1440p monitor size question

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, Deezle said:

What matters is what you see on it, and at proper FOVs, you get a wider picture that's just as tall.

Right but depending on your preference it still takes a huge ultrawide to give you the same screen height as a 16:9. If the height is your goal then 16:9 is preferable. Also for a given cost 16:9 is probably going to give you a taller screen. I can’t help but see it that way because again due to my age and eyesight the goal is “bigger”

[kksnowbear]

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me. 

4 hours ago, Deezle said:

No.

Technically, no it's not reduced - at least not compared to a 'normal' (16:9) 27" monitor.  And I actually have an 32:9, right in front of me, along with three 27" units in the same room, and two others nearby.

The 32:9 is exactly as tall as a 27" monitor, and twice as wide.  That's why the monitors are all specified in terms of 'aspect ratio', that is, the ratio of the width to height (32:9 compared to the typical 16:9).  Even if we compare to a 32" 16:9, the height isn't that drastically different: I believe the display in a 32" 16:9 is about 16.5" tall, where my 49" 32:9 is about 14.5" tall.  (I'm not counting 48" units here, more on that later.)

It (my 32:9) is also still 1440p; there are 1440 pixels on the vertical side of the monitor, same as if it were 27", or even larger - and in fact it's sharper than a 32" 1440p because there are the same number of pixels in a smaller space (smaller displays are always sharper at the same resolution).

Further, if we're comparing apples to apples (i.e. 1440p resolution to 1440p, *not* 4k) then the 32:9 1440p has *double* the pixel count:  7.3 million for the 32:9 vs 3.6 million for the 16:9 1440p.   And again, if you go to a 32" monitor, it's not going to be as sharp - the same number of (vertical) pixels has to cover a larger area.

So by comparison you're not losing pixels, nor vertical size (compared to a 27" 1440p).  You're also not losing sharpness compared to a 32" 1440p, it's actually increased.

The issue that is being confused here is that the 32:9 width is doubled compared to a 27" 1440p monitor.  This makes the monitor twice as wide (of course) which appears longer in the horizontal (or "wider"...of course lol).

If you consider a 16:9 monitor that's just as wide as my 32:9, it would have to be twice as tall.  But here's the key: If you were to do that, and still maintain pixel density (and thus clarity), you're now looking at 5160 x 2880 pixels (twice the pixels in height, same in width as the 32:9).

That's approaching *double* the pixels of 4k...(take a sec, absorb that lol).  While I'm sure it would be nice looking, it would also undoubtedly cost an arm and a leg, and would further choke even the best GPU to death trying to keep up with all those pixels.  I don't know if anyone even makes such a thing, but based on your comments here, I'm gonna say it's not in your range  

And yes, just like Deezle pointed out:  You get a wider picture that's just as tall.  It's easy: Count the pixels. A 1440p 32:9 has the exact same "view" in the vertical that any other 1440p does.  They're all 1440 pixels, no matter which is bigger.  The difference is the 32:9 has *twice* the horizontal view (again, compared to a 16:9 1440p).

To be completely accurate, as I said earlier, I'm considering a 16:9 replacement for my 32:9.  But I'm still not sure, based on all the same above.  And here's why:

If I were to go to a 16:9 monitor, it will *have to be* 4k to even come close to the same sharpness, and even then I'm actually losing clarity if I want to keep the same width.  And I like the width, because that's the way human vision works.  Our field of vision is about 40% wider than it is high (just over 210ᵒ horizontal vs just below 150ᵒ vertical).

(That is, if - heaven forbid - we upset the masses by bringing objective data and fact into a technical discussion.  I know, it's outrage.)

Now, even at 4k, I'm factually losing clarity in the horizontal, because the pixel count horizontally will be 3840 over the same physical distance as my current 32:9, which has 5120 pixels horizontally.  That's 33% more pixels in the same horizontal space as a 4k 16:9 of the same width.

