Super Ultra-Wide Monitor - Dank or Dumb?

Share
Embed
  • Published on Mar 13, 2018
  • Forget ultrawide monitors, Samsung’s CHG90 is a 49-inch Super Ultra-Wide, high refresh rate gaming monitor!
    Check out the THX AAA 789 on Massdrop at dro.ps/linus-thx
    Buy the Thermaltake P90 Tempered Glass Edition case on Amazon: geni.us/NqOlr
    Learn more about the Thermaltake P90 Tempered Glass Edition case at geni.us/tWL16
    Buy Samsung CHG90:
    On Amazon: geni.us/bACfN
    On Newegg: geni.us/phxt
    Discuss on the forum: linustechtips.com/main/topic/905505-super-ultra-wide-monitor-%E2%80%93-dank-or-dumb/
    Our Affiliates, Referral Programs, and Sponsors: linustechtips.com/main/topic/75969-linus-tech-tips-affiliates-referral-programs-and-sponsors
    Linus Tech Tips merchandise at www.designbyhumans.com/shop/LinusTechTips/
    Linus Tech Tips posters at crowdmade.com/linustechtips
    Our production gear: geni.us/cvOS
    Get LTX 2018 tickets at www.ltxexpo.com/
    Twitter - twitter.com/linustech
    Facebook - facebook.com/LinusTech
    Instagram - instagram.com/linustech
    Twitch - www.twitch.tv/linustech
    Intro Screen Music Credit:
    Title: Laszlo - Supernova
    Video Link: thexvid.com/video/PKfxmFU3lWY/video.html
    iTunes Download Link: itunes.apple.com/us/album/supernova/id936805712
    Artist Link: soundcloud.com/laszlomusic
    Outro Screen Music Credit: Approaching Nirvana - Sugar High thexvid.com/user/approachingnirvana
    Sound effects provided by www.freesfx.co.uk/sfx/
  • Science & TechnologyScience & Technology

Comments • 7 257

  • David Pfeifer
    David Pfeifer Day ago

    I think the released a new 49inch monitor. With 5120 x 1440 Pixel resolution, 120Hz, hdr, FreeSync. Seems pretty awesome you should review the new model

  • PULSAR
    PULSAR 2 days ago

    I got this today

  • Luc Newtown
    Luc Newtown 3 days ago

    Well it could be a very stupid monitor in many scenarios, but for simulation racing like I do, this monitor is DA SHIT son!!!!

  • Lord Poppy
    Lord Poppy 4 days ago +1

    I prefer old 16:9 with larger size

  • Michael Walsemann
    Michael Walsemann 4 days ago

    32:9 is worth it to me. This resolution at that size isn’t tho. 5120x1440 and I’d sooo want one. That being said, I cannot afford it. 🥺

  • 2007suprasport
    2007suprasport 4 days ago +1

    Wow!!!! My Gosshhh!!! Absolutely beautiful!!!!😻😻

  • Alex Gallegos
    Alex Gallegos 4 days ago

    My! What long monitor you have there Linus!

  • Mohamed Ahmed
    Mohamed Ahmed 5 days ago

    link to that screen wallpaper at 0:35 ?

  • TB Tech
    TB Tech 5 days ago +1

    Just to think this is just as good as the 5k iMac screen and it cost the same amount as the stand now .....shows which company is best ....

  • Manemisdon Malasnemissalatan

    This vid is a meme

  • john smith
    john smith 6 days ago +1

    Is this monitor good for professionals

  • jay mahony
    jay mahony 7 days ago

    yeah if it was 4k you couldn't even play at 144 fps, so that would be pointless?

  • Keegan Miller
    Keegan Miller 7 days ago

    why no vesa mount samsung!?

  • DogeThis101
    DogeThis101 8 days ago

    When you need to see the price tag of an mjr popcorn bag

  • Leone S
    Leone S 8 days ago

    Hi, you're talking about 21:9 movies and black bars on the side, so this monitor isn't appropriate for a T.V. use ? Thanks for answer.

