Which do you prefer for gaming? For movies?
Pros and cons for either?
I'm leaning more towards the 29" because it's the same height as my 22" and would look better side by side, but that's really the only reason.
So what do you prefer?
>>51770052
honestly, I prefer my 21:9 screen in general, both for watching movies, working and gaming. However, some games don’t scale correctly their menus, and this is just shit playing them with shitty scaled menus. Also, videos on the internet are generally 16:9, and it’s a bit disturbing having two black bands on the sides of your screen, that’s why I use my 16:9 screen for them (yes, I have both).
>>51770104
I noticed that one of the 21:9 monitors had split screen where you could play games in 16:9 and have a bit off to the side, which seemed a bit gimmicky but might be useful for games that don't scale to 21:9
>>51770052
I prefer 4:3 tbqh las. It is much better for text.
>>51770150
yeah, that can be done too and that’s a good thing for people who don’t have 16:9 screens, but same as internet videos, I find the black bands disturbing.
>>51770167
Do they still make those?
24" 16:9 for games Is perfect
Some exceptions like dayz apply though
>>51770052
I'd want 21:9 so fucking much
>all that space
>all that multitasking capabilities
>>51771056
This one is quite good and isn’t that expansive in my opinion
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-25UM57-25-Inch-LED-lit/dp/B00V8FAWC2
>>51771089
How is this shit a monitor if it only has HDMI inputs
Also I feel like 21:9 should be slightly curved
>>51771187
Well that’s what you get for a cheap monitor, but of course there can be better if we are ready to pay more.
>>51771187
Get a curved one, I have a normal 21:9 and its great but it would be so much better with a curve.
>>51770052
>shit vs shit
kek
>>51771089
desu senpai, spend the extra 100$ on the 29". I have the 29' model, much nicer.
>>51771274
so 16:10 then ? Or some meme aspect ratio like 4:3 ?
>>51771284
I wish I had extra 100$ or it, but alas I had other things to buy at the same time that were way more important and expansive.
But I hope I’ll be able to upgrade someday.
In going for the 29um67 fellas
Any problems with this monitor?
My favorite resolution is 16:10. But since displays with that resolution cost a fortune I had to buy a 32" 1440p display. It's alright but I don't need the extra width.
>>51770052
16:10 master race
>>51771303
16:10 is literally goat. Only thing that might be more GOAT is 3:2 but nah 16:10 is great because at the same monintor size (24 inches) you get a little more vertical space, but you don't really lose any horizontal space like you do when you go up to taller monitor sizes (4:3 for example) so you can easily multitask and, provided your resolution is good enough, still have plenty of vertical space to read docs.
Highly recommend it. I can't even go back. Typing on my 16:9 thinkpad is just suffering.
>>51772993
Don't really get the "more vertical space"
I have a 16:10, but it's 1680x1050, so a 16:9 FHD screen would be better in every way, except the form itself
It all about them pixels
After going to 21:9 on a dell u3415w, I'll never go back to any other ratio unless space is a factor (which it never is)
>>51773047
Well, it's really just geometry problems.
So keep in mind that we measure monitors from bottom left corner to top right corner when we talk about how big it is. So "24 inches" etc etc.
So, if you have 3 ratios all at 24 inches, then in order to maintain that diagonal, then parts of the monitor shrink. So
>16:9
Longest of 16:9, 16:10, and 4:3. In order to get that perfect 24 inches, it has a longer vertical than the other two at the expense of height.
>16:10
This bumps up a vertical unit of 1 space. So, you get a slightly taller monitor. However, trigonometry dictates that you can't have a 24 inch diagonal without decreasing the length to compensate. However, you don't need to decrease the horizontal length by a large factor, so side to side it is difficult to tell. To have a monitor as long as a 16:9, you would need something greater than 24 inches.
4:3
Obviously a big square more or less, the diagonal is much closer to a 45 degrees angle. As such, it is almost equally as tall and long. (Almost)
This will be the trallest monitor at 24 inches by far, but it will by no stretch of the imagination be all that long. You would need a Fuckhuge 4:3 to be as long as a 16:9 or 16:10, and you would need a fuckhuge 16:9 to be as tall as a 4:3
That's where the MORE SPACE thing comes from. It's just a matter of "do you value length, or do you value height?"
