Curved screens are great. But ultrawide resolutions such as 3840x1600 suck. Endless vertical scrolling if you are doing productivity or social media. No ability to see enemies above or below if you are gaming. Give me my vertical portion of the screen back! I can't stand the current trend of paying more for a shorter screen.
Ultrawide screens are just 16:9 monitors with an extra ~30% width added on. So they're no worse for gaming than their 16:9 progenitors, and the extra horizontal real estate is useful for productivity; a 1440p ultrawide can effectively replace two 1080p 16:9s.
Now, if you're still fighting the 16:9 vs 16:10 war, my heart goes out to you valiant brother/sister, but we lost that conflict nearly a decade ago. 21:9 may not restore our former vertical glory, but nor is it taking away what we have left.
You drank the Kool Aid. In reality, ultrawide screens are just 16:9 monitors with 24% of the top chopped off.
That 38" monitor (34.9" wide by 15.0" tall) could have been a 40" monitor (34.9" wide by 19.6" tall). But no, we lost the top 4.7" of screen space and have to pay more money for the privilege of calling this shortened monitor "wide". It isn't like we are running out of physical room above our monitors either. Most of that is just wasted air.
I know I'm fighting a losing battle. I will fight it to the bitter end though.
You can find some pretty good 4K TVs in the 40-50" range that would give you what you want, except curvature.
I debate how much curvature helps with gaming exactly. In theory it would actually distort the perspective unless the graphics driver corrected it. Of course you can set the game so that the vertical FOV is the same as a normal screen not the horizontal FOV.
Depends on how the developers did the programming. Some add those 30% to the sides, others actually stretch the 16:9 viewfield to a bigger picture, so you will actually have a disadvantage with 21:9.
What? You are contradicting yourself. More vertical resolution means LESS scrolling... "no ability to see enemies above or below you..." -Once again more vertical resolution will let you see MORE. "can't stand the current trend of paying more for a shorter screen." - 1600 vertical is more vertical space than 1280x1024, 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2480x1440, and 3440x1440, so that more than 99% of monitors out there.
It's what triple display gaming has turned into. Now we use 1 big curved display instead which makes a lot more sense then 3 flat panels at different angles with a bezels.
I meant 32" and my hope is for that to be planned out & announced at 2020 CES hopefully, but my main point still stands.
43" seems more closer to fruition at the moment w/ LG's new plant. It's mind boggling Apple of all companies get this right (i.e. their 32" monitors w/ understandably expensive blue-filter-oriented mini-led panel coming up, the Pro Display XDR), but a lot of monitor manufacturers continuously do moronic decisions.
How so @ 43"? I have a 31.5" 4k AOC that I am very happy with (10 bit, no FRC, VA). Only (realistic) thing I miss is no 30-60 HZ Freesync, but at 320€ over a year ago, that would have been unrealistic. On my normally sized desk and i being wall mounted, I would not want it to be any bigger. I sit between 40 and 90cm (eye distance) away from the monitor. If it were larger, I think I'd have trouble seeing everything at once. I also use a 2nd monitor to the side (currently a 19" 1280x1024, I had a 21" 1200p one there and could get a 27" 1440p one but don't really need to, I just need enough space for one PDF site).
I'm all in favor of the concept of curved screens once they approach a certain size, but christ, curved 32" makes zero sense to me.
Curved doesn't only introduce benefits, there are also issues. If you use that at home and then regular screens at work, that's gonna suck, for instance. I have a few coworkers complaining about that.
What? Curved is BETTER at bigger screens. Most people make a point to get them when they are 32+ inches curved. Its why most are curved at that size.
A few coworkers is not a sample size, they also are prob using crappy screens at work vs home so of course its going to be a difference to anyone curved or not.
"What? Curved is BETTER at bigger screens. Most people make a point to get them when they are 32+ inches curved. Its why most are curved at that size." And that is exactly what he said. "in favor of the concept [...] once they approach a certain size". So clearly, 32" seems to small for him, but larger would make sense with a curved display. Your user name continues to be true.
Aspect ratio's also a factor. I wouldn't want a curved 32" 16:9. If I was getting a 32:9 superwide curved would be more or less mandatory for the same reason that the pair of monitors used at my main work displays are angled to each other.
I haven't tried actually using one but curved makes theoretical sense with large VA panels because they just don't have the viewing angle that IPS has.