  • neonone
    neonone 8 days ago

    I saw someone on a game forum suggest that ultrawide are a gimmick, but no way ultrawide are great and anyone that uses a desktop regularly should get one! 25" feels too small at first but I'd say it's the perfect size for a monitor. The curve thing seems unnecessary unless you get a huge monitor.

    edit: oh ok this is "super" ultrawide. maybe stupid.. idk just get 2 ultrawide or just 1 ultrawide and a regular one

  • Gareth
    Gareth 8 days ago +1

    It has a 1ms response time and is 144Hz. It's a beast of a panel.

  • Nathaniel Sandro
    Nathaniel Sandro 8 days ago +4

    After watching Jonathan Morrison's "Underrated Apple XDR" that thirteen hundred monitor is worth it.

  • DBNROP
    DBNROP 9 days ago

    Would rather have the same size display and resolution but composed of 3 or 4 inexpensive $40 - $100 monitors.

  • Tarquin Farquhar
    Tarquin Farquhar 9 days ago

    1:20 - OMFGWTFBBQ!!! Those fingerprints!!!! This thing is bonkers. I can imagine how The Witcher 3 would look on this. New underwear please.

  • nomadben
    nomadben 10 days ago

    That window bit was great Taran, nice job on that haha.

  • ZenX100
    ZenX100 10 days ago

    The monitor is a paid actor

  • bp56789
    bp56789 11 days ago

    Just get a 50 inch 4k

  • IIrfaNN
    IIrfaNN 11 days ago +1

    dont even think to buy this for gaming

  • Haitham Ali
    Haitham Ali 12 days ago

    Agreed. I have an HP Envy 34 and the ratio is great for working but makes you choose left or right for a focus area, so you end up working while looking left or right. This monitor would allow relaxed centre focus with reference apps either side.

  • Ben Genovese
    Ben Genovese 13 days ago +1

    QUESTION!!!! Can you run your computer and xbox at the same time???? Please help me out

    • Zombie Chibi XD
      Zombie Chibi XD 12 days ago

      No. Different OS
      Different question if you mean use both on a monitor

  • SteelToed_Boots
    SteelToed_Boots 13 days ago

    I really really want a super ultrawide monitor but I just don’t want to compromise on the looks. I have the Asus pg27uq and it’s glorious but it made my Alienware ultrawide look blurry and it’s not just relegated to being used to run background info while I game.

  • jaharileah
    jaharileah 13 days ago

    Makes my left eye twitch 😂

  • Supul Sapukotana
    Supul Sapukotana 14 days ago

    Comes with a free monitor stand!

  • samdaboss Gaming
    samdaboss Gaming 14 days ago

    Super mega ultra-wide monitor

  • Seena
    Seena 15 days ago

    Dumb? It is the best thing since MAINGEAR started making my PCs.

  • Optamizm
    Optamizm 15 days ago

    The would be great for DAWs.

  • Xhikman Gamin'
    Xhikman Gamin' 16 days ago

    Better than 3 monitors

  • HDVIVIDFILMS 2
    HDVIVIDFILMS 2 16 days ago +1

    just got mine today its huge about to sale my 34 ultrawide msi one now

  • yusiegames070
    yusiegames070 17 days ago +1

    Can you hang It in to the wall

  • Tomasz Cybulski
    Tomasz Cybulski 17 days ago

    i got lines one screen after 6 months fuck this shit guys dont buy

  • Jackie Santana
    Jackie Santana 17 days ago

    what game was he playing?

