Samsung 34" QD OLED monitor!

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
15,871
Location
Birmingham
How about you remove those Inuit snow goggles to see how small vertical image size of ultra low screens is for desk space consumption...

"hey look at me guys, I can rename things to make myself seem edgy and cool!"

Like I said in my post, I literally said I tried them side by side and found the 38" ultrawide far superior. Have you done any side by side testing in such a way? I would love for the 43" 4k to have been better to use as it was both cheaper and gave more screen space while I was working, but by the end of the day of using it, my neck was killing me from looking towards the top of the screen (on a monitor arm with the bottom of the screen practically resting on the desk and as far back as possible).

When I switched to the ultrawide, not only did I not get any neck pain when using it, but I could also have the monitor a lot closer, meaning it was far more immersive.

I'm afraid your internet opinion doesn't trump my real world testing and experience, sorry if that hurts your feelings :(
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
10,457
Now that phones dont come with anything less than 90hz (unless super budget) and a lot of laptops come with higher refresh screens now. Its about time all monitors do as well, at least from the mid range up.

yep 60hz needs to die. Remember when console gamers look at 60hz as elite realm that all PCbgamers have, that needs to become 120hz now, we need to stop making 60hz panels full stop
 

R3X

R3X

Soldato
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
3,229
I am expecting/betting that the 3 factors above will probably point me towards the 42" LG but man I wish that WASNT the case...

Another factor.... the potential £6000 price tag might put one off ;)

I think I read Samsung put 10 billion into the new QD OLED tech, they need to recoup asap.

CES 2022 is 31 days anyhow so lets see if QD is any good or not, someone's surely going to hit pause on a 4K hdr demo and then repeat the same on the
42" C2 :cry:
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jul 2021
Posts
184
Location
Netherlands
Another factor.... the potential £6000 price tag might put one off ;)

I think I read Samsung put 10 billion into the new QD OLED tech, they need to recoup asap.

CES 2022 is 31 days anyhow so lets see if QD is any good or not, someone's surely going to hit pause on a 4K hdr demo and then repeat the same on the
42" C2 :cry:
Not only that, Samsung also invested $17bil in chip factory.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,304
Location
Finland
"hey look at me guys, I can rename things to make myself seem edgy and cool!"

Like I said in my post, I literally said I tried them side by side and found the 38" ultrawide far superior. Have you done any side by side testing in such a way?
And what else is taking big, lots of desk/table space consuming screen and cutting vertical size lot and calling it as "ultra wide" than fancy marketing BS naming?
That's just one part of systematic ploy to hide real technical specifications like resolution.

I've gone through monitor area of one of the biggest PC shops in Finland couple times per year... Or did until Covid after which I've been there only once.
And every single time noted just how small vertical image size is per marketing size... Even from normal not leaning back in chair distance.
To get good vertical image size (comparable in any way to current 30" 16:10) distance would be so much smaller, that there would be need to keep turning head sideways to properly see content at sides.
Which actually limits how much side by side space it's sensible to have for programs.
It just isn't good for efficiency, if you have to keep turning head around jumping big distance to focus on different programs.
And certainly not neck friendlier, than oversize for work desk TV.


And designed for ultimate immersion IMAX uses natively 1:1.43 aspect ratio, because stereo vision FOV is vertically as high as horizontally.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,304
Location
Finland
not relevant, Samsungs silos are seperate entities so what's its foundry entity does is not relevant to what it's display panel entity does
And component factory making panels is in different part of conglomerate than those who make whole monitors/TVs.

It's same with LG, whose panel division actually sells some LCD panels to Samsung's TV division...
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/12/133_319804.html


I think I read Samsung put 10 billion into the new QD OLED tech, they need to recoup asap.
Those aren't burnt all money at once costs, but total sums of money used over multiple years to build new factories/convert existing production lines.

"In October 2019, Samsung Display stated it would invest 13 trillion won into QD-OLED panels by 2025, with plans to launch mass production in 2021."​

Also Japanese/Korean corporations tend to have far longer term plans than western quarterly capitalists.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
15,871
Location
Birmingham
And what else is taking big, lots of desk/table space consuming screen and cutting vertical size lot and calling it as "ultra wide" than fancy marketing BS naming?
That's just one part of systematic ploy to hide real technical specifications like resolution.

Rubbish, looking at the most popular resolutions; 29" 2560x1080 and 34" 3440x1440 are 24" 1920x1080, and 27" 2560x1440 with an extra ~ 1/3 on the sides. Fact. They are wider, not shorter. Now sure, you can argue whether the "ultra" part is just marketing nonsense, but they are definitely wider versions of the common 16:9 resolutions they derive from.

You seem to be coming from the position that 4k is the default, but it's not. 7-8 years ago when ultrawide monitors came out, 1080p was by far the most common resolution (in fact I'm pretty sure it still is), 1440p was relatively common in enthusiast/gamer market, but 4k was still quite new & niche.

I've gone through monitor area of one of the biggest PC shops in Finland couple times per year... Or did until Covid after which I've been there only once.
And every single time noted just how small vertical image size is per marketing size... Even from normal not leaning back in chair distance.
To get good vertical image size (comparable in any way to current 30" 16:10) distance would be so much smaller, that there would be need to keep turning head sideways to properly see content at sides.
Which actually limits how much side by side space it's sensible to have for programs.
It just isn't good for efficiency, if you have to keep turning head around jumping big distance to focus on different programs.
And certainly not neck friendlier, than oversize for work desk TV.


And designed for ultimate immersion IMAX uses natively 1:1.43 aspect ratio, because stereo vision FOV is vertically as high as horizontally.

So you've looked at one in a shop for a few minutes a couple of times, but never actually used one properly? You can't really expect me to take your opinion seriously if that's the limit of your experience.

Go and try a 34" ultrawide @ ~2ft viewing distance vs a 42" 16:9 @ ~3ft for a couple of days and then post back with your experience. I don't necessarily expect it would change your opinion, but at least then it would be an informed one!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom