That’s like you saying it’s not a fad, that’s your opinion, not fact.
Let’s move on
Do you see what’s I did there… had your pants down old man
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Is it time to give up and move to consoles
- Thread starter bjjgann
- Start date
- Status
That’s like you saying it’s not a fad, that’s your opinion, not fact.
Let’s move on
Do you see what’s I did there… had your pants down old man
Ah yes, the classic 12 year old posting style, can't accept that you're wrong so resort to that
Ah yes, the classic 12 year old posting style, can't accept that you're wrong so resort to that
I just used your line… so your a classic 12 year old?
I feel you have spent a massive amount on a UW screen and now your upset people don’t agree it’s the best…
Just to be clear your said you like your UW but still game on your massive TV? Can I ask why is UW is god of all and 16:9 is for mere morals
You're not your.
Upset? That I spent £600 on the best pc gaming monitor as claimed by all the expert reviewers e.g. vincent, HUB, rtings and so on, yes I am very upset over that
I game on the TV if I am in the lye back and chill with a controller mood and it's a game that looks ok at 16.9 but that is very rare. Simply put 21.9 is more immersive
Caporegime
I don't know anyone with an ultrawide monitor. Everyone I know who does productivity work,just prefers to use multiple monitors,as you can orientate them better for certain things. In my case one of my monitors can swivel into horizontal orientation if required. A lot of professional monitors have highly adjustable stands and are more orientated towards colour accuracy than other metrics anyway.
Last edited:
So you had to be told it’s the best monitor before you would buy it. OkUpset? That I spent £600 on the best pc gaming monitor as claimed by all the expert reviewers e.g. vincent, HUB, rtings and so on, yes I am very upset over that
Could you link me to the review where they say it’s the best gaming monitor of all time
So you game at 16:9 when you just want to chill and relax…. When I chill and relax that’s what I call gaming time.
Last edited:
That doesn’t change the fact that why UW was made
I know loads of people with ultrawide monitors in real life (both gamers and work), productivity wise, they are king imo. I work in the development sector so started of with dual monitors but went to a single 34" 3440x1440 monitor and haven't looked back, dual monitors have their uses but you can't beat a single UW screen, at least for my workflow, a few colleagues have switched over to 21.9 from dual displays for their work too after seeing mine. Quite a few local development company's have switched their entire office to 21.9 monitors.
Nah I bought it before any reviews came out as it was the first QD-OLED monitor to the market and there was nothing else on the market that was going to offer an experience like it and there still isn't.
And loads of comparisons here:
And the best monitor reviewer there is:
Dell Alienware AW3423DW review - TFTCentral
34" ultrawide based on a new QD-OLED panel. With 175Hz refresh rate, 0.1ms G2G, NVIDIA G-sync and excellent HDR capabilities
tftcentral.co.uk
I also chill and relax when sitting at a desk for gaming on the aw 34 where M+K and 21.9 can't be beat.
Last edited:
No, not some 77k Jack ass. I want the real reviews the big boys with over a million subs the ones who we all really care about.
You said thay all agree it’s the best monitor.
I just googled it and found a fair few people complaining about it been poo…
I’m getting so many mixed signals
Caporegime
I think a lot of companies first made ultrawide monitors and then were not sure how to market them. It seems far more popular with gamers for some reason. At least the widest aspect ratio photography monitor I know off is 17:9,but most are 16:9 or 16:10 AFAIK.
I know zero as most of the people I know with expensive montors,are not gamers. They are used for photography and the like,were colour accuracy is king and have support for hardware based colour calibration. The ability to run with a hood and be able to swivel the monitor into landscape/horizontal orientations is important. A UW would be an utter waste of time,and also take up too much space(it might work for very niche scenarios if you do certain types of photography),plus having the side monitor indented in is much better for productivity or mixed usage IMHO.
You can see that when you go to the big photo shows,where the big companies are,none of the setups use UW monitors and all of them are flat. I have seen far more gamers with UW monitors,and very curved ones at that to play racing SIMs.
Edit!!
But it could be different with your situation so YMMV.
Last edited:
Steam says only 2.5% of all uses have UW resolutions.. so if it’s more popular with games I would say it’s dead
And the 2.5 is down on the last year
Last edited:
You do realise that is HUB but their monitor channel? Since when does sub count = quality? If that matters, their main channel has 950k subs....
Is Vincent (well regarded expert reviewer in the display space) and tftcentral not real reviewers then?
