Thinking of upgrading my monitor in a reasonable way.

Discussion in 'PC Purchasing Help' started by digitalwanderer, Apr 14, 2021.

  1. Malo

    Malo Yak Mechanicum
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,523
    Likes Received:
    5,008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    You misunderstand me. I don't look at a 21:9 vs a 16:9 and buy a 21:9 because a similarly priced one might be slightly more inches. Users here know what they're getting and some of us prefer the native resolution aspect ratio of a 21:9. I know that if I buy a 27" 21:9 vs a 27" 16:9 that it's going to be way too small vertically so I bought a 34" 21:9 instead and it's great for my uses.

    If you really think we're stupid for choosing 21:9 over a 16:9 then so be it. Nothing could be said to convince you otherwise and you can go about your day with some sense of victory that you are superior in your choice. It's fine and I won't be offended.
     
    pjbliverpool likes this.
  2. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    738
    My monitor/GPU/Driver have a 3840*1620 res available so I've been doing some experimenting.

    My 43" is 967cm wide which is several cm wider than eg the Dell 38" 3840*1600 21:9 (894cm)
    In 3840*1620 mode my vertical picture is about 39.5cm vertical, my 30" 2560*1600 is about bang on 40cm vertical, can't find a vertical value for Dell 38" but with somewhat less width its presumably somewhat less.

    My testing has certainly not been extensive but mixed results on the way games deal with it: in several the 21:9 mode puts a bunch of 'extra' real-estate to the sides relative to 16:9 mode but the central area is physically much smaller
    eg World of WarPlanes but several others perform similarly
    16:9
    [​IMG]

    21:9
    [​IMG]

    Meanwhile Halo1 for example literally cuts the head off characters in the opening cinematic in 21:9 mode (no pic).

    My feeling so far is that while I get some extra FoV/width real-estate, everything feels smaller in 21:9 mode -> I want to go back to 16:9 to get the top & bottom of the picture back.
     
    pharma and digitalwanderer like this.
  3. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    173
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    As screens aren't spherical, dividing the angles to get an aspect ratio is not correct. For flat screens, a 180+ degree visual field is "infinitely wide". But the benefits of making a screen wider and wider are diminishing quickly as the angle covered per added area on the sides is shrinking.
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  4. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,908
    Likes Received:
    3,628
    Location:
    Guess...
    Yep this an an example of why just limiting the resolution aspect ratio on a big 16:9 screen isn't a best of both words solution.

    I think this is largely a matter of how close you sit to the screen vs screensize. To get an ultrawide picture equivalent to my current 38" ultrawide would need a 40" 16:9 screen. At my current seating distance, I think that'd be too big if running games in full screen 16:9 aspect ratio. I could move back to mitigate that, but then I'd lose the FoV. Put another way, I want an ultrawide where the 16:9 part in the middle is the maximum size I'm comfortable with at my chosen seating distance. Then I want extra FoV on the sides.
     
    pharma and digitalwanderer like this.
  5. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    yes true, I think my idea of an infinite screen was BS, as it does ned to curve around on the sides and verticaly as well to mirror human vision, though the premise is correct 4:# is closer to how the eyes work

    hoom your pictures dont show anything thats a bad 21:9 implementation its the same scene but squished down

    mate I dont think you're stupid at all, you are smarter than average (as you know) and perhaps a lot smarter than average

    https://sixteenbyten.com/

    Remember when 16:9 became a thing >10 years ago, we got told the lie that they were more productive, "you can open two windows side by side", now its the opposite :lol: fucking numpties, hilarious when you think about it


    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/3-2-aspect-ratio-screens-best-for-productivity
    https://www.faceofit.com/list-of-laptops-with-32-aspect-ratio/
    https://www.windowscentral.com/pc-makers-need-shift-32-aspect
    https://www.neweggbusiness.com/smartbuyer/systems/should-your-laptop-display-taller/
    https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/19/...-dell-latitude-lenovo-thinkbook-plus-legion-7
    https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/16-9-laptops-are-finally-dead-and-gone-ces-2021/
    https://www.extremetech.com/computi...os-other-than-169-creep-toward-the-mainstream
    How’d 16:9 Win, Anyway?
    In a word: Economics. As 16:9 panel production ramped up, companies minimized costs and maximized yield by standardizing monitors and televisions on the same aspect ratio. This is back in the 2006 – 2009 period, when HDTV adoption is really taking off and laptop ASPs are still headed downwards. It didn’t take long for 4:3, 5:4, and 16:10 to almost entirely fall by the wayside.
    There’s a myth that Silicon Valley or technology in general always promotes the best, most-efficient solution. 16:9 is an example of how this isn’t true. If OEMs had been attempting to balance cost, content viewing, and using a laptop for everything but content viewing, they would have kept the 16:10 display standard. While the two are nearly identical, 16:10 gives you an additional vertical resolution to work with and makes it easier to code, write, or edit spreadsheets. The tiny letterbox introduced when watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 display is virtually unnoticeable. There was no end-user advantage to swapping away from 16:10. It just made laptop panels cheaper.


    I betcha if we looked at these same sites >10 years ago they would of been extolling the benifits of 16:9 over 4:3 even though then as it is now, complete BS
     
    #145 zed, Sep 11, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2021
  6. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,908
    Likes Received:
    3,628
    Location:
    Guess...
    I'd suggest taking another look at that.

    All of these links are referring to laptops. On small screens of limited resolution I would probably agree that ultrawide isn't the best for productivity. When you get to larger screens though the opposite becomes true. I can categorically say I'm more productive on my 38" ultrawide than I ever was on my 27" 16:9. And it's not the larger size or even the greater resolution that makes the difference, it's the aspect ratio. I can for example get 4 pages of a word document on the screen at once while still being comfortably readable. Or 3 pages with comments. In Excel, you usually have more information that you want to see on screen at any given time on the horizontal than the vertical. Outlook allows for a full size, useable reading pane without having to squash everything else up. You can run 2 apps side by side (say Teams and Word) without having to squash things at all, or even 3 at a push. These are a few examples but there're countless others. I would imagine coding and photo editing would be better on a taller screen with more vertical resolution though, however compared to general MS Office productivity these are extremely niche uses. There's a reason why most dual monitor office setups are side by side rather than stacked on top.

    You can't look at this without considering the the increases in both screen size and resolution over the years that go hand in hand with those aspect ratio changes. An ultra high res, ultra big PC 4:3 monitor back in the day may have been 21" 2048×1536. The equivalent today in 16:9 would probably be 32" 3840x160. That's better in every respect. In 21:9 you can get 40" 5120x2160. TV's obviously allow for much larger 16:9 sizes (but with less resolution unless you go 8K) than monitors but you're arguably no longer at a practical size for sitting a desk length away for work.
     
  7. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,190
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    The whole 16:9 thing was because "whatch movies in their native res in high definition"
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  8. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    true I miss-saw (is that a word)

    Thats 100% due to the larger screen size, like I said before you think you're getting more cause you've increased the size by 67% plus I assume your resolution has gone up as well (unless the 27" was 2160p or even something like https://iiyama.com/es_es/productos/prolite-xb2779qqs-s1/)
    http://www.displaywars.com/38-inch-21x9-vs-27-inch-16x9

    whats your resolution, Im guessing 3840x1600?, now if you got a 43" 16:9 monitor 3840x2160 (6cm wider) prolly for a cheaper price to boot, you could fit exactly the same number of documents side by side, the only difference is you get more space vertically as well

    http://www.displaywars.com/38-inch-21x9-vs-43-inch-16x9
    http://www.displaywars.com/38-inch-21x9-vs-40-inch-16x9
     
  9. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    738
    Yes, the central area to a bit past the wingtips is nearly identical vertically, just smaller in the 21:9.
    What I find surprising is that section is essentially the same size as I've been used to on my 30" (though thats 16:10) but it feels small compared to full native res on this 43".
    I think this means I've quite quickly adapted to the much bigger picture than the 30"?
     
  10. xz321zx

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    39
    If displays with actual depth were around this talk about precious real estate of flatscreens ( in either direction) would seem ridiculous (which it is).

    Theres no such attribute to flatscreens when it's a commodity.
    Plus,
    laptops are ideal format of flatscreens because it's not supposed to be against a wall and it's easy to look away and focus on somewhere else with actual depth.
     
