Thursday, April 6th 2017

Samsung Investing in DFHD (Double Full HD) 32:9, 29:9 Ultra-wide Panels

"All hail the ultra-wide gods." This must've been the mantra going on when Samsung execs gave the okay for development of what are being called Double Full HD monitors. This is the new way to have your field of vision almost as filled with screen real estate as when wearing one of those pesky VR headsets. Though with 21:9 support for gaming being spotty as it is, these should lend themselves more as work monitors than for gaming setups - I can definitely see some traders running this kind of screens.

One of these panels will be a 49" wide, 32:9, 3840x1080 resolution beast. The panel will feature a 1800R curvature, higher than the usual curvature on 21:9 aspect ratio displays, but this may well make sense given the horizontal size of the panel. Higher curvature means better coverage of your peripheral vision, and Samsung has enough engineers and research to believe this is the right amount of curvature. This panel will support G-Sync and Freesync (on differing models, surely), and a maximum refresh rate of 144Hz on the VA panel with a 3-side frameless design. The panel will offer a high 5000:1 static contrast ratio - ahead of current contrast ratio on Samsung panels, according to TFT Central, so there is some new tech at play here. These panels are planned for mass production on September 2017.
Another take on this "über-wide" format is a 29:9, 44" panel, offering a 3840x1200 resolution. Again, this should be a VA panel with the same 5000:1 contrast ratio, 1800R curvature, and an 8-bit color depth with a 3-side frameless design. There will apparently be 60Hz and 144Hz offerings for this panel, and no reason for these to not support G-Sync or Freesync.

What do you think of these? I love my 21:9 monitor, even if it isn't a high-tier one - but gaming on a 32:9 monstrosity? I don't know if I should drool or wince. Sources: TFT Central, PCGamer, AnandTech
Add your own comment

25 Comments on Samsung Investing in DFHD (Double Full HD) 32:9, 29:9 Ultra-wide Panels

#1
Lightofhonor
Wince. Until it curves around my head for 180 degree views, my curved 21:9 is wide enough.


Also, 1080 vertical resolution isn't enough.
Posted on Reply
#2
P4-630
And the games supporting this resolution?...
Posted on Reply
#3
Franzen4Real
My personal tastes say resolution and pixel density trumps screen size. So I would stick with a 21:9 3440x1440 over these until resolution caught up. However, ppi being equal, I'd love something like this as long as the aspect ratio didn't start introducing compatibility problems with games/software, or extra back light bleed. I can see where those who enjoy eyefinity setups may prefer something like this if only to get rid of the bezels.

My current holy grail wish would be a 3440x1440 ultrawide version of that new sexy Asus ROG 4KHDR monitor coming soon. Though they have not announced or hinted at such a product, those are the specs required to break me and force me to update from my 27" 1440p, 60hz, non-gsync monitor.
Posted on Reply
#4
Disparia
Vote for drool, especially the 3840x1200.

I have a 2560x1080 monitor now and from my point of view, it's all gains to go wider.
Posted on Reply
#5
owen10578
Drool. I like this. I want it. 21:9 is already appealing this is even more so. Basically dual 16:9 without bezel.
Posted on Reply
#6
HD64G
An absolutely great product, since for many sims and strategy games, eyefinity is awesome and this is in fact eyefinity without bezels.
Posted on Reply
#7
natr0n
It's a windshield.
Posted on Reply
#8
Dethroy
Interesting stuff. Though I think this is mainly aimed at video/photo editors (able to compare 2 1080p frames side by side).

I am personally more interested in 3.840x1.600 21:9 panels, preferably high refresh rate and it must support HDR10 and Dolby HDR.
Posted on Reply
#9
bogami
Two monitors in one perfect solution without lag lines only resolution is low. That this monitor would have a little higher with resolution ,at least 1440 or 1600, it would be perfect with 2160 up lains . Olready existing 1440 x 3440 I use . When all games correctly benefit of this resolution would be good. 9:16 ratio is cut and inserted in a 3440 x1440 so we lose more view as it is obtained .
Posted on Reply
#10
LTUGamer
They are so uncomfortable for MS Office and internet
Posted on Reply
#11
MrAMD
I can't help but feel these companies are cheaping out on resolution. A proper res would be 5120 x 2160 (4K true 21:9).

A perfect monitor in the hopefully not too distant future:
~ 40" Curved
4K Ultra-wide (5120 x 2160)
HDR
FreeSync and G-Sync models
Posted on Reply
#12
iO
Now its just getting silly...
Posted on Reply
#13
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Better start harvesting those kidneys gentlemen
Posted on Reply
#14
theGryphon
Uhmm, 3840:1200 is not 29:9 but 32:10.
Posted on Reply
#16
ps000000
I would prefer 1440 in vertical.
Posted on Reply
#17
lZKoce
I have the LG's 2560x1080 ultrawide and it's awesome. I'd prefer a higher resolution, but for the money paid, it's a killer. I like ultra wide. It's fun. Not for everything, but as always it depends what you want.
Posted on Reply
#18
theGryphon
I have a Dell 34" 3440x1440 (which amounts to 21.5:9, or 43:18) in my office and loving it for work. It's definitely not for gaming but it serves me perfectly.
Vertical real-estate is crucial for me so I can't go back to anything less than 1440.
So I would love to have a 4608x1440 (32:10) panel in front of me, preferably at least 120Hz ;)
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
I can't think of many things that would be more useless than these.
However, the trend of offering less and less real estate while advertising larger diagonals is continuing regardless.
Posted on Reply
#20
Yukikaze
Ugh. We really need to move away from the 1080 pixel vertical dimension. That is just too small.

The 3840x1200 is a little better, but 3840x1440 would be better still.
Posted on Reply
#21
Dethroy
Yukikaze
Ugh. We really need to move away from the 1080 pixel vertical dimension. That is just too small.

The 3840x1200 is a little better, but 3840x1440 would be better still.
Might as well move up to 3840x1600 pixels then.
Posted on Reply
#22
Yukikaze
Dethroy
Might as well move up to 3840x1600 pixels then.
No real argument from me against that one, either :)

I was thinking of multiples of existing resolutions, which looks to my untrained eye how these high-pixel arrangements are often designed (might be related to ease of manufacturing?).

3840x1440 is six times 1280x720 in a 3x2 arrangement. 3840x1600 would be 1280x800 in a 3x2 arrangement, so that also works.
Posted on Reply
#23
InVasMani
natr0n said:
It's a windshield.
perfect for car sims ;)

Dethroy
Might as well move up to 3840x1600 pixels then.
That can be done easily enough the majority of these comments can easily be accomplished already trivially on a 4K display and windowed boarderless mode.

I run my 4K display at 4096 by 1484 resolution 2.76:1 ultra panavision with bb4win...it makes it trivial enough to emulate cinematic black bars for boarder-less windowed gaming at custom resolutions.
Posted on Reply
#24
Prima.Vera
Those should have a 5120x1440 resolution instead on that crappy 1080 for vertical. And at least 100Hz. And definitely QuantumDot.
Posted on Reply
#25
InVasMani
Plausible enough, but probably unlikely to happen for at least a few more years especially at a remotely reasonable consumer price point. The refresh rate could be a touch on the high side however if it were more like 72Hz it would be far more feasible I'd say.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment