Good God... 49" Super Ultra Widescreen Monitor

[Ryuzaki]

About a year ago I started lusting after Ultra Widescreen monitors. I rock three 24" monitors and they're great, but it's honestly a bit much, the bezels are annoying, and their width gets in the way of my nice speakers, etc. There's a ton of little benefits I gave up to get the huge benefit of all that screen real estate.

The truth is I don't use it all either. I basically leave 1/2 of each side monitor unused. So the normal Ultra Widescreens are almost one and a half the width of one 24" monitor. I had a hard time deciding if that was enough or not. It probably would be without the bezels since my windows wouldn't be chopped in half.

But I was unsure so I waited, knowing the price would come down and I was getting excited about a luxury. Somehow today I came across the next level of this rush: The SUPER Ultra Widescreen:

Look at that. It's exactly twice the width of a 24" widescreen monitor. So instead of 1920 x 1080, it's right at 3840 x 1080. Instead of 16:9 aspect ratio, it's 21:9 (if I'm remembering right). It's got a pretty serious curve built in too.

That's the 49" Samsung QLED CHG90, at $1500 USD.

I'm not looking at this for gaming, and I doubt many games can even manage this. But movies are definitely starting to use this aspect ratio. I'm mainly thinking about a more sensible screen set up. Instead of three, I'd be down to one without bezels.

I'm thinking out loud but let me be clear, I'm not buying this beast. I just wanted to share it, because it's insane.

For instance, one of my 24" screens is 22.5 inches horizontal. This thing is 47 inches horizontal, including the curve. My three monitors are 57 inches across in their "turned in towards me" orientation, so that's not even really helping me out to cut down on the width. I'll likely end up with a bigger ultrawide monitor sooner or later, probably bumping up to 1440p.

Here's a video that shows it in a real world situation a little better (Skip to about 50 seconds):

And another:

Anyways, I just wasted a good hour looking at all this crap. Do any of you use an ultra widescreen monitor? What's your current monitor situation like? Does this appeal to you?

 

[ryandiscord]

I have two 24" monitors. I enjoy having two because I like being able to snap programs to the full width of each display. Is there a way to simulate that with one long display?

 

[Ryuzaki]

I have two 24" monitors. I enjoy having two because I like being able to snap programs to the full width of each display. Is there a way to simulate that with one long display?

Yeah, Windows has something native and there's a boatload of $0.99 apps for the Mac, and free ones, that do that and any custom snap settings you want to create. Like BetterSnapTool (free and way more options) and Magnet (less than a buck and no set up, less options).

 

[Joe]

I just make do with the portable / poor-mans "wide screen"... ALT+TAB

If I ever get settled down at all I'll definitely want something like one of those though. I'm guessing with one of those you don't even need alt tab, you just open everything and leave it open and still have 40% of your screen space left.

 

[CCarter]

Don't waste your time. They did studies on this and I used this for the basis on my monitor selections for employees and myself. Two 20 inch monitors are the optimal performance for humans - afterwards productivity drops dramatically.

It comes down to neck movement and eye movement. Even though humans have a 180 degrees of field of vision it doesn't mean you can be productive with that field of vision while sitting down in a chair. I'm pretty sure someone is working on screens to take advantage of up to 180 degrees, but let's be realistic, the large field of vision is for seeing predators out of the corner of our eyes so we can react quickly. You aren't able to see what the cell number on a spreadsheet is at 1 degree while also seeing what's on the other screen at 179 degree clearly.

Your eyes can move about 60 degrees without needing to involve more of your neck. At 20 inches that's optimal, at 24 inches, your eyes need more neck movement - Anything above that will result in you #1 using only fractions of the total real estate - which I found myself doing when I had 3 screens, even two 20 inches and a laptop screen would result in the laptop screen not being used at all; or #2 more neck strain and your brain will naturally start only allowing you to use real estate in the same 60 degree movement.

Most people naturally place a monitor so there is the least amount of neck movement in either of these two positions:

A 3rd screen (or more) sounds great and you would think it looks cool and all, but it's more of a hassle in reality. It's like have a Bi-turbo car - adding a 3rd turbo "sounds" better, but in practicality it reduces performance, and is more of a headache.

Here is source PDF: Optimal Performance With Two or More Computer Screens

Learn to be content, remember you are the marketer not the consumer.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I just make do with the portable / poor-mans "wide screen"... ALT+TAB

Yeah, I"m from the old school of physical desktops and spreading papers out, etc. I want all of my reference material visible, so when I hit the flow I'm not stopping to find windows re-find my place on them. MacOS has a pretty neat feature called Spaces now, where you can have up to 12 versions of your desktop at a time. So one can be for writing and researching, another for spreadsheet work, etc. Basically this lets you keep all of your files open and ready without having to minimize or let them stack up indefinitely behind your main windows.

Yeah, regarding going dual screen or even triple screen, when those were the only options. Nearly everything I read last night on forums and social media was unanimous... anyone who dropped FROM double or triple screen to a single ultrawide much prefers it, even with less screen real estate.

This quote nails it:

A 3rd screen (or more) sounds great and you would think it looks cool and all, but it's more of a hassle in reality.

It's not a hassle in terms of work, but it's an annoyance in physical space for sure. And nobody is actually using all this space unless they have a ton of live dashboards running or live inside spreadsheets that cross-reference each other.

For me, this is about productivity and downsizing, not upgrading. I'm currently at 3 monitors and that definitely boosted my productivity over 2 monitors, which I was at for years before jumping to three. Three was overkill due to the size. Three 24" 1080p monitors is huge. The annoyance of two is the asymmetrical set-up or having the bezel right down the middle. These Ultrawide's solve that entirely.