  11. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,405
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Nail meet hammer, that's the real reason for 16:9. :yep2:
     
  12. hoom

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    738
    Except most movies aren't even 16:9.
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  13. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,190
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    I was waiting for some to say movies are 2.35:1 ;)
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  14. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Oh but that was another marketing lie put out to advance 16:9 :mrgreen:
    its so much better for watching videos on PC (and Im speaking as the one whos watched more videos on a PC than anyone here by a long shot no doubt) but I'm the exception, its something ppl just don't do on their PC

    Nielsen data, it did go up a lot lasr yeat (no doubt covid related) but still 12 minutes a day, its a tiny fraction of what ppl are watching, its still mainly mainly watching on TV, plus I assume a large portion of the time spent watching video on PC is youtube or facebook, where a lot of videos are portrait anyways

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Pressure

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    452
    *1.85:1 and 2.39:1 with anamorphic lenses are mostly used in cinema.

    The first is the 16:9 aspect ratio of cinema making it slightly wider than 16:9. The last is known as the anamorphic widescreen format common in modern cinema for the extra dramatic look and scenic landscapes.

    16:9 is used for something shot for TV.

    If you want to use 70mm it is 2.76:1 aspect ratio, for example the intro to The Dark Knight and Lawrence of Arabia.
     
    digitalwanderer and pjbliverpool like this.
  16. zed

    zed
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,760
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    though oddly most of that film was shot at the imax standard of ~4:3

    btw heres next weeks big release Dune, so be aware on what filmscreen you're watching it on, you might only be seeing half the picture :twisted: (I was never a fan of the book TBH)
    [​IMG]
     
  17. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,908
    Likes Received:
    3,628
    Location:
    Guess...
    No it's not. I could have simulated a "larger screen" by simply moving my old monitor further forward on the desk. This is about having more width on the screen vs height. The new screen is roughly the same height as the old screen, just with more width. There's a a little extra height but all that does is make what used to be on my 16:9 screen a little bit bigger, it doesn't put more content on my screen. It's the extra width where I get more content. That is provided the screen height is large enough in the first place to for example display a full Word page comfortably without having to scroll.

    This is simply wrong. I was fully aware of the scale difference between my old and new monitors before I bought it. My choices where 34" or 38". The 34" was essentially my existing 27" monitor in the wider FoV, and the 38" was the same but with a little extra height. It's that simple. No ones foolish enough to think a 34" ultrawide is going to dwarf a 32" 16:9 screen.

    Yes but then I'd have a screen which is too big for my desk at my current sitting distance. As Malo said above, it's not a crude bigger = better formula. It's about taking the FoV that you prefer and then matching that to size of screen that you want. If such a thing as a 54" ultra wide existed would I want it? Not on my desk, no. Because it'd be too big.
     
    Malo likes this.
  18. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    17,190
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    I went ultrawide because one of the monitors on my tripplescreen setup died and I wanted to replicate it with a single monitor
     
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  19. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,035
    Likes Received:
    616
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    This is it for me. My want for a 49" is highly correlated to wanting a pair of 27" widescreens without having to deal with the fat amount of bezel in the dead center of my field of view. If you like having dual landscape-oriented monitors, imagine how much better it could get if you didn't have the big bezel right in the middle...
     
    Malo likes this.
  20. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,405
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Monitor update:

    After reading in another thread about monitor drivers I tried to find some for my monitor, couldn't find any. It's using the generic PnP driver, and that's what they have on their site to download. So I contacted them by e-mail and asked, and they replied within 20 minutes that no they didn't, why did I need them?

    I explained that I get a "blink" on my monitor occasionally. Nothing deal breaking, it just flickers every couple of hours sometimes. I can't seem to find out why.

    They wrote back within 10 minutes asking for system details, I supplied them in ample detail including all driver versions and window build. (Better safe than sorry, more info better than not enough, etc)

    They wrote back and asked if I tried it on any other devices, if I'd tried a different DP cable, and if I'd power cycled it which they included instructions on.

    I explained I had not tried any of those things, but I would try power cycling it and changing DP ports. They wrote me back and asked to confirm my address because they're going to send me out a new DP cable and a new power supply for the monitor to see if that fixes it.

    Total e-mailing back and forth was less than an hour, they asked smart questions and when I answered they seemed to understand, and they're sending me free stuff to try and fix a very negligible problem. I like their support!

    I think I'll mention my backlighting is a bit uneven and see it they'll send me another monitor... ;)
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...