Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

LG's UltraWide Monitors Are All About Multi-Tasking

Last response: in News comments
Share
January 9, 2013 3:37:51 PM

It's not a bad idea.. what about pricing?
Score
3
January 9, 2013 3:38:59 PM

With oled technoloy where is it,i don't understand why company's wont just make a 5760x1080 and give it a slight curve for those people out there who have the power to run it.It would be much better than having bezels inbetween your screens.
Score
13
Related resources
January 9, 2013 3:41:09 PM

Bigger, higher resolution and curved. I'm waiting for that.
Score
7
January 9, 2013 3:46:19 PM

robthatguyx said:
with oled technoloy where is it,i don't understand why company's wont just make a 5760x1080 and give it a slight curve for those people out there who have the power to run it. it would be much better than having bezels inbetween your screens.


I'm sure they will have this eventually when prices are at a point they could sell a few tens of thousand of them. As sits today not enough people would buy a $5,000-$8,000 monitor. When the OLED TV's are reasonably priced Im sure we will see these high res curved monitors as mass production savings will have finally overcome the R&D costs.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 3:47:00 PM

So with a 680, would I use one connection or two for this monitor? Curious how that would work.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 4:05:27 PM

This is YAWN. Why would I want this over a 2560 X 1440 monitor that Apple, Dell, HP, NEC, and a variety of other manufacturers have created at 27 inch. Why would I want this over a 2560 x 1600 monitor that Dell, HP and a few others have created. Now if this was like 3500 X 1600, then I could understand you are getting a 21:9 screen that is also of the pixel pitch relatively of the two mentioned above, but giving me 2560 x 1080, I get something that is worse than what is currently available. It is simply a stretched cheap monitor. No thanks.
Score
1
January 9, 2013 4:19:40 PM

powerincarnateThis is YAWN. Why would I want this over a 2560 X 1440 monitor that Apple, Dell, HP, NEC, and a variety of other manufacturers have created at 27 inch. Why would I want this over a 2560 x 1600 monitor that Dell, HP and a few others have created. Now if this was like 3500 X 1600, then I could understand you are getting a 21:9 screen that is also of the pixel pitch relatively of the two mentioned above, but giving me 2560 x 1080, I get something that is worse than what is currently available. It is simply a stretched cheap monitor. No thanks.


Because that is the pixel density of a brick on a 27 inch monitor and as much as I don't like apple, the resolution you are asking for is only good on 10.1 inch screens. I would expect 5 times that on a 27 inch screen.

Score
-5
January 9, 2013 4:24:00 PM

Quote:
Because that is the pixel density of a brick on a 27 inch monitor and as much as I don't like apple, the resolution you are asking for is only good on 10.1 inch screens. I would expect 5 times that on a 27 inch screen.


Well we all would, but that is a different story, but with all this 4K, 4K, 4K stuff going around, one would think that creating a bridge to that, by giving us a stretched version of the top monitors, instead of the stretch version of el cheapo would be the way to go. I'll just get one of the two I mentioned and have way more vertical space, something that is useful since the point of this is to increase productivity, so that vertical space is already available in the 27 and 30 inch models while also giving us the 2560 horizontal space that this introduced. Like someone else says give us something, either better resolution or OLED, giving us Nothing is not worth my money.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 4:33:38 PM

So sick of monitor displays that only go up to 1080, that is pathetic, this isn't a TV AT LEAST have it x 1200 minimal :( 
Score
8
January 9, 2013 6:25:22 PM

If it's under $200's it could potentially sell well, but more then that and it's doubtful consumers are more likely to just wait for 4K to become affordable especially given the fact it's going to be next industry standard rather then this oddball stopgap resolution display manufacturers kind of missed their window of opportunity on these types of display resolutions at this point.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 7:15:26 PM

knowomIf it's under $200's it could potentially sell well, but more then that and it's doubtful consumers are more likely to just wait for 4K to become affordable especially given the fact it's going to be next industry standard rather then this oddball stopgap resolution display manufacturers kind of missed their window of opportunity on these types of display resolutions at this point.



