![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Compared to what, a 75" TV?
the nearer you sit than the center point of any curved screen, the more off-axis the pixels farther from center of the screen will be from you since they are pointed at the center point which is then farther behind you. This will cause uniformity issues almost like a gradient to the far ends and corners as the pixels farther away are more and more off-axis from you. It also causes/exacerbates geometry~distortion issues, even on the 2d desktop/apps.
............................................................
Screen dimensions vs center point of curvature:
. . .
. . . . . . . .
https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
For reference:
At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD..
At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD
..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD
..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD
Compared to what, a 75" TV?
i use the 48 i did purchase the one of these i couldnt get over the feel ,,,,meh im retarded
Compared to what, a 75" TV?
i use the 48 i did purchase the one of these i couldnt get over the feel ,,,,meh im retarded
You'd think after 2500 messages on this forum you'd know that attributing false quotes to someone is really bad form and pretty toxic, rules or not. However it's probably also against the rules of the forum.
https://hardforum.com/threads/the-h-ard-forum-rules.760666/
(12) Do not IMPERSONATE other individuals or falsely represent yourself.
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, NO TROLLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm
p3sty
2[H]4U
Joined Feb 22, 2006 Messages 2,529
Yesterday at 7:04 PM
. . . . . .
You'd think after 2500 messages on this forum you'd know that attributing false quotes to someone is really bad form and pretty toxic, rules or not. However it's probably also against the rules of the forum.
https://hardforum.com/threads/the-h-ard-forum-rules.760666/
Even though I can certainly feel that way some days when my brain is in sleep mode I am guessing that in this case it was rather the result of an unfortunate keyboard malfunction on p3stys end
That's what I've said myself multiple times but never really learned to live as i preach which might explain the still unopened light brown box near my desk labeled Samsung
That's what I've said myself multiple times but never really learned to live as i preach which might explain the still unopened light brown box near my desk labeled Samsung
I on the other hand went back to smaller 28" LCDs because the 48" was just overwhelmingly large so I used the bottom 2/3 of it in desktop use. Like the CX better as my living room TV.
), I had no problems handling it or it's box by myself.Wouldn't called it washed out but after having been spoiled by good IPS:es and OLED:s you do see the weaknesses of VA (and vice versa). Does require a bit of tinkering of settings etc. but as with all local dimming monitors, you can see that the FALD is always working in a way that you won't an an OLED for obvious reasons, making the image always look a bit "processed". Should add that I am in no way a color purist or tend to calibrate my monitors/TV (real calibration that is).
.
.
.
.
.
While I can understand the lure of Super UW for gaming, I would much rather had a 16:9 with higher resolution for work, like the real 8K TV that I am still considering getting (the QN900C this time). I recall that I have read that our eyes actually work better moving vertically than horizontally, that a stacked display would be preferable. At least that is in line with what I am feeling myself, ie that in order to use monitors on the sides of my main work area, I have to move my head, while when having a stacked setup, I much more just move my eyes. But of course that is based on a sample rate of one user so can't really tell if it is a universal truth.. . . .
Seems pretty neck-bending to the edges when sitting near enough for some decent perceived height centrally. When I used triple screens I did have to turn my head some degrees but they were decupled from me desk entirely and were tall enough that I could sit back a lot farther than that, so it was less degrees of head turning than what this guy is doing. Helped that I could rotate my chair a little along with the longer view distance (and even able to rotate my whole island desk on caster wheels a few degrees if I really wanted to focus on a single screen for awhile).
As much as I was interested in these 57" super ultrawides - after watching, screen-shotting and going over that last video I referenced I really don't think it's tall enough for me even as a wide screen format considering it's overall dimensions. Primarily that sank it for me, but also that the 240hz isn't as meaningful if not getting those frame rates.
At first I thought sitting close enough would make the screen appear large enough but once I saw enough of the overall dimensions in use I realized the dimensions wouldn't work for me for sitting that close.
Technically you could but as you hinted at - not without a huge compromise really in my opinion unless you were mounting it below another screen as extra desk space or something. As a main screen, if you did sit back farther the screen's height to your perspective would shrink down to a belt.