It's true that I'd gain total pixels in the vertical by going to 4k, but keep in mind, they're now spread out over a larger area:  The 16:9 4k will need to be *twice* as tall, to be as wide horizontally as my 32:9 is now, but the vertical pixels don't double going from 1440 to 4k.  It's only a 1.5x increase.

So, to be accurate, if I go to a 4k 16:9 of the same width as my current 32:9 1440p, I'm losing pixel density (and thus, clarity/sharpness) in both the horizontal and vertical.

Now, that might not matter as much if you place the monitor further away...but then, to me, there's no point in buying a bigger monitor just to move it further away.  Pythagoras tells us that your eyes see the same size picture as a smaller monitor when you move it far enough away (I actually made a spreadsheet for calculating that).  Regardless, where it does matter is the closer you get to the actual screen.  I believe it is accurate to say that at typical distances, most people will have little trouble seeing that a 108PPI image is noticeably sharper than a 80PPI image is.

I believe the math is exactly as I've described it above (thought it's always possible any of us makes a mistake).  While it's true that it's "all relative", it remains that, in terms of 'pixel view' as outlined, you're not losing vertically - you're gaining horizontally.

The math doesn't cover personal preference, of course.  That's up to the individual.  But the math absolutely can and does quantify, in crystal clear terms, the differences as far as measurable aspects are concerned.

And please:  Don't take my word for it.  Below is an image of two pixel density calculators; both show my current 49" 32:9 1440p, one vs a 48" 4k 16:9 and the other vs a 55" 4k 16:9.  In both cases my 1440p 32:9 has a higher pixel density (PPI) and thus a sharper image than 4k.

The 48" 4k has only 84% the pixel density of the 1440p 32:9, *and* I'm losing width if I go that way.  The 55" has the same width (within 1") but look: The pixel density - which determines sharpness - drops to 73% of my 49" 32:9.

So choose carefully.  As I said earlier: Study.  These things you read about "slits" and reduced height are nothing more than subjective human observations, as are those concerning clarity/sharpness of the image.  The available data indicates it is accurate to say that once a 4k monitor goes past ~42" it can no longer have the same pixel density (and therefore, picture clarity/sharpness) as a 32:9 1440p.

The math is objective; it doesn't care who's right, it doesn't have an opinion, and it doesn't lie.

From https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php :

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Deezle]

4 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Technically, no it's not reduced - at least not compared to a 'normal' (16:9) 27" monitor.  And I actually have an Ultrawide, right in front of me, along with three 27" units in the same room, and two others nearby.

The utlrawide is exactly as tall as a 27" monitor, and twice as wide.  That's why the monitors are all specified in terms of 'aspect ratio', that is, the ratio of the width to height.  Ultrawides are 32:9 compared to the typical 16:9.  Even if we compare to a 32" 16:9, the height isn't that drastically different: I believe the display in a 32" 16:9 is about 16.5" tall, where my 49" 32:9 is about 14.5" tall.  (I'm not counting 48" units here, more on that later.)

It (my ultrawide) is also still 1440p; there are 1440 pixels on the horizontal side of the monitor, same as if it were 27", or even larger - and in fact it's sharper than a 32" 1440p because there are the same number of pixels in a smaller space (smaller displays are always sharper at the same resolution).

Further, if we're comparing apples to apples (i.e. 1440p resolution to 1440p, *not* 4k) then the Ultrawide 1440p has *double* the pixel count:  7.3 million for the Ultrawide vs 3.6 million for the 16:9 1440p.   And again, if you go to a 32" monitor, it's not going to be as sharp - the same number of (vertical) pixels has to cover a larger area.

So by comparison you're not losing pixels, nor vertical size (compared to a 27" 1440p).  You're also not losing sharpness compared to a 32" 1440p, it's actually increased.

The issue that is being confused here is that the Ultrawide's width is doubled compared to a 27" 1440p monitor.  This makes the monitor twice as wide (of course) which appears longer in the horizontal (or "wider"...of course lol).

