4 ms·

Consider the samsung 57" ultrawide. ‎7680x2160 resolution. Lots of usable space, but a better form factor for productivity than a TV. https://www.amazon.com/SA

by jjcm 2y ago

Consider the samsung 57" ultrawide. ‎7680x2160 resolution. Lots of usable space, but a better form factor for productivity than a TV. https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-DisplayPort-Mini-LED-DisplayHDR-LS57CG952NNXZA/dp/B0CDQM55C9 https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-DisplayPort-Mini-LED-DisplayH...

throwaway48476 2y ago
The ultra wide trend has been terrible. Most content creation tasks are vertical space limited. An ultra wide is just having two monitors without a bezel. It's a significant cost increase for little benefit. Ideally there would be a 10k that's 4x 1440p but 8K is an acceptable compromise.
- barrell 2y ago
  The ultrawide trend has been amazing. All of my apps open vertically the same amount as intended, so there are no issues. I can open several next to eachother - full documents, browser, server logs. It’s an entirely different experience than having two monitors without a bezel. For marginally more cost, you get massive benefits. To each their own I guess :)
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    >vertically the same amount as intended, The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers. The ideal ratio for computing is squarer which is why apple uses 16:10 and Microsoft/framework 3:2. Ultrawide is the Stockholm syndrome of aspect ratios.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers The 4:3 aspect ratio was pretty good for computers displaying a single document or the equivalent; two of those side by side is much better than one when you want side-by-side documents (say, two code windows, or code and related documentstion.) But a single curved monitor is better than one big flat one. In one monitor, that's 8:3, or 24:9. 21:9 isn't perfect for that, but it’s pretty good. 32:9 is equivalentto three side-by-side, which has its uses, too...
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Documents are 1:sqrt(2) so side by side would be 2:sqrt(2). For code I find closer to 9:16 to be optimal. Two side by side would be 18:16, also squareish. You can slice 16:9 into multiple appropriate ratio windows and the limitation becomes pixel density. The ultrawide wastes the extra pixels where you don't see them. Assuming you need at least retina pixel density you won't find it in any reasonably priced ultrawide. It's also just not feasible with current copper cables.
vehemenz 2y ago
Ultrawides are intriguing, but I'm not sure it's more flexible than a multi-display setup. Not to mention we've had 2160 pixel height displays for well over 10 years now.

by jjcm 2y ago

throwaway48476 2y ago

The ultra wide trend has been terrible. Most content creation tasks are vertical space limited. An ultra wide is just having two monitors without a bezel. It's a significant cost increase for little benefit. Ideally there would be a 10k that's 4x 1440p but 8K is an acceptable compromise.

barrell 2y ago
The ultrawide trend has been amazing. All of my apps open vertically the same amount as intended, so there are no issues. I can open several next to eachother - full documents, browser, server logs. It’s an entirely different experience than having two monitors without a bezel. For marginally more cost, you get massive benefits. To each their own I guess :)
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  >vertically the same amount as intended, The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers. The ideal ratio for computing is squarer which is why apple uses 16:10 and Microsoft/framework 3:2. Ultrawide is the Stockholm syndrome of aspect ratios.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The 16:9 aspect ratio was designed for cinema, not computers The 4:3 aspect ratio was pretty good for computers displaying a single document or the equivalent; two of those side by side is much better than one when you want side-by-side documents (say, two code windows, or code and related documentstion.) But a single curved monitor is better than one big flat one. In one monitor, that's 8:3, or 24:9. 21:9 isn't perfect for that, but it’s pretty good. 32:9 is equivalentto three side-by-side, which has its uses, too...
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Documents are 1:sqrt(2) so side by side would be 2:sqrt(2). For code I find closer to 9:16 to be optimal. Two side by side would be 18:16, also squareish. You can slice 16:9 into multiple appropriate ratio windows and the limitation becomes pixel density. The ultrawide wastes the extra pixels where you don't see them. Assuming you need at least retina pixel density you won't find it in any reasonably priced ultrawide. It's also just not feasible with current copper cables.

vehemenz 2y ago

Ultrawides are intriguing, but I'm not sure it's more flexible than a multi-display setup. Not to mention we've had 2160 pixel height displays for well over 10 years now.