Sunday, May 9th 2021

Huawei Readies Unorthodox 3:2 Aspect-Ratio 32-inch Monitor with 4.5K Resolution

Huawei is reportedly preparing an unconventional high-resolution monitor under its MateView brand. Featuring an aspect-ratio of 3:2, the monitor is wider than 4:3 or 5:4, but "taller" than 16:9 or ultrawide ratios. The monitor features an "IPS-like" panel with 4500 x 3000 pixels native resolution, support for 10-bpc color (1.07 billion colors), and a refresh-rate of 90 Hz. You also get DisplayHDR 400 and HDR10 support. Pulling something like this off will presumably take inputs such as HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 1.4 to muster the bandwidth needed for 4500 x 3000 @ 90 Hz with 10-bpc. A nifty feature with this monitor is its stand, which doubles up as a Qi-compatible wireless charging pad. Huawei is reportedly preparing to launch this monitor on May 16.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

37 Comments on Huawei Readies Unorthodox 3:2 Aspect-Ratio 32-inch Monitor with 4.5K Resolution

#2
voltage
Wouldn't a 16:10 have been better?
Posted on Reply
#4
Tardian
This has the same aspect ratio as Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al cameras. If this gets good reviews count me in.
Posted on Reply
#5
Khonjel
voltageWouldn't a 16:10 have been better?
lexluthermiesterMuch.
Why? 16:10 is a little taller than 16:9. And 3:2 is just further little taller than 16:10.

Posted on Reply
#6
lexluthermiester
KhonjelWhy? 16:10 is a little taller than 16:9. And 3:2 is just further little taller than 16:10.
16:10 is at least in the range of 16:9. This often works out to the situation where a person can watch 16:9 content and still have room for the taskbar to show(some people like that, myself included). 3:2 is just odd and not a display res "most" people would enjoy.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chomiq
So they want people to edit their photos with this? Microsoft did the same thing with their Surface Book.
Posted on Reply
#8
lexluthermiester
ChomiqMicrosoft did the same thing with their Surface Book.
And it sucked for most users..
Posted on Reply
#9
Tardian
KhonjelWhy? 16:10 is a little taller than 16:9. And 3:2 is just further little taller than 16:10.

Because for many applications extra height is more important than extra width. Mobile phones are becoming taller because there is a limit to how wide a phone an average hand can comfortably hold.

My son got the Google Pixel 4a 5G for the extra width. He is 6'6" and has big hands.
Posted on Reply
#10
Prima.Vera
Ok, this is a monitor just to edit photos of 13.5MP. Honestly it would have been better if the monitor would have a resolution of 24MP instead to process some native photos with 6000x4000 resolution.
But then again, I would prefere a 16:9 8K monitor for that with 7,680x4,320 resolution so I can edit photos while have the toolbars also ;)
Posted on Reply
#11
Minus Infinity
Prima.VeraOk, this is a monitor just to edit photos of 13.5MP. Honestly it would have been better if the monitor would have a resolution of 24MP instead to process some native photos with 6000x4000 resolution.
But then again, I would prefere a 16:9 8K monitor for that with 7,680x4,320 resolution so I can edit photos while have the toolbars also ;)
8K is 8192 x 4320, UHD is 7680 x 4320.

I'm perfectly happy with 3;2 or 16:10 rather than garbage 16:9.
Posted on Reply
#12
aktpu
lexluthermiesterAnd it sucked for most users..
I've been really happy with Surface Laptop 3 and this monitor seems like awesome companion for it. Saying it sucks for you doesn't mean it "sucks for most users" This may not be optimal for passive content consumption, but for work this could be amazeballs
Posted on Reply
#13
lexluthermiester
aktpuSaying it sucks for you doesn't mean it "sucks for most users"
I didn't say it sucked for me. I've never owned one and have only seen it in passing. However, one of the biggest complaints I hear about it is the odd screen size. So yeah, I can say the above statement with confidence. If you like it, cool. Most people don't.
Posted on Reply
#14
aktpu
lexluthermiesterI didn't say it sucked for me. I've never owned one and have only seen it in passing. However, one of the biggest complaints I hear about it is the odd screen size. So yeah, I can say the above statement with confidence. If you like it, cool. Most people don't.
Hear where?
Posted on Reply
#15
lexluthermiester
aktpuHear where?
I own a retail PC store. As a result I'm told about the experience people have quite frequently. 3:2 is just not a popular aspect ratio with the general public.
Posted on Reply
#16
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
I like it! Would be nice to have this monitor.

I think a 16:10 ratio is the optimum one for general use though. Looks expansive without being too wide. I actually have a 1920x1200 monitor and loved it. I simply had to upgrade it when the high refresh monitors came out, so I'm on 16:9 nowadays, like everyone else.
Posted on Reply
#17
Octopuss
ChomiqSo they want people to edit their photos with this? Microsoft did the same thing with their Surface Book.
Makes no sense, you need extra screen space for whatever software you might be using's UI.
I am happy with 16:10 for Lightroom.
Posted on Reply
#18
TristanX
GREAT !!! FINALLY !!!
16:9 is disaster for desktop use, it was deigned to handle movies
16:10 only bit better but still too long
15:10, 14:10 and 4:3 will be much better for desktop

anyway, 3840x2560 could be better and more compatible with movies
Posted on Reply
#19
Bruno Vieira
lexluthermiesterAnd it sucked for most users..
you mean, sucks for you. Taller aspects are better for work. Not ideal for gaming.
Posted on Reply
#20
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
TristanXGREAT !!! FINALLY !!!
16:9 is disaster for desktop use, it was deigned to handle movies
16:10 only bit better but still too long
15:10, 14:10 and 4:3 will be much better for desktop
I really like the 16:10 ratio, although, I'm really comfortable with squarer ones, too. Note that 16:10 is close to the mathematical Golden Ratio which many natural things have, including classic paintings, so it's not surprising that it looks and feels good.

I agree that 16:9 isn't right for PC though. Monitors have only gravitated towards it due to TVs as it makes it cheaper to manufacture.
Posted on Reply
#21
lexluthermiester
TristanX16:9 is disaster for desktop use, it was deigned to handle movies
Opinion not everyone shares.
Bruno Vieirayou mean, sucks for you. Taller aspects are better for work. Not ideal for gaming.
Also an opinion not shared by everyone.
Posted on Reply
#22
sparkyar
I would love a 27" version of this for my mame cabinet, curious about the response time though
Posted on Reply
#23
Logoffon
TristanXGREAT !!! FINALLY !!!
16:9 is disaster for desktop use, it was deigned to handle movies
16:10 only bit better but still too long
15:10, 14:10 and 4:3 will be much better for desktop

anyway, 3840x2560 could be better and more compatible with movies
I don't remember anyone making monitors with "7:5"/"14:10" aspect ratio.
Posted on Reply
#24
Wirko
To add my opinion to this nice bunch of opinions: wider aspect ratios go together well with large sizes. It may be so because of the way human sight works, or maybe because nothing is too wide once you have enough vertical pixels. I've had two 1920x1200 24" LCDs at home and at work for years, and I felt, um, compressed when I had to use two 1920x1080 24" monitors. At larger sizes, I'd pick 16:9 or even 21:9 without second thoughts. (The only affordable options for larger 16:10 LCDs seem to be ancient used 30" Dells and HPs, anyway.)
Posted on Reply
#25
RealKGB
I love it.
I can keep my 16:9 1080p60 monitor as secondary for YouTube/movies, etc., and this monitor (or similar) can be main monitor for project work (Mario Bros. Wii hack, Hackintoshing setup, etc.)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.