If you consider a 16:9 monitor that's just as wide as my ultrawide, it would have to be twice as tall.  But here's the key: If you were to do that, and still maintain pixel density (and thus clarity), you're now looking at 5160 x 2880 pixels (twice the pixels in height, same in width as the Ultrawide).

That's approaching *double* the pixels of 4k...(take a sec, absorb that lol).  While I'm sure it would be nice looking, it would also undoubtedly cost an arm and a leg, and would further choke even the best GPU to death trying to keep up with all those pixels.  I don't know if anyone even makes such a thing, but based on your comments here, I'm gonna say it's not in your range  

And yes, just like Deezle pointed out:  You get a wider picture that's just as tall.  It's easy: Count the pixels. A 1440 ultrawide has the exact same "view" in the vertical that any other 1440p does.  They're all 1440 pixels, no matter which is bigger.  The difference is the Ultrawide has *twice* the horizontal view (again, compared to a 16:9 1440p).

To be completely accurate, as I said earlier, I'm considering a 16:9 replacement for my Ultrawide.  But I'm still not sure, based on all the same above.  And here's why:

If I were to go to a 16:9 monitor, it will *have to be* 4k to even come close to the same sharpness, and even then I'm actually losing clarity if I want to keep the same width.  And I like the width, because that's the way human vision works.  Our field of vision is about 40% wider than it is high (just over 210ᵒ horizontal vs just below 150ᵒ vertical).

(That is, if - heaven forbid - we upset the masses by bringing objective data and fact into a technical discussion.  I know, it's outrage.)

Now, even at 4k, I'm factually losing clarity in the horizontal, because the pixel count horizontally will be 3840 over the same physical distance as my current Ultrawide, which has 5120 pixels horizontally.  That's 33% more pixels in the same horizontal space as a 4k 16:9 of the same width.

It's true that I'd gain total pixels in the vertical by going to 4k, but keep in mind, they're now spread out over a larger area:  The 16:9 4k will need to be *twice* as tall, to be as wide horizontally as my ultrawide is now, but the vertical pixels don't double going from 1440 to 4k.  It's only a 1.5x increase.

So, to be accurate, if I go to a 4k 16:9 of the same width as my current ultrawide 1440p, I'm losing pixel density (and thus, clarity/sharpness) in both the horizontal and vertical.

I believe the math is exactly as I've described it above (thought it's always possible any of us makes a mistake).  While it's true that it's "all relative", it remains that, in terms of 'pixel view' as outlined, you're not losing vertically - you're gaining horizontally.

The math doesn't cover personal preference, of course.  That's up to the individual.  But the math absolutely can and does quantify, in crystal clear terms, the differences as far as measurable aspects are concerned.

And please:  Don't take my word for it.  Below is an image of two pixel density calculators; both show my current 49" 32:9 1440p, one vs a 48" 4k 16:9 and the other vs a 55" 4k 16:9.  In both cases my 1440p Ultrawide has a higher pixel density (PPI) and thus a sharper image than 4k.

The 48" 4k has only 84% the pixel density of the 1440 ultrawide, but I'm losing width if I go that way.  The 55" has the same width (within 1") but look: The pixel density - which determines sharpness - drops to 73% of my 49" ultrawide.

So choose carefully.  As I said earlier: Study.  These things you read about "slits" and reduced height are nothing more than subjective human observations.  The math is objective; it doesn't care who's right, it doesn't have an opinion, and it doesn't lie.

(From https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

 

FWIW, you're talking about Super Ultrawide (32:9), Ultrawide is 21:9.

[kksnowbear]

6 minutes ago, Deezle said:

FWIW, you're talking about Super Ultrawide (32:9), Ultrawide is 21:9.

Ah, indeed it is.  Too focused on the other stuff.  Corrected, forthwith.

EDIT: There, I think I got them all.  Thank you!

