We strained our eyes with Lenovo's monster monitor: 43.4 inches for price of five 24" screens The Register got its talons on Lenovo's monster monitor, the 43.4-inch ThinkVision P44W-10 curved display. Was it worth the desk space? There is a scene in the 1986 movie Ruthless People where an impossibly young Judge Reinhold attempts to flog a set of gigantic speakers to a gullible music fan. The Dominator MX, enthused …
Unless you need perfect color matching, why not just get a 49" or larger screen for $500 or less at the local Wal Mart? I have been doing this for years and they work very well for both programming and gaming.
The only drawback I've had is that the front plastic part of the screen scratches very easily. They are typically HDMI-only as well, which may be annoying to some.
This post has been deleted by its author
I like my FOUR monitors MUCH better !!!
I've got FOUR of these:
Canon DP-V3010 30" 4K Reference Display
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1202266-REG/canon_6902b002_dp_v3010_30_4k_hd_3g_sdi.html
They are 4096 by 2160 pixels with 10 BIT HDR and can display REC.2020 Super High Definition video!
I've got the slightly older versions of these Canons handed down from the main research centre who are getting the 8K OLED versions once they become available sometime next year !!!
If you WANT superb display quality, then DCI 4K and 8K resolution Sony and Canon Colour Reference Monitors with 10-bit IPS or OLED Displays are BEST! Yeah, they can range from $15,000 to as much as $35,000 US (or more for the 8K versions!) BUT they are SUPERB QUALITY !!!!
.
Only our 16-bits per colour channel (64-bit RGBA) 128k resolution 10,000 fps IMAX size RGB colour laser projector is better than these displays but of course THAT is a $20 million dollar display system so it doesn't count here!
.
> Only our 16-bits per colour channel (64-bit RGBA) 128k resolution 10,000 fps IMAX size RGB colour laser projector is better than these displays but of course THAT is a $20 million dollar display system so it doesn't count here!
I totally believe that. I also believe Ilya Geller. Oh, and Uri Geller.
It was a lower 2:1 aspect ratio 128k x 64k resolution last year, but newer and faster rotating osmium-coated mirrors make it now a full 128k by 128k resolution (1:1 aspect ratio) 131,072 by 131,072 pixel resolution using 64-bit RGBA pixels (16 bits per colour and alpha channel)
To get 10,000 fps frame rates, you need to interleave memory banks and use high-speed optical switches to get the 1,374,389,534,720,000 bytes (1.38 Petabytes) per second of data rate REQUIRED to display 10,000 fps at 128k by 128k imagery. Dense Wave Optical Multiplexing is the underlying communications technology to achieve that between the main CPU's, external frame buffers and the DAC (Digital to Analog Convertor) chips which drive the MULTIPLE arrays of RGB laser emitters which are also high bandwidth and very wide in terms of simultaneous numbers of channels. (we are precision scanning multiple lines of pixels at once on a very reflective custom built IMAX-sized screen)
We're not a small company. $20 Million is NOT a big deal to this company! Not when we have a 143,000 lbs fully autonomous drone that can go to 300,000 feet (Flight level 3000 for you aviation buffs) with a 6-axis gyroscopically-stabilized custom 400mm CMOS substrate 16-bits per RGB channel multi-gigapixel camera attached to an equivalent refractive 1000mm to 4000mm zoom lens on it!
.
It's used for 3D-XYZ scientific visualization of GIS mapping systems AND for space-related imagery AND for the development and visualization of internally designed exotic space propulsion systems, human physiology research and human neural systems simulation/emulation.
.
I think that about covers it all as to what we do in our spare time with this gear ....
.
Who said our drone uses aerodynamic lift principles at 300,000 feet (91440 metres)?
Did I say that ANYWHERE in my piece? It goes to 300,000 feet AND it can go MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT as it's low orbit (300 km) and high orbit capable! (i.e around 42,100 km or about 26,100 miles)
I said it could GO that high but i didn't say HOW!
