4 ms·
Does anyone know why manufactures don't make 34,36 inch 4k monitors? There are plenty of 32 inch 4k monitors but next 4k resolution is 42-43 inch. Nothing in-be
by gnufied 5y ago
Does anyone know why manufactures don't make 34,36 inch 4k monitors? There are plenty of 32 inch 4k monitors but next 4k resolution is 42-43 inch. Nothing in-between. The whole segment of 32-40 inch monitor is dominated by ultra wide monitors.
- pottertheotter 5y agoI've wondered the same thing, and assumed it had to do with the GPU you would need to run them. I just looked and there appear to be at least a couple models: https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=512002160 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=512002160
- zokier 5y ago120-130 PPI sounds like really awkward zone. Either you have really good eyesight and run it at 1x scale, or deal with scaling issues by running it at 1.25x without actually being as sharp as proper hidpi. In comparison, 31.5" works well with 1.5x, and 43" at 1x.
- gnufied 5y agoHeh I am running currently at 32 inch;4k at 1x. I do find it tad small and I was thinking a 36 inch will be almost perfect.
- NathanOsullivan 5y agoUltrawide are actually still quite standardized. The most common size is 34" . They are the same height as a 16:9 27" and the same amount of vertical pixels - one of 1080,1440, 2160. It is derived from the same panel as what goes into a 27", just longer. The next common size is 38" @ 3840x1600 . I haven't done the math, but these are presumably derived from 16:9 42" 3840x2160 panels, with the bottom 560 pixels cut off. I'm not aware of any '32" 16:9 but longer' ultrawide yet, but they will likely happen at some point. I think you are right that there's nothing readily available between 32" and 42", but ultrawide do not contradict that UW panels are a niche product line so they use existing panel PPI arrangements.