One of the interesting elements in the new wave of monitor technologies is the types of ideas that panel manufacturers are coming up with. In the enterprise space, custom display configurations occur more frequently than we might expect, but for consumers there tends to be a line of standardization. Samsung, being vertically integrated, gives them the opportunity to experiment more than most. Even then, as a reviewer in the industry, one develops certain expectations of what might be coming in the future. Consider me stumped, as TFTCentral has delved into Samsung’s upcoming roadmaps and panel production schedules to pull out one or two surprises.

49-inch 3840x1080, or ‘Double Full-HD / DFHD’

For readers on the leading-edge of monitor configurations, ultra-wide displays in the 21:9 aspect ratio have been on the radar for about two years. These are monitors that have a 2560x1080 display, stretching the horizontal dimension of a standard 1920x1080 Full-HD monitor and make it easier to display modern cinema widescreen format content with less black bars. They are also claimed to assist with peripheral vision when gaming beyond a standard 1920x1080 display, or when curved, help with immersive content.

So chalk up some surprise when we hear that Samsung has an even wider format panel in the works. 3840x1080 represents a 32:9 aspect ratio, and the report states that this will be a VA panel with 1800R curvature and a 3-side frameless design. Putting that many pixels in a large display gives a relatively low 81.41 PPI. This panel will be part of Samsung’s ‘Grand Circle’ format, and by supporting up to 144 Hz it is expected that variants of this panel will be included with FreeSync/GSYNC technologies.  One figure to note would be the contrast ratio – 5000:1 (static), which TFTCentral states is higher than current Samsung VA panels.

44-inch 3840x1200

This panel is the equivalent two 24.7-inch 1920x1200 screens put side-by-side, and indicates which market Samsung would be aiming for. The specifications seem to be almost identical to the 3840x1080 panel, such as 1800R curvature, but in a 29:9 aspect ratio with 60 Hz and 144 Hz variants. Pixel density is slightly higher than the other panel too, given the higher resolution and lower diagonal, which gives 91.41 PPI. TFTCentral is listing these panels as having an 8-bit color depth (no word on FRC), and likely to be qualified on some amount of sRGB. Other numbers, such as brightness and response time, are still unknown.

An amusing aside, for any users looking for a 16:10 display, something like two of these stacked on top of each other might be suitable (albeit massive) if these panels also offer a 3-side borderless configuration. I know Ryan has been after a decent 3840x2400 display, but given our discussions with monitor manufacturers, there seems to be no 16:10 demand from consumers.


A bad mockup of two non-curved 16:10 displays

So while these two panels aren’t official announcements (they don't even have official part numbers yet), and production will depend on how well these technologies scale. But by virtue of being on roadmaps and panel lists it is clear that Samsung has at least been doing research towards some wider aspect ratio displays. Information from TFTCentral is claiming mass production for both of these panels in September 2017, which means we might see some early announcements for retail-grade panels at Computex in June, or at IFA at the end of August with some pre-production run models. Full retail then might happen in the second half of the year, or along with further announcements at CES in January. 

Related Reading

Source: TFTCentral

POST A COMMENT

50 Comments

View All Comments

  • Diji1 - Friday, April 07, 2017 - link

    Partially correct and Ian is partially correct - well, up until very recently anyhow.

    3440x1440 IPS have been around for about 2 years. But Samsung uses VA panels which until very recently have only been available in 2560x1080.

    VA panels typically have much higher contrast than IPS is capable of which improves the image a great deal so for games the low resolution didn't matter anywhere near as much as it does for desktop use.
    Reply
  • r3loaded - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    "given our discussions with monitor manufacturers, there seems to be no 16:10 demand from consumers."

    Bull. Shit. No one's buying 16:10 monitors because there's very few 16:10 monitors actually on the market. 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 exist only in expensive Dell UltraSharps and panels for MacBook Pros, and no one's even *tried* a 3840x2400. If they bothered to pull their finger out and actually offered such a model, it would easily sell like hot cakes.
    Reply
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    Random ranter on the internet knows best. Keep your day job. Reply
  • grant3 - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    These look like a fantastic product, for someone who wants to replace their 2x monitors with a single display. e.g. office workers

    If today's mid-range graphics cannot run this resolution, then maybe Samsung can simply include 2 display ports, connected with 2 cables, and the computer would treat each half as independent monitors.
    Reply
  • grant3 - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    Such searched and discovered that LG already has a curved monitor with this resolution, priced at ~$1500. Quite expensive for the real estate, but perhaps worth it if the display quality matches $500+ standard resolution monitors. Reply
  • helvete - Thursday, June 15, 2017 - link

    Who the hell would want to invest this amount of money to get the exact same resolution albeit in one piece (for office use)? Reply
  • PVG - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    Ity's hard to find demand for 16:10 when there is no offer.
    Manufacturers unilaterally decided that we wanted 16:9 when they switched from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 and left 1920x1200 confined to the (at the time) much more expensive professional ips niche.
    Reply
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    This is false. Historically there have been 16:10 products, but they've just withered on the vine. If a product sells well vendors notice and they order and sell more, likewise when they sell less they order less.

    This notion that 16:10 isn't around becuase no-one offers it is unsupported by the facts, and the market is at least efficient enough to respond to buyer demand. This is a best a low-grade conspiracy theory.
    Reply
  • HiroshiTrinn - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    The obnoxious price premium that they put on 16:10 monitors vs 16:9 is more than enough to destroy consumer demand. I live and die by my 30" 16:10 Dell Ultrasharps Reply
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 06, 2017 - link

    More 1080p are sold becuase they're TV compatible bringing them down in price, but even a small difference in price makes people wonder "why am I paying this much for an extra 120 rows of pixels?" Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now