But that is not true, Apple had that odd ball 960 x 640 resolution and people bought it, because well, it was retina display and for a small screen it was really resolute. What about the new Ipad's 2046 X 1536, we know of monitors going to 1600 and 1440, but Ipads was different, people didn't necessarily need a normal standard. PC monitors was always either 4:3 or 16x10, where we had lots of 1920 x 1200 monitors, and then the manufactorers fell in love with 1080P and gave us the inferior (for PC that is) standard of 1920 x 1080. 2560 X 1600 is in the Nexus 7, 2560 X 1440 is in all of the nice Apple thunderbolt/Cinema displays along with other manufacturers. It doesn't necessarily have to be 4K. Remember laptops, they use to be of higher resolution, and then the manufacturers fell in love with 1280 X 720 or 1366 X 768 and kept pumping out these low quality monitors for ever. For a long time, it was like a needle in a haystack to find a descent IPS monitor with a descent resolution on a laptop. Apple got the balls to actually bump up the resolution and now I'm starting to see a lot more 1600 X 900 and 1650 x 1080, and full 1080P laptops as a result.

Also, if I may add, so many people are jumping into laptops and tablets now, that real desktop PCs are slowly going the way of either business mass purchases, or more like me, enthusiast that build their own, and make sure the GPU is powerful, CPU is fast and so forth. While the former may play around with this 21:9 monitor if it is under 200 bucks, any person who actually knows about computers, would feel this is a waste when 2560 X 1440 monitors are out there for maybe twice as much, but with greater resolution, and even greater pixel density since they tend to be 27 inches, while these 21:9 monitors tend to be 29 inches.
Score
1
January 9, 2013 7:27:24 PM

Is there a manufactoring difficulty in making large, slightly curved displays? Also, IPS are still very overpriced if we consider the Korean monitors... those are not for everybody, but still.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 7:31:42 PM

IPS prices are coming down a lot, especially the 1080P category, but there are other technologies like Super PVA, super MVA, that are far better than TN panels, but may not be as pricey as IPS.

I have a 30 inch panel now and I don't see why the need to make this curved. If they somehow made it like 35 inches, then maybe, but then if it was that large, you would have a very low pixel density monitor and that would make it even more crap. I've seen another monitor that is 21:9 and it was 29 inches. At that size, flat should be fine.
Score
0
January 9, 2013 11:46:59 PM

How long until the Indistry will stop feeding computer users 1080p panels ?

Try editing a 1080p video on a 1080p screen. No room for buttons etc.
And yes, I use a multi-screen setup but still would prefer to have room for basic video controls under the actual video instead of 2 feet to the right on the main monitor.

It may not sound like a big deal unless you spend 8h+ in the studio !
Score
6
January 10, 2013 12:39:27 AM

TunaSodaSo sick of monitor displays that only go up to 1080, that is pathetic, this isn't a TV AT LEAST have it x 1200 minimal

It is because manufacturers want to use the cheap mass produced panels. I have a few 1920x1200 displays but even those are rare anymore. IPS displays are becoming more cost effective but they're still at a big premium to glorified TVs...
Score
3
January 10, 2013 4:33:56 AM

I like big screens and I cannot lie.
Score
2
January 10, 2013 9:49:03 AM

spookieIt's not a bad idea.. what about pricing?

it costs more than 2 1080 monitors by a significant ammount. at least current ones.

i like the idea too, but i hate the current costs more than 2 separate monitors.
Score
2
January 10, 2013 10:30:57 AM

tokencodeIt is because manufacturers want to use the cheap mass produced panels. I have a few 1920x1200 displays but even those are rare anymore. IPS displays are becoming more cost effective but they're still at a big premium to glorified TVs...

