***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

A lot of the youtube videos are still 16.9, the only ones which aren't, are film trailers and 21.9 gaming footage. I wouldn't base too much on youtube footage (especially 1080P) anyway, the quality is usually naff due to the compression etc.

Legend said:
That curve is just too much. No, no, it's just too much. Can't even look at that, it hurts.
Click to expand...

Yeah it looks pretty bad in the video but I imagine in real life when sitting in front of one and just watching a film or playing a game and not going looking for a curve, it won't be as bad but still... would rather have as little curve as possible.

Colzy said:
Came here to post the same thing. I'm on the brink of going UW... if OCUK can get a good price here it could be one I jump for, if it turns out to be any good.... *awaits reviews*

I wonder if the $ crashes after the election if we'll start getting cheaper prices.. hmm (ha)
Click to expand...

No, rip off UK will always be rip off UK :p :o :(

If it turns out to have little to no issues, great response time with low input lag and a decent freesync range and not priced any more than £1k (extremely unlikely, no doubt Samsung and etailers are going to milk people good)... I could be tempted, however, any more than £1k.... then not a chance, especially with this years LG 55" 4k HDR OLED TV now dropping to £2k!

Heck even £1k for a top end IPS/VA monitor is a rip off in my eyes now.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm that looks monitor looks nice, hopefully it is just the pics that are wrong and not the spec list.... rip off though considering 29" 1080 are about £300 tops... I suspect that is the gsync tax though...

Wonder if it has the same issues with motion as the 35" VA monitors.
 
Yup the physical vertical height will be smaller, however, the vertical real screen estate in terms of how much is shown/fitted on the screen will be the exact same as the 32" 16.9 1080P TV.

Pixel density will be considerably higher:

32" 1920x1080 = 68.84 PPI
30" 2560x1080 = 92.62 PPI
 
Yup that is why I am also wanting to move to VA for my next monitor, a much higher contrast ratio with better black depth and without any IPS glow would far out weigh better viewing angles for me personally.

Only thing about VA monitors is that motion clarity can be hit and miss a lot of the time :(
 
Don't forget that in order to see the full benefit of the likes of 100 and 144HZ refresh rate displays, you need to be hitting 100/144 FPS too.
 
Amraam said:
Really like the look of the PG348Q, but at just shy of a grand, it's a lot to spend to find out that my single 980Ti can't hack it at that res. I wonder if a 30" 1080 would be better, seeing as I currently game 16:9 1080p on a 32" TV ha.
Click to expand...

Dicehunter said:
If you're sitting on a couch with the TV a few feet away from you it won't be that bad but if it's on a desk then anything over 24" is too big for 1080 as the pixels start to become the size of lego blocks.

For anything over 27" it's either 4K or ultrawide 1440P.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the acer 30" VA gsync 21.9 screen, it is 2560x1080, not 1920x1080 so the PPI will be as follows:

32" 1920x1080 = 68.84 PPI
30" 2560x1080 = 92.62 PPI

And a 24" 1920x1080 is = 91.79 PPI

So the sharpness/clarity is pretty good still and certainly a huge increase over your 32" TV. However, I really wouldn't be paying as much as that for the 30" acer screen when 29" 2560x1080 freesync screens are <£300

As for performance, personally I wouldn't be happy with one 980ti at 3440x1440 especially in new titles and upcoming titles, gsync will help smooth things out but low FPS is still low FPS and I wouldn't want to be dropping below at least 50fps but I am very sensitive when it comes to things like input latency and motion clarity etc.
 
Amraam said:
Yeah I compared PPI recently. 1080p at 35" 21:9 would be more noticeable, however I'm not convinced it would be as bad as 1080P 32" 16:9.

Freesync is of no use to me as I'm nvidia, and I've no real interest in switching from my 980Ti - I've only had it 13 months!
Click to expand...

Nope, it wouldn't be as bad as 32" 1920x1080, 35" 2560x1080 has a ppi of 79.

Well it is up to you, your money and all that :p But £650 for a 2560x1080 200HZ gsync 30" VA (which iirc, is using a similar panel to the z35 so not that great for motion, mostly in dark areas) is a pretty big rip off imo, especially when you can get 34" 1440 freesync screens for that sort of money, in fact, some are even cheaper than that.... Granted they aren't 200HZ though (well 200HZ is supposedly awful on the 35" VA screens, better of sticking to 144HZ)

Heck for an extra £150, you could get the new Samsung 34" 1440 VA quantum dot 100HZ freesync monitor! :p

As for performance with the 34" 1440 screens, you could always drop the res. down to 2560x1080 for those demanding games.

Decent comparison here:

https://hardforum.com/threads/34-21...0-aoc-u3477pqu.1827296/page-2#post-1041126330
 
90 PPI for me. I don't think 86 would be much different though...

Also, don't forget that sitting/viewing distance plays a big part in sharpness/clarity i.e. the closer you are to the screen, the more you will notice the pixels, the further you sit back, the sharper the display will look.

With these UW screens especially the 34+" ones, you will want to be sitting quite far back in order to really appreciate the 21.9 aspect ratio, at least I find that to be the base even with a 29" one...


As for dropping to a non native res. Read through the hardforum link, the guy does a good comparison between 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 on a 34" display

https://hardforum.com/threads/34-21...0-aoc-u3477pqu.1827296/page-2#post-1041126330
 
Did you try messing with HUD settings?

S16ceyN.png

Someone said:

The crosshair was fine for me, then again I'm playing in 21:9. Try playing with the HUD X and Y coordinates in FWS. Unfortunately it's a lot of trial and error.
Also, make sure your HUD resolution is 16:9 or 16:10 and fits inside of your native resolution.
Click to expand...

And on a separate reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/2vww5k/2560x1080_mass_effect_1_problems/conb39e/

Hey oxidseven. Thank you so much for the heads up! I adapted your technique and used a similiar setting for my 3440x1440 screen. Settings are: Hud Width: 1920, Hud Height: 1440, Hud X: 760 (this feels right for me, crosshair is now nicely lined up with bulletholes.) Hud Y: 0 . Let me know if this works for you QHD Monitor guys out there or if you even have a better solution. Only cons i see so far is that the huds color scheme clips off left and right but i think thats okay for what was achieved already :).
Click to expand...

That is for mass effect 2 though but it might work for ME 1
 
Phixsator said:
Well you could justify the 1000 price tag if you were guarantee picture perfect/no dead pixels/no bleed/no glow. Otherwise its like playing the lotto i feel.
Click to expand...

Even if all that was guaranteed not to be a problem, £1000+ is still a rip off. Personally I consider any current monitor costing more than £600 to be a rip off.

Current monitor tech. is just down right crap and ancient now and what's even sadder is that we won't see any exciting new tech. such as full array local dimming, HDR until the end of the year and those are going to be costing at least £1500...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom