安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
- 4k monitors can contain this resolution, but this can't display 4k
-16:9 is already wide enough, our (my) FOV is somewhere closer to 4:3 or 16:10
I've seen gaming videos with this thing and just felt too narrow after a while.
- Scaling issues, non standard problems for legacy/future content
- 4k is around the corner, 1080p scales perfectly to it and consoles as well
I'd rather get a 120hz HD, QHD or 4K display, but again, it's nice. Especially for 2.35:1 movies, but games? Not sure of the benefits from this.
I don't think it will wear of if people notice a difference and it matter in how you perform if you're competitive to begin with.
You can of course make a screen which is GPU synced at any resolution.
It's not necessarily narrower but rather wider. 21:9 on a 28" screen looks rather small though. 34" 21:9 would still be 27" in 16:9 so not too bad. Would be able to do FDH on that area too.
Thing with your eyes is that they only focus on a very small spot (and I guess you could have the screen further away to take in it all but then I guess you'd lose immersion in not having your whole field of view covered by the monitor (upwards and downwards.)
Preferably you shouldn't rescale things, not much purpose in that. Use it for multitasking, videos and games which support a wider FOV or scenery. As said a regular title would still play in 27" FHD on it. Sure such a screen is just half the price so it's a little unnecessary then but ..
Funny thing with 1080p is that so many console games especially for Xbox One render in 1280x720 or 1600x900 which doesn't scale well to 1920x1080 but .. :D
Obvious benefit for games is to take in more of what's around you. Even if your viewing area may be closer to 4:3 I guess in real life you watch around left to right or turn around much more often than you look down and especially up. (Later may depend on your species but I assume all readers here are humans.)
Some people who have used it like it.
I wouldn't mind using it.
And obviously some like having a wider view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm7R3ziHiJA
Personally I doubt I see the world in square vision too. If I stare forward and use my hands to set it up it seem pretty wide too me. I'd dare to say even wider than 21:9. Over 30:9 too? More like 4:1? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_5VxexAMpc
More environment = more better. I realize that if the eyes aspect ratio is much more square then one would lose screen size on the vertical axis but I don't think that's the case.
.... also really very many movies are very wide and I guess one would have to ask "why" if people didn't preferred seeing it that way / it told more of a story that way. Better for scenery than faces I guess.
As you've mentioned Display Port 1.2a and 1.3 has support for VESA Adaptive-Sync , but AFAIK 1.2a and 1.3 does not directly support AMD's project freesync. It's the other way around. AMD uses the VESA Adaptive-Sync standard to power thier "freesync protocol". In other words VESA Adaptive-Sync is the new standard that all manufacturers should follow. Don't quote me on this though. It's just my understanding of how things work, I don't have any references right now.
I agree with what you said about "ultrawide 21:9 is the future...not 4k, not gsync, not 144hz", but my question to you is did you test AMD freesync? I want to buy a 21:9 screen and I'm wondering if it's worth it to wait for a DP 1.2a/1.3 screen. Even if freesync is bad I'm still wondering if the problem is with freesync, VESA standard, the implementation on the specific gpu or screen I'm using or even the software drivers / game that I'm playing... there's so many places where things can go wrong and I suppose one can expect it with this new tech. Yes the hype around this does give people the wrong impression of things thanks again for a honest review.
With that said, I don't understand why Ultrawide being the future means 144Hz or G-Sync isn't.
Well 16:10 is almost the same as 16:9... We still have one 16:10 monitor at out home and it's fine, could not even tell that it's 16:10 if i didn't know that.
Yes, the aspect ration and refresh rate are two completely different things. It's totally up to you which combination you use...
My primary desktop screen is a 24 inch 16:10 (1920 x 1200) screen. I've had it for ~5 years and although I enjoy it the reason for replacing it with a 21:9 is not only for the increased emersion from the bigger FOV in FPS and racing games, but also from a non-gaming aspect. The cinema aspect ratio is 21:9 and it just looks so much better playing movies on my dekstop using the same ratio as the cinema. I can understand that playing strategy games in 21:9 can be problematic if the game does not support it properly, luckily most 21:9 screen that I've checked out has an option to split the screens in two giving you a good strategy gaming aspect ration and awesome multitasking ability
I can't really comment on the refresh rate as my screen does not support g-sync/adaptive-sync nor refresh rates above 75Hz. Based on what I have read I would like to get a screen that supports adaptive-sync since it's a vesa standard.