Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I oersonally dont like glossy bessels as they mirror liight and thus are morw distracting.
as for the specs.. they are fine but 32 inch is to small for 4k.
also : i cannot see a price yet as it is listed here as "announced" meaning no dellivery date or price is known yet.
aka it aint on the market yet.
I like huge screens as well and 32 is also too small for me but I will never go back to matt screens.
Imagine Apple phones, macbooks or iMAC with a matt screen.
We use glossy phone screens outdoor and rarely anybody complains about reflections and wish to have matt screen instead. And they look so much better.
You are right about the price - we don't know how expensive it will be. Looking at the specs I wouldn't be surprised if it will cost $1999. At this price I would prefer a much bigger LG OLED TV. 120Hz is plenty fast for me.
one does not game on a tv!
LG UltraGear 48GQ900
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG48UQ
one of those for 1800 euro works fine.
alienware used to sell a massive 55 inch 4k monitor. (5500 euro)
Alienware AW5520QF
No idea why that was discontinued.
it was a bit more power efficient tham those 2 newer ones.
At least one of the guys at Digital Foundry is using LG OLED TV and considers it as the best monitor.
Gloss coating on TVs gives better blacks and contrast. Only recently we started getting gloss oled monitors. TVs also cost a bit less due to mass production and come in more sizes. Sure, 55-77 may be too big on most desks but if it’s a secondary screen on a wall for movies and gamepad gaming then bigger is better.
Not my setups but shows that we all have different idea of a perfect monitor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/s/iW178Q1CzZ
I do prefer the look of the glossy, but reflections are an issue.
In regards to the original question; 21:9 / 21:10 @ 3440x1440 resolution still looks great and the ultrawide fov is one of those things that is hard to switch back from after using it for a bit. I would personally much rather go with a 3440x1440p100/120/144 21:9 ultrawide over a 3840x2160p120/144/165 16:9 display.
Many modern games natively support 21:9. Some still don't do super ultrawide 32:9 well / natively and to me those are great for productivity use but lose most benefit for a gaming application as 21:9 is already extending the fov to your periphery. For older games they will also work perfectly fine as 16:9 with pillarboxing; and with an OLED panel this works great as those pillarbox edges are completely black / off.
The Wide Screen Gaming Forum[www.wsgf.org] is a great community with loads of knowledge and resources for getting things working well on ultrawide displays.
They have a Games DB Master List[www.wsgf.org] that provides a great amount of details in to how well nearly any game supports ultrawide/super ultrawide displays and what options if any for mitigating issues in games that doesn't natively support them.
Going for the Ultrawide is probably a safer decision because I can just opt for the 39 inch OLED Ultrawide model, which is essentially just a wider version of a 32 inch 1440p.
If I get pillarboxing with the 39 inch, I don't think it would bother me because it would just be like using a 16:9 32 inch display.
as a strategy gamer : higher resolution gives more of the map in battlefield oversight which is a tactical edge.
but if the screen is to small ala to high pixels per square cm surface.. it will be more difficult to notify things.
so the perfect monitor fills your entire field of vieuw while keeping "zoom" such that things remain larhe enough that no time is lost in identification
wide screens are terrible for that.
as stated old 4:3 screens were MUCH better.
I never got it why that standard was dropped it was do much better matched to the human field of vieuw.
a 49 inch 4000x3000 screen would be perfect.
1800 pixels per cm2 is the perfect density and 48 imch can still be placed withun 60cm of yoir face to fully fill your field of vieuw.
how I see ultradewide is
wide.. placed to close.. the edges outsude field of view..
bend wide even worse as it bends behind your vuewing angle..
so you must plave it further away.. at that point you are just nerfimg yoursrlf..
you basicly cut the top third slice off the screen you could have had.
at that point just get a bigger non wide screen.
QLED lives 15 years
OLED lives 5 years, then you can trash it
my 800 euro screen habing 15 dead pixels since day 1.. and that being legal sonehow annoyed me like crazy.
-a new screen schould have 0 deas pixels.
but it is as it is.
now imagine a screen dying in just 5 years.. most may replace their pc every 3 or 4 years
but few will replace their monitor more often than once per 8-10 years..
one that lasts only 5 years.. would be a downside..