  • XFX Trader
    XFX Trader 19 days ago +1

    Financial markets trading charts

  • AMV Channels
    AMV Channels 20 days ago

    LG did it better

  • DamageIncM
    DamageIncM 20 days ago

    You know, a SUW monitor is pretty dank... I mean it is cool and it's like having two monitors in one, which is great fr productivity. But personally I'm convinced that 21:9 is the way to go. In fact, I think it should've been the standard many years ago, starting when Philips came out with their 21:9 TV. Although, of course, television broadcasts and recordings are 16:9 and only certain movies are in "21:9" (then again, those are usually rendered into 16:9 video with black areas above and below the actual image baked into it). - But for computer use, particularly videogames, I think it's way more logical and it also feels a lot more natural. I've realized that 16:9 is just a little too tight for the human view, it's like when you go back to 4:3 you just seem to miss a lot of the view. - Well "duh"... But I mean to say that 21:9 is almost exactly right, but beyond that it's overkill unless you just want a "surround" experience, as in really also see/sense things on the very outsides of your vision. But that's all extra luxury for when you really insist. - For a more logical choice I'd definitely recommend 21:9 for media, especially videogames, and productivity as an extra benefit. And using 16:9 or 4:3 resolutions or content isn't an issue when you really have no other options.

  • DamageIncM
    DamageIncM 20 days ago

    I think finding videogames that support 32:9 resolutions will be way more miss than hit, and way more hit for 21:9 in comparison. - I don't guess it, I know it. I'll be getting a 21:9 monitor soon, but I've already researched support thoroughly. - There is way more both official and also community support for 21:9. And of course that's logical, as more people would have a 21:9 than a 32:9 monitor. - But really, there are many many games that will work in 21:9 without much of a problem. Some "natively", some with a workaround. - And if not, it's no problem to just center a 16:9 image to me... Or 4:3 if it's a really old game that just refuses anything beyond that aspect ratio altogether.

    • Sayi D
      Sayi D 17 days ago

      True right now there won't be much content supporting 32:9. but the same was said when 21:9 was introduced

  • Logan T
    Logan T 21 day ago

    Now we need to wait for 32:9...

  • Funk Enstein
    Funk Enstein 23 days ago

    The pixelation is a deal breaker.

    • Helois Gevit
      Helois Gevit 19 days ago

      This video is old, there's already a newer model that's 1440p using DP1.4, the CRG9.

  • Anym
    Anym 25 days ago

    jokes on you. I want quad ultra wides (2 on top of eachother, and the other turned 90 degrees to the side next to the 2)

  • TheOnlyWolfInThePack
    TheOnlyWolfInThePack 26 days ago

    I would get this and look at the video where you had 4 os on one monitor and copy that except 2 and bang

  • Blood Carver
    Blood Carver 26 days ago +1

    I would rather have 2 or 3 separate 24 or 27" monitors side by side.

  • Nhilistic Komrad
    Nhilistic Komrad 26 days ago

    +1 for the window tricj

  • Chandika Jayaweera
    Chandika Jayaweera 28 days ago

    7:09 Your Answer

  • Santiago Lopez Cordova

    stupid as you

  • Denstoradiskmaskinen

    Is 600 nits bad? Not as good as 1000.. but will i notice? HDD -> SSD comparison?

  • Achour Mohamed
    Achour Mohamed Month ago

    Dumb

  • Nielsf2704
    Nielsf2704 Month ago

    Samsung released a new version with 5K resolution

  • Tanokin
    Tanokin Month ago

    What game is shown in the background of this video? With the airships?

  • Tanokin
    Tanokin Month ago

    What game is shown in the background of this video? With the airships?

  • Tanokin
    Tanokin Month ago

    What game is shown in the background of this video? With the airships?

  • staz
    staz Month ago

    ya no 400$ and 4k flat screen plug that right into the computer first and foremost id not pay 1300$ for something so short and does not offer 4k or even fullscreen when 400 to 600$ can get a top rate tv and use it as a computer screen if you do this there are 3 things you need to have one a tv that supports computer plugs 2 no wired mouse and keyboard and third you want a place to set it up so your not sitting right up on the tv mostly somewhere that would feel comfortable to game and use the computer or just plug your computer right in to your living room there are better ways then spending 1300$ on a half as screen

  • yusiegames070
    yusiegames070 Month ago +1

    The pc you need
    I7 9700k
    4 2080ti

    • staz
      staz Month ago

      4k flat screen tv for under 700$ at walmart will get a better monitor than most

  • KiLLA CAiN
    KiLLA CAiN Month ago

    I think it might be good in my studio!

  • Bas van der Sluis
    Bas van der Sluis Month ago

    +1 for the $1337 and 1337 health or armor at 3:26. :)

  • Spauzy
    Spauzy Month ago

    holy balls

  • SuperCookieGaming
    SuperCookieGaming Month ago +1

    also csgo can move the hud

  • SuperCookieGaming
    SuperCookieGaming Month ago +1

    48:9 is where its at.

  • HBO 1
    HBO 1 Month ago +2

    All i see and hear are 49 super wide screens out in the market at this point... that is the equivalent of a 2x 27inch monitors into one. And if one like me is used to the 1x screen at 32inch sizes... you really don't want to downgrade the monitor for a equivalent of 27inch.. You get what i mean? Because my current 1x curved monitor at 32inch is bigger as in top to bttm compare to this Ultra wide screens which means it may look wide but its a narrow display screen which is the equivalent of 27inch. Too small.

  • Julisu #
    Julisu # Month ago +1

    I dreamed of an monitor.
    It had an 60hz display:( but it was super curved, it bended super much

  • The Couch - Axel Prin
    The Couch - Axel Prin Month ago +1

    Hi ! Quick question :
    I think... I'm gonna buy this display to help have a better experience in gaming AND editing. But ! It's says that it's a VA display and not an IPS display. And base of what I've seen on the internet IPS is way better. But I'm really not an expert. What's the difference ?

    • Tommy Bonetti
      Tommy Bonetti Month ago +1

      The Couch - Axel Prin also, IPS Is cheaper to produce hence why most models are IPS

    • Tommy Bonetti
      Tommy Bonetti Month ago +1

      The Couch - Axel Prin VA Has significantly better black levels and colors but worse response time.
      IPS Usually handles response time way better which is what you’ll notice during fast motion sequences. Samsung however is pretty damn good at taking care of this issue on their VA models

  • Andrew Melling
    Andrew Melling Month ago +2

    I have this exact monitor. Took a while to get used to it but now I absolutely love the immersion. Couldn't live with a normal monitor now.

  • Kenny South
    Kenny South Month ago

    But can you fold it?

  • Gunther Ultrabolt Novacrunch

    Did this require two cables to run?

  • Konttu
    Konttu Month ago

    Perfect monitor

  • Kit
    Kit Month ago

    annoying and gay voice.

  • peruface
    peruface Month ago

    Good for Work, like trading stocks .....

  • Hinter
    Hinter Month ago +11

    Imagine how long you have to wait for downloads to take because the bar would be so long

  • Joel Pelly
    Joel Pelly Month ago

    it's good to use with photoshop?

  • Ged Agnors
    Ged Agnors Month ago

    That's a weird nails... :\

  • Dennis Proskurnya
    Dennis Proskurnya Month ago

    no csgo or pubg..
    Im staying with 21:9

  • Mattie279
    Mattie279 Month ago

    Can I get a really cheap monitor/tv cos mine just broke

  • Nate DS
    Nate DS Month ago

    This is probably good if you ever wanted to watch Ben hur without black bars.

  • Ronald Richardson
    Ronald Richardson Month ago

    Linus please help me... I have a little dilemma. I make good money and I can afford to buy an expensive gaming rig but only about once every seven or eight years.I put off buying an expensive gaming rig and an expensive monitor because I haven't seen anything out here that can run 4K at least 120 hertz refresh rate a millisecond response time and get over 40 in of screen real estate... Can you name any setup that can achieve this with over 60 frames a second?

  • bh snowyy
    bh snowyy 2 months ago

    Dumb

  • Malta By Drone
    Malta By Drone 2 months ago

    Do you know how many times I have rewatched this video?

  • Miguel Dias
    Miguel Dias 2 months ago

    if you sim race this could be mighty useful.

