-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Q4 2017: Monitors are a solved problem (Computex announcements)
- Thread starter Durante
- Start date
Honestly, as a GSync owner for many years now, I find that VRR is a bit overrated. I don't find that much of a difference when playing on consoles with locked frame rate.
Also, there are TVs with far lower input lag. Even cheap ones, like the TCL 55"4K HDR, measured between 6.5ms and 14.1 ms.
Finally, 21:9 is far from ideal with so many PC games still missing support (or getting it way too late either via official update or unofficial mod/fix) and console games, plus media content like TV series, only mastered for 16:9.
TatteredHat
Member
With that pricetag I'll have to disagree with the title of this thread. 
eso76
Member
I'm not opposed to a larger display, but OLED TVs starting at 55" are too big for a monitor.
They're fine for gaming, but that white subpixel also makes them unsuitable for use as a monitor in my opinion.
Ideally a 4K TV being used as a monitor would be 46" for a "true scale" display on Windows (96 DPI), or 40" to match other monitors. (110 DPI)
But I think I actually prefer to be up close to a smaller screen for use as a monitor rather than just a gaming display.
Unless you're buying professional displays, it seems like 16:10 is dead. 16:9 won.
Thankfully at least 24:10 seems to be gaining a foothold.
Microsoft has been pushing 3:2 lately, but I'm not sure there will be any stand-alone displays using it.
Even Apple switched away from 3:2 to 16:9 with their iPhones years ago.
They have also announced a 4K IPS panel with 384-zone local dimming. (same density of zones)
Monitors are designed to be viewed up close.
If it wasn't curved, you would have to push it further back than a 27/28" 16:9 display, making these 34/35" displays feel smaller. (less height)
If you're sitting 10ft back from a television, that's another matter entirely.
I still think it's a shame that there are no more curved TV options for people though.
I've been holding out for an OLED that supports 120Hz VRR - which might actually happen next year - and they've stopped selling curved models now.
What I'd really like is a 24:10 curved OLED, but I don't have much hope for that.
The TV market seems to be very resistant to change for anything that's not just bigger numbers. (higher resolution, more contrast, more brightness etc.)
jim2point0
Banned
This is explains it better than I did.
That is why curved ultrawide monitors > flat ultrawide monitors.
Poot Poot Splash
Member
Gimme that 35 Ultrawide. I have the older model but 200hz, i gotta have it.
dr_rus
Member
So that's four grands already. Anyone else? 8)
That's highly debatable. First, curvature means that what is supposed to be 2D with set dimensions is now 3D with different dimensions. I still remember the days of CRT when everyone was trying to make them as flat as possible (as CRT is naturally curved because of the tech itself) so it's rather weird to see curved monitors being shown as an added feature these days - they do in fact distort the image and you're seeing something which was supposed to look differently.
Second, most currently available curved screens are so far from the actual point of them providing higher FOV because of the curvature that it's almost funny sometimes:
^^^ This is an example of curved feature being nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I'd say that unless a flat monitor's horizontal size is so big that you have to actually move your head to see it's edges (as opposed to just moving your eyes) - any measure of curvature would be basically pointless and will just make the image worse without much benefit in FOV.
1800R stated for these displays is better than the LG example above but it's still about twice as much as an ideal curved monitor would be.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
The man does make a point.
CRTs were convex, not concave.
It reads a lot like your argument is that curved screens are worse than flat screens because they aren't curved enough, and if they're not perfect then they shouldn't be curved at all.
I don't know anyone with a 34/35" ultrawide that has said they would change it for a flat one.
I also sit far closer than your 60cm example, which changes things too.
Fredrik
Member
Now we're talking! I looked it up and it's 144hz and gsync too!
The problem with most 4K screens is that they're 60hz. That's not good enough for PC gaming imo.
Sounds like you could run into trouble if you're unlucky. I mostly play new games though and I'm guessing they work fine on ultra wide screens.
I Stalk Alone
Member
if the input lag is high then problems still persist. If blur is still a problem and doesn't have lightboost then problems still persist. Everything else seems to be in order, but I don't know if I would want a curved screen.
dr_rus
Member
How's that changes anything what I've said?
That's because you've chosen to cut my argument in half for some mysterious reason. When you combine both my points you see pretty clearly why a flat screen is preferable over pretty much every curved monitor on the market right now.
The closer you sit the higher the screen curvature must be.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
How much is the 35 inch curved screen expected to go for? (CAD) I just built a new rig and am getting a 1080 TI for it, so if I just have to wait till the end of summer for one of those I will.
Vigilant Gambit
Member
jim2point0
Banned
So long as people pay full price for these $1300 monitors, the price will only go up."Finally! The monitor we've all been waiting for!"
I've been waiting ages to grab the x34 for around $700. And I'll keep waiting.
Almost certainly VA. FALD and IPS don't go well together. It causes light bleed and halo effects.
These days VA is the better panel type anyway. Almost all issues have been solved with it and while they might not look as sharp as TN panels in high refresh rate motion they are more than good enough and have so many advantages in other areas.
Still for $2000 I'm more 'content' with OLED TVs than this...
IchigoSharingan
Member
This is going to be stupidly expensive isn't it?
$2000 for this?
I'm in. Pretty reasonable cost considering what 's going into it.
MR ARCADE FOREVER
Member
Dam I need one of these. I'll have time to save up though I'm only upgrading in 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zikZ24ww2yw
some footage from this monitor. seemingly VA confirmed.
Apparently Acer has X35 coming too with same panel.
some footage from this monitor. seemingly VA confirmed.
Apparently Acer has X35 coming too with same panel.
StereoVsn
Member
Man, these monitors pretty much have every feature I want. I love 21x9 for wider FOV and to me curve is a must as even a slighter curve is better then a flat model (tried both). I have a 34" Dell (LG panel) and it still lets you view things st the periphery quite a bit easier.
The only thing that will stop me is the price. $2K is about $1K out of my price range considering that a decent Nvidia Volta (2080 or whatever it's called) will run $650-$700.
Might get X34 or similar model of pricing drops. I don't need 200hz realistically speaking but that backlight and HDR do look awfully nice.
The only thing that will stop me is the price. $2K is about $1K out of my price range considering that a decent Nvidia Volta (2080 or whatever it's called) will run $650-$700.
Might get X34 or similar model of pricing drops. I don't need 200hz realistically speaking but that backlight and HDR do look awfully nice.
By calling them both "curved monitors" you imply that, since they tried to make CRT monitors less convex, it is stupid to make flat screens concave - when the two are complete opposites.
Which could also be interpreted as: the closer you sit, the greater the need for a curved display is.
That's why we are seeing an increase in the number of curved monitors despite curved TVs disappearing, and why the curve is getting tighter on newer displays.
As I said before: even if the curve is not ideal and should be tighter than it is, being curved at all is still an improvement over being flat - especially with a 24:10 display.
Even a shallow 3800R curve still improves things over a flat display.
Do you have any sources demonstrating how curved is better? I can perhaps understand the argument for 21:9 displays due to it allowing you to keep more of the screen in your view, but as far as distortion is concerned I've seen very few articles on the subject.
Here is one post from a few years back:
The flawed math behind curved monitors
This sounds like the perfect monitor to day/swing trade with.
I feel with Volta around the corner, I would have preferred a 5120×2160p monitor.
Seriously though... I don't know if I would want something like this for gaming since most of the games I play don't support this aspect ratio. There are work around to get some games working, but I'd rather not deal with that. But for work.. I would love one. And 200hz would be so much easier on my eyes.
and play games.
I feel with Volta around the corner, I would have preferred a 5120×2160p monitor.
Seriously though... I don't know if I would want something like this for gaming since most of the games I play don't support this aspect ratio. There are work around to get some games working, but I'd rather not deal with that. But for work.. I would love one. And 200hz would be so much easier on my eyes.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
I hope the RGB lighting in the back and the fancy stand and all that other completely useless bullshit doesn't jack up the cost too much.
of course it does. somehow asus thinks people that are willing to pay 2000 bucks and similar money for a monitor are also inside l33t g4mer 13yo demographic. I can't stand any ROG branding, it look so bad. Republic of Gamers, what nonsense... asus is adding RGB LED on main board back plate these days. It's just imposed cost.
Some other companies like Logitech recently seem to have realized how stupid that idea is and they are making their hardwares look less embarrassing.
I'm wondering what market research tells on this and who's right.
RGB is in right now, how is that hard to see? Yeah you may not like it, but it's the current trend. I'm sure Asus has excellent research and far reaching versus anecdotal and personal preference that help determine if they should include a certain feature in their products.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
I mean, I know it adds some cost but if the stand I won't even use and the RGB I don't care about add $200 to the price it isn't worth it.
If they add $30 to it, I can' live with that.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Maybe for gaming. Good luck doing layout and actual work on those things. And I doubt people buy $2000 monitors for gaming much.
Exactly, if there was a 40" 4k OLED I'd consider it as a a monitor, but I probably want something slightly smaller.
This is perfect.
I mean the worst "trouble" you can run into is only using the center 16:9 part of your screen in a few games.
That's not a big deal IMHO.
For me, that decision would be hard if the 4k 144 Hz was at 40". At 27", it's just bad to use in many productivity applications.
I very much believe that they did that right in the G-sync module. We'll see in reviews of course.
polyh3dron
Banned
I wish these manufacturers would stop trying to make curved monitors and TVs happen.
shadow2810
Member
Use OLED panel then we can start talking.
But a good arm mount. That's what I use. Worth ever penny and gets rid of those GAMERRR stands that comes with most high end monitors.
Make sense