What the heck do you THINK we do with that fancy 210,000 processor 128-bits wide 60 GHz GaAs 119 ExaFLOPS supercomputer we have? Tell it to design paper origami shapes all day?
DUUUUUUUUH!!!!
It autonomously designs HIGHLY ADVANCED "Field Effects Propulsion Systems"! We don't NEED NO STINKING ROCKETS to go where we're going! There ain't even any stinking patent on this as we are going to give those field effects propulsion designs away for FREE as COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE! Field effects engines are remarkably SIMPLE in their design! They're basically cavity resonators and waveguides!
ANY 2nd or 3rd year (or a really smart high schooler!) can make this with a decent machinist and CNC machine! 418 Grade Stainless steel works BEST but you can get away with 414 grade Stainless Steel too! No EXPENSIVE Titanium needed!
While "Inertial Dampers" are a few hundred years away, all-attitude High-G, field effects propulsion IS HERE NOW !!!
.
.
.
I sort of agree. But at least it isn't 1080 vertical!
I have the Dell UltraSharp 34" 3840x1440 display. The Lenovo 44" with only a 1200 vertical resolution seems very low-res, for the size.
For me, having two full documents side-by-side good and I don't need the full 2160, currently. But on the 44", I'd want the full 4K resolution. I think it depends on the workload, but 1200 on that size of display is still a no-no.
If you're sat roughly 2 feet away from the screen, that's really poor ergonomics, HSE and your eyes,
Yes. I've never seen the attraction of these huge monitors. Frankly, it's been decades since I was even interested in anything bigger than my laptop screens. They do a good job of filling the center of my field of vision when I'm working. I don't have any use for more screen real estate.
When I was working at IBM circa 1990 I had a multi-headed workstation with four monitors connected to it. At the time it seemed pretty nifty, but I quickly realized that I only ever made real use of two of the screens, and one of those was connected to an experimental graphics card so it was only used for testing.
I realize I'm in the minority here, but I have no interest at all in these giant monitors.
"Get a proper 43" 16:9 3840x2160 screen. Trust me."
Yes.
My $800 43" LG is this. It's like having 4 monitors I typically used in a 2x2 matrix - without the seams. It also leaves desk space for a sidecar or two of 1920x1080 for $100-200 a pop if desired.
The vertical space is good for code, horizontal for the occasional SQL table perusal. The combo for flexible image sizing placement and/or window arrangement. Huge fonts for when the eyes get tired or viewing by a group at some distance.
That thing is way too costly for the utility.
I've had a curved 34" monitor for a couple of years now and that's 3440*1440.
The extra width is very useful for work, having multiple apps visible at once to work from etc., but it would be for nothing if you constantly had to keep scrolling down.
I suppose it helps with the gaming though, less pixels to render.
It partly helps with gaming, my main monitor at home is an ultrawide, but it helps more along the lines of being able to push more frames within the cable standard.
I know that if I use HDMI on my 3440x1440 screen, the standard of the HDMI port on the back of the monitor itself causes a cap of 50fps. The equivalent standard on full fat 4k is only capable of pushing 30fps.
Displayport 2's standard was published earlier this year which (I think) is intended to deal with 8k and 16k screens at varying framerates.
This DELL 8K display has 7680 x 4320 pixels at 60 Hz and has 10-bits per colour channel or BILLIONS of colours!
Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor: UP3218K:
https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/accessories/apd/210-alez?mkwid=sRNfvUWIA
It's only $6400 CAN ($5400 US or 4800 Euros) so its pretty cheap for the price! and 16x the resolution of HDTV displays!
The Lenovo SUCKS compared to this!
.
Yes! You are right! I stand corrected! (i.e. 4 times the resolution on EACH AXIS) and 16x the number of pixels as HDTV!
.