That's one of the main problems with the design/form factor of most current ultrawide screen's designs. Their curvature vs dimensions vs resolution. If you sat anywhere near the center point of the circle the screen is an arc of - the screen would be very short. It's already somewhat short imo at what I'd consider the best-usage case viewing angle most would compromise on like where that video reviewer sits, which is much nearer than the 1000R, 1000mm radius, ~ 40 inch center of the curvature. . The screenshots and that video showed me the dimensions/form factor of this screen better than anywhere I've seen in other reviews. I wouldn't sit any farther than that or the height would be even worse. Imo best viewing angle would be where you'd be sitting pretty close to where you would on a regular 32" 16:9 screen centrally at a desk.
It's already a bit short imo anywhere near the central 32 inch or so "4k+" viewing distance. To me the design is short by at least that dotted line row. The screen could have been designed taller along with more aggressive curvature so that the center portion of the screen could be sat back bulging the screen curve farther away from your head like the ends of the screen are without it being short. As the design is, if you sat back farther, in this screenshot below you'd drop down yet another row in height to your perspective than the top bezel of the screen - essentially shrinking the screen smaller to your perspective than where the actual screen is in that picture.
. . . . . . . .
In my opinion an optimal design would be a screen tall enough and wide enough where you could sit at the center point of the circle the curved screen is an arc of. Then all of the pixels would be on axis, pointed directly at you. As it is now, when you sit at the distance compromise of most curved screens, especially ultrawides and super-ultraiwdes, the pixels farther and farther from the center of the screen are more and more off-axis from you as they are aimed at a point farther behind you.
. . . . . . . . . .
So I'll probably stick with the 48cx setup like Jara said for now instead of squeezing myself into a different compromise. There is always some compromise, and always something more advanced in the years ahead, etc. - but I'm coming to the conclusion that it might be well over a year from now before more meaningful leaps in screen and gpu upgrades are released, especially since 8k was on pause. Maybe I'll upgrade my main rig in the meantime instead.
It's always fun following new tech like the 57" super ultrawide and finding out what it can do from people and reviews though. It definitely has some high end specs . . 4k doublewide at 240hz with FALD HDR brightness/sustained . . but I've come to the conclusion that even with the larger size of the screen, the height vs the overall format ~ dimensions vs. curvature isn't good enough for me personally.
Was a while ago since I tried the CRG9 but viewing angles seem to have improved quite a bit from the Neo G9 (never tried the Neo G7 / G8). Being spoiled by OLED, I am usually quite sensitive to color shifts, especially of uniform backgrounds, but I can't really say that I have noticed it even after a full day of hectic work with multiple windows. Have not really had time to play around with settings but I think I am currently running Graphics mode with Local Dimming set to Standard and brightness to max (I am a brightness junkie).
Yeah I was not bothered by the AG coating at all. The one on my G70A might be slightly better, but overall no big deal. Seems they have learned from the complaints about the Neo G8.
Even for Samsung, the failure rate of these monitors seems crazy high. Considering the price of it, I can't imagine millions of people have bought it,yet the number of "my monitor has died" posts are already way too high.
At least my G95NC had horrible out of the box settings, probably for EU energy reasons. Like brightness 3 with 50 being maximum. But perhaps you changed that unless someone else already had.
Agreed. I don't know how it was the original G9 or the Neo G9, but there's definitely way more reports of "loved it for a week, then it died or developed some issue". Makes me wonder if there's a batch of faulty power boards or connectors coming loose in transport and breaking when the monitor heats up enough. You would think that by this point Samsung and TCL/CSOT would have the technology pretty much down considering how similar it is to the previous models.
Yeah I noticed that too, turned off Eco mode and increased brightness. Just wish I had been able to e.g load a YT HDR video or something.
For me the 240 Hz is all about running games at less than full resolution. I know my 4090 can do above 120 fps at 4K 16:9 in many less demanding games, or even at 5120x2160.
It should support 3840x2160 @ 240 Hz out of the box according to the manual.
