Personally, I'd like at least a full 4K (3840x2160) and in a larger form-factor (more like 45") - but this DELL is the closest to my goal, at present. I'm still waiting for that perfect one, though :-)
That comment is also a bit misleading due to the fact that most HDR content is produced with color and brightness levels that exceed the capabilities of even the most expensive TVs. So you just have to decide what level of tone mapping and clipping is acceptable to your eyes (and your wallet). There are some inexpensive TVs that perform pretty well, especially the 2018 models.
nathanddrews is perfectly right while also managing to not mangle the English language.
Eliminating every HDR TV "outputting it correctly" would leave you all but staring out the window. I have a 3500E TV and I can tell you it's really not perfect. But then again the only people who would care are the ones making misleading "academic" comments and people coming fast from behind to replace "audiophiles" in the snake-oil "I can tell the difference" category.
Not this comment again..TV are completely different that a PC monitor. Not even comparable. 4k panel on a TV is going to be so cheap vs a monitor you can't compare.
I wonder if 32:9 widescreen has a better chance of getting traction than 21:9 as it is just half of standard 4K 16:9. But now we also have the wrinkle of mobile devices and Netflix going 18:9...
21:9 (which is actually somewhere in the range of 2.37:1 and 2.4:1) is extremely close to "Scope" aspect ratios used by movies (which is between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1), which effectively eliminates black bars from those movies. I don't think any content exists for a 32:9 aspect ratio.
I wasn't thinking about content but from a manufacturing perspective. Almost all large panel production facilities are tooled for 16:9 which makes 21:9 an odd cut. To make 32:9 you basically take a regular 4K glass and just cut it horizontally in half, or take 2 regular cuts and stitch them together...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
16 Comments
Back to Article
SodaAnt - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
In this day and age when I can buy a 50in HDR 4k TV for $220, can we at least get these things to have 1440p instead of 1080p?boeush - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Not as big (*only* 38"...):https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasha...
But:
Native Resolution
3840 x 1600 at 60 Hz
Personally, I'd like at least a full 4K (3840x2160) and in a larger form-factor (more like 45") - but this DELL is the closest to my goal, at present. I'm still waiting for that perfect one, though :-)
Psycho_McCrazy - Saturday, June 23, 2018 - link
My wish list item too!!!!Diji1 - Saturday, June 23, 2018 - link
HDR is a bit misleading on cheap TVs, you are getting the ability to have HDR input without outputting it correctly.nathanddrews - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
That comment is also a bit misleading due to the fact that most HDR content is produced with color and brightness levels that exceed the capabilities of even the most expensive TVs. So you just have to decide what level of tone mapping and clipping is acceptable to your eyes (and your wallet). There are some inexpensive TVs that perform pretty well, especially the 2018 models.Diji1 - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
Did you bought a shitty HDR TV?close - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
nathanddrews is perfectly right while also managing to not mangle the English language.Eliminating every HDR TV "outputting it correctly" would leave you all but staring out the window. I have a 3500E TV and I can tell you it's really not perfect. But then again the only people who would care are the ones making misleading "academic" comments and people coming fast from behind to replace "audiophiles" in the snake-oil "I can tell the difference" category.
imaheadcase - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
Not this comment again..TV are completely different that a PC monitor. Not even comparable. 4k panel on a TV is going to be so cheap vs a monitor you can't compare.vanilla_gorilla - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
That's a pretty broad statement. All monitors and all TV are "completely different" ? You might want to provide some evidence to support your claim.AlexByrth - Friday, March 22, 2019 - link
Of course, you also don't have arguments to prove your points.wr3zzz - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
I wonder if 32:9 widescreen has a better chance of getting traction than 21:9 as it is just half of standard 4K 16:9. But now we also have the wrinkle of mobile devices and Netflix going 18:9...Inteli - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
21:9 (which is actually somewhere in the range of 2.37:1 and 2.4:1) is extremely close to "Scope" aspect ratios used by movies (which is between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1), which effectively eliminates black bars from those movies. I don't think any content exists for a 32:9 aspect ratio.wr3zzz - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
I wasn't thinking about content but from a manufacturing perspective. Almost all large panel production facilities are tooled for 16:9 which makes 21:9 an odd cut. To make 32:9 you basically take a regular 4K glass and just cut it horizontally in half, or take 2 regular cuts and stitch them together...meacupla - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
I guess this is another way of working around the fact that HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.4 cannot deliver a 4K, 144Hz, 8bit video streameva02langley - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
My next updrade will be with a 4k HDR TV 60-120-144Hz with Freesync.I am not buying anything until I see that on the market.
imaheadcase - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
By then freesync won't be a thing anymore..which is awesome.