I still like the Canon monitors much better than ANY Dell (which I think is actually made by Sharp)! I had to give up the Canon OLED monitors I had originally to another department, so now I have to make do with the Canon IPS displays which are NOWHERE NEAR the quality of their OLED master reference monitors! (the OLED versions are twice as much!) but still I can't complain too much, they're DEFINITELY BETTER than the Eizos I used to have!
Canon gave us a pretty good deal on them, especially since we ended up buying 40+ of the Canon C700 GS (Global shutter cinema cameras) and 60+ of the Canon EOS 1Dx Mk2 still cameras over the years!
I should note when the Combined Stills/Video DCI 8k Medium Format Sensor Camera (65mm) comes out soon enough from a certain large multimedia company, they have given us first dibs on 60+ of those, so there goes another $10k per camera! I also trying dig me up some of those Canon DCI 8K OLEDs when they finally come out after next year's NAB show (April 2020)! Our R&D department gets them first but sometimes I get a few of the cast-offs/not-needed ones!
.
That's Sony ..... BUT we're NOT an exclusively Canon shop either ... We have a ton of older HDcam, F55, F65 and Sony Venice cameras so we're open to them too! We even have a few Red and Arri Alexas!
We tried to buy the Panavision and Primo lenses but it was cheaper and faster to make our own cameras and lenses in the end! Head office was even thinking of BUYING Panavision in its entirety to get at its lens tech -- We bought a RAM chip maker for its SSD capabilities since we were spending a fortune on storage AND a CPU design company, so its not out the realm of possibility for us to still get Panavision or maybe even Arri!
.
Interesting (for me anyway) is that despite its width-ways enormity, it has a central stand. I've been shopping for a new tellybox recently, and it's frustrating how many of them , much narrower than the beast here, have feet at either side. That means that it needs to stand on a cabinet that's as wide as the TV, rather than having the option to perch it on something narrower and have the side of the TV protruding. Currently I feel like I'm going to be shopping for both a TV and a new cabinet.
Oh? I was going to say wall-mount it and now I feel deflated...
Put curtains over it and pretend it's a window? My telly's probably the size of the front window of my first house! :)
Is there a reason you don't want to wall-mount? Curved screen on a flat wall? (Saw that one on Sunday.) TV in a corner? (My parents.) Sneaky stuff hidden down the back? (Also my parents, with a Bose passive sub.) Just don't like the look of it / the idea of arranging everything around a telly?
Is there a reason you don't want to wall-mount?
Firstly, I really don't like the look of it.
Secondly, it's easy to "manage" cables in the usual rat's nest fashion behind a media cabinet rather than hiding them in trunking (yuk) or cutting cable runs into the walls (very old house made of very hard stone - I can blunt a quality masonry drill bit to death just putting up a set of shelves).
Firstly - fair play. You and differ completely on that one. My wife and I (sounding very pretentious there) prefer clutter-free cabinet-tops, and putting it on the wall lifts it a bit for excellent slouching in front of a movie, but life would be boring if we all wanted the same thing.
Secondly - solid wall? Ouch. Raggling stone walls is a total nightmare. Trunking? Nope - I agree completely there. If it were a plasterboard wall, or even breezeblock then I'd say to man up and hide the cables properly, but for solid stone walls I'll totally understand.
it's easy to "manage" cables
I put my wallmount on top of a wooden panel (around 300mm-450mm wide tall enough to extend upwards beyond TV - for aesthetics - and downwards far enough to reach AV cabinet) and put some spacers between that and the wall. Panel conceals wires, choose finish to suit your decor.
I've been shopping for a new tellybox recently, and it's frustrating how many of them , much narrower than the beast here, have feet at either side.
Yes, I encountered that while looking for a new TV a couple months back. Feet on the ends means you would *also* have to have a deeper cabinet if you want to angle the TV to one side. A center pedestal works far better for that.
