News Huawei Reportedly Preps 32-Inch Monitor with 3:2 Aspect Ratio, 4500x3000 Resolution

[voyteck]

It’s not colour accurate enough for video/photo work and has bad HDR. Plus the artists might actually like good colour accuracy.

Much bigger problem - than color accuracy measured in the center of a screen - is color/gamma/brightness uniformity. A professional display (a real one) is not only factory-linearized (to much higher standards, for that matter), it's also factory-measured for natural inconsistencies and the result is saved to it's hardware so it displays a negative.

 

[cryoburner]

So, I'm looking forward towards 3:2 aspect ratio monitors for professionals. Hopefully even smaller diameter ones, because when working with a CAD, you want the dots to be so small, that you don't see they're rectangular. You don't want to see jagged lines. This monitor, being 24'' would be perfect. At 32'', it's a little bit too big for me.

Keep in mind, this screen has roughly 63% more pixels than 4K. The pixel density of this screen at 32" should be roughly equivalent to that of a 26" 4K 16:9 display. And if you want greater apparent pixel density, you can always position the screen further away to achieve that.

The other group I can think of are programmers, they barely see 100 lines on the contemporary 16:9 aspect ratio monitor at one.

I don't think that shrinking everything to fit more lines of text on this screen would really be ideal for programming. The monitor could be fine for programming on, but you would likely need to increase the font size and probably the OS scaling settings to keep things legible without having to lean in uncomfortably close to read the text. So you might not end up fitting more text on the screen so much as you would be making text sharper. Also, a lot of the time programmers may have multiple windows open side-by-side, or have a split-view in an editor showing two completely different sections of code at once, so it's already possible to make good use of widescreen displays for programming.

When the wide aspect ratio happened, it ate 1/4 of our 4/3 monitor estate, so to speak. Yes, in a notebook, limited by horizontal width, you can have 33% more space on a LCD with 4:3 aspect ratio than with 16:9 aspect ratio.

When 16:9 desktop monitors first started becoming popular though, the most common flat panel monitor resolution in use was 1280x1024 (actually 5:4), and many were still using screens with even lower resolutions, like 1024x768 or 1280x960, typically measuring around 15-19" diagonally. So if someone were moving to a 1920x1080 screen on a desktop computer, they typically were not giving up any vertical screen real-estate, but rather gaining a little, while also gaining significantly more horizontal pixels (even if applications often didn't utilize that additional space particularly well).

Now, certainly there were screens with lower resolutions like 1366x768 or 1600x900, particularly in laptops, that did have less vertical pixels than a 1280x1024 or 1280x960 display. Though a big part of why laptops went with that format was that it allowed them be more compact without the need to make the keyboard excessively cramped.