Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dell's 34-Inch Curved 21:9 Cinema Display Coming In December

Tags:
  • Monitors
  • Dell
Last response: in News comments
Share
September 2, 2014 3:26:10 PM

Dell's U3415W has finally been announced, and as it turns out, it is curved.

Dell's 34-Inch Curved 21:9 Cinema Display Coming In December : Read more

More about : dell inch curved cinema display coming december

September 2, 2014 4:06:19 PM

Cant wait to hear about the prices. Im definitely considering upgrading to a curved monitor at this size instead of 2 24"ers. Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 4:15:31 PM

dat asspect ratio
m
5
l
a b C Monitor
September 2, 2014 4:34:54 PM

Quote:
Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?

That would be a nice high school math trigonometry question: given a diagonal length of 34" and a slope of 3/7, calculate the width and height of the rectangle.
m
13
l
a b C Monitor
September 2, 2014 4:42:02 PM

Nice.

Your gona need a 4k ready system to game with three of those.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
September 2, 2014 4:44:32 PM

That's... actually pretty sexy. Now I want the amalgam of this monitor and the Asus SWIFT. That would be extraordinary.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 5:11:44 PM

I'm guessing this is using the same panel as LG's similarly spec'ed model? If that's anything to go by, it won't be cheap.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 5:41:04 PM

Someone want to check my math on this? I get H~13.375" and W~31.25"

For comparison, a 16:10 monitor that is 24" is about H=12.7" and W=20.3"
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 5:42:00 PM

It's a bit weird, but I can't handle looking at curved screens. I've tried a few and some affect me more than others, but feel kind of disorientated looking at them. Anyone else have that effect or just me, haha.
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 5:45:58 PM

Ugh make it 21:10 with a 3440 x 1600 would be so much better. But meh to this anyway as I'm going 4K soon with the Asus 32 inch display.
m
-1
l
September 2, 2014 6:07:01 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?

That would be a nice high school math trigonometry question: given a diagonal length of 34" and a slope of 3/7, calculate the width and height of the rectangle.

x=2.21455938697318 so hxw=46.5"x19.9". Seems like it should be taller.
m
-1
l
September 2, 2014 6:08:39 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?

That would be a nice high school math trigonometry question: given a diagonal length of 34" and a slope of 3/7, calculate the width and height of the rectangle.

x=2.21455938697318 so hxw=46.5"x19.9". Seems like it should be taller.
m
-2
l
September 2, 2014 6:31:09 PM

Forget my current 2-monitor setup, if I were to get this I would just need the one! I would need a pretty good excuse to buy this though, seeing as I just replaced my main monitor last year...
m
-1
l
September 2, 2014 7:09:07 PM

Quote:

x=2.21455938697318 so hxw=46.5"x19.9". Seems like it should be taller.

The math is off, that works out to be a 50" monitor: sqrt(46.5^2+19.9^2).
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 7:12:14 PM

Quote:
I'm guessing this is using the same panel as LG's similarly spec'ed model? If that's anything to go by, it won't be cheap.


Actually, if the stated specs are true this monitor may actually be cheaper than the LG curved monitor the 34UC95 and more in line with the 34UM95 which is not curved. Perhaps even less than that.

The LG is a bit of a different beast though because it has allot more ports on the back including 2x thunderbolt 2 ports and also has a built in KVM switch. If you use multiple systems like a MBP and a PC workstation then the LG is the way to go.

I am not real sure about how this curved screen stuff is going to work though. Might be more immersive for gaming and the expense of being a great productivity monitor.
m
0
l
September 2, 2014 8:43:14 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?

That would be a nice high school math trigonometry question: given a diagonal length of 34" and a slope of 3/7, calculate the width and height of the rectangle.


I actually had something like that as a question in an exam years ago.
m
1
l
September 2, 2014 9:40:55 PM

the price will be 34" too
m
2
l
September 3, 2014 12:03:06 AM

The bezels don't look extra thin.
m
2
l
September 3, 2014 12:33:02 AM

I have to say, that Delta-E is pure love <3. Please don't hit me.

Dumb things aside. I can see this being pretty useful to people that need horizontal real state. If it supports split screen it would be even better.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 12:46:59 AM

Noooooooooooooo :(  curved :( 
m
-3
l
September 3, 2014 1:38:13 AM

Make it a reasonable price, and we'll talk. I have a feeling it will be quite expensive though... my guess... $3000+
m
-1
l
September 3, 2014 1:41:28 AM

It's about freaking time...!

