if this is under $1k it may be worthwhile to look at. i suspect it's the same panel that Phillips "momentum" uses (but without the KICK ASS Bowers & Wilkins soundbar) they sell that as a combo in US for $1,500 - and the soundbar is definitely worth $500 on it's own.

I just got a 50" tv cause the old one broke and I think once you get to these sizes, you should really get 21:9 a standard 32" tv/monitor is just the perfect size for 16:9, I've seen 21:9 3440x1440 monitors in 34" size live and I don't like the ratio for this small a size, they're basically 27" but wide. The effect is a little comical imo, like a dachshound.An aggresive curve helps a lot for physsicacl dimension,but has an impact on image too. Not enough height imo. But once you go over 40", this changes. The displays are very tall and now you can add horizontal space

Just need a desk which is 5 meters from the wall. Also no DisplayPort, this is not a monitor.

Once again, cauly is a clown. 16:9 ignorant peasant.

Agonist:

Once again, cauly is a clown. 16:9 ignorant peasant.

Thank you for you extremely constructed and useful statement, really adds to the positive aspect of these forums. I thought it was mostly populated by adults.. Always an exception!

njug:

Thank you for you extremely constructed and useful statement, really adds to the positive aspect of these forums. I thought it was mostly populated by adults.. Always an exception!

And what the hell have you added to here mr 3 poster? He is a d-bag who only praises what he likes and disses anything not his while not being able to understand anything not in his relm of understanding.

I haven't seen this much crying from a baby whose lollipop got hair on it.

Well... seeing as I'm a human with forward-facing eyes, I prefer an aspect ratio that most closely matches my field of vision, which would be 3:2 (which hardly anyone makes) or 16:10, which is close enough. However, I don't really care that much about aspect ratio, so, 16:9 is fine if it saves me enough money for my purposes. I find wider displays to have more drawbacks than benefits. For productivity, multiple monitors are easier to work with since each display can serve a separate purpose more easily than an extra wide display. It's also just really annoying to drag the mouse that far from one side of the screen to the other. For pre-recorded media, well, hardly anything goes beyond 16:9. For games, many do not scale gracefully. Of the ones that do, many have an option to change the FOV. If I really want great peripheral vision, I'd rather just get a 16:9 and increase the FOV. That way, I get the same size display with the same ultra-wide vision for a fraction of the price and none of the downsides.

Agonist:

And what the hell have you added to here mr 3 poster? He is a d-bag who only praises what he likes and disses anything not his while not being able to understand anything not in his relm of understanding.

"And what about you? There's nothing wrong with me!" Bro, whatever beef you have with this guy, understand that the huge majority of people literally do not care and do not want to see that. Send him private messages or control your anger issues. People scroll down through comments to get more information on the content of the article, to ask things.. Not to see someone crying over someone's else opinion.