I have a 26" 1920/1200 display, but I believe that res is native for 24" 16/10 so I don't think I've got the best dot pitch :( 
I really want a 32" monitor but they all suck at 1080!!! :( 
Score
2
Anonymous
January 10, 2013 1:27:08 PM

i would rather have an ultra wide display, say 5760 by 1080, than i would just a high res. it increases productivity by having multiple full pages open at once, i would say that anywhere from 4 to 6 open pages/programs open at the same time with out a bezel would be pretty awesome. combine that with some custom software that can automatically make multiple programs take up the exact same size maximizing screen potential. this would be an extension to what microsoft already has in windows 7 split screen were 2 programs can be run split screen now insert software, insert hardware and have that functionality available in different configurations were it can auto adjust the size so each program can have an equal amount of screen real estate. combine that with a natural cure to the display and it will be an extremely emersive experience no matter what you are doing. the only problem with this would most likely be lag
Score
2
Anonymous
January 10, 2013 1:28:47 PM

robthatguyxwith oled technoloy where is it,i don't understand why company's wont just make a 5760x1080 and give it a slight curve for those people out there who have the power to run it. it would be much better than having bezels inbetween your screens.

i really want to see this, drop the oled to save money, through in a quality ips or high end tn and get them to us for less than $500, i doubt we'll ever see this
Score
1
January 10, 2013 1:42:06 PM

TunaSodaSo sick of monitor displays that only go up to 1080, that is pathetic, this isn't a TV AT LEAST have it x 1200 minimal


1600X1200
Am I the only one that prefers 4:3 monitors over widescreen?
Score
0
January 10, 2013 2:28:25 PM

I want a curved, 3D, 5670 x 1080 or higher (4k, 8k) screen, specifically for surround gaming. That would be awesome.
Score
1
February 4, 2013 5:53:30 AM

Spac3nerd1600X1200 Am I the only one that prefers 4:3 monitors over widescreen?

I hope so....

I like the widescreen version.. i got two 2042x1152 Samsung 2343BWX 23" monitors which rock .. but only once they made that resolution and never made it on LED :-(
Score
1
February 10, 2013 3:15:16 PM

Only 1080p vertically - that's useless (too low resolution).
Score
2
May 8, 2013 1:50:27 PM

That Looks Like An Excellent Screen To Use For Graphics Work Or Web Design. Hopefully When Released It Will A Reasonable Price Tag.
Score
0
June 13, 2013 7:01:45 AM

I know that the majority of commenters are panning this idea, but I for one like it, and wish I had one. I know you can get a monitor that is just as wide, but significantly taller and higher resolution, but for me that wouldn't be an acceptible solution at all. For productivity purposes it's inefficient to move your eyes in 2 dimensions. I can scan much more quickly just goign left and right then going up and down as well. When I have used computers with monitors larger than 24" or so I end up bunching my windows in the middle anyways, so the top and bottom of the screen is basically wasted pixels. I'd much rather have good vertical pixel density, and multiply it horizontally. At work (I'm an IT Project Manager for a major bank), I use a pair of 20" monitors and they're perfect. At home I use a slightly larger monitor, 24", because i occassionally watch videos on it.

I'd happily replace my monitors at home and work with one of these double-width monitors.
Score
0
October 9, 2013 11:03:36 PM

NARESH:is it work pip option all the inputs?
Score
0
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2013 4:03:13 PM

jdlobb said:
I know that the majority of commenters are panning this idea, but I for one like it, and wish I had one. I know you can get a monitor that is just as wide, but significantly taller and higher resolution, but for me that wouldn't be an acceptible solution at all. For productivity purposes it's inefficient to move your eyes in 2 dimensions. I can scan much more quickly just goign left and right then going up and down as well. When I have used computers with monitors larger than 24" or so I end up bunching my windows in the middle anyways, so the top and bottom of the screen is basically wasted pixels. I'd much rather have good vertical pixel density, and multiply it horizontally. At work (I'm an IT Project Manager for a major bank), I use a pair of 20" monitors and they're perfect. At home I use a slightly larger monitor, 24", because i occassionally watch videos on it.

I'd happily replace my monitors at home and work with one of these double-width monitors.


Yeah I saw ultra wide monitors in person and I have to say I really like what I am seeing, I think it's the wave of the future. 16:9 monitors have been around forever, it's time we move ahead to 21:9.
Score
0
!