Are you asking why someone would buy an ultra wide screen vs normal aspect ratio 4k? The answer is because there are no ultra wide screen 4k monitors.
9
Helpful?
An Ultrawide (21:9) is not selected to provide 2 screen's worth of real estate. It just provides more width than a regular 16:9 without being too wide to look at all at once. Some manufacturers make the 49" 32:9, which people can buy if they are looking for 2 screen's width in a single monitor. An Ultrawide ratio arguably provides a better experience for movies and games, and is still better for productivity than a single 16:9 monitor, but isn't nearly as wide as the 32:9 Superwide monitors that can't all be seen at the same time.
6
Helpful?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals usersShow Post
HIDDEN12-04-2019
at
01:07 PM
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
im not sure exactly what you are saying, but my point is why would you buy a 3440xwhatever vs a 3840xwhatever
(where whatever assumes at min x1080)
why would you attempt to go from a single screen to something still less than 2 screens?
An 34inch ultrawide provides almost the same productivity as 2 screens. Most people like the clean bezel free look. But you are paying a premium for it.
An 34inch ultrawide provides almost the same productivity as 2 screens. Most people like the clean bezel free look. But you are paying a premium for it.
right, key word though is "almost" it is like 1.8 screens on a 3440x resolution whereas a 3840 is 2.0 screens (width wise of course)
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
Our community has rated this post as helpful.
If you agree, why not thank ?
12-05-2019
at
10:01 AM#13
Quote
from ionizer
:
im not sure exactly what you are saying, but my point is why would you buy a 3440xwhatever vs a 3840xwhatever
(where whatever assumes at min x1080)
why would you attempt to go from a single screen to something still less than 2 screens?
An Ultrawide (21:9) is not selected to provide 2 screen's worth of real estate. It just provides more width than a regular 16:9 without being too wide to look at all at once. Some manufacturers make the 49" 32:9, which people can buy if they are looking for 2 screen's width in a single monitor. An Ultrawide ratio arguably provides a better experience for movies and games, and is still better for productivity than a single 16:9 monitor, but isn't nearly as wide as the 32:9 Superwide monitors that can't all be seen at the same time.
right, key word though is "almost" it is like 1.8 screens on a 3440x resolution whereas a 3840 is 2.0 screens (width wise of course)
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
I'm not sure where you are getting the 1.8 figure. A 21:9 is about a third wider than a 16:9, not 1.8 times as wide. If you wanted to double a regular 2560x1440 monitor you would need a 5120 width, not 3880 (unless you are comparing to the 1920 width of regular 1080p).
right, key word though is "almost" it is like 1.8 screens on a 3440x resolution whereas a 3840 is 2.0 screens (width wise of course)
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
These displays weren't specifically made for productivity and screen real estate though. 3440 x 1440 just happens to be the "21:9" aspect ratio panel manufacturers settled upon while aiming to achieve an anamorphic movie format ratio (which is between 2.35:1 to 2.4:1)
You would get black bars on the sides if the resolution was any larger (horizontally) without maintaining this aspect ratio. I agree multi-screen setups can be just as productive if not better than a single UW, but it's also nice to not have any screen breaks for video editing on a UW. All depends on what you're doing with this monitor I guess.
83 Comments
Featured Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Asking srsly.
Asking srsly.
(where whatever assumes at min x1080)
why would you attempt to go from a single screen to something still less than 2 screens?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
(where whatever assumes at min x1080)
why would you attempt to go from a single screen to something still less than 2 screens?
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
(where whatever assumes at min x1080)
why would you attempt to go from a single screen to something still less than 2 screens?
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
i think going from say 2 screens that provide cumulatively 3840x and then going to a single screen, but losing resolution down to 3440x is silly
You would get black bars on the sides if the resolution was any larger (horizontally) without maintaining this aspect ratio. I agree multi-screen setups can be just as productive if not better than a single UW, but it's also nice to not have any screen breaks for video editing on a UW. All depends on what you're doing with this monitor I guess.