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

7 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

If you consider a 16:9 monitor that's just as wide as my 32:9, it would have to be twice as tall.  But here's the key: If you were to do that, and still maintain pixel density (and thus clarity), you're now looking at 5160 x 2880 pixels (twice the pixels in height, same in width as the 32:9).

That's approaching *double* the pixels of 4k...(take a sec, absorb that lol).  While I'm sure it would be nice looking, it would also undoubtedly cost an arm and a leg, and would further choke even the best GPU to death trying to keep up with all those pixels.  I don't know if anyone even makes such a thing, but based on your comments here, I'm gonna say it's not in your range  

And yes, just like Deezle pointed out:  You get a wider picture that's just as tall.  It's easy: Count the pixels. A 1440p 32:9 has the exact same "view" in the vertical that any other 1440p does.  They're all 1440 pixels, no matter which is bigger.  The difference is the 32:9 has *twice* the horizontal view (again, compared to a 16:9 1440p).

To be completely accurate, as I said earlier, I'm considering a 16:9 replacement for my 32:9.  But I'm still not sure, based on all the same above.  And here's why:

If I were to go to a 16:9 monitor, it will *have to be* 4k to even come close to the same sharpness, and even then I'm actually losing clarity if I want to keep the same width.  And I like the width, because that's the way human vision works.  Our field of vision is about 40% wider than it is high (just over 210ᵒ horizontal vs just below 150ᵒ vertical).

(That is, if - heaven forbid - we upset the masses by bringing objective data and fact into a technical discussion.  I know, it's outrage.)

Now, even at 4k, I'm factually losing clarity in the horizontal, because the pixel count horizontally will be 3840 over the same physical distance as my current 32:9, which has 5120 pixels horizontally.  That's 33% more pixels in the same horizontal space as a 4k 16:9 of the same width.

It's true that I'd gain total pixels in the vertical by going to 4k, but keep in mind, they're now spread out over a larger area:  The 16:9 4k will need to be *twice* as tall, to be as wide horizontally as my 32:9 is now, but the vertical pixels don't double going from 1440 to 4k.  It's only a 1.5x increase.

So, to be accurate, if I go to a 4k 16:9 of the same width as my current 32:9 1440p, I'm losing pixel density (and thus, clarity/sharpness) in both the horizontal and vertical.

Now, that might not matter as much if you place the monitor further away...but then, to me, there's no point in buying a bigger monitor just to move it further away.  Pythagoras tells us that your eyes see the same size picture as a smaller monitor when you move it far enough away (I actually made a spreadsheet for calculating that).  Regardless, where it does matter is the closer you get to the actual screen.  I believe it is accurate to say that at typical distances, most people will have little trouble seeing that a 108PPI image is noticeably sharper than a 80PPI image is.

I believe the math is exactly as I've described it above (thought it's always possible any of us makes a mistake).  While it's true that it's "all relative", it remains that, in terms of 'pixel view' as outlined, you're not losing vertically - you're gaining horizontally.

The math doesn't cover personal preference, of course.  That's up to the individual.  But the math absolutely can and does quantify, in crystal clear terms, the differences as far as measurable aspects are concerned.

The problem is, every 49'' 32:9 screen like that Samsung G9 uses a VA panel that can't even hold a candle to any and all 48'' OLED panel, be it TV or Monitor, such as the LG C3 48 OLED.... which actually sell at a lower price!   Overall image quality (static or in motion) is not even comparable, really. Again, for the same price or lower!
If you've seen the two working, the C3's OLED panel is s-t-u-n-n-i-n-g. The G9's VA panel is just "meh" after it.

We must add another fact as well, the math you implied there can not take into account how human vision works - noone will be using a 48'' 16:9 screen at less than one meter of distance, and the PPI perception difference becomes completely irrelevant and forgotten at such distance, especially with a 48'' OLED (like that relatively affordable LG C3), as crisp and sharp as anyone wishes for.

