Sweet but 45" for a 3440x1440 will have Visible pixel density (82.87 PPI) A 34" is the ideal resolution for a 3440x1440 (109.68 PPI)

Yeah let’s do 4K ppl

I'm sure this has its niche, but for me this is too big and too curved.

matarSweet but 45" for a 3440x1440 will have Visible pixel density (82.87 PPI) A 34" is the ideal resolution for a 3440x1440 (109.68 PPI)

Samsung G8 QD-OLED is 34in but 175Hz.

LG UltraGear Unveils the World's First 240 Hz OLED Gaming Monitor

Wouldn't that be the 27" OLED Ultragear? the one that's already available?

matarSweet but 45" for a 3440x1440 will have Visible

... visible screen-door effect. Too large area for too few pixels. It could have been at least 2160p, if not 2800p.

dj-electricWouldn't that be the 27" OLED Ultragear? the one that's already available?

Exactly my thought.
Unfortunately, it was awful as stupidly LG put a mate finish on the screen.

Xex360Exactly my thought.
Unfortunately, it was awful as stupidly LG put a mate finish on the screen.

Matte finish is the only correct finish.

Xex360Unfortunately, it was awful as stupidly LG put a mate finish on the screen.

Agreed. It really ruins the vibrancy and I wish more display makers would offer glossy options. Not everybody lives in sunny countries or uses computers next to a window.

ChryAgreed. It really ruins the vibrancy and I wish more display makers would offer glossy options. Not everybody lives in sunny countries or uses computers next to a window.

Agreed....I'd rather close my shades and have a glossy finish

It's funny, I was just commenting yesterday on some other article that I wish there were more 42-45" monitors, especially ultrawides, but that an ultrawide at 45" would need a 5120x2160....

I'm loving all the OLED desktop monitor stuff coming out of CES, but 45" is not a desktop monitor, that's a TV or a dedicated simrig display.

Can we get more 27-34" models that we can put on a desk, please?

How do we get these people to listen?

Is it too much to ask for a 5K2K 21:9 gaming ultrawide?

AnarchoPrimitivAgreed....I'd rather close my shades and have a glossy finish

Actually eyeing one laptop that has glossy 4k 16:10 OLED display (perfection IMO): ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED.

ChryAgreed. It really ruins the vibrancy and I wish more display makers would offer glossy options. Not everybody lives in sunny countries or uses computers next to a window.

If you can afford a $1000 monitor, you can afford some $25 window blinds.
It's not as if the AG coating magically makes a screen usable in a room with glare, either - It just makes the experience a little bit less terrible.

FahadHow do we get these people to listen?

Is it too much to ask for a 5K2K 21:9 gaming ultrawide?

Because each and everyone has his/her own screen needs and think they are universal.

Some want a 4K 27" flat, others a ultra widescreen 21:9 but with a 1440p lines (3440 x 1440), others a 32" 1440p OLED,...it's never ending.

I think having OLED 27" 1440p is what a lot on TPU asked for, it won't please anyone but it's all about pleasing the "MOST", creating a screen supply chain for each consumer's desires, impossibles.

Here that 45" screen, I don't know feels way more like a "call product", a demonstrator that only few will purchase rather than a viable LG solution..

sephiroth117Because each and everyone has his/her own screen needs and think they are universal.

It is not the customers needs that define the product specifications. I'd rather call it intentional political sabotage of the monitors progress - maybe they think that if the vast majority of users run low-res 1080p and lower, then the data bandwidth for internet/phones will be lower...

Sitting in front of a low quality monitor is very harmful for the human body. I guess they never calculate the healthcare expenses associated with the issues.

Curved is an immediate pass for me. If the Samsung 32" Neo G8 was flat I would have bought instantly.

UpgrayeddSamsung G8 QD-OLED is 34in but 175Hz.

Also has shitty mini DP and micro HDMI 2.1 ports.

matarSweet but 45" for a 3440x1440 will have Visible pixel density (82.87 PPI) A 34" is the ideal resolution for a 3440x1440 (109.68 PPI)

Everyones eyes are different. I have 27" 4k so about 163ppi. More PPI!!!

Chrispy_If you can afford a $1000 monitor, you can afford some $25 window blinds.
It's not as if the AG coating magically makes a screen usable in a room with glare, either - It just makes the experience a little bit less terrible.