This tech is exactly what the study you're talking about is proposing. I'm referring to a normal 21:9 Ultrawide, not this crazy one in the OP. They're about 1.5x the size of a 24 inch screen, expanded horizontally. It's less screen real estate than even 2 screens, but you don't have a bezel physically cutting your work space in two and there's less neck and eye movement.

 

[built]

I'm at 27inch 4K and I'm pretty happy. Work and graphic design is amazing. Gaming on it is quite annoying though since I have 2 390x instead of the new cards that came out

 

[Bastion]

I've heard people complain that curved screens can distort text, spreadsheets, images, etc for actual office and design work. I think a non-curved 21:9 single monitor at a large enough size to put two applications side by side is pretty optimal -- comparable to dual 20" screens without the bezels and the added flexibility of screen arrangement and ultrawide full screen views (excel, video/audio editing, photoshop, etc).

For gaming tho... got damn. That thing is almost as big as a sports car's windshield.

Going farther out into the future, I'm wondering how augmented reality and/or virtual reality could change how we work. I can imagine the ability to project a full-featured monitor anywhere you want at any size you want as if it were real becoming a reality in the near future as suggested by the Hololens demos. You could then open and close monitors as needed. Or have your triple 24" monitor array waiting for you at your Starbuck's table, or on the bus/train/plane.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Or have your triple 24" monitor array waiting for you at your Starbuck's table, or on the bus/train/plane.

Apple has some new feature in Macs where it stores your desktop files in the cloud, so no matter where you go and which device you switch to, all of the stuff you're actively working on is there, as long as you have the software installed. I can imagine most software going to the cloud too...

 

[doublethinker]

Or have your triple 24" monitor array waiting for you at your Starbuck's table, or on the bus/train/plane.

There's something like that already. But triple 24" monitors? You could have all the walls turned into monitors and that's the best you can come up with for VR?

 

[darkzerothree]

I second the 2 screen recommendation.

Found that to be the nicest setup by far.

I actually had the opportunity to test 3 screens and one huge one at work, but no and no.

 

[Kris]

Gorgeous screen, I was tempted to get a 21:9 screen but there's only a small amount of games that support that aspect ratio.

I'm currently using 2x 27" screens and find it does the job great.

 

[knownerror]

Running two 24" monitors. Whenever I do work on my laptop it drives me nuts. I need to have everything laid out for my eyes to see. No alt tab or closing tabs if I can get away with it. Nah fam. Whenever I get around to buying a new rig, I plan to get a third as well. Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to display something but haven't been able to on two screens.

 

[Apex]

In my case, I use a 21.5" monitor. I'm thinking of buying an ultrawide 25" monitor, which seems to have a similar height to mine but is much wider, something I would like, since I almost always use the apps adjusted to half screen.

 

[contract]

Anyone here running more than 32" of screen space?

I can't seem to fit more than 4 browser windows side by side. I normally tend to use 6-8+ windows at a time.

Tempted to buy another screen so I can stop minimizing windows over and over again.

 

[Joe]

I don't know how you guys manage. This is my screen and I consider it a minimum.

 

[animalstyle]

About a year ago during a move I finally dumped my old 3 monitor setup. I had two 21" widescreens and a 26" TV - it was less than ideal.

To replace it all, I bought the 21:9 at 3440x1440 Samsung SE790C (http://www.samsung.com/levant/monitors/curved-se790c/):

The thinking was that I'd have enough width to hold 3 1000+px windows wide.

In addition, I added a small piece of software (windows) called WinSplit Revolution. This allows me to hotkey windows into halves, thirds, corners and more. It makes pushing 2, 3 or more windows into place really easy to do.

Probably 90% of the time I split the screen in half, two windows wide, one left, one right.

To the point that CCarter makes, because of the lack of bezels, the monitor probably requires a similar amount of head movement to a two monitor setup with a ton of resolution to use. (speaking from experience only, not tested, measured or proven).

After over a year of using the monitor, I must say it's very nice and I'd highly recommend this resolution. Going 21:9 I wouldn't go any smaller than 36 inches. I've also done a bit of gaming (FPS's, Pubg, Fortnite) and the resolution is BADASS.

 

[chanilla]

Something about the 49 is off... seems like a good idea, but in practice when using multiple screens, it fucks with your eyes somehow. Text is not as sharp either.

 

[Future State]

Something about the 49 is off... seems like a good idea, but in practice when using multiple screens, it fucks with your eyes somehow. Text is not as sharp either.

I use three screens and the text is fine, but I'm making sure to use the native resolutions of the screens and the default text sizes of the operating system. It sounds to me like you have a situation of bigger monitors with lower resolution, which appear pixelated up close. A 60" 1080p TV is going to look horrible if you're too close, for example.

 

[chanilla]

I use three screens and the text is fine, but I'm making sure to use the native resolutions of the screens and the default text sizes of the operating system. It sounds to me like you have a situation of bigger monitors with lower resolution, which appear pixelated up close. A 60" 1080p TV is going to look horrible if you're too close, for example.

Yep you're right, pretty sure that is the problem... It's 3480 X 1080, so any graphics card other than running it with a tower is going to fall short it seems.

The trouble is coming from stepping down from 1440 or higher, which is actually a downgrade if you're used to ultrasharps. (the text actually seems pixelated at 25" distance compared to three 24's. No way I can use that.)