That's honestly pretty surprising to me. I haven't seen a sub-23" screen purchased in the last 7 years, and that's covering about 40k screen installs over that time. 23" remains the standard, but 27" and ultrawide 34" are making big inroads (and one or the other becoming the new standard once a decision is made).
Yeah, I've upgraded all mine to larger than 21.5 a while ago. Another factor is age - a 21.5" at 1080 is actually too small for me to use comfortably now. 23-24" is usable, 26-27" is the easiest on my eyes. 27" at 2K is too small again, have to set the scaling to 125% on the one I have at home but where it is, there is no easy way to implement a dual setup. I thought I could manage with a higher resolution single larger display, but nope, not quite. Too used to multiple displays. Thankfully I have dual displays at work as well.
depressingly my current workplace (mid size bank) still purchases 20" monitors with 768 resolution. It's friggin terrible. At least my last place was using 24" 1080 monitors. I'll admit though the most recent monitor I bought was a 22" (I think) 1080 but it's for my wife who just reads emails occasionally and doesn't have a lot of space so I skipped going a bit bigger/higher rez and save a couple bucks.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
Back to Article
DanNeely - Thursday, October 3, 2019 - link
For anyone wondering who TVP is, they're a Chinese company that sells under the AOC and Envision brands.StevoLincolnite - Thursday, October 3, 2019 - link
Curved... Me: Hiss.yetanotherhuman - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Don't knock a 38" 3840x1600 curved screen until you've tried it. You'll understand. It's great.dullard - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Curved screens are great. But ultrawide resolutions such as 3840x1600 suck. Endless vertical scrolling if you are doing productivity or social media. No ability to see enemies above or below if you are gaming. Give me my vertical portion of the screen back! I can't stand the current trend of paying more for a shorter screen.Black Obsidian - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Ultrawide screens are just 16:9 monitors with an extra ~30% width added on. So they're no worse for gaming than their 16:9 progenitors, and the extra horizontal real estate is useful for productivity; a 1440p ultrawide can effectively replace two 1080p 16:9s.Now, if you're still fighting the 16:9 vs 16:10 war, my heart goes out to you valiant brother/sister, but we lost that conflict nearly a decade ago. 21:9 may not restore our former vertical glory, but nor is it taking away what we have left.
dullard - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
You drank the Kool Aid. In reality, ultrawide screens are just 16:9 monitors with 24% of the top chopped off.That 38" monitor (34.9" wide by 15.0" tall) could have been a 40" monitor (34.9" wide by 19.6" tall). But no, we lost the top 4.7" of screen space and have to pay more money for the privilege of calling this shortened monitor "wide". It isn't like we are running out of physical room above our monitors either. Most of that is just wasted air.
I know I'm fighting a losing battle. I will fight it to the bitter end though.
dullard - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
We could always just have a "wide" mode where 4.7" of screen space isn't calculated or displayed for those who like losing this view.stephenbrooks - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
You can find some pretty good 4K TVs in the 40-50" range that would give you what you want, except curvature.I debate how much curvature helps with gaming exactly. In theory it would actually distort the perspective unless the graphics driver corrected it. Of course you can set the game so that the vertical FOV is the same as a normal screen not the horizontal FOV.
Beaver M. - Saturday, October 5, 2019 - link
Depends on how the developers did the programming.Some add those 30% to the sides, others actually stretch the 16:9 viewfield to a bigger picture, so you will actually have a disadvantage with 21:9.
Gasaraki88 - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
What? You are contradicting yourself. More vertical resolution means LESS scrolling..."no ability to see enemies above or below you..." -Once again more vertical resolution will let you see MORE.
"can't stand the current trend of paying more for a shorter screen." - 1600 vertical is more vertical space than 1280x1024, 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2480x1440, and 3440x1440, so that more than 99% of monitors out there.
dullard - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
3840×1600 (21:9) is 24% fewer pixels than 3840x2160 (16:9) at the same pixel density.Beaver M. - Saturday, October 5, 2019 - link
I wont knock it if it doesnt have massive BLB, clouding and IPS glow.Thats never the case.