Personally, I'm content with 16:10. Still good for that multimedia experience, but I can still get a good amount of productivity shit going as well.
>>51773144
This tbqh f a m
>>51773144
Same here, I thought 21:9 was a huge meme. Then I bought my LG34 inch ultra
>>51770052
ultrawides = smaller panels for more money
the day is coming when some of you cücks will pay extra for an 8" tall 3.5:1 screen.
>>51773264
Oh gee, I feel so stupid for paying more money for more pixels, making 3 pages fit in my screen at the same pixel density as 2 pages on 16:9
>>51773321
you're not buying a wider 2560x1440, you're just getting a cropped UHD, fäm.
>>51770052
anime, 16:9
everything else, 21:9
Man, I want 40" 4k screen, but there is basically only one monitor that fits this :(
>>51773472
But there are probably 0 of those, that aren't shit
>>51773264
There's nothing false about it. My 34 inch ultrawide has a 34 inch diagonal. I knew what I was getting when I got it. You might as well apply the same argument to diagonal measurements being used for 16:9 TVs compared to older 4:3 TVs.
>>51771489
the only serious problem it has is that, when you activate freesync, you get the 2 bottom line of pixels at the edge disabled and they appear grey..
if you aren't authistic though, you hardly ever notice it
otherwise it's the main ips glow, backlight bleed, humming power ac and pixel failure rates you'd see in every other monitor of this price.. LG is very competent in replacing your monitor though if you are unsatisfied about a single issue
otherwise, it clocks to 75hz with a decent 1.2a DP cable,
i use this one http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B007PKPUIK?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage
and you can edit the EDID specifications to easily widen the freesync range down to incredible 32hz with a simple tool, which works guaranteed for all panels.. some panels even down to 25hz if you want to try your luck but it doesn't damage the screen
>>51771489
oh and something else, when you enable freesync on your gpu, also enable target framerate to 75fps because freesync doesn't work above 75hz for the entire reason that picture would overlap again
I've been 29in 21:9 since the first mainstream models came out.
It's alright as a single monitor, but I wish I had just gotten a big 16:10 instead. Just as good for multitasking.
It's also hard to pair with another monitor later on unless you get another 21:9
>>51773548
the difference between 21:9 and 16:9 is as significant as the one from 16:9 to 1:1 (17-18%).
diagonal size did become less meaningful measure with the advent of 16:9 and 16:10, but it gets worthless asymptotically as the ratio grows.
the degree of exaggeration compared to a 1:1 display is (x^2 + y^2)/(2xy).
Don't expect support for many games at 3440x1440. The only titles out of the box this year that did where battlefront, rainbow 6 seige & the witcher
>>51773723
Is that ikea?
>>51771089
>led
TOP KEK, enjoy that shitty picture quality and viewing angles
>>51770190
Psst... he's just being hip...
>>51771089
>$180
>mfw it's 250€ on amazon.de and amazon.co.uk
Well, at least i dont need a medical insurance
>>51773477
>>51773472
The Philips one is pretty good from what I've read. It's a VA so the black levels are pitch black.
Beautiful.
>>51774109
>SA-MP > GTA Online
San Andreas was the last good GTA
>>51773913
Yea It's the big galant with the wings
>>51773264
>/g/ - autism
>>51774109
>>51774161
>>51774216
https://thirteenag.github.io/wfp#gtasa
>>51771799
>>51772993
Why the fuck did 16:10 have to die? It was literally perfect for everything you'd use a computer for that isn't watching TV. Even web browsing, a pretty fucking normalfag activity these days looks shit on 16:9 - all that blank fucking space.
>>51775424
shitty TVs were 16:9
Then companies realized people are too dumb to know the difference between "full HD" and 1920x1200 and the former is cheaper to produce, so every company switched to it
>>51770052
>Which do you prefer for gaming? For movies?
>Pros and cons for either?
16:10 for everything.
Bigger is better as long as the picture quality is good and there is no display lag.
Twenty years from now people are going to be preaching how great it is to have a 50inch 8k resolution monitor with a 200hz refresh rate as their primary desktop monitor.
