPI display.
The only thing you gain is having a larger work area, but you lose on everything else.

Might as well just buy 2 normal sized 4K monitors.

>>60164341
I don't want bentshit.

>>60164388
Yeah but the scaling on smaller 4k monitors is shit

File: 1472344566932.gif (140KB, 379x440px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 379x440px

>>60164388
>small hi res monitor
>have to scale everything up
>end up with UI the same size as a 1080p

What a pointless waste.

File: Retina-Display.jpg (113KB, 580x326px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 580x326px

>>60164445
HiDPI is not pointless. Things like font rendering especially benefits from higher DPIs.

File: Philips_BDM3470UP_2.jpg (371KB, 2800x2800px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 2800x2800px

Alternatively considering this one, no freesync, but pivots.. Philips BDM3470UP.

>>60164445
anon you need to find balance. 40" is definately poinltess waste

the smaller the pixels, the better price/performance you get. it has a reason why phones come with high-end displays

>>60164388
This.
Rational Logic right there.

>>60164411
when you have a small monitor , no matter how much you scale up the pixels don't change size so things will still look sharp and clear no matter the scaling.

When you stretch out 4K to 40 inches or more, the 'floor' you've created for yourself are massive pixels that the eye can easily distinguish between individual ones.

>>60164493
why not getting a vesa mount and make everything vesa compatible, pivot compatible

>>60164390
but you want wideshit? okay then

>>60164584
40" 4k is comparable to a 27" 1440 at 100% scaling, just far larger space-wise (duh).

>>60164639
and who is saying to get 4k at 40 inches ?

Stick to normal sized monitors and get 4K resolution that will look crisp and sharp no matter how much you scale.

>ultrawide meme
Go ahead and pay more to get less.

It's litterally a scam made up by manufacturers, popularized by "tech" YouTubers like
linux shill tips, to make dumb gaymurs pay more for a smaller display with less pixels.

>>60164622
I tend to sit pretty far away from the monitor, and I don't want to sit dead center. I tried a bunch of models at a store and non-curved fits me best.

>>60164748
>sit far away
get a 40" 4K

>>60164818
Panels are unfortunately all shit or cost 1.5k+

>>60164388
>>60164584
> you are negating the main benefit of a high PPI display.
Yeah it's not a high PPI display, which comes with more benefits than drawbacks.
You don't seem to get it. Scaling sucks, especially with multiple monitors with different levels of scaling. It's buggy. Many apps will be buggy, blurry or fail to scale, and it will jerk around with multiple monitors.

You actually get way more usable space. a 40" 4k is like 4 1080p 20" displays, while a 4k 27" is just a 27" 1440p monitors but with sharper text.

It actually makes for a much more immersive experience since it takes up more of your FoV, the same reason people get ultrawide but it's much better.

You actually get use out of the resolution. in stuff like games and movies (basically anything but text), you will hardly see the difference between 1440 and 4k at 27". at 40" you will see all the little details.

File: wnzwpg[1].png (3KB, 261x41px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 261x41px

>>60164830
I have pic related.
It has 2 problems, which I knew before getting it.

>IPS burn in/temporary ghosting. Only visible on some shades of gray.
>Frame skip, the display will skip a frame every now and then. I haven't noticed this at all yet.

>>60164341
>curved

Yeah, let's make a screen that will always catch some reflection and that distorts unless you're sitting dead center for exactly zero benefits.

There is a reason even "curved" screens are getting straighter and straighter.

>>60164830
>all shit or cost 1.5k+
you're getting the same or worse with computer panels. Samsung has VA 40" 4K 6300 for $500. LG has similar with IPS. With shitty ultrameme monitors you are literally paying more for less vertical screen space.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11310/lg-43ud79-b-launched

>>60165244
Forgot to mention, this cost me $650

>>60164705
Except many ultrawides are incredibly cheap now.

And ergonomically they make far more sense than super tall screens.

>>60165339
>literally paying more for less vertical screen space
No, you're paying more for more horizontal.

>>60165389
>incredibly cheap
>Still cost more than 16:9 with more area and pixels

And that's in the US. Here in the EU ultrawides cost ~€150 more than a comparable 16:9.
>ergonomically
I havent heard anyone report that their neck hurts. It's not a problem.


