Search results

I'm planning to buy it as soon as it's available in Europe. I think a good curve is a must for comfortable viewing at desk distance, and I can't stand 32:9 aspect ratio, so there's barely any competition. Sure, the resolution is bad, but a 240 Hz OLED should at least look very good in motion...

Holy frak. Even if it's slightly worse then the AW3423, I'll take it. If I can afford it, that is. This isn't going to be cheap. Also, 1440p at this size is crappy, but at least I won't need scaling.

Ironic considering your user name. ;) I have been using one of the 27" monitors at work in portrait mode an am comfortable with it. Distance is also an important factor, I am planning on about 0.8 m from my eyes. Still, putting it as far down as it goes and angling it up will probably be a must...

Also, scaling (games) becomes less noticeable as the effective pixel density gets higher. My main issue with this monitor is actually that it's not curved enough.

Assuming reasonable quality and price, I'll buy it for sure unless a comparable OLED is announced in the mean time. The curve is a must-have for me, and 34" is getting too small.

*facepalm* How is this not obvious...

I'm 99% sure there aren't any. OP seems to be confused.

To reduce sample-and-hold motion blur, which has nothing to do with variable vs fixed refresh rate. Read more on blurbusters.com if you are interested.

What's wrong with the 32" QHD? Going by my experiences, 34" FHD is fine, but seems like a downgrade. It's also slightly smaller (area).

I really don't like the aspect ratio, I would greatly prefer "regular" ~2.38:1. Still, this sweetie would have to be seriously flawed for me to not buy it. The combination of size and curvature seems awesome, way ahead of the competition.

You may also want to consider 27" 1440p with 125% scaling. That should be equivalent to 87 DPI without scaling, but with sharper, non-pixelated text.

Personally I find 125% scaling to be comfortable with 3440x1440. If fitting more on the screen is the only reason for upgrading, I would suggest to find a way to see such a display for yourself.

I would suggest to use scaling. That's what I do. I have some issues with a few applications in Linux that don't scale right, but the crispness more than weighs up for that.

I don't get it. Why not go for 29" or 30" at a greater distance? And why would you want so little vertical display area?

Interesting perspectives, so different from my own. 2.5K at 27" is all the pixel density I want, and would be happy with less. Way too small, though. And 32" is also unacceptably small.

Umm... 24" 1080p is exactly the same pixel density as 32" 1440p. Also the same as 48" 4k. As far as I'm concerned, 4k without scaling is totally impractical, regardless of display size.

2560x1080 is really not that bad at a good distance. The bigger problem for gaming is that the VA panels from AUO are slow. I believe Samsung only makes 34" panels.

Meh. Can't go back to a flat display. It makes sense at typical TV distance, but that would be rather underwhelming.

I haven't played Dead Space, but the rest of the games you mention work well in my experience. There are simple instructions on wsgf.org. Sometimes you need to use a tool like Flawless Widescreen. On the plus side for ultra-wide, most games give a wider in-game field of view by default. While...

I remember people experimenting with films on Rift dev kits. Not sure what they used, but some were very pleased with the results. The downside was that it made things look even fuzzier. With some tweaks, perhaps a film made specifically for the display, I'm sure a good trade-off can be found.

Pixels per area on it's own has very little to do with how apparent SDE is. It's the size of the gaps between physical (sub)pixels that's important. And that's harder to improve AFAIK.

These are different, the light per area of what you are looking at changes. Not so for looking directly at something and varying the distance to it. Then the light that reaches your eyes is proportional to how much of your visual area the object covers. Well, I wouldn't call them equal. Your...

Very wrong. As you double the distance, only a quarter of the light reaches your eyes. But the display will also fill just a quarter of the field of view. The perceived brightness remains the same. So you need less total light output on a monitor, but the same cd/m2 (nits), which is a measure of...

What the hell are you talking about? Are you near-sighted?

Is that supposed to be self evident from the picture? That's a great size, but bad aspect ratio.

2000 euro for a mere 35"? Would have to be OLED or have G-sync simultaneous with ULMB to be worth it.

I assumed that's common knowledge for prospective ULMB users around here.

Even if the fps counter is accurate, it probably doesn't tell the whole story. You may want to export the frame times with Fraps and see if they are consistently less than the refresh interval. But if you notice doubles even with ULMB off, it would seem you have a different, stranger issue. PWM?

I generally don't notice any input lag with V-sync. But I was wondering, have you measured how RTSS compares to setting maximum pre-rendered frames to 1?

Always an integer divisor, so 72, 48, etc.

I suspect that recommendation is aimed at large apparent text size, making it easy to read, on typical monitors without scaling. http://office-ergo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Monitor-Viewing-Distance.-Ankrum-D.R..pdf This paper suggests that farther is better, and that ideal distance is in...

I guess you're exaggerating, but you shouldn't view a desktop monitor 18 inches from your eyes either, unless you're very near-sighted. What it really comes down to is that different people have different preferences. I would take 2560x1440 100Hz ULMB over 3840x2160 60Hz at the same size...

With a clear sky, near noon, pretty much anywhere you look that's not in shadow will be on the order of 10 times brighter than a monitor. The blue sky even more so. Even the moon (at night) is really bright compared to regular monitor, although the reported values are somewhat conflicting...

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? LED and OLED are both emissive. OLED is a kind of LED. For "LED TVs", LEDs are the backlight. If you mean that LED LCDs are very different from OLED displays, then you are right. But the way you've phrased it, it just came out as non-sense.

To me it was an instant improvement in immersion and I wouldn't even think about going smaller. But I also don't play competitively. And I don't try to constantly scan the screen, the point is not to take it all in at once. I agree it's not that great, though. I would play all first-person...

The difference is subtle judging by these pictures, ignoring the strobed modes. It's weird for the Samsung to have backlight strobing tied to "response time" setting, though.

Pretty good for a VA panel. The lack of ULMB is what kills it for me. What I would really want is G-sync and ULMB at the same time. http://www.blurbusters.com/combining-blur-reduction-strobing-with-variable-refresh-rate/

For me, the important part isn't to play at over 100 fps (although that can look fantastic with ULMB), it's to get a smooth look and feel at medium frame rates. But in flight sims, I guess you won't notice. And G-sync requires a compatible monitor, of course. Um, what? It's 3440x1440.

If you currently use 144 Hz, I don't see how you'll be able to go back to 60 Hz for your main gaming monitor. Just saying. G-sync could mitigate the issues with lower refresh rate, but there's not much to choose from. I might suggest the AOC AG352UCG. It seems a bit overpriced compared to big...

That's normal. It's an artifact of the flat projection used. Reducing the game's FOV will help. It's entirely possible to mitigate at minimal performance cost, but I don't know any games where they have actually done that. Multi-monitor gaming is a small niche, after all.