Comments Locked

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 stream
  • eva02langley - 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now