So much so that all major manufacturers simply have quit the idea of an 8K screen on anything less than 65''.
Because 4K in 16:9 format on 42'' and 48'' OLED is *muuaa*   (Chef's kiss!)

That's why all these 42'' and 48'' OLEDs have been selling like hot cakes and will keep doing so, ond and on...  

The 49'' G9 is, along with so many other 32:9 monitors, and in my experience, one of the biggest scams in the monitor's market - it's not worth anything close to its price.
Especially with OLEDs overshadowing it instantly, and that's even before we take into account the screen format.

And on that, then the size and aspect.
Not even going to repeat myself from previous posts, but consider what I just wrote and check the following images, hopefully it can ilustrate my point...



Look at it, and think which one would you really prefer to use DCS on?   I mean... really? 




So, same price (actually lower on the C3), but far more immersive (bigger estate) and far superior quality panel (on every single aspect)?

If you can, try to work and sim/game (DCS?) on both.   You'll easily see what I mean when I say it's a really, reeaally easy choice...

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

17 minutes ago, LucShep said:

The problem is, a 49'' 32:9 screen like that Samsung G9 uses a VA panel that can't even hold a candle to any and all 48'' OLED panel, be it TV or Monitor, such as the LG C3 48 OLED, which actually sells at a lower price. 
Image quality is not even comparable. If you've seen the two working, the C3's OLED panel is s-t-u-n-n-i-n-g. The G9's VA panel is really "meh" after it.

We must add as well, the math implied there can not take into account the fact how human vision works - noone will be using a 48'' 16:9 screen at less than one meter of distance, and the PPI perception difference becomes completely irrelevant and forgotten at such distance, especially with a 48'' OLED (like that relatively affordable LG C3), as crisp and sharp as anyone wishes for.

So much so that all major manufacturers simply have quit the idea of an 8K screen on anything less than 65''. Because 4K in 16:9 format on 42'' and 48'' OLED is *muuaa* (Chef's kiss!).

That's why all these 48'' OLEDs have been selling like hot cakes and will keep doing so, ond and on...  

The 49'' G9 is, along with so many other 32:9 monitors, and in my experience, one of the biggest scams in the monitor's market - it's not worth anything close to its price.
Especially with OLEDs overshadowing it instantly, and that's even before we take into account the screen format.

And on that, then the size and aspect.
Not even going to repeat myself from previous posts, but consider what I just wrote and check the following images, hopefully it can ilustrate my point...





So, same price (actually lower on the C3), but far more immersive (bigger estate) and far superior quality panel (on every single aspect)?

If you can, try to work and sim/game (DCS?) on both.   You'll easily see what I mean when I say it's a really, reeaally easy choice...

Nobody was even remotely trying to compare an OLED's image quality to a VA.  I mentioned earlier in this same thread the OLEDs are incredible.  Straw man: You're arguing a point nobody tried to make (that I'm aware of).

Once we take the straw man out of your argument, we're still left with much lower pixel density on a 4k monitor that even comes close to the same physical size.  And people *can* tell the difference in that.

The rest is just math.  Again, doesn't lie, doesn't have an opinion.

But, hey, I had an idea:  You can actually help me out.   I'm considering replacing the G9 with a 16:9 monitor, just like you advocate.  But it's just not as obvious to me as you seem to think.

So sell me.  Show me the best deal you can come up with.  Mind you, the facts still apply:  The human field of vision is wider than it is tall, and it's my own preference as well.  So, to approach the width I have now (45.2" per Samsung), keeping the same or better pixel density, and curved (I do strongly prefer the 1000R).

Cost, while not immaterial, is *always* a factor.  If your best deal is $2000 for what I want, that has to be considered as well.  I believe it's accurate to say I paid <$825 for my G9 a year ago IIRC.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

18 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Nobody was even remotely trying to compare an OLED to a VA.  I mentioned earlier in this same thread the OLEDs are incredible.  Straw man: You're arguing a point nobody tried to make (that I'm aware of).

Once we take the straw man out of your argument, we're still left with much lower pixel density on a 4k monitor that even comes close to the same physical size.

The rest is just math.  Again, doesn't lie, doesn't have an opinion.

The problem with that argument is that it becomes impossible not to bring the comparison of OLED to the table. Because every single 32:9 is still waaay overpriced.
For their price, you can get infinitely better 16:9 OLED panels that beat them at every single point, be it quality or price, with only a small sect of sim-racing users holding on to that 32:9 ultrawide format.

The lower pixel density of 4K vs DQHD (aka"5K") becomes a matter of numbers, like 500hp vs 510hp on a combustion engine (meaningless), because yours and everyone's eyes will not complain about that even on 16:9 48'' screen positioned at one meter (plus) distance from you. Eespecially not if it's an OLED.

The math is just math. It's not human, doesn't interpret your feelings and perceptions.
Again, what you feel is the truth, it's what creates your reality and your opinion.  Try both, then you'll see and create yours too.

I did, and for me the winner is obvious (and it's not even close).

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

The math is objective.  I realize that's not suitable to your position, but it's still fact.  The reason it works is because it's not subject to feelings and emotions, which cannot be measured.  Any reasonable person understands that.  Spending money on expensive items like these is not generally well decided based on emotion and good reviews don't often include comparisons based on feelings.

The problem with your argument is 'straw man or no deal'.  Either we have to accept comparing a Corvette to a freaking Escort, or you won't participate.

What you want to do is remove all objectivity then say "See?  My recommendation is better."  Objectivity bothers you, because it doesn't agree with you.

But are you capable of competing on a level playing field?  As I said above, sell me.  Make your best pitch.  I'll tell you this, though, I don't come off my hard-earned money based on intangibles like feelings.  It's gonna take something a little more real than emotions to earn my dollar.  I'm buying a piece of hardware, I already have a wife.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen enough OLEDs to know they're amazing (as I indicated already).  But I'm not prepared to skimp on other features that do matter in order to just have an OLED - and I suspect that, given the costs, I'm not alone.

Yes, I have tried 4k monitors as well, I own two in fact...but the data indicates that image quality will be less (objectively, according to pixel density) if the 4k monitor exceeds 42" (in the same type of panel technology, of course, though it shouldn't be necessary to specify that when I already stated my comparisons were "apples to apples").

Oh, and I don't sit 1 meter from the screen.  I'm closer to what is probably the majority at around 22".  Maybe 24" for some if the monitor isn't curved (but mine is).  Around arm's length, if you don't twist your shoulder forward.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, LucShep said:

So much so that all major manufacturers simply have quit the idea of an 8K screen on anything less than 65''

Which is too bad because I can still see room for improvement. I’m sitting 48” away from the 48” 4K screen and I can still perceive jaggies using 4xAA. Flight sims are full of straight lines like runways, markings wings and so on that really reveal this stuff. Now an 8K TV itself just seems ridiculous because I don’t know where you’d get a video source for one. Will discs make a comeback? But for sharp computer graphics on an up close screen I ponder what the “retina” limit would be for such a large screen. I think Apple figured on 5K for a 27” iMac  Of course it would need to be fed by an RTX9090 graphics card. 

23 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Because 4K in 16:9 format on 42'' and 48'' OLED is *muuaa* 

Agree. Otherwise I can’t see how to improve on such a display. Except make it 8K

Edited September 18, 2024 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Of course it would need to be fed by an RTX9090 graphics card. 

Yup, and therein is the real issue - as I described above.   Most GPUs (and a lot of games, like DCS) these days are trying to improve performance by actually lowering what has to be processed graphically (as in with DLSS, FSR and RSR)...which is fine, except the sacrifice already affects quality.

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

16 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

 The math is objective.  I realize that's not suitable to your position, but it's still fact.  The reason it works is because it's not subject to feelings and emotions, which cannot be measured.  Any reasonable person understands that.

