I'm finding myself agreeing with most people here. I like having a surrounding cinematic experience when consuming media, but, I also like to not have to move my head when I'm just casually browsing the web, and I like to not see individual pixels from where I'm sitting. So, while a display like this could appeal to me, I also think it's weird we're not seeing similar displays in smaller sizes. Also... 16:10 is much closer to the human FOV. I'd gladly get that if it were more common at larger sizes, at least for a reasonable price.

deusex:

So let me ask you guys, what would be the optimal pixel density for the screen this size?

Are you looking for an opinion or something objective? And, are you looking for something practical or the limits of human vision? Because objectively, pixel density matters based on the screen size and viewing distance. For a monitor, where the sitting distance is going to be within 100cm/40in, an optimal pixel density would be around 140PPI, but our eyes can see well over 300 (depending on who you ask). That's why 4K on a phone is stupid (it just drains your battery life since the phone has to work harder to render, and because for LCDs the backlight needs to be made brighter) but 4K is also stupid if you've got a 60" display at arm's length.

wavetrex:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/559310626770386944/1076271722283667508/20230218_003900.jpg Happy ?

Thanks, that would kill me tho 🙂

Aura89:

I feel like you didn't read what you posted. You're complaining this product is coming out, because it's not the product you want, and therefore, to you, should not be coming out. How exactly are people not supposed to have an issue with that? And there are monitors coming out/are out(LG 27GR95QE for example, though it is 240hz, i assume the "don't want 240hz" must be it's not what you are looking for, as i can see no downside with 240hz over 120/144/165hz as even if you don't wan to run it at 240hz, you can run a 240hz monitor at 120hz if you'd like) with your criteria in OLED(except for 16:10, which with the market is understandable, good luck with that), so the question becomes, why can't people, who aren't you, who want this, have this? https://www.displayninja.com/oled-monitor-list/

Im complaining that no standard size OLED monitors are available, alway these behemoths which are more like TVs. I dont want 240hz because I dont need that. Everything has compromises, so if u have 240hz u usually have lesser image quality, or more heat - SOMETHING has to change if u go from 120hz to 240hz. And if all things stay same - HW wise - than the PRICE will change. As I will never use 240hz I dont want such a device. Makes more sense now? With OLEDs these ultra high refresh rates make even less sense, because OLED has superior motion clarity. 120hz OLED has better motion clarity than 240hz LN/TN/Whatever displays. Everyone can buy what he wants I dont care, u misunderstood me. I just want finally a monitor which makes sense to me. And I wait 15 years for that, so sorry if Im a bit frustrated with that already 😀

schmidtbag:

16:10 is much closer to the human FOV. I'd gladly get that if it were more common at larger sizes, at least for a reasonable price.

YES! Im on 16:10 this whole time since CRTs. I use Samsung SyncMaster 2493hm with custom settings. I used it for FIFTEEN YEARS already. I tried different monitors, they dont stand a chance. Im baffled with it, how is it even possible. Natural colors, 16:10, not a single faulty pixel. Great blacks compared to nowadays monitors. Great grey uniformity. I compared it at home with Asus ProArt which is basically a entry level pro monitor, and I returned that monitor, because it had laughtable blacks, light bleed, ugly grey uniformity. It had nice response time tho, mostly because Gsync I guess and 75hz (my monitor is 60hz only) If u want some decent 16:10 than that ASUS PA248QV is basically only thing with higher refresh rate than 60 + Gsync. Still, I kept my 15 years old monitor, as its better. Also it has superior design. And 16:10 vs 16:9 is so much better. 16:9 is just BS in gaming and dont get me started at productivity. Can I please get better monitor than the one I use for 15 years? Please? No? Ok :X

32 Inch would be my max behind my 80CM deep desk and mounted on the wall, but that means 4K. So my limit is 27 Inch 1440p. Seeing 16:10 mentioned. I have a EIZO CX240 at the moment and want to move away from 16:10 as a lot of games these days are forced 16:9. I wanted a EIZO CS2731 at first, but EIZO downgraded their CS/CX line to have IPS Glow. And a CG model is way too expensive.

