Samsung 34" QD-OLED

That is very very quickly changing. Just like it did when we moved from 4:3 to 16:9. No stopping it now either as other media like shows on Streaming Services and Cable TV start to use it.(The Mandalorian, StarTrek Discovery etc etc). The creep to it be coming the new common standard has already started and it's not going to stop.

What has happened before, will happen again :p
Last time, TV's started adopting 16:9 en masse, right? Well, TV's aren't adopting 21:9 the same way… or at all. Although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to see some.
 
That is very very quickly changing. Just like it did when we moved from 4:3 to 16:9. No stopping it now either as other media like shows on Streaming Services and Cable TV start to use it.(The Mandalorian, StarTrek Discovery etc etc). The creep to it be coming the new common standard has already started and it's not going to stop.

What has happened before, will happen again :p

We didn't move directly from 4:3 to 16:9, we moved to 16:10. Then TV panels all started coming in 16:9 and screwed the monitor standard up in the process.
 
16:9 doesn't need "reintroduction", it's the standard. 21:9 is more of a curiosity than a new standard, it doesn't even fit on most desks with decent vertical height.
Sorry, it was humor as we went backwards from 16:10 to 16:9 in computerland (a very frustrating time for a lot of us)
 
Last time, TV's started adopting 16:9 en masse, right? Well, TV's aren't adopting 21:9 the same way… or at all. Although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to see some.

It is a cinematic format, but yeah it's basically just the norm to view on 16:9 with a letterbox.
 
But it's not the same thing. The creep into 16:9 happened because 4:3 didn't take into account the fact that humans have two eyes.

21:9 is additional luxury for a niche, wanting extra field of view. Like those eyefinity multi-monitor setups.

If you don't have desk space for the super wide setups, 16:9 will be much more immersive with the vertical coverage you get with it.
That's not really why we shifted to wider formats at all. Just google the history of wider formats(goes all the way back to film). I can't think of a good link or YT off the top of my head. But it's an interesting history. Immersion is at least part of the reason wider formats got popular to start with.

Last time, TV's started adopting 16:9 en masse, right? Well, TV's aren't adopting 21:9 the same way… or at all. Although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love to see some.
Sorta. You can see John Carmack rocking a widescreen CRT coding Quake. And there where multiple TV attempts before it actually took off (philips has been trying to do 21:9 TV's btw). It's not all the same of course :)

We didn't move directly from 4:3 to 16:9, we moved to 16:10. Then TV panels all started coming in 16:9 and screwed the monitor standard up in the process.
Yeah... 16:10 didn't exist because it was a better format? If I remember my history right it let LCD manufactures adapt thier 1600x1200 LCD manufacturing to widescreen? Then falling to becoming niche once that didn't really matter anymore because panels in 16:9 allowed them to use the same panels for small TV's and monitors. But this was a long time ago, I might be remembering it wrong, because there was also the Sony FW900 CRT monitor and it was 16:10. Also too lazy to do the math to see if adding 720 pixels to a 20" 1600x1200 LCD would give you the popular 24" 16:10 monitors I think we all remember flooding the LCD monitor market.
 
Last edited:
16:10 was my favorite aspect ratio. I miss my 1920x1200 monitor
I'm glad the form factor is coming back on laptops. But do wish there was more on the desktop space. But, with the current trend of curved super wide screen displays.... the vertical needs are getting lost.
 
Yeah... 16:10 didn't exist because it was a better format? If I remember my history right it let LCD manufactures adapt thier 1600x1200 LCD manufacturing to widescreen? Then falling to becoming niche once that didn't really matter anymore because panels in 16:9 allowed them to use the same panels for small TV's and monitors. But this was a long time ago, I might be remembering it wrong, because there was also the Sony FW900 CRT monitor and it was 16:10. Also too lazy to do the math to see if adding 720 pixels to a 20" 1600x1200 LCD would give you the popular 24" 16:10 monitors I think we all remember flooding the LCD monitor market.

The Sony GDM-FW900 was 16x10, it wasn't just LCDs used it. LCD versions come in various resolutions from 1280x800 all the way to 3840x2400. The most popular versions in its heyday were 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 though and you can still buy them today with the professional variant monitors.
 
The Sony GDM-FW900 was 16x10, it wasn't just LCDs used it. LCD versions come in various resolutions from 1280x800 all the way to 3840x2400. The most popular versions in its heyday were 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 though and you can still buy them today with the professional variant monitors.
I have a Dell U2410, and even today, I find people wishing they had my monitor. Not looking forward to when it dies, but so far, it's death doesn't seem to be near. Gobs of inputs, true P-n-P. Nothing really like it on the market today. Extremely bright. IPS. etc.. When I see the "awesome" displays that others have, it's like, "Hmm, I guess that's ok." I think I paid USD $200 for mine.
 