The problem with your argument is 'straw man or no deal'.  Either we have to accept comparing a Corvette to a freaking Escort, or you won't participate.

What you want to do is remove all objectivity then say "See?  My recommendation is better."

No, no. That's not how you debate.  Do not cherry pick one point I present while excluding all my other points, and then call it a "straw man". *tut tut tut* 

Straw man is actually what you're doing there with the insistence on the "math numbers are always right, therefore I win" argument.
When the fact is that math (PPI perception) will mean jack sh!t once you see both screen formats for similar/equivalent screen area, at normal working distance, regardless of panel tech.

Empiricism means everything when you're staring at an image, static or in motion. Not rationalism.
What you feel, sense and perceive, is what will count in the end to make your own opinion on a given screen (monitor or tv) that you experience or experiment with.
Always, every single time. Not the data numbers that you won't be able to perceive.

You presented the Samsung G9 as your example, did you not?  I presented the LG C3 as its price equivalent, representative of the 16:9 market it seems to actually compete with.

To make it simple, I presented images for everyone to have an idea what they face for a choice, for both formats (16:9 vs 32:9), when using DCS or even general usage.



Again... just by looking at this image, think for yourself - which one would you really prefer to use DCS on?   

I know which one I'd choose (and actually did!), even if it was also a VA panel on the one at the left, as it is on the one at the right. 

Edited September 19, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

Yeah, always the same with you.  Ignore the facts.  I'm not cherry picking anything, I presented an entire range of facts.  *All* the data is available, I just don't include stuff that cannot be measured - because it's not a reliable factor.   Good, respected reviews don't generally draw conclusions based on feelings and emotions.

Being objective based on empirical data is not "cherry picking".  I'm not excluding one point you made.  You want an entire conclusion to be drawn on one (immeasurable) factor: Feelings.  LMAO Like I said, I already have a wife.  I'm looking at hardware here, not soulmates.  I don't buy things like cars and houses based on emotion, and I believe most experts would say it's a mistake to do so.

Can you compete on a level playing field or not?

(EDIT: Thought better of it and just removed what I paid for my Samsung, we'll forget that for now) The G9 is a real monitor, not a TV, with twice the refresh rate and considerably higher pixel density.  If I'm looking at it correctly, you're suggesting that I spend nearly $1600?  True enough, it's OLED, which I'm sure is fabulous.  But I'd expect more/better other features for that kinda money.   The cost is overly high, due strictly to the panel technology, which (again) they are remarkable, but I'm still not getting a $1600 feeling from it.  $1000 is already a lot to spend on a monitor, feelings laid aside.  But $1600?  Wow.

Now I might find a very rare deal on the unit you suggest - which is usually the only time I will spend this kind of money, and that's the only reason I bought the G9 - but still.  Let's say I could get it for only $1200 all in (which itself seems doubtful).  Still a tough sell.

LOL I just (very quickly) read a review of the LG C3..." (the)...TV is good, but if I knew (stuff the writer found out after using it a while) I probably wouldn't buy it."  Mind you, one review, one person's opinion etc.  But I'll tell you what, for that kinda money, that sh!t should be perfect.  And I do mean flawless.

Then I found another review that said the display was "Refined, artistic, confident..."  (I'm not kidding)  Wait, what?  Even 'refined' and 'artistic' are a stretch in a monitor review...but 'confident'?  Holy smokes...now there's someone who spends $1600 on emotions and feelings...smh

Edited September 18, 2024 by kksnowbear

[LucShep]

So it's better to exclude the obvious part of the ownership experience, and get stuck on numbers which can not translate to what one actually perceives IRL?

Do you even know that the current mid to high range 4K TVs, including (so, not only) those 42'' and 48'' OLED TVs, are fully capable monitors in disguise?
Have you even tried both solutions directly?

