@MinderMast inches has nothing to do with it..my non ultra wide has wider resolution, so i get more screen space, more will fit, if i use two windows next to each other the non ultra wide will win... vert resolution is very low on a ultra wide in comparison to a non ultra wide, it takes a huge hit on what it will be able to show.
16:9 is widely used. 21:9 is getting better, but if you play lots of old games 1920x1080 native is really nice to have..
this picture says it all:
of course, a 4K screen is usually not 34" you might find a 40" or something, and that is imo preferable over 34" ultrawide in 3440x1440 since you will get wider FOV and much much better vertical room to show stuff..
I sit a little further away from the 55" TV (perhaps 1m) and that's pretty much perfect, and way better for the vertical FOV..
Are these "1m" accurate to within 10cm? I'm interested
My current distance is about 1.5m to 50" with a 1080p device (high pixel fill rate, so no screen door effect here), but there is a resolution limit. Blurays appear slightly blurred compared to a higher distance
Distance from the 55"? I sit in a computer chair so it will vary all the time.. Best is to try yourself what you find comfortable, i bet people have different types of FOV (e.g when you take a driving license you have to do a test for this, at least in Sweden..)
@MinderMast inches has nothing to do with it..my non ultra wide has wider resolution, so i get more screen space, more will fit, if i use two windows next to each other the non ultra wide will win... vert resolution is very low on a ultra wide in comparison to a non ultra wide, it takes a huge hit on what it will be able to show.
But you were talking about how it's not great for 3D or for FOV. Screen space as a result of resolution is entirely a 2D thing
vurt wrote:
of course, a 4K screen is usually not 34" you might find a 40" or something, and that is imo preferable over 34" ultrawide in 3440x1440 since you will get wider FOV and much much better vertical room to show stuff..
Perhaps I am confused by your definition of FOV, but it is actually narrower on the 16:9 4K display regardless of the higher resolution and you gain nothing over UW in vertical. A 16:9 display will have a smaller FOV than a UW display in games even if it's 8K and 100"
@MinderMast. A 3D game will obviously show much less of the world in 3440x1440 than in 4K, goes without saying.. this is one of the reasons we went widescreen in the first place for games - to be able to show more of the gaming world. The old 5:3 format is nowadays terrible to go back to due to how little of the world we can see at any given time. It's not a 2D thing at all.
FOV simply means field of view, if the resolution makes you able to see more of the world it means you get a wider FOV in the game. It would be very odd if less wide resolution would give you a wider view and made you able to see more of the world - it's simply not possible.
Obviously we sometimes have internal settings for FOV in games to be able to tweak it, but its not what im talking about here, i mean defafult FOV or fixed at comfortable/correct settings.
if by 4K screen you mean a TV vs a 21:9 monitor i would say it depends on what you are doing with your computer. I prefer to use a monitor for work (a monitor has better text etc than a TV) and TV for gaming - the TV because it can do 1920x1080 (my gfx card is just a 980ti) + it's just larger and has better colors etc (OLED). I would say it also depends on what kind of demands you have when it comes to HDR and color accuracy etc..
you'd have to say exact model names and prices too, for proper advice..
@vurt By your understanding 1920x1080 will show half as much of the world than 4K - this is not how it works. FOV does not scale with resolution, it is only the aspect ratio that matters. You will see exactly as much with 4K as you would with 1280x720.
You linked wgsf, so take your own advice and check their comparisons of widescreen vs ultrawide. Ultrawide is even wider widescreen, as the name suggests. 4K is widescreen, 3440x1440 is ultrawide - it is wider, so you will see more
Look at your 4K TV and make it wider by roughly a third - that is how you get an ultrawide display. You do not lose anything vertically, but gain a wider FOV.
The comparisons you showed clearly don't support 21:9 resolutions properly, so you lose vertical FOV. This is called "vert-". Proper UW support is "hor+"
Compare my screens from Dishonored 2:
The bottom one is what you would see on a 4K display, top one is 21:9
^so yeah this is why I want an ultrawide on both screenshots that were posted show more if the fov is correct. Correct? And some games natively support it?
PC Specs: A Maganavox' Odyssey
Tweaked to play Frogger, Lemmings & GTA4
I prefer to use a monitor for work (a monitor has better text etc than a TV) and TV for gaming
Better text? Unless you have a terrible TV, I don't think this is true. I don't think there is an OLED that would be bad here. You just need to make sure, that any "resolution" and "sharpness" ""enhancements"" are deactivated, and full chroma resolution is allowed (on some tvs you actually need set that). I think with LGs you want to set the HDMI input label to "PC" for one thing.
In that case i'd totally go for a TV... but i would say it also depends on if you need better latency and 200hz or whatever, a TV can't give you that. For me it's all about getting deepest blacks and best colors + decent sized screen (imo 34" can feel a bit small for games).