  • J D
    J D 2 months ago

    For a sim gamer a screen this big is perfect, i have ordred the Asus version and u cant wait to fire my simulator up on this, also Linux you annoy me as a average gamer/sim player its like if it aint 4k or nasa spec its not good enough which is a very bad approach, just letting you know.

  • statikreg
    statikreg 2 months ago

    I hope this catches on b/c I'd like to have one for my next monitor upgrade. But that's a ways down. I'm quite happy w/ my setup for now (34" 21:9 curved+2x 1080p screens, one of which is dedicated to REAPER and setup to work almost like a separate workstation w/ a suite of midi controllers)..Gentoo ftw.

  • Dave G
    Dave G 2 months ago

    Get the Dell U49 instead. It is 5120x1440 instead of lower 1080 resolution like this Samsung. Dell UltraSharp also beats everyone else for image quality. I only buy Dell monitors now in my media company.

  • ZayBoi Z
    ZayBoi Z 2 months ago

    it’s dumb
    a typical 32” or 27” monitor is fine

  • Kelna91
    Kelna91 2 months ago

    *Now take three or more and combine them in pivot mode side by side.*

  • the-mime /دا-ميم
    the-mime /دا-ميم 2 months ago

    You say allah akbar

  • eatthisvr6
    eatthisvr6 2 months ago

    nevermind the quality, check out the girth!!

  • ashley booth
    ashley booth 2 months ago

    i sware, every time he has a sponsor he just stretches it even further with the "puns"

  • Mariocdi
    Mariocdi 2 months ago

    A audio output on the IO is a necessity for me

  • Jmoonshine42
    Jmoonshine42 2 months ago

    so is there anything better out yet? im in the market but dont want to buy somthing if a better modle is coming out soon.

  • JayDBlaze
    JayDBlaze 2 months ago +2

    This is worth it, you can open multiple apps at once and resize them

  • Lou
    Lou 2 months ago

    Resolution though. Meh.

  • Mr Burns
    Mr Burns 2 months ago

    I laugh at this video because I still use a 19 inch 5 x 4 ratio “square” monitor lol.

  • Edward Ravenbear
    Edward Ravenbear 2 months ago +1

    Having one, I would not trade it for any 34'. And the flaws most of them you really have to hunt for.

    • Mr.Nelloxx
      Mr.Nelloxx Month ago

      I own one for six month now, I will never go back to anything smaller. A fantastic monitor.

  • David Aleshire
    David Aleshire 2 months ago

    Dude super helpful and well explained. Ive been debating this with myself for months

    • David Aleshire
      David Aleshire 2 months ago

      as a follow up, ive been going crazy trying to find an ultrawide with Gsync since i dont want AMD graphics cards atm. Is freesync/gsync even worth bothering with if you have a good enough card to support ultrawide at high resolution?