Dribble - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
It's what triple display gaming has turned into. Now we use 1 big curved display instead which makes a lot more sense then 3 flat panels at different angles with a bezels.Black Obsidian - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
This is especially true of the 49" 32:9 displays. One of those would have comfortably replaced my 3x 24" 16:10s for driving/flying simulators.lilkwarrior - Thursday, October 3, 2019 - link
Just sell a 34" inch OLED 4K monitor w/ HDMI 2.1, Displayport 2.0, Dolby Vision HDR, HLG HDR, & HDR10+ already.lilkwarrior - Thursday, October 3, 2019 - link
I meant 32" and my hope is for that to be planned out & announced at 2020 CES hopefully, but my main point still stands.43" seems more closer to fruition at the moment w/ LG's new plant. It's mind boggling Apple of all companies get this right (i.e. their 32" monitors w/ understandably expensive blue-filter-oriented mini-led panel coming up, the Pro Display XDR), but a lot of monitor manufacturers continuously do moronic decisions.
evanh - Thursday, October 3, 2019 - link
I have a 32" IPS 4K monitor and it is nice, and it was expensive back then. However, these days, I'd recommend 43" for 4K now that they are available.Death666Angel - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
How so @ 43"? I have a 31.5" 4k AOC that I am very happy with (10 bit, no FRC, VA). Only (realistic) thing I miss is no 30-60 HZ Freesync, but at 320€ over a year ago, that would have been unrealistic. On my normally sized desk and i being wall mounted, I would not want it to be any bigger. I sit between 40 and 90cm (eye distance) away from the monitor. If it were larger, I think I'd have trouble seeing everything at once. I also use a 2nd monitor to the side (currently a 19" 1280x1024, I had a 21" 1200p one there and could get a 27" 1440p one but don't really need to, I just need enough space for one PDF site).CU - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
I have the AOC U3277PWQU which I bought a few years ago. Like you I really like it, but I wish it had Freesync.Death666Angel - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Heh, U3277FWQ here. No USB 3.0 hub and worse stand, but I wall mounted it anyway. :)hansmuff - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
I'm all in favor of the concept of curved screens once they approach a certain size, but christ, curved 32" makes zero sense to me.Curved doesn't only introduce benefits, there are also issues. If you use that at home and then regular screens at work, that's gonna suck, for instance. I have a few coworkers complaining about that.
imaheadcase - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
What? Curved is BETTER at bigger screens. Most people make a point to get them when they are 32+ inches curved. Its why most are curved at that size.A few coworkers is not a sample size, they also are prob using crappy screens at work vs home so of course its going to be a difference to anyone curved or not.
Death666Angel - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
"What? Curved is BETTER at bigger screens. Most people make a point to get them when they are 32+ inches curved. Its why most are curved at that size."And that is exactly what he said. "in favor of the concept [...] once they approach a certain size". So clearly, 32" seems to small for him, but larger would make sense with a curved display.
Your user name continues to be true.
DanNeely - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Aspect ratio's also a factor. I wouldn't want a curved 32" 16:9. If I was getting a 32:9 superwide curved would be more or less mandatory for the same reason that the pair of monitors used at my main work displays are angled to each other.evanh - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
I haven't tried actually using one but curved makes theoretical sense with large VA panels because they just don't have the viewing angle that IPS has.edzieba - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
That's honestly pretty surprising to me. I haven't seen a sub-23" screen purchased in the last 7 years, and that's covering about 40k screen installs over that time. 23" remains the standard, but 27" and ultrawide 34" are making big inroads (and one or the other becoming the new standard once a decision is made).rrinker - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Yeah, I've upgraded all mine to larger than 21.5 a while ago. Another factor is age - a 21.5" at 1080 is actually too small for me to use comfortably now. 23-24" is usable, 26-27" is the easiest on my eyes. 27" at 2K is too small again, have to set the scaling to 125% on the one I have at home but where it is, there is no easy way to implement a dual setup. I thought I could manage with a higher resolution single larger display, but nope, not quite. Too used to multiple displays. Thankfully I have dual displays at work as well.Icehawk - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
depressingly my current workplace (mid size bank) still purchases 20" monitors with 768 resolution. It's friggin terrible. At least my last place was using 24" 1080 monitors. I'll admit though the most recent monitor I bought was a 22" (I think) 1080 but it's for my wife who just reads emails occasionally and doesn't have a lot of space so I skipped going a bit bigger/higher rez and save a couple bucks.Beaver M. - Saturday, October 5, 2019 - link
Companies buy those formats for the normal workstation.