I had no idea 21:9 monitors existed. I would have gotten that instead of a crappy old 27" 1440p had I known. its hard to justify $3k for a 4k display at this time. I could see up to $1500.. mayyyybe $2k if were mind blowing. however, until then it just too much money for too little return vs 1440p.
Just picked up this monitor
- Thread starter AmishBob
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,996
I will say my game play has drastically improved. I think it is equally because of both the increased screen size and the high refresh rate. I haven't regretted skipping the 1440p for a moment. The 1080p for regular everyday use doesn't bother me either.
Sent via Tapatalk carrier pigeon
Sent via Tapatalk carrier pigeon
HeatSurge
Registered User
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,473
There's absolutely no way I would justify spending over $500 on a monitor at any time. I got my 37" 1080p westy a few years ago for that, and while for the time the price was really good, today you're simply paying too much.
I'd pay another $500 for 4K, also been looking for a 40"-42" cheapo 120hz 1080p for lulz to carry me over (target price $250)... and a price drop on the w1080st :-D .
I'd pay another $500 for 4K, also been looking for a 40"-42" cheapo 120hz 1080p for lulz to carry me over (target price $250)... and a price drop on the w1080st :-D .
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,996
Yeah. I waited for this one until I could get it on woot.
Sent via Tapatalk carrier pigeon
HeatSurge
Registered User
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,473
I don't really see the engineering challenge with 4K. You can probably more or less make a panel that's arbitrary size (before you run into signal noise limitations due to wiring I guess), so 8K, 16K, whateverK and aspect ratio.
The problem with high resolution displays is the extreme lack of source content in high resolutions and framerate. Even console shits are coded to "max out" the shitty console capability at about 60FPS 1080p nowadays, I think that's what the target is anyway. They'll need new consoles or an option to decrease shaD3rZ/LOD when people start asking for 4K.
Literally the only place where extremely high resolutions are interesting is in the PC graphics (gaming, demos, medical, CAD, presentations, etc.) arena... and that's extremely niche.
The "general public" that's watching cable on their living room low-powered boxes are barely catching onto 1920x1080 at 24(/30?) FPS content, so there's extremely little interest to spend marginally more money for absolutely zero increase in quality.
That being said, on PC high resolutions aren't anything new either, I mean people have been running arbitrary resolutions since the mid-2000's. The problem that's annoying there is bezels between displays or extremely high cost (6, 12, 24 projectors, for example). The real benefit behind a "standard" is that hopefully they can mass-produce things using that "standard" (monitors and/or projectors in this case) so economies of scale kick in. However, if you want any resolution, you can pretty much have it.
I think the oculus riftjob will change a lot of things if they can squeeze some really high resolution in the displays there in a few years. Think content (not just PC/games but also movies/sports) where you can place yourself anywhere on the field and look anywhere. It's not that far off, I give it 1-2 years before something like that is implemented.
The problem with high resolution displays is the extreme lack of source content in high resolutions and framerate. Even console shits are coded to "max out" the shitty console capability at about 60FPS 1080p nowadays, I think that's what the target is anyway. They'll need new consoles or an option to decrease shaD3rZ/LOD when people start asking for 4K.
Literally the only place where extremely high resolutions are interesting is in the PC graphics (gaming, demos, medical, CAD, presentations, etc.) arena... and that's extremely niche.
The "general public" that's watching cable on their living room low-powered boxes are barely catching onto 1920x1080 at 24(/30?) FPS content, so there's extremely little interest to spend marginally more money for absolutely zero increase in quality.
That being said, on PC high resolutions aren't anything new either, I mean people have been running arbitrary resolutions since the mid-2000's. The problem that's annoying there is bezels between displays or extremely high cost (6, 12, 24 projectors, for example). The real benefit behind a "standard" is that hopefully they can mass-produce things using that "standard" (monitors and/or projectors in this case) so economies of scale kick in. However, if you want any resolution, you can pretty much have it.
I think the oculus riftjob will change a lot of things if they can squeeze some really high resolution in the displays there in a few years. Think content (not just PC/games but also movies/sports) where you can place yourself anywhere on the field and look anywhere. It's not that far off, I give it 1-2 years before something like that is implemented.
Thelus
Registered User
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 179
Am I doing it right?