  • Kirby7601
    Kirby7601 2 months ago

    dennis 😍😍😍

  • BizzyX78
    BizzyX78 2 months ago

    - I get why the industry chose to base their screen-scaling on the vertical-resolution rather than the horizontal-resolution.
    Since not all people have the space required for a "Super-Mega-Ultra-Wide-Screen".
    So if they base it on, let's say, "1080" which is equal to the "X:9" in the "Full-HD"-resolution of "1920*1080", or "16:9" as it is...
    Since the industry seem to love this "Aspect Ratio" as a ground-rule, or rule of norm if you will.
    Scale wise that would mean you scale the screen by expanding it's horizontal-resolution/size/field of view while retaining it's vertical-resolution/size/field of view.
    And by that logic you get something like this...
    "1:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((1080)*(1080))*1) = "1080*1080"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "285750micrometers*285750micrometers" or "11 and (1/4)inches*11 and (1/4)inches", alternatively " (15/16)Feet*(15/16)Feet".)
    "2:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((1080)*(1080))*2) = "2160*1080"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "571500micrometers*285750micrometers" or "22 and (2/4)inches*11 and (1/4)inches", alternatively "1 and (14/16)Feet*(15/16)Feet".)
    "3:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((1080)*(1080))*3) = "3240*1080"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "857250micrometers*285750micrometers" or "33 and (3/4)inches*11 and (1/4)inches", alternatively "2 and (13/16)Feet*(15/16)Feet".)
    "4:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((1080)*(1080))*4) = "4320*1080"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "1143000micrometers*285750micrometers" or "45inches*11 and (1/4)inches", alternatively "3 and (12/16)Feet*(15/16)Feet".)
    But ironically that/this is something that seem to annoy (a lot of) users having to settle for such a relatively low vertical-resolution/size/field of view in this day and age.
    A screen with a wider horizontal-resolution/size/field of view is always nice, but not at the cost of, or lack of vertical-resolution/size/field of view.
    (NB!...: I know... Technically "Resolution" is considered either "High(er)" or "Low(er)", "Size" is considered either "Big(ger)" or "Small(er)". And "Field of View" is considered either "Wide(r)" or "Narrow(er)". Semantics... *Sigh* )
    Side note...
    Another thing is the fact that only two of the horizontal resolutions in this first example above is divisible by 16 and none of the vertical resolutions in that list are divisible by 16 either, not surprising since vertically they are all the same.
    -----
    Personally I would love it if the industry or at least some of the manufactures started producing a series of screens mainly based on the horizontal screen-resolution.
    Targeted at people that have the space for a "Super-Mega-Ultra-Wide-Screen", but also would like the option to choose a screen with a wider vertical-resolution/size/field of view without sacrificing the horizontal-resolution/size/field of view.
    Scale wise that would mean you scale the screen by expanding it's vertical-resolution/size/field of view while still retaining it's horizontal-resolution/size/field of view.
    And by that logic you get something like this...
    (NB!...: For those of us that grew up with the (namesake) "VGA"-Port, which in later years has been known to have a Max-resolution of "2048*15636", the following example is a multiplication of said resolution. And sort of a wet (screen-)dream for me personally.)
    "4:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((2048)*(1536))*3) = "6144*1536"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "1625600micrometers*406400micrometers" or "64inches*16inches", alternatively "5 and (4/12)Feet*1 and (4/12)Feet".)
    "2:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((2048)*(1536))*6) = "6144*3072"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "1625600micrometers*812800micrometers" or "64inches*32inches", alternatively "5 and (4/12)Feet*2 and (8/12)Feet".)
    "4:3"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((2048)*(1536))*9) = "6144*4608"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "1625600micrometers*1219200micrometers" or "64inches*48inches", alternatively "5 and (4/12)Feet*4Feet".)
    "1:1"-"Aspect Ratio" = (((2048)*(1536))*12) = "6144*6144"
    (Assuming the screen has squared pixels and a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 which seem to be pretty standard still (NB!...: Just to note that in the examples it's the horizontal and vertical values that equals a "DPI/PPI"-value of 96, not the diagonal which is roughly a "DPI/PPI"-value of 136. A diagonal "DPI/PPI"-value of 96 would increase the size of the screen.), you get a physical screen-size of "1625600micrometers*1625600micrometers" or "64inches*64inches", alternatively "5 and (4/12)Feet*5 and (4/12)Feet".)
    In a sort of ironic way it's still based on the vertical-resolution, but as it is...
    You can't have one without the other, and as stated in the text above, in this case the vertical-resolution/size/field of view expands without having to shrink the horizontal-resolution/size/field of view in order to do so.
    Side note...
    All the resolutions in this second example is both divisible by 16 horizontally and vertically, which is a big plus.
    Which I think would please (a lot of) users...
    Although, the resolutions in the second example is exponentially more taxing on the system compared to the resolutions in the first example, especially when you expand the vertical-resolution/size/field of view.
    A comparative example would be something like, "8192*2048" and "4096*4096" would be equally as taxing on the system since they both equal the same amount of pixels.

  • Elizabeth Elder
    Elizabeth Elder 2 months ago

    Love the view!

  • jinkazama496
    jinkazama496 2 months ago

    Cant wait to play mine sweeper on this thing! :D