Well, e.g., you can get a Seiki 39“ 3840x2160 TV/monitor for $500 from Amazon right now. It’s not the world’s best monitor (TN panel, 30Hz refresh, and be warned that many things don’t work well with very high-resolution monitors right now) … but it’s ~40” and it’s >3000px wide and it’s cheaper than some “normal” monitors.
Fair point! I think 1080 is fine for me and the extra screen space would be more useful than finer resolution, but I can definitely see how resolution could be more important for other applications.
Human’s lateral visual search is considerably more efficient than horizontal. 414 spreaded more laterally beats regular 650. There are ultra-wide huge screens, of course, but they weren’t cheaper per inches than two monitors when I did my research 6 months ago.
So now you have the same number of pixels as from that one big monitor, but you either need a fancy mounting mechanism for putting the monitors above one another or else need twice the width on your desk. And you get a big wide thing you probably can’t see all of at once, instead of something a more natural shape. And it’s divided into four bits which limits the possible shapes and sizes of your windows. And it’s more expensive.
Again, for sure you might have good reasons to choose four smaller monitors instead of one really big one. But (1) the one big one has definite advantages and (2) I repeat, I wasn’t saying “hey, everyone should get one of these things” but “yes, as it happens such things do exist and here’s an example”.
I wasn’t saying you (or anyone) should get one, only answering Alsadius’s question and indicating that monitors of roughly the kind he described do in fact exist.
(30Hz refresh would be very bad for gaming. If you’re using your monitor for software development or data analysis or designing buildings or writing novels, though, it probably doesn’t make much difference.)
Well, e.g., you can get a Seiki 39“ 3840x2160 TV/monitor for $500 from Amazon right now. It’s not the world’s best monitor (TN panel, 30Hz refresh, and be warned that many things don’t work well with very high-resolution monitors right now) … but it’s ~40” and it’s >3000px wide and it’s cheaper than some “normal” monitors.
Why would I want that when I can get two of these, have 43″ of real estate, and $240 left over?
Because it has twice as many pixels as two of those.
(Is that enough reason? Maybe not. But that’s the main reason you’d want it, if you did.)
Fair point! I think 1080 is fine for me and the extra screen space would be more useful than finer resolution, but I can definitely see how resolution could be more important for other applications.
What extra screen space? I fear you may have been taken in by the monitor marketers’ cunning ruse of measuring size in (linear) inches.
A 39“ monitor with 16:9 aspect ratio is 34” x 19″ and has an area of 650 square inches.
A 22“ monitor with 18:9 aspect ratio is 19” x 11″ and has an area of 207 square inches.
So one of the former has considerably more screen space than two of the latter.
Human’s lateral visual search is considerably more efficient than horizontal. 414 spreaded more laterally beats regular 650. There are ultra-wide huge screens, of course, but they weren’t cheaper per inches than two monitors when I did my research 6 months ago.
Then get four, for $20 more.
So now you have the same number of pixels as from that one big monitor, but you either need a fancy mounting mechanism for putting the monitors above one another or else need twice the width on your desk. And you get a big wide thing you probably can’t see all of at once, instead of something a more natural shape. And it’s divided into four bits which limits the possible shapes and sizes of your windows. And it’s more expensive.
Again, for sure you might have good reasons to choose four smaller monitors instead of one really big one. But (1) the one big one has definite advantages and (2) I repeat, I wasn’t saying “hey, everyone should get one of these things” but “yes, as it happens such things do exist and here’s an example”.
30Hz refresh is a deal-breaker.
I wasn’t saying you (or anyone) should get one, only answering Alsadius’s question and indicating that monitors of roughly the kind he described do in fact exist.
(30Hz refresh would be very bad for gaming. If you’re using your monitor for software development or data analysis or designing buildings or writing novels, though, it probably doesn’t make much difference.)