Actually glossy are better in direct light, with mate finish you don't see a thing, but with glossy you see mirror reflection of the light only not the whole screen becoming usable!

matarSweet but 45" for a 3440x1440 will have Visible pixel density (82.87 PPI) A 34" is the ideal resolution for a 3440x1440 (109.68 PPI)

All i can is to agree, this is too big for this kind of definition.
I am on a 35" 3440*1440 (106.55 PPI) monitor and this looks good in term of characters at 100% scale. It could be a little bit sharper but this is fine.
I'm planning to switch on a 42.5" 3840*2160 (103.67PPI) because i want more work surface and i don't really like the 1440p limitation vertically especially.
I'll lose just a bit of PPI but i consider that this is fine, because the monitor will be a little farther from me.
Ideally i would prefer going for a 5k Ultrawide (5120*2160), but there aren't much on the market for now. Why ?
I think this is the best future spot for monitors and i would prefer that the brands work on this instead of going with crazy useless refresh rates.
For example this is what a 5120*2160 (5K Ultrawide) would give :
45" 123.49 PPI
48" 115.77 PPI
50" 111.14 PPI
55" 101.04 PPI
What about making a 50" VA 5120*2160 Curved 144Hz with mate plastic and with no useless RGB Rogue like feature at a correct price ?

Zorg35000All i can is to agree, this is too big for this kind of definition.
I am on a 35" 3440*1440 (106.55 PPI) monitor and this looks good in term of characters at 100% scale. It could be a little bit sharper but this is fine.
I'm planning to switch on a 42.5" 3840*2160 (103.67PPI) because i want more work surface and i don't really like the 1440p limitation vertically especially.
I'll lose just a bit of PPI but i consider that this is fine, because the monitor will be a little farther from me.
Ideally i would prefer going for a 5k Ultrawide (5120*2160), but there aren't much on the market for now. Why ?
I think this is the best future spot for monitors and i would prefer that the brands work on this instead of going with crazy useless refresh rates.
For example this is what a 5120*2160 (5K Ultrawide) would give :
45" 123.49 PPI
48" 115.77 PPI
50" 111.14 PPI
55" 101.04 PPI
What about making a 50" VA 5120*2160 Curved 144Hz with mate plastic and with no useless RGB Rogue like feature at a correct price ?

I think your requirements will fail at "at a correct price". For me personally (32"2560x1400@144Hz curved VA) this monitor would be "the" chioce if not the price of 1500-2000$ exVAT. That price range is unacceptable when I can get 43"4K@120Hz OLED for like 660$ ex VAT...

And all this about PPI like it would mean anything without the viewing distance, I sif about 1.3/4 ft from 92ppi and unable to see individual pixels or the grid between them. Sitting like 2,1/2 ft (about the center of the R800 arc) from 82 would be about the same.

sephiroth117Because each and everyone has his/her own screen needs and think they are universal.

Some want a 4K 27" flat, others a ultra widescreen 21:9 but with a 1440p lines (3440 x 1440), others a 32" 1440p OLED,...it's never ending.

I think having OLED 27" 1440p is what a lot on TPU asked for, it won't please anyone but it's all about pleasing the "MOST", creating a screen supply chain for each consumer's desires, impossibles.

Here that 45" screen, I don't know feels way more like a "call product", a demonstrator that only few will purchase rather than a viable LG solution..

Personally the 27" 1440p OLED is what i wanted but i settled for a 48inch C1 and will rock it till it burns out. By that time hopefully OLEDs PPI to Brightness level will be able to get higher than the current limit.

Will any vendor finally introduce a new 5K line of monitors with 120/144 refresh rate? I'd like to see:
- 5120x2160 (21:9)
- 5120x2880 (16:9)
- 5120x3200 (16:10)

I mean... how many 3440x1440 one could possibly release...

Tek-CheckWill any vendor finally introduce a new 5K line of monitors with 120/144 refresh rate? I'd like to see:
- 5120x2160 (21:9)
- 5120x2880 (16:9)
- 5120x3200 (16:10)

I mean... how many 3440x1440 one could possibly release...

5120:2160 would be god tier, actual 4k, in Ultrawide, with the cinematic 24:10 aspect ratio which is also great for side by side working with the extra vertical. OLED or MINI LED, don't care which. Oh, and a maximum curve of 1500R.