And yeah I need 120hz+. -.-' Another reason I'm waiting for this upgrade, I'm hoping for a decent boost in performance with nvidias next generation cards, so I can drive alot of games at 100+ fps. Still waiting to play the Witcher 3 (yes this is true) on ultrawide before I play. Also some older games support it such as Anachronox.
So, I'm so used to gaming on gaming monitors, I don't think I will be disappointed.
PC Specs: A Maganavox' Odyssey
Tweaked to play Frogger, Lemmings & GTA4
^so yeah this is why I want an ultrawide on both screenshots that were posted show more if the fov is correct. Correct? And some games natively support it?
On games that support it (and as I said before, lack of support is more of an exception these days) you won't even need to touch the FOV. My screens, for example, are taken at the same FOV value in the menu.
As a side note, this depends on which FOV, vertical or horizontal, is adjustable. The correct way is considered to alter the vertical FOV, which is why at ultrawide resolutions your field of view will expand with the same FOV value - there is no change in vertical FOV between 21:9 and 16:9, but the former has wider horizontal one.
So yes, you will see more with ultrawide, but if you aim for 120Hz+ you should consider that 3440x1440 is pretty taxing, and monitors that go above 100Hz are planned to be released only towards the latter part of the year.
One option could be 2560x1080 monitors, but then you would have to live with a lower resolution.
34" 2560x1080 is like a wider 27" 1080p (same pixel pitch).
Overall, I would say that a large 4K OLED TV would trump an ultrawide, but it looks like 4K 120Hz is subject for year 2019 (for OLEDs at least).
Current OLED TVs do support 120Hz at 1080p from what I understand, so there's that. Not sure how good the interpolation is though.
Personally, I would prefer a 38" 4K 120Hz OLED HDR Ultrawide with backlight scanning
It is not exactly fixed, but LG claims they have improved lifetime of OLEDs quite significantly, and with combination of various techniques that deal with keeping image uniform, the screen should last about as much as any other type of display.
But of course, seeing how all of these fancy new panels are not even two years old, who can really say for sure what it will be like in practice.
Even 2017 LG OLEDs and possibly others support 120Hz at 1080p. 2018 devices should support this at 4K maybe?
@ Mister_s
Yes, OLED potentially suffers from image retention. But its already much more resilient than Plasma ever was. Perhaps only due to the correction algorithms LG implemented. In fact, I don't recall a single person who suffered from it from a forum (hifi-forum.de). I only recall people complaining of allegedly burned it OLEDs that were store showcase samples, who always ran at full blast and then got their power cut at store closing, preventing any correction from running. These devices have some output reserves for these algorithms, so there might come a time at which they crash and burn. But no such event has occured even for the earliest LG devices, which are 3 years old now?
But yes, might not be the best idea. No guarantees.
Even 2017 LG OLEDs and possibly others support 120Hz at 1080p. 2018 devices should support this at 4K maybe?
I don't think any of the new TVs have HDMI 2.1 support which you would need for 4K 120Hz.
Panels themselves appear capable, judging by LGs HFR support on the new TVs, but there does not seem to be a way to deliver the image from PCs at those parameters.
Possibly. What I read about this, is that the HDMI 2.1 certification process has not been finished so even if a device is HDMI 2.1 capable it couldn't actually be stated as such. So there is some chance this ridiculous charade is taking place and they do support 4k@120Hz. I don't think LG ever states that they support 1080p@120Hz either (which is of course a bit different).
^so yeah this is why I want an ultrawide on both screenshots that were posted show more if the fov is correct. Correct? And some games natively support it?
On games that support it (and as I said before, lack of support is more of an exception these days) you won't even need to touch the FOV. My screens, for example, are taken at the same FOV value in the menu.
As a side note, this depends on which FOV, vertical or horizontal, is adjustable. The correct way is considered to alter the vertical FOV, which is why at ultrawide resolutions your field of view will expand with the same FOV value - there is no change in vertical FOV between 21:9 and 16:9, but the former has wider horizontal one.
So yes, you will see more with ultrawide, but if you aim for 120Hz+ you should consider that 3440x1440 is pretty taxing, and monitors that go above 100Hz are planned to be released only towards the latter part of the year.
One option could be 2560x1080 monitors, but then you would have to live with a lower resolution.
34" 2560x1080 is like a wider 27" 1080p (same pixel pitch).
Overall, I would say that a large 4K OLED TV would trump an ultrawide, but it looks like 4K 120Hz is subject for year 2019 (for OLEDs at least).
Current OLED TVs do support 120Hz at 1080p from what I understand, so there's that. Not sure how good the interpolation is though.
Personally, I would prefer a 38" 4K 120Hz OLED HDR Ultrawide with backlight scanning
Thanks for the reply!
And yes I would assume driving a 3440x1440 at 120hz will require a powerful graphics card but this is why im waiting for the next generation to drop before I decide to purchase at 3440x1440.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