I don't think you did. Because, if you did, you'd acknowledge how absurd your "math is always right"  argument is, for a PPI difference that is meaningless IRL.


Can you give math numbers for how beautiful one feels an image is or isn't ?

Can you present numbers to translate the intensity of a higher satisfaction and pleasure one imediately feels, with one screen solution versus the other ?

Or how one screen format versus the other, makes you form an imediate opinion when using it for a given sim/game title ?


You can't, can you?  Because it's impossible. That's what I've been saying - that it is the biggest part of the equation, of the whole first hand experiencing thing.
If that still needs to be explained to you, then I don't think you'd ever comprehend anyway. 

By all means...  "Compete on a level playing field" on your own then, I'm done.


PS: Unrelated but... I honestly feel sorry for you, when reading that you don't buy things like cars based on emotion. You've missed probably the most rewarding (human) aspect of what makes the whole thing about cars trully interesting. Or at least it really is, for those who care enough about them (that and motorcycles, as is my case). 

Edited September 18, 2024 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

On 9/18/2024 at 3:52 PM, LucShep said:

Can you give math numbers for how beautiful one feels an image is, or not?

Can you present numbers to translate the intensity of a higher satisfaction and pleasure one imediately feels, with one screen solution versus the other?

Or how one screen format versus the other, makes you form an imediate opinion when using it for a given sim/game title?

No, and I'm not claiming I can.  Neither can anyone else.   You can *describe it* (maybe) but you cannot quantify it.  That's the problem, those things mean different things to different people and thus cannot be reliably measured or compared.  My wife *loves* artichokes, I hate 'em.  Subjective.

That's why we have objective things like numbers and math, to do fair comparisons on a level playing field.

Did you see my edit above about the review that said the C3 display was 'confident'...?  Ridiculous.  Not a characteristic that can ever be possessed by an inanimate object, in any way whatsoever.  Who would actually even believe such a thing a valid factor in comparison? "I decided to purchase this monitor because it was more confident than others I considered"...?  

On 9/18/2024 at 3:52 PM, LucShep said:

PS: Unrelated but... I honestly feel sorry for you, when reading that you don't buy things like cars based on emotion. You've missed probably the most rewarding (human) aspect of what makes the whole thing about cars trully interesting. Or at least it really is, for those who care enough about them (that and motorcycles, as is my case). 

Cars are transportation.  Obviously a necessity in this day and age, but you don't marry inanimate objects.  I understand nice cars, I had a 68 Firebird that was gorgeous.  But I was 25 years old and foolishly emotional in those days.  I since have owned two Toyota pickups (in over 35 years) that are reliable, utilitarian, reasonably economical, and still reasonably good looking (and most importantly, paid for in much less time than I got to drive them).  I don't need to spend 60-100% more than things are really worth because of feelings, yet I still appreciate what I do have.

In fact, if we're going to discuss feelings, it's far more important to me to save money on things like cars and computer monitors, and put that money aside for my grand kids' college, flowers and other nice things for my wife who's been an angel to me, or my kids who still need help at times.  So there's some of what you value....you gonna tell me now that my feelings don't count just because I don't buy expensive cars and motorcycles?   That's the problem with feelings in matters such as these:  What is most valuable to one, is worth nothing to another.  One man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is simply not a reliable basis for comparison.

I have feelings, sure.  I just don't get them mixed up in data needed to make decisions about spending on material objects.  Some of the most 'rewarding' experiences in my life didn't involve spending any money - probably among the reasons they're so rewarding.  However, since you brought it up, perhaps it is I who should feel sorry for you.

Edited September 22, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Beirut]

And the end result of this thread and my OP post and question, I just ordered............................... a Samsung S9 Tablet. Arrives tomorrow. 

 

I'm going to be happy and continue to enjoy the sweet 27" 1440p LG Ultragear monitor I have. Maybe a new rig and screen next year.

 

Thanks for all the input. Turned out to be a vibrant discussion.