The OTHER issue was that the manufacturers have decided to do away with physical buttons on the TV, instead expecting to rely on the readily broken/lost/dead-battery-filled remote control. All of which comes down to them being CHEAPASS, rather than making something actually functional.
So I ended up buying a BIGGER TV at an estate sale for far less than I'd have paid for one of those inadequate new ones of a smaller size.
We had this issue at the Mountain Fastness - television set wasn't particularly wide, but we wanted to put it on a quite narrow cabinet we'd picked up for $10 at a salvage place.
A plank on top of the cabinet solved that nicely. I was even going to whack it down to the correct length with the mitre saw at some point, for extra classiness, but then after a year or so we decided to wall-mount the TV instead. Then we unmounted it a year later and sat it on an antique oak dresser we picked up for $45 someplace.
I suppose what I'm saying is that these things are easier when you don't give a rat's ass what it looks like. It's not going to win a beauty competition against the views out the windows anyway.
Fullscreen, native resolution, 144 FPS, modern game.
I'm talking Red Dead 2, GTA, ( a beast of a buggy game to newer hardware), not Counter Strike 1.6.
People are going BACK to 1080p to get 144Hz smoothness.
This must be good for CAD operations, but not gaming. Get your priorities straight.
20fps is barf inducing... 30fps kiiinda works, but you can feel the latency, and movement isn't smooth. 50-60 isn't bad.
120 is good, and I start losing the ability to tell around this point.
icon - my GPU driving the 2880×1600 of my Index along with a 4096 x 2160 display.
I physically could not use a 30fps 34inch TV for gaming today, my vision looked sooo blurry (could be response times/ghosting too), so am thankfully back to my 144hz display.
Lack of ghosting and 60fps + is the sweat spot (144hz etc).
In my experience, 30, 60, 75fps and beyond is only noticeable if you are already used to the higher frame rate - I've made the decision that I'm going to stick with 60fps monitors for that reason - I can't go back to 30 but if I go up a step, I run the risk of not being able to go back to 60.
I accept that there are good reasons to go higher than 60 fps, but I'm lucky enough to not have to worry about them personally.
Try playing Wing Commander 2 on a 286 with EGA at a few seconds per frame.
Luxury! In my day we played games on Model 33s. After every move you had to wait for it to print the next page character-by-character. But we were happy.
Ah - remember the good old days of running the DooM and getting the fps dots at the bottom-left. Was it -devparm? I was the first of my friends to get 1 dot steady, when I recklessly overclocked my lavish P90 to 100MHz!!
I agree that I've never felt the need for 144Hz frame rates, perhaps because I too had to deal with slow FPS "back in the day", but 20 is a bit shabby even for me. Double that and it's about usable. 60Hz+ and I'm happy as a clam.
I do notice 30 FPS sometimes, but at 60, I'm on the moon.
But if you wanna buy something that can push 144, you might as well get it.
I'm happy with 60, and crank my settings around that goal.
And, honestly, oldish games ran far smoother, given the low resolution we used to have. The occasional guy running at 1024 x 768 was considered beyond posh, definitely smug, back then.
'Swivelled' means it rotates left and right, or about the vertical axis if you want to get fancy about it. 'Pivot' means it rotates about the forward-backward axis, so you can switch it from a landscape-mode 3840⨯1200 to a portrait-mode 1200⨯3840, in this (hypothetical) case.
Ah, Friends. I was assuming it was a Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency thing at first.
I recently bought a Dell S3219D 32" Class QHD FreeSync from Costco -- 2560 x 1440 (for ONLY $199 USD; membership required). So far I've only used it with the work laptop, but Visio has never been easier. My missus will eventually do photo editing on it once I set up our new desktop.
PROS: Size vs. price**, speakers actually work (HDMI), dual HDMI + DisplayPort, USB-3 hub
CONS: For those geekier than I -- resolution COULD be better, not curved, could be bigger, probably not fast "enough", no USB-C
(I haven't yet seen how bad the speakers are yet with real music, but I have my wired Beats at hand anyway.)
** Really, is there a better deal anywhere in the States? It's worth a basic $60 membership on top. I'm sure two side-by-side would look even more sweet unless you require a bezel-less center.
At that price, I wouldn't put it past some folks!
With membership, that's still under $700 USD, and you get about 15" by almost 84" of actual screen -- or 28:5. (I actually measured mine.) But at that width, I'm sure the truly immersed would desire curved instead of three flat panels.
I'll stick with this one plus the laptop for working from home. With the future home desktop, I'll reuse an old Dell VGA 18" diagonal for a second screen, probably for Task Manager, Sticky Notes, folder browsing and other random stuff. It would look good in portrait next to the main monster if I build a bracket for it (or modify the current base).
... about “music fidelity”? Even the cheapest shit headphones or earbuds are good enough to hear what's going on. The problem with listening to music isn't sound quality; it's that the sheeple do it ALL THE TIME, in an effort to drown out the silence between their ears — in order not to have to think, and not to notice that they aren't.
There, now you know; you're welcome. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled 24/7 muzak (on your 800£ over-ear headphones with the gold-plated lead), so that... Well, you know. Now.
And from this statement it sounds like you have no interest in musical fidelity either?
"I have my wired Beats at hand"
Maybe he only listens to hip-hop, the only music Beats headphones are made for.
But no, he did mention listening to "real music", so that puts hip-hop right out.
This post has been deleted by its author
Come on 'Reg, surely you can wave the flag for common sense aspect ratios?
...an aspect ratio of 32:10 (imagine a pair of 16:10 monitors side by side)
Can't you use basic mathematics and put this into more sensible values?
"an aspect ratio of 16:5 (imagine a pair of 8:5 monitors side by side)"
I could just about understand keeping things as ??:9, but even that might confuse some people (i.e.is a 16:9 screen the same as 4:3? Why isn't 4:3 referred to as 12:9?). But even that got bloody stupid once 19.5:9 started to be used.
-> Mine's the one with the 80:45 phone in the pocket
an aspect ratio of 16:5
Eh, why not "an aspect ratio of 3.2"? Most people won't care. Of those who do, some will be able to do the arithmetic to convert it to whatever denominator pleases them. The others will look for some magical term they don't understand, or assume that bigger numbers are better, so for them there's no point in converting to "more sensible values".
Personally I like screen ratios around 0.425π.
I bought a 4K LG TV with an HDMI 2.1 input. Problem solved for £265 (Argos end-of-line sell-off)
I can fit 8 A4 pages on the screen at full size (just a few lines lost off the top of the top row of 4 pages), which is excellent for 3-way code merges.
Rock solid display with no flickering or colour/brightness variation.
The only problem I have is when I screen share with colleagues on laptops, and I have to make the text ridiculously large on my screen for them to be able to read.
I like the way that they state its colour calibrated. I'm guessing calibrating that thing with an xrite would be an absolute nightmare when you take into account the curve and the fact that you would need a bloody huge light box if accurate colour perception was a requirement, you would pay North of £1K Just for the photospectrometer if you really cared.
At half the price I think it would still be too expensive. Think I will stick with my 2x24 inch TN for work (£80 each) and the 48inch 60Hz 1920 x1080 TV (£200) for PC gaming, the max I will pay for a gfx card is £150 / RX 580. TBH even when I stream it to the 4k display in the living room I can hardly tell the difference / up sampling for the win lol.
If you want to blow your load though, have fun.
This post has been deleted by its author
Costco (US big box membership retailer) had Samsung 32" 3840x2160 monitor on sale for $319 this weekend. Bought one for my wife, its gorgeous.
has HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.4(?) inputs. on her Latitude w/ the usb c expander box, I had to use the DP port to get 60Hz, the HDMI port would only do 30Hz, awwwww. I had the DP cable already, so all is good.
a bigger screen would have to be farther away to minimize neck strain looking back and forth, so zilch for gain.
