December 10, 2016 at 2:27 pm #40802
The ‘flickering’ from dithering, particularly 8+2 AFRC is completely different to PWM flickering. Very few users would find it problematic, so I suggest you so putting yourself off monitors for the sake of something that more than likely won’t be an issue.December 10, 2016 at 3:31 pm #40803
OK, thank you, fingers crossed for CES 2017.December 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm #40804
Yeah, I do hope to see a monitor like you described shown off there (Rec 2020. We shall see. 🙂January 4, 2017 at 8:19 pm #41175
Free Sync 2 : Information
OLED industry experts Burn in
As far as i see DCI P3 is now at 100% this year for TVs (something that monitors had)
No real self emissive QLED, just “pen-tile screen 2” with wider viewing angles for the normal Samsung PVA.
I am beginning to think less and less money is going each year into R&D.
How do they think slight improvements will make people want to replace their current gadgets ?
I recently tested an Acer Predator 21:9 curved model.
That’s it for now.January 4, 2017 at 9:44 pm #41176
I don’t agree with you on 21:9 being of limited use due to head movement. I find my eyes can move to get the entirity of a 34″ UltraWide screen in my central field of vision without any head movement at all. And that’s from a viewing distance of around 70cm. Unless you have problems with your extraocular muscles, this really shouldn’t be an issue. I suppose if you add glasses to the equation then, depending on the frames, this could necessitate head movement.
And just wait until the Nvidia press conference tomorrow… Seems that zonal control for monitor backlights may be implemented after all. It’s a start, at least.January 5, 2017 at 1:02 am #41189
Glasses severely force you to move the head if the display is too wide it seems. Good point ! Otherwise if you don’t move it, you see the frame of the glasses all the time.
On a 34″ with 21:9 you can’t have everything in focus.
The cone of visual attention is about 55 degrees wide some studies say.
Humans have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal diameter of their visual field, The vertical range of the visual field in humans is typically around 135 degrees.
The range of visual abilities is not uniform across the visual field, and varies from animal to animal. For example, binocular vision, which is the basis for stereopsis and is important for depth perception, covers 114 degrees (horizontally) of the visual field in humans; the remaining peripheral 60–70 degrees have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the visual field)
The normal (monocular) human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) from the vertical meridian in each eye, to 107 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards) from the vertical meridian, and approximately 70 degrees above and 80 below the horizontal meridian.
The binocular visual field is the superimposition of the two monocular fields. In the binocular field, the area left of the vertical meridian is referred to as the left visual field (which is temporally for the left, and nasally for the right eye); a corresponding definition holds for the right visual field. The four areas delimited by the vertical and horizontal meridian are referred to as upper/lower left/right quadrants. In the United Kingdom, the minimum field requirement for driving is 60 degrees either side of the vertical meridian, and 20 degrees above and below horizontal. The macula corresponds to the central 17 degrees diameter of the visual field; the fovea to the central 5.2 degrees, and the foveola to 1–1.2 degrees diameter.
Now my question is what is the ideal ratio that a screen must have if you stay at ideal distance from it (where the image on the screen gives you maximum benefits) ?
Is it 4:3, 16:10 (golden ratio), 16:9, 21:9, 1:1 (like a square or circle) or something else ?January 5, 2017 at 9:55 am #41191
I say this as a neuroscientist who works in animal vision; there is no such thing as an ‘ideal ratio’ for monitors in my view. You can’t generalise, in doing so you fail to account for individual variation and preferences. So coming back to the question, the ideal ratio is whatever the user prefers and is comfortable using and whatever fits their workflow or uses. In your case that would be 16:10. In my case I am fairly open to 16:9, 16:10, 21:9 or any more obscure ratio depending on the size of screen.
Another advantage of having ratios which are taller rather than wider is that they tend to make ‘better use’ of the physical screen space for individual applications. Take this forum for example and think about how useful the vertical screen real-estate is compared to horizontal for fitting lots of text on the screen. Now put another window or two side by side with that and the horizontal real-estate becomes quite important. As long as the user can comfortably do the work they need to do or enjoy the content in the way which they want, that’s fine. And for one user that may call for a more ‘square’ aspect ratio and another one that’s relatively wide. For 21:9 screens it doesn’t matter whether you can view all of the content at once in your central visual field – the advantages come from multi-tasking with multiple focal points on the screen at once or immersive entertainment which engages peripheral vision.January 6, 2017 at 12:24 am #41209
People are different and yes there are individual variation and preferences.
Depending on activity i don’t find it such a big advantage to have side by side stuff over switching tabs on regular monitors and people rarely are good at multi tasking with their two hemispheres that work under normal circumstances together and have one focus at a time. You can potentially read two book at the same time by using your two hemispheres independently but how many can do that ?
We can generalize that, because how web browsing, coding and content of sites work, the ratio of 9:16 for example (tall but narrow) is better than 16:9 for these activities.
But this is because the way the content was made to work (vertical information) instead of horizontal news or (imagine) news images (that link to articles) that align on longer or shorter horizontal rows depending on the resolution of each person. (maybe this can be done for PC Monitors Info as it will make the white space disappear on wide or high resolution screens)
However we have 2 eyes that are horizontally positioned not vertically so this gives us more horizontal far periphery vision.
My theory is that the human field of view is closest to the golden rectangle ~ 1.618 in practical terms.
Others say “The aspect ratio of the human eye is about 5:3 (1.66), and it’s shaped like an irregular oval:”
You said it yourself that on 21:9 “you won’t be able to focus on the whole scene at once, unless you are rather far back from the monitor”
Now let’s imagine you look at the exact center of the screen, the display is big enough and the distance at which you put yourself must be the distance where you only see the bezel horizontally but nothing else after it – in your far periphery.
So, a 16.18 : 10 display will satisfy more of your vertical far periphery vision. ( 43 degrees vertically on top and bottom )
A 4:3 will satisfy a huge part of your vertical far periphery vision. ( 50 degrees top, 71 degrees bottom )
A 21:9 will barely interact with your vertical far periphery vision. ( 32 degrees vertically on top and bottom )
The 21:9 screens are closer to the Silver Ratio of 2.41. ( 21:9 = 2.33 )
If one doesn’t have problems with far periphery vision a 16:10 or 4:3 will be actually better than 21:9, where, if you try to stay close enough to fully occupy the vertical far periphery you end up with horizontal space that is beyond your maximum horizontal far periphery.
Can i get a Nobel prize for solving the puzzle ? :))January 6, 2017 at 8:06 am #41211
Multi-tasking in this context doesn’t mean having to concentrate on two seperate tasks simultaneously, it means switching between them quickly. Transferring data from one application into another, for example, or looking at a document or image and derriving data from that. I do it a lot and find it far more efficient when I can see the ‘source’ (document A) and ‘destination’ (document B) at the same time. Again, it depends on workflow and preferences.
The format for the website is not adjustable in terms of taking up more horizontal space without changing themes. And that would be a massive undertaking with knock-on consequences elsewhere. Many people have commented that they like the ‘clean look’ (even on multiple displays). And of course that white space exists on many website (including the BBC) so it’s something users are quite used to. And it’s again why many are led to multi-task to make more efficient use of their horizontal screen space. Or procrastinate, depending on what they’re doing.
I agree that 21:9 isn’t ideal and that some of its advantages (horizontally) could be maintained with a screen that is also larger vertically. Then again, it still works nicely for immersion, depending on viewing distance and of course size of screen.January 7, 2017 at 2:16 pm #41243
Dell UP3218k 31.5″ 279.73 PPI.
“Just as with the entertainment industry, the PC industry has been slowly convincing consumers into transitioning from 1080p sets to larger 1440p and 4K counterparts, though adoption has mostly been limited to gaming and professional applications. The market for video content has been hindered until recently by Hollywood’s lock-down on 4K copyright protection, though hardware DRM initiatives such as Microsoft PlayReady 3.0 are now allowing blockbuster film playback on all monitors and cables supporting HDCP 2.2.”January 7, 2017 at 4:05 pm #41246
Yeah, that will be a very interesting product. I shudder to think about gaming performance on that thing, although I do agree that, despite diminishing returns after a certain point, there are still good benefits to be had from pixel densities beyond current monitors. For example, although I find the difference between ~24″ and ~32″ UHD screens to be quite marginal (as hinted at in my reviews), I find that as pixel density is pushed much further there are some nice clarity and detail benefits. My partner’s laptop has a 13.3″ 2560 x 1440 screen, for example, with a pixel density of 220.84 PPI. It also helps that is a glossy OLED screen, but the clarity is quite something.January 10, 2017 at 7:59 pm #41300
If you had two monitors 16:9, one 27″ and one 32″ both having 8k resolution and scaling would work perfectly, so text and everything would be the same size on both. (the sweet spot for you)
Which one, simply in terms of size, do you find personally, to be more efficient or preferable ?
Is bigger always better ?
Did you find larger screens more distracting when having to do work on them ?
January 10, 2017 at 8:06 pm #41301
I rather like ‘in your face’ screens, so for me it would be 32″. But everyone is different. I actually use and own mainly ~24″ and 27″ screens and I get on with them quite happily. I suppose the potential price difference might also be a factor for some. And if I had shallow desk, I wouldn’t have the same preference for 32″.January 11, 2017 at 2:36 pm #41303
I’ve got the itch to upgrade my DELL U2515H (1440p) to a 4K monitor.
Can get the Phillips BL3201PT for about £600, but considering it’s a good two years old now I think i’ll wait.
I’m very interested in the new LG 32UD99.January 11, 2017 at 3:39 pm #41304
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.