Sad about the 8ms, was hoping for more like 5ms at this size. But I'm shocked they went with a curved design (which might have something to do with the 8ms). But you know what? It looks fantastic!

Can't wait to see the reviews.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
September 3, 2014 2:45:33 AM

lancelot123 said:
Someone want to check my math on this? I get H~13.375" and W~31.25"

You probably rounded too much on H somewhere: I get 13.393".

I wish there were more x:10 displays too... but those days appear to be gone for good.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 5:49:45 AM

Quote:
Nice.

Your gona need a 4k ready system to game with three of those.

What? Triple 1080p monitors setup is equivalent to 3K so to speak (6220800 pixels), 3 of these beasts will have 2.3x (14860800) pixels.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 8:02:56 AM

Quote:
Ugh make it 21:10 with a 3440 x 1600 would be so much better. But meh to this anyway as I'm going 4K soon with the Asus 32 inch display.

lol why? The point of this display is to make it ultra-wide. Making it 21:10 would make it a bit less wide.
m
-1
l
September 3, 2014 8:05:37 AM

Those who are complaining about the curved display, I think with such an aspect ratio, and given how you usually sit directly in front of your monitor, centered, the curve should actually work very well compared to 16:9 TVs who do it too.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
September 3, 2014 8:54:51 AM

Merry_Blind said:
Quote:
Ugh make it 21:10 with a 3440 x 1600 would be so much better. But meh to this anyway as I'm going 4K soon with the Asus 32 inch display.

lol why? The point of this display is to make it ultra-wide. Making it 21:10 would make it a bit less wide.

Between 21:10 and 21:9, we are talking about trading only 0.55" (1.8%) less wide for 1.2" (9%) more usable vertical space.

Those extra 160 lines may not sound like much but for productivity stuff, they can be quite handy.
m
1
l
September 3, 2014 10:23:23 AM

So, what are the odds of this being VESA mount compatible?
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 10:30:51 AM

you know what would make this beast orgasmic? G-Sync/Freesync enabled and 120MHz refresh
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 11:29:04 AM

InvalidError said:
lancelot123 said:
Someone want to check my math on this? I get H~13.375" and W~31.25"

You probably rounded too much on H somewhere: I get 13.393".

I wish there were more x:10 displays too... but those days appear to be gone for good.

Dell released a 16:10 monitor as well....UltraSharp U2415

http://news.softpedia.com/news/16-10-Monitor-from-Dell-...



m
0
l
September 3, 2014 11:37:55 AM

28:10 would have been amazing
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 11:40:34 AM

I'll take one once it has G-Sync
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 12:38:30 PM

Looks nice, but what is the use case for such a wide monitor? I'd rather have a 16:9/10 monitor.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 1:21:11 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Anyone know the dimensions of the screen for a 34" 21:9 screen?

That would be a nice high school math trigonometry question: given a diagonal length of 34" and a slope of 3/7, calculate the width and height of the rectangle.


I had to use the Pythagorean theorem the other day at work. We had a portable projector screen and no height. I can't take out a $500 screen to check that, so I simply used the diagonal measurement, the length of the box (same size as the screen) and that math. Hoorah! That is literally the first time I've had to use orthodox "advanced" (atypical) mathematics since I left high school 4 years ago....
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 3:52:23 PM

18.6in x 28.4in is its dimensions.
m
0
l
September 3, 2014 3:56:45 PM

21:9 is a ratio, not a slope.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
September 3, 2014 4:10:51 PM

mortsmi7 said:
21:9 is a ratio, not a slope.

There probably are 20+ different ways to express a slope. A ratio of change along one axis vs change on another axis is one of those many ways - no different than feet per 100 feet or meters per 100 meters you might see on road signs instead of incline angle in degrees.

Ratios are just a fancy way to express a fraction (21:9 is the same as 21/9 or 7/3 or 2.333...) and fractions are just yet another way to express how quantity Y varies with X, which is just another way to express a slope.

It does not matter what you name it. Mathematically, they are the exact same thing.
m
1
l
September 3, 2014 8:02:30 PM

Got to pay to play. This will prob run around $800 give or take. Waiting to see what LG brings to the table with their 4K 31 inch display soon.
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 2:13:32 AM

iut will be far too overpriced. my last purchase for my PC monitor was a SONY Bravia 32" 1080P and was heaps cheaper then the Monitor offerings. and performs just as well. I bought it 4 years ago! Ill get a curved OLED from samsung or something when the price comes down
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 5:26:45 AM

Quote:
Someone want to check my math on this? I get H~13.375" and W~31.25"

For comparison, a 16:10 monitor that is 24" is about H=12.7" and W=20.3"


Correct, that's exactly what I got before I saw your comment. H=13.4" W=31.25"
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 7:38:47 AM

Curves are always good, right?
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 10:55:59 AM

Quote:
The bezels don't look extra thin.


I know, there are 50” TV with smaller bezels and they don’t really even need it as much. I really want an extra thin bezel but they just don't do it on PC monitors for some reason. People are way more likely to put two PC monitors side by side than TVs but TVs have smaller bezels but more weight and reinforcement issues than PC displays. I just don’t get why we don’t have much smaller bezels on our PC displays.

Curves displays are lame. It's cool that it can be done and all but adds nothing. The isometric perspective is already in the images now you’re just adding distortion. It such a gimmick.
m
0
l
September 8, 2014 1:35:56 PM

Quote:
The bezels don't look extra thin.


It's a marketing ploy, kindof like on CRT's where they'd advertise the size of the monitor as the entire case diagonal size rather than just the display area; you had to go into the spec sheet to see the display size of the screen.

In this case, their definition of "bezels" is the distance between the edge of the display glass and the casing. By extending the display glass to go close to the edge of the casing, they can say "we have ultra-thin bezels!" Of course, OUR definition of "bezel" is the distance between the edge of the display area and the edge of its casing, in which case little progress has been made over the years. Fact, you're better off buying a standard non-thin-bezel display and debezeling it yourself as these will have a minimal amount of glass.
m
1
l
a b C Monitor
September 8, 2014 1:51:31 PM

DefCello said:
Quote:
The bezels don't look extra thin.


It's a marketing ploy, kindof like on CRT's where they'd advertise the size of the monitor as the entire case diagonal size rather than just the display area; you had to go into the spec sheet to see the display size of the screen.

There is no marketing ploy there. LCDs have always been marketed based on the visible LCD diagonal. It has been the industry standard for LCDs since the very beginning. My 24" LG LCD is exactly 24" across the visible diagonal. My 21.5" Dell display is exactly 21.5" across its visible diagonal. Same goes for my 15.6" laptop and 7" Nexus 7.

CRTs on the other hand have always been marketed based on the tube's diagonal including the overscan area. The reason why the bezel on CRTs hides 0.5-1" of the tube's edge is because beam scanning near the edges becomes extremely non-linear due to electrostatic force from proximity to the tube wall. To avoid that problematic area, CRT manufacturers simply use a 19" tube to produce a 17" usable display. Same goes for 27" TVs using a 29" tube.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 4:47:42 PM

Dear Niels Broekhuijsen,

"Considering the aspect ratio of the monitor, let’s not blame Dell for not having the stand support rotating the monitor to a portrait orientation."

You go ahead and accept less than what the monitor and stand should be.

1). G-Sync, a must

2). No backlight bleeding, a must

3). Portrait mod, a must, (or arm friendly)

4). No black-less IPS nor TNT, please!
m
-1
l
a b C Monitor
October 8, 2014 3:58:08 AM

JCCIII said:

You go ahead and accept less than what the monitor and stand should be.

1). G-Sync, a must

2). No backlight bleeding, a must

3). Portrait mod, a must, (or arm friendly)

4). No black-less IPS nor TNT, please!

1) I would much prefer the open-standard FreeSync over proprietary license-laden G-Sync.
2 and 4) backlight bleed and "no true black" are intrinsic parts of how TFTs of any type work. No polarizing filter is ever going to be perfect, same goes for the liquid crystals, the filters, diffusers, light sources, light guides, etc. The only way to get true black is emissive displays and OLEDs are being awfully slow to get on the market at decent prices
3) I doubt many people will have a use for a 34" display in portrait mode on their desk... even 27" is getting kind of big for that
m
0
l
October 8, 2014 4:39:14 AM

I can't imagine a stand tall enough for a 21:9 34" to go vertical...
Everything else, Error already covered.
m
0
l
!