I have about 4 times the surface area and 3* the pixels occupying the volume of a stack of A3 paper in the corner of my cave. In a few minutes I can have them all up and working. If I got one of these and got bored with it and upgraded it would be virtually unstoreable giving it about a 5th of its possible lifetime.
ever wondered if your accidentally choosing the wrong shape res for your screen?
here is a script to work out the lowest common denominator of a resolution:
if wscript.arguments.count = 0 then msgbox "usage example:"&vbCrlf&" Resolution Ratios 800 600":wscript.quit
w=wscript.arguments(0)
h=wscript.arguments(1)
n=2
do until n=>h OR n=>w
if h/n=clng(h/n) AND w/n=clng(w/n) then
h=h/n
w=w/n
else
n=n+1
end if
loop
wscript.echo "The lowest common denominator of "&wscript.arguments(0)&" x "&wscript.arguments(1)&" is:"
wscript.echo " Width="&w &", Height=" & h & " (" & w & "x" & h &")"
I just bought two 32" Samsung curved monitors for £404 delivered. Gives me a shed load of screen real-estate to work with, specifically 55" wide and 15.5" high, the equivalent of a 57" diagonal. Yes, they are *only* 1920x1080 max but higher resolution is wasted on me as I mostly can't see the difference and on the few monitors where I could see a slight difference it certainly didn't warrant the extortionate hike in price. You can keep your WQHD/4K/8K monitors and their stupid price tags. About the only gain over my setup you'd have with one of those ultra-wide monitors is the ability to game full width. Not worth the money for me, but if it floats your boat, have fun! :-)
I'd get an LG 43UD79-B instead. 43", 4K, 4 HDMI inputs, comes with a remote so you don't have to fiddle with buttons or joysticks that are hard to find/use, and enough real estate to represent 4 21" screens with plenty room to spare. And it's (relatively) cheap as well, and it's more of a rectangle - the problem with a wide screen is that moving egde to edge is far more of a distance than with a proper rectangle.
The only reason I don't have one now is because I have a 32" with the same resolution, but I suspect I'll upgrade mid next year because my eyes are not what they used to be (read: young :) )..
As for curved, I found it a pain once the novelty wears off. For gaming it is probably fantastic, but for office use I found it less useful. Oh well, I guess it's also preference and what you're used to.
This post has been deleted by its author
Get a lot of alcohol.
If you bought none pure alcohol, chug it in one go. Your should no longer see the dried yogurt with your distorted vision. If not, chug another bottle. Repeat until the yogurt disappears.
If you bought pure alcohol, wipe it on the screen with a cloth to clean off the yogurt. Repeat until the yogurt disappears.
This post has been deleted by its author
The thing with twin monitors for working on 2 things side by side is you can drag a window to one screen and just maximise it. No faffing around dragging edges to resize two windows to half screen, or indeed trying to remember the keyboard shortcut to tile windows (which never does what I want it to anyway).
That monitor is so huge that it may have a very limited market. I have two 23" monitors that I use for photo/video/graphics work that were chosen for image quality over sheer m^2. That still spans a good portion of my 2m wide desk with the sides being occupied by a pair of nice speakers. I'm not a gamer so frame rates aren't a big deal as long as I can keep up with editing video. A pair of 2gb graphics cards work nicely.
Going any bigger on my desktop doesn't make much sense for me. It's a good enough move to get the cursor from one side of my visual workspace to the other and I've had to constrain my Wacom tablet to the right hand monitor or the mapping would be horrible.
I also have two 19" monitors above my 23's that I use to monitor my server under the desk and to plug my laptop in. I don't use them that often, but I like having them rather than bouncing between screens when I remote into them. I can also monitor what the server is doing with a quick glance if I have a lengthy task loaded up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