I've linked you the main most reputable monitor reviewers, if you want to go and find comments where they slate the monitor, be my guest.
At this point I don't care what you think, you aren't going to change my mind
If/when a better monitor comes along, I'll simply buy that and shock horror, it will probably be a 21.9 format too 
Caporegime
It could be in certain areas it could be more popular for productivity,but I honestly don't know anyone outside a gamer with one. Shrugs.
It's the same with ultrawide TVs where you would think UW resolutions would make more sense,but even that seems relatively limited. It could be because broadcast TV is stuck at different aspect ratios.
@mrk will have a different take on that
These QD-oled UW are extremely accurate out of the box, at least the AW ones are, can't comment on the other brands. It's largely why they are very popular too.
I agree monitors with curves aren't ideal for certain work tasks but a subtle curve isn't an issue at all imo.
EDIT:
IIRC, the first 21.9 monitors were more aimed at professional use but gaming caught on more due to the increased immersion it provides, which is why they are more targetted towards gaming these days. There have been 21.9 "displays/tvs" before too (like way back in the day), which was intended for purely film use i.e. because most films are/were shot in the 21.9 format so no black bars on the top and bottom but that was very niche and what you call a "fad"
Last edited:
Caporegime
@mrk will have a different take on that
These QD-oled UW are extremely accurate out of the box, at least the AW ones are, can't comment on the other brands. It's largely why they are very popular too.
I agree monitors with curves aren't ideal for certain work tasks but a subtle curve isn't an issue at all imo.
I am sure he will,but again from my experience most of the monitors are not UW and they are certainly not curved. I have been to plenty of shows and known enough people to see it. Even the fact most of the laptops(with the better displays) also don't have them. It might be different for people who might be do a lot of video editing(of UW video) or do exclusively panoramic work(stitching a lot of images together) where it would be useful,but what you need is vertical resolution too,because photography is not just landscape. This is why a lot of photo orientated monitors can swivel into different orientations. The hoods exist for a reason too.
Even a tiny curve is useless,because of light reflection and the fact it is a PITA for architectural work - I should know,because one of my monitors has a subtle curve because I wanted to try it out. Its fine for gaming,ect but certainly it's noticeable and I won't touch a curved monitor for any of my photo work with a bargepole.
Edit!!
The underlying QD-OLED technology is fine,but it seems to be mostly integrated into gamer first monitors. Just no.
Also totally matt coatings. Even semi gloss is just a big no.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I can confirm, that as a professional photographer, ultra wide monitors are superior to normal monitors for photography editing, I used to have a vertical 27" IPS and a 29" then 34" IPS as a dual setup in the past, but . I bought the world's first 34" Ultrawide back in the day, the LG 34UM95-P, it uses an AH-IPS panel and had next nto no backlight bleed so perfect for editing in dim lighting which I preferred. It also had a built in hardware LUT which is the preferred method to store calibration data vs an icc profile that adjusts the GFX card's LUT which needs redoing every time you update GFX card or driver.
A hood is not important for a photo editing monitor, only a handful or monitors came with them, and those were mostly from Eizo. Hoods are only important in office environments where multiple light sources are coming from all angles. I've used Eizo monitors before at work when editing images and a hood made only a small difference, if at all, which is probably why they never took off as a thing.
The QD-OLED colour accuracy is good enough against the LG that I didn't end up bothering saving a GPU calibration profile, the Creator SRGB mode is that accurate when loading my same photos side by side with the calibrated LG.
An 1800R curve is perfect for an ultrawide even when editing. I have another 34" ultrawide, the Huawei Mateview GT, which has a deeper curve, that is too curved and gives the illusion of distortion. I also had a 34" LG curved model before too for review and that too had a deeper curve than the QD-OLED. 1800R feels "flat" when looking head on because the sides match the distance peripheral relative to your eyes.
I also game, so value both colour accuracy, picture quality and gaming performance. As far as I am concerned, all other monitors are inferior once you've gone QD-OLED, regardless of what you are doing on it. I now look forward to getting a 240Hz QD-OLED next year or so once they come out.
A hood is not important for a photo editing monitor, only a handful or monitors came with them, and those were mostly from Eizo. Hoods are only important in office environments where multiple light sources are coming from all angles. I've used Eizo monitors before at work when editing images and a hood made only a small difference, if at all, which is probably why they never took off as a thing.
