They need a 50+" version of this.
I would buy one immediately assuming that one that size was at least 4K resolution (or whatever 4K is to this ratio)
My REASON for wanting a 50+" version is for a home-made cinema (that isn't using a projector).
I could use one of these monitors for my video editing actually. I hate zooming in and out of tracks to get to the end so I can add a song in etc..
if it were learger, it would be useful for people who use applications such as adobe audition which generally requires dual displays to get a workflow that is not frustrating to use.
I wish they would go back to 16:10, the extra vertical space was great for most applicatiosns and also anime since the subtitles cound be pushed onthe the black area so it doedes not cover any of the other visuals of the anime.
PS most websites are designed around 4:3 low res displays, eg tomshardware is formatted for 1024x768 displays, imagine using this site on that monitor, it will be just a thin stripe in the center of the screen.
[citation][nom]Prescott_666[/nom]I hope this is a total failure. I hope they lose so much money on it that it pushes them back to 4:3 (which is the aspect ratio of the monitor that I'm using).[/citation]
[citation][nom]Thunderfox[/nom]No. Such an extreme aspect ratio is not desirable. In order to get something of reasonable height, you'd have to buy a monitor a mile wide.[/citation]
some basic math(pythagorean FTW) tells you otherwise. This monitor has a vertical size of ~11.42", which slots between 23"(11.28" vert. size) and 24"(11.77" vert. size) 16:9 Monitor while offering an extra 6.6" horizontially over a 23" 16:9 or 5.74" over a 24." And last I checked, 23" and 24" monitors were pretty popular.
I miss 4:3 and 16:10 like all of you. But all of you naysayers are going to be disappointed when this becomes industry standard. The whole visual media industry has been slowly over time moving to 2.39 (or scope) aspect ratio for decades. It's going to happen, just be prepared.
I guess it depends on the price. If this is significantly less than a 30" 2560x1600 monitor than it may do fine. ...but if its the same price area I can't see why anyone would choose this and not a Dell U3011 30".
Currently using Samsung Series 9 monitor with 2560 x 1440 Resolution for work. I don't think I would want to move away from 16:9 ratio, but I guess for people who prefer widescreen movie viewing experience may be interested.... nah.. probably not.
There are already too many formats, and more on the way with 4K variants. Outside of the format, there are some features about the screen that I like, but the manufacturers/media producers need to get their heads out of their butts and and us something other than aspect ratios to differentiate themselves.
[citation][nom]hydac7[/nom]What da-fucq is that $hit No way anybody's gonna buy that .. that thing ..[/citation]
That's not true. If I were in the market for a 1080p monitor and this wasn't too much more expensive I'd bite.
[citation][nom]mynameis1[/nom]i doubt also if there is a single product out there in media to use this screen size properly[/citation]
Literally any move flimed in anamorphic format fits this properly. That includes, all Star Trek movies, all Star wars movies, all Indiana Jones movies, most of the Marvel movies(but not The Avengers), Blade Runner, Blazing Saddles, etc.
I don't understand the backlash... I use dual monitors all the time and to have this ratio would bring me a lot of happiness. I can finally use one monitor for gaming, unless of course the price is dumb. I don't like spending more than around $250 for a monitor and I really have no reason for a 2560 * 1440. I love my widescreen gaming.
Just another cheap 1080 monitor to me. Im waiting on 4K displays for PCs. Ive been using a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 for years now and never could go back to anything smaller resolution or screen size no thanks.