>>60165445
Now that's some mental gymnastics. You don't get more vertical space compared to a bigger 16:9 of similar price, you just get less vertical.

>>60165508
1920x1080 vs 2560x1080, 2560x1440 vs 3440x1440, etc.

>>60165339
>http://www.anandtech.com/show/11310/lg-43ud79-b-launched

This sounds pretty decent. Freesync, straight, even matte!

>>60165445
4K 40" is 3840x2160
ultrameme 34" is usually 3440x1440
you are literally losing pixels everywhere in return for a meme screen

>>60165567
your 2560x1080 screens compare to 1440 ones in quality and price, and your 1440 screens are more expensive than 4K ones.

>>60165612
>HURRDURR MEME MEME

Show me a single 40"+ 4k under $1k that isn't riddled with problems like burn-in, uneven lighting and image retention up the ass.

>>60165612
Much better aspect ratio's worth the higher price. 16:9 is ass, I'll happily pay extra to avoid it.

>>60165692
>>60165339

>>60165692
your shitty IPS ultramemes are literally riddled the worse imaginable light bleed possible on a screen. any VA 4K TV is better.

>>60165725
21:9 is ASS. You have to scroll lots and the only media that fits is movies.

>>60165877
21:9 is incredible
>muh media
I already have a TV for that

>>60165877
>21:9 is ASS. You have to scroll lots

>literally the same height as 1080 or 1440p monitors

Are you one of those retards who maximizes everything?

>>60165890
>>60165900

>I already have a TV for that
Then you'd be pretty stupid to get 21:9 when ti's only better for movies.

I maximize stuff vertically (not horizontally) cause I'm not retarded.

>1080 or 1440p monitors
1440>1080
2160>1440

>>60165964
5:4's the best for work, and 21:9 is essentially dual 5:4 monitors with no bezel separating them.

File: AB59164_10.jpg (21KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 800x800px

>>60165964
3440 > 2160

File: screen-sideways[1].jpg (15KB, 289x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 289x300px

>>60166062
...3840*..?
If so:
2160>1440 again, horizontal this time.

Although both are too tall to be useful and comfortable.

ultrameme shills need to go back to /v/
gimped monitors are not welcome here except built in ones which are contained in the chinkpad thread

>>60166571
>>60166053

>>60164315
Get a 40" (VA) or 43" (IPS) 16:9 UHD display, you won't regret it. It's like triple 1920x1200 portrait, plus about 10% extra in each dimension, and no bezels.

High DPI is nice, but honestly no bezels is still probably better for 90% of things. My next upgrade will be 40"+ UHD@120+Hz in maybe a year when they come out, followed by 40"+ 8k in hopefully no more than 5 years.

>>60166053
>>60166587
>it's better to have less screen because muh magic numbers

>>60164315
I have the LG 24MP68VQ.

LG monitors are top tier IPS, as long as you get the "color calibrated" models.

I also had a Benq GW2470H which was nice, but had ghosting issues due to the VA panel.

>>60167893
>less screen
What do you mean? For whatever screen size you have a 5:4 monitor has more area than your 16:9 or 16:10 monitor.
>muh magic numbers
What magic numbers?

>>60167947
>What do you mean?
You are saying a 21:9 is better than a larger 16:9(similar price) because when you split it you get two ~5:4 areas.

It may be be true that 5:4 or 4:3 is the best for work when we're talking about a single small monitor, like in a laptop. Without such constraints, a larger 8:9 work area like you get on a split 16:9 screen is better simply because you have more space, and in no way less space.

If you still think 5:4 is the magic number you can always scale down your windows and have two 5:4 areas side by side just like on a 21:9, just with free space above for your music player or something.

> For whatever screen size you have a 5:4 monitor has more area than your 16:9 or 16:10 monitor.
Not relevant here as we aren't talking about actual 5:4 monitors.

>>60168172
Or I could stick with getting the superior monitor I want and you can stick with it bothering you even though my choice affects you in no way whatsoever.

>>60164315
I have it, it's nice. Backlighting is about what you'd expect and the first one I got was damaged and had a bunch of dead pixels (and screws audibly rattling around inside), but other than that it's great.