I strongly believe those monitors are in this size and ppi because they are just cropped tv 4k panels

i have mixed emotions about these two models specifically, i love OLED's and i have two (ROG 43" & LG 1st gen G series). my first question is no mention of MLA (or in LG-speak "meta") the Micro-Lens Array is the only tech that left me gobsmacked @ CES. the fact that it can, without any additional power or circuitry or wear & tear, boost brightness to micro-led level is astonishing and made me a believer in the higher levels of HDR. i have one of the best OLED's ever made and i have buyer's remorse (only a little bit) because i don't have the next gen "meta" panel. so my advice to anyone willing to shell out a grand or so, get the 2023 LG C3 and save money while having a superior panel and they have them starting at 43" - which is actually perfect for a stand alone desk. you can buy a table stand to mount it at outside rear for under $40

wavetrex:

:D:p 🙄 Get a HRR (120-144+ Hz) monitor first, use it for a few weeks, then go back to your 60 and let us know how it goes.

I did 3 different times used them for like 2 week before all went back due to IPS issues. I liked VRR functions but dont give damn about running games 120+ fps let care to keep pay the cost for gpus that could do it. in end I caped at 60hz my games on those monitors as difference wasn't worth it to me. and int the end went back to 24" 1080p 60hz tn panel only thing bothered me was going back to 24" over 27" which still to big for desk less i mount to my wall. Again everyone has there preferences, you don't have like or even agree with it not gonna change person preferences Just like arguments of vsync on/off I wont game with out vsync on and i dont see latency issues with it on and have not seeing it over 20 years, unless the game cant keep 60 fps and hade frame rate issue in general. and even if it could keep 60 i despise tearing. I watch people play on pc vsync off and i ask them how can they stand the tearing, and most time they tell the dont see any. and they have 120hz monitors, higher hz my usual response to them is i wish my brain conveniently ignored all that. while they saying they dont see any i constant seeing as they play. Personal preferences are exactly that, you or anyone else isnt gona change people person preferences. I mean you can trying but would be akin to bang one head against wall and thinking your get gona get diffrent outcome

HybOj:

Im complaining that no standard size OLED monitors are available, alway these behemoths which are more like TVs. I dont want 240hz because I dont need that. Everything has compromises, so if u have 240hz u usually have lesser image quality, or more heat - SOMETHING has to change if u go from 120hz to 240hz. And if all things stay same - HW wise - than the PRICE will change. As I will never use 240hz I dont want such a device. Makes more sense now? With OLEDs these ultra high refresh rates make even less sense, because OLED has superior motion clarity. 120hz OLED has better motion clarity than 240hz LN/TN/Whatever displays. Everyone can buy what he wants I dont care, u misunderstood me. I just want finally a monitor which makes sense to me. And I wait 15 years for that, so sorry if Im a bit frustrated with that already 😀

Then just get their 240hz 27 inch 1440p oled and run it at 120hz. Or wait another 15 years idk.

IceVip:

Then just get their 240hz 27 inch 1440p oled and run it at 120hz. Or wait another 15 years idk.

in 15 years most of will old timers will be dead, and if oLED isnot cheaper in that we should other tech that replace oLED and is better and cheaper to produce. if we dont the industry just stalled. If im alive in 15 years i will be shocked and i still alive around age of 75-80 even older i gona be person that say just kill me 🙄

HybOj:

Thanks, that would kill me tho 🙂

I can feel the warmth of the TV from over here

There will be a concerted push by the Chinese to get mini-led production up and costs down to cement a share in the world wide market. At the same time LG’s prowess in OLED production and existing market share still is a level above. the fact Samsung is using LG w-oled panels for QD-OLED screens says something about the costs of even white leds

Well I was using 48" C1 for over a year in like 1m to it. Was hard at beginning for sure, esp when consider I jumped from 24,5" TN panel(240Hz) to this OLED 120Hz. Now...I am at Dells QD-OLED AW3423DW. To be frank...it is small. It is closer, like maybe 50cm, but still. I just saw better on bigger screen farther from me. FPS, action, etc. I am getting old, maybe this is most likely issue here. But if there will be 40" area OLED 1440p+ I will jump on it instantly.

Whats with all the low res big screens? We want big (not huge, 38” and 32”) oled at HIGH resolution… I guess they will get the idea eventually, but gotta milk that desperation for oled a bit more first 🙄

IceVip:

Then just get their 240hz 27 inch 1440p oled and run it at 120hz. Or wait another 15 years idk.

This apparently isn't a valid reasoning "for some reason", completely unknown to anyone but himself and likely isn't truly known by him as well. It's like someone complaining about if there was only one processor and it ran at 6Ghz, but they wanted one that ran at 5Ghz, due to heat/power draw, price wasn't an issue, and they just wouldn't get that processor at 6Ghz and run it at 5Ghz getting what they want. It makes no sense but to each their own sometimes people just want to complain to complain and nothing will make them happy.

I thought OLED have infinite contrast ratio?

cpy2:

I thought OLED have infinite contrast ratio?

I didn't notice that and that's kind of an interesting question. I wonder if LG is trying to apply a number to it now since stating something is "infinite" is kind of a "non-answer" and hasn't helped people understand/compare what it means/is to other non-OLED screens. I also wonder if maybe it has to do with the matte of the screen, as a very matte screen will never look "black" even if no light it coming from it (in a lit room anyways) There's also the fact that the brightness of OLEDs aren't as high as some non-OLEDs, and maybe this is their way of comparing still rather then having a non-number? I tried looking this up to see if there was an explanation and can't find anything, even some websites state both of these monitors will have an infinite contrast ratio, but it would be interesting if LG would explain their change in marketing at the least

I have a LG 34uw and I love the size of it, and I really don't know if u would like anything bigger so close to me. But I would definitely love a screen with better image and HDR but the prices... So I'll stick with my screen for now.

Aura89:

I didn't notice that and that's kind of an interesting question. I wonder if LG is trying to apply a number to it now since stating something is "infinite" is kind of a "non-answer" and hasn't helped people understand/compare what it means/is to other non-OLED screens. I also wonder if maybe it has to do with the matte of the screen, as a very matte screen will never look "black" even if no light it coming from it (in a lit room anyways) There's also the fact that the brightness of OLEDs aren't as high as some non-OLEDs, and maybe this is their way of comparing still rather then having a non-number? I tried looking this up to see if there was an explanation and can't find anything, even some websites state both of these monitors will have an infinite contrast ratio, but it would be interesting if LG would explain their change in marketing at the least

the finish does affect the perceived brightness and the matte finish is a key feature of the UltraGear vs. C series which are all glossy. tbh, tho' it only matters in a bright room with lots of light sources. and BTW, with the C3 series there is no brightness difference with OLED vs. LED due to MLA/ "meta"

Aura89:

This apparently isn't a valid reasoning "for some reason", completely unknown to anyone but himself and likely isn't truly known by him as well. It's like someone complaining about if there was only one processor and it ran at 6Ghz, but they wanted one that ran at 5Ghz, due to heat/power draw, price wasn't an issue, and they just wouldn't get that processor at 6Ghz and run it at 5Ghz getting what they want. It makes no sense but to each their own sometimes people just want to complain to complain and nothing will make them happy.

Nonsense, faster CPU is good and if you dont use fullspeed, it downclocks. 240hz runs at 240 no matter what. Yes, nothing makes u happy, Im apparently quite ok with my monitor, if I use it for 15 years. So sorry it triggered you that I want small factor OLED without 240hz for a change :X Now please, let me be 🙂