Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 4,223
- Location
- Third Earth
The thing is, to truly drive these monitors you're going to need some serious GPU grunt (read more expense!)
35" Curved 3440 * 1440 200Hz Curved QDot FLAD 1000 nits
- Thread starter mjallan123
- Start date
4K is 4096x2160!!
*waves fist at marketing ***** around the world*
As for this monitor... really? Just looks like a muscle flex, wouldn't see it catching on for sure. Standard 16:9 please, I like my vertical pixel space, monitor height and don't like my speakers being 2 miles from each other
UHD, 16:9, NON-CURVED RUBBISH, 120hz and HDR please.
Well that's real 4K, not PC monitor 4K lol. And given how hard the latter is to drive, 'real 4K' would grind most games to a halt I suspect.
As for 16:9... no. Now that I've experienced 21:9, I would never go back. The immersion is just too good, and whenever I sit in front of a regular monitor now, it feels like something is missing. A BIG 16:9 maybe, but we're talking 40"+ and I fear that may just be too big for most people and end up more of a niche product than 21:9 is currently.
21:9 gives up no vertical space over 16:9... it's just wider. Have you tried it?
I agree 200Hz is a marketing gimmick, but if it's at least a native 120Hz/144Hz panel, it's progress. HDR is also a game changer, but it still requires games to be designed with it in mind... and there is artistry involved in doing that. It's not like they just click an 'HDR now' optimisation button and job done lol!
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 266
Yeah I've seen videos of mass effect Andromeda with SDR and HDR and tbh it doesn't look necessarily better at all times.
Sometimes the colours look washed out in HDR with SDR clearly looking better.
Check more here if interested:
http://digiworthy.com/2017/06/12/nvidia-sdr-vs-hdr-monitor-computex/
Sometimes the colours look washed out in HDR with SDR clearly looking better.
Check more here if interested:
http://digiworthy.com/2017/06/12/nvidia-sdr-vs-hdr-monitor-computex/
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Screens are messed up, the issue is SDR has very little industry standard meaning almost every SDR monitor massively over saturate games with crazy high brightness as a default setting, while HDR is much more defined in terms of standard colour temps, so they aren't over saturated. HDR vs SDR with a 'defined' colour profile is a massive win, but SDR massively over saturated vs a reigned in HDR won't have the same comparison.
It's why film pops because either way the colour palette is defined by the film maker and everyone kind of sees it the same and with HDR it looks better, with games it can look very different on every monitor and the same monitors with different settings.
Effectively HDR panels are giving us what the game maker designed, while SDR panels are giving an uber saturated more vibrant image but not necessarily at all what the game makers said. It's also a case of what you're used to, same with 30 vs 60hz film, 60hz is better but we're so used to 30hz 60hz films look incredibly strange, but if we all watch solely 60hz films/tv for 3 months the reverse would happen, we get used to it and we all laugh at how bad 30hz is. Same here, he was talking about how the ground looks like it's properly coloured because it's more saturated, but what he means to say is, he's gamed on over saturated panels for so long he's used to a brighter more orange ground and the duller more realistic colouring of the HDR panel looks strange by comparison. To me the HDR image was drastically better, but the SDR image looked far more familiar to me. If you're used to over saturation to the point where you think it sucks without it, then HDR might not be for you, same way 60hz films might not take off because people can't get past the idea that it can initially seem worse.
Jesus, I hate to do it, but what Nvidia did, wasn't dodgy as such as not what people expect. They gave a more colour accurate SDR/HDR comparison but not a very real world comparison.
Another issue is currently HDR monitors are quite locked in to the brightness/saturation levels because that is half the point of HDR. If the HDR monitor had the same options to run the same over saturation of colour then HDR would carry over the improvement from the initial comparison of the two screens to the latter comparison.
Right now though, if you love the over saturated look, wait for HDR monitors that have the options to replicate it, if you prefer the more muted/realistic look not much reason not to get one now.
That's very true, and I don't think HDR is going to be the instant OMG night vs day difference that some people are expecting... and some people may not even like it. It's undoubtedly a superior tech, and the specs of this monitor are really very impressive... 1000 nits, true 10-bit... most HDR TV's don't offer that, so I'm glad to see it is fully HDR capable. But as above, it needs content specifically designed to take advantage of it, and creating that content is not a simply process. Plus, how people respond to it will undoubtedly factor in... it may not be for everyone given our familiarity with SDR.
Go on then tell us what the glorious price tag will be?
Couldn't agree any more, have said it myself many times on here before too but unfortunately people don't seem to care
Couldn't agree any more, have said it myself many times on here before too but unfortunately people don't seem to care
I don't think it's going to be £2000. While some people would be dumb enough to pay that, I can't see it selling in high enough quantity in order to justify such a high price tag. £1500 seems more likely, and while that is certainly painful, I can see it doing well at that price.
Go on then tell us what the glorious price tag will be?
Couldn't agree any more, have said it myself many times on here before too but unfortunately people don't seem to care
Our requested MSRP is £1499 so hopefully Acer can make that happen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Our requested MSRP is £1499 so hopefully Acer can make that happen.
If you can hit that price then certainly nowhere as bad as what I was expecting but still for me that is just crazy when you can get an OLED 55" 4k HDR TV for £1350, no free/g sync and about 25ms of input lag but OLED and being 55" would more than make up for those weaknesses imo.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Doesn't the lag increase a lot when using HDR though?
Originally yes but LG released a firmware update ages ago that significantly brought it down to those levels in game mode, the new TVs from them this year are even better to
Main problem with the 2016 OLED TV game mode is the colour gamut etc. changes but as per digital foundry guide and other peoples settings, it is easy to restore the colours/IQ and regardless, it will still blow any LCD based tech. out of the water and then proceed to nuke it from orbit
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Our requested MSRP is £1499 so hopefully Acer can make that happen.
Better than I was expecting, Hopefully Asus have a similar price point as well. Will go nice early next year with a Volta GPU
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Asus are always more than Acer, so if the Acer does land at £1500 I'd expect the Asus to be £1650ish
A lot but I may stretch due to Asus having better warranty. Probably won't be until next year though as it will be a pretty much useless upgrade on most games with a 1080Ti.
Some would be nice but ideally will need a new GPU.
Useless??
A 1080Ti is an excellent card for 3440x1440... even a 1070 does half decent.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Our gaming PC at work is fine on 3440x1440 with a 1080, however thats with gsync.
Useless??
Yes a 1080Ti is perfect for 3440x1440 60/100hz. I love my pg348Q.
But in most games your going to be struggling to get anything above that without reducing quite a few settings to get near the 144hz never mind 200hz.