Samsung C49HG90 QLED monitor is 49inch curved at 32:9 aspect ratio

21:9 will never be a common physical aspect ratio

 

Sold

 

after a bit of research last night compared to this new lg 34" g-sync 144hz ips with only a 5ms response time

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025121

i found that you can get the 32" beauty with even more screen real estate and still have enough money to buy a rx580 for about the same money

thanks amd for freesync 2 and samsung for such cool monitors

 

oled or VA only. I had IPS, colours was fine but response time sucked, and black are joke...

 

It's the most common aspect ratio for cinema actually.

 

That must have been ancient IPS panel if you'd be willing to take VA over modern IPS... No matter what the marketing says, VA is the slowest.

Personally I can't stand VA. Black to white transitions are terrible. It's good when showing black only but other dark tones look pretty hideous at least on our VA TV no matter what I do. Colour wise it's meh. Also unless you are sitting in front of it everything looks washed out. I hate VA gamma shift.

Modern IPS & PLS panels are hitting over 1:1000 contrast ratio which makes blacks look okay in decently lit room.

 

@Witcher29
What a joke.
You know that most brands dont manufactur the screens themselves?
Besides that, i can have a 200$ Samsung that will look crappy when compared to a professional asus for +1000$, and that has nothing to do with the brand.

The fact that all Samsung screens ive seen in the past 15y all have horrible color accuracy and pretty bad color banding says a lot about those "great" screens they make.

And almost all their screens are glossy/semi glossy which is another reason i dont like them.

Im not picky on ppi, but a 49in with 1080p? Lol

 

I have a Samsung PLS screen and its pretty damn accurate (tested with colorimeter). Zero banding in Eizo monitor test app, but can see banding on poorly encoded videos. Content at fault, not display. Not to say they dont have low end stuff that does not meet the grade.

Er.. 32:9 AR. Its same height as regular 24" screens. Put 2x 24" screens together and you get this 49" unit basically.

 

You apparently have not been paying attention to monitor technology.

 

@alanm
not the contents fault, when one screen shows it and another one doesnt (SAME files).


sure, not all are bad. but how much was yours?
so far, the "lower third" of their line up isnt good on colors, and i dont like orange skin tone (vs other brands; same settings for color/contrast etc).

i got a new screen almost a year ago, so i havent looked at the newest ones.

plus, it was more about the comment from Witcher29 and the "oh so bad" brand asus, just making crappy screens.

which i dont really see. when my 32in@1440p/75hz/10bit amva panel/flicker free/100% sRGB is even good for gaming..

missed saying it will limit it pretty much to watching movies on content creation.
and why then do 1440 on the smaller ones...

 

Not trying to argue, but no its not.

 

Wrong, its vastly being adopted and will become more common.

And same damn thing was said about 16:9 by alot. They didnt like 16:10 being replaced.

Even with consoles pushing 16:9 1080p for bluray and games.