I have a Dell U2410, and even today, I find people wishing they had my monitor. Not looking forward to when it dies, but so far, it's death doesn't seem to be near. Gobs of inputs, true P-n-P. Nothing really like it on the market today. Extremely bright. IPS. etc.. When I see the "awesome" displays that others have, it's like, "Hmm, I guess that's ok." I think I paid USD $200 for mine.

I had my Dell U2711 for about 9 years. It was so good that I never looked for an upgrade. Upgraded to a 32" LG only because I physically damaged the panel of the Dell and despite 4k on the LG, the overall experience has been worse (too much glow, worse colour accuracy, etc).

The Dell was the best monitor ever.
 
I have a Dell U2410, and even today, I find people wishing they had my monitor. Not looking forward to when it dies, but so far, it's death doesn't seem to be near. Gobs of inputs, true P-n-P. Nothing really like it on the market today. Extremely bright. IPS. etc.. When I see the "awesome" displays that others have, it's like, "Hmm, I guess that's ok." I think I paid USD $200 for mine.

I still have my U2410 too. It was my daily driver for about 11 years.... riiiiiight up until the time I made the mistake of trying a high refresh panel firsthand at the local brick and mortar. That was a mistake. The U2410 is still in action tho in portait mode flanking my 34" ultrawide.
 
I think 16:9 vs 16:10 becomes increasingly less relevant as the resolution goes up. 3440x1440 is fine really, especially if you stop insisting on showing the taskbar on screen and claim that space for your apps. Running an OLED I have figured that there is very little need for the taskbar after you have your stuff running and my most common way to launch stuff is to just hit Win and start typing the app name.
 


He says it's pretty amazing, looks like I will have to try one when they release.
 
there is pay to play and there is stupid and some of the monitors are starting to get stupid on the price/performance ratio.
Just TV wise, I bought my 55" OLED some 6 years ago for USD $1300. Aren't you glad the price has come down after all those years?
 
This could potentially be a hard resist. I, like many others, have been waiting for the 42" LG but its still an imperfect solution for a multifunctional, general purpose PC display (i.e. work AND play). I'm nervous about the durability of the C2 when used for work... i have open documents, terminals, IDE's, documents on my desktop, icons on my desktop etc. And its used for 8+ hours a day in this fashion. And then possibly another 4 hours or so later for leisure. Burn in, even with ABL, is a concern. As a general media display there is less concern, altho ABL can still be annoying there. The QD-OLED panel seems to be a step forward here, with the only down sides being the size (I cant believe I am complaining about 3440x1400 lol) and, the big one, price. If Dell prices this in the stratosphere then they would probably be doing me a favor. If its like twice the price of the LG then the decision is probably made. But if its like $500 to $750 more, then it will be a tougher call.
 
I don't trust any of the lg oled panels. The samsung qd enhancement is great & supposed to help with burn in but there is no evidence or proof that it actually did finally fix burn in. Would be interested to see Rtings do a burn in test on these new edition oleds. Also what is the brightness numbers? I read that only the 55 and bigger get a significant brightness buff for the lg panels the smaller ones not so much?
 
I don't trust any of the lg oled panels. The samsung qd enhancement is great & supposed to help with burn in but there is no evidence or proof that it actually did finally fix burn in. Would be interested to see Rtings do a burn in test on these new edition oleds. Also what is the brightness numbers? I read that only the 55 and bigger get a significant brightness buff for the lg panels the smaller ones not so much?

I think Alienware providing a 3-year "burn in" warranty is pretty solid proof. No sane manufacturer is going to risk tons of returns on a $3K+ monitor without putting serious durability testing behind it.
 
I think Alienware providing a 3-year "burn in" warranty is pretty solid proof. No sane manufacturer is going to risk tons of returns on a $3K+ monitor without putting serious durability testing behind it.
What do they consider burn in though? Is there any fine print that describes how severe it needs to be before replacement? I guarantee you that every person who runs a taskbar on these 24/7 is going to have some form of burn in within 3 years.
 
What do they consider burn in though? Is there any fine print that describes how severe it needs to be before replacement? I guarantee you that every person who runs a taskbar on these 24/7 is going to have some form of burn in within 3 years.
A big reason for burn-in is LG has to drive their OLEDs super hard because the color filters lose like 2/3 of the light. QD-OLED loses very little, it doesn't have color filters, uses a top emission layout, and uses blue leds only modified by the QDs. They are keeping the max brightness at 450 nits on 10% window. So I think it's entirely possible these could take longer to burnin than 3 years. I would guess they will have a # of hours of operation limit, though, like, maybe 3 years assuming 4-8 hours per day or something like that. Probably won't be proof against 24/7 abuse.
 
Back
Top