The QD-OLED colour accuracy is good enough against the LG that I didn't end up bothering saving a GPU calibration profile, the Creator SRGB mode is that accurate when loading my same photos side by side with the calibrated LG.
An 1800R curve is perfect for an ultrawide even when editing. I have another 34" ultrawide, the Huawei Mateview GT, which has a deeper curve, that is too curved and gives the illusion of distortion. I also had a 34" LG curved model before too for review and that too had a deeper curve than the QD-OLED. 1800R feels "flat" when looking head on because the sides match the distance peripheral relative to your eyes.
I also game, so value both colour accuracy, picture quality and gaming performance. As far as I am concerned, all other monitors are inferior once you've gone QD-OLED, regardless of what you are doing on it. I now look forward to getting a 240Hz QD-OLED next year or so once they come out.
Last edited:
Generally I find a lot of people who are photographers aren't that knowledgeable with tech/displays (they don't have interest in tech. like us on here), heck I know one guy who has spent thousands on his camera equipment and he edits on an acer TN panel
when I explain to him what is wrong with that, he still refuses to get a good monitor 21.9 is pointless on small displays, which is why we'll never see it on laptops. It isn't going to be normal standard to replace 16.9 any time soon, it is just simply another option for the pc scene, just as va, ips, oled, tn are all options to choose from.If you are doing any kind of CAD, architecture work then curves are a no go but for photo editing, a subtle curve is perfectly ok, hasn't caused me any issues in lightroom (but I'm not an expert photographer/editor)
Speaking of light reflection/glare, this AW anti glare glossy panel is 100 times better than my 34" flat matte display here, no doubt a flat over curve would provide less distortion but it's not the be all for this area, it is actually one of the things that impressed me the most when I went from the IPS matte screen to this QD-oled as I sit right beside a massive velux window which gets the sun most of the day, I don't have to close the blind over anywhere as much now.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Generally I find a lot of people who are photographers aren't that knowledgeable with tech/displays (they don't have interest in tech. like us on here), heck I know one guy who has spent thousands on his camera equipment and he edits on an acer TN panel
If you are doing any kind of CAD, architecture work then curves are a no go but for photo editing, a subtle curve is perfectly ok, hasn't caused me any issues in lightroom (but I'm not an expert photographer/editor)
Speaking of light reflection/glare, this AW anti glare glossy panel is 100 times better than my 34" flat matte display here, no doubt a flat would provide less distortion but it's not the be all for this area.
Wow,so much on camera equipment but a TN display. LOLWTFBBQ.Having a reasonably colour accurate and calibrated display is a must unless you just run it through autocorrect. Even if it's older display,as long as it has that its WYSIWYG. Otherwise what happens you end up editing something and the colours and tones come out wonky when you print it which defeats the objection of tweaking the colours. I learnt that lesson nearly 20 years ago to my who chagrin!
I want a QD-LED monitor at some point,but I am going to wait for one with a flat panel,and one with a higher vertical resolution than what I have now.
I know a few professional photogs who wouldn't touch a curved with a bargepole and neither will I(although I am more of an amateur). I don't agree it's perfect unless you simply do work which is uncritical when it comes to line straightness. Talking to some of the photogs they got seduced by a lot of forums talking about the curves being fine,but generally dumped them back to flat panels. It seems most of the people who want the curve are those who game.
Also,again none of them use UW monitors either,because the vertical resolution isn't that high either and the lack of vertical swivel compounds it in many displays. Which again is great if you only do pictures in certain orientations.
Moreover,looking at some the companies I had interactions in the past,most of them don't seem to use UW curved displays at shows either. They exclusively seem to be less wider flat displays,especially those connected to the machines used for actual printing,etc.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Hardly anybody prints anything any more (outside of niche needs). It's all about digital publishing, for which essentially 99% of viewers will see colours differently because nobody that isn't in the industry in some way bothers or cares to adjust their displays for accurate srgb viewing, since 100% of the web is srgb, as is basically every other non-HDR media consumed by people. All phones default to a saturate vibrant colour output because that's what the masses like seeing, colours that "pop", vs accurate colours which are more flat and neutral.
We are the 1% in this arena. So far as my workflow goes, if someone comes to me and says an image I uploaded for them looks wrong, then I can point and say their display is set up wrong and advise how to make it right.
We are the 1% in this arena. So far as my workflow goes, if someone comes to me and says an image I uploaded for them looks wrong, then I can point and say their display is set up wrong and advise how to make it right.
Last edited:
- Status