Report: Samsung prepping 32:9 and 29:9 display panels

If you're one of those people who hated black bars when trying to watch widescreen movies on 4:3 televisions back in the day, you're going to hate the new ultra-wide panels that Samsung is reportedly making. The monitor experts at TFTCentral got some info on the goodies.

Samsung is apparently prepping up 49" and 44" displays meant to mimic a pair of side-by-side monitors in a single frame. Fine details are still sparse, but we know enough to get a good idea of what we're in for. First off, both panels are based on VA technology, have a tight 1800R curvature, and are offered in a "3-side frameless design." TFTCentral says these panels have an impressive 5000:1 static contrast ratio.

The  49" panel comes in a 32:9 aspect ratio and sports a 3480×1080 resolution that Samsung is apparently calling Double-Full HD. This unit seems to be directed at gamers, as it reportedly supports a 144Hz refresh rate and has options for FreeSync and G-Sync support.

Meanwhile, the 44" offering has an aspect ratio of 29:9 and offers up a 3840×1200 resolution. This panel will purportedly arrive in 60 Hz and 144 Hz variations, though TFTCentral's report makes no explicit mention of support for VRR technology. The site's info does mention that this unit has 8-bit color depth.

Both panels are expected to go into production in September of this year, though there's no word yet on when we'll see them inside monitors. The high refresh rates of both panels and the VRR options for the 49" model seem to point directly toward gaming monitors. It remains to be seen how well games will deal with the ultra-wide resolutions both screens offer.

Comments closed
    • NoOne ButMe
    • 3 years ago

    If they are <2.5x the cost of two compatible (in quality) 1080/1200p displays, I think they will be okay for some use cases.

    Expecting 5x or more the price instead. Sigh.

    • ermo
    • 3 years ago

    For racing sims, wide curved single displays certainly have merit, though you could argue that VR is a perhaps a better proposition and will require about the same amount of graphical horsepower for a MUCH more immersive experience.

    And since a 24″ 1080p display has a fair dot pitch, I guess a 49″ version will look decent enough too. I recently moved from 3x1080p to a 1280×1024 + 1080p + 1280×1024 setup (with angled side monitors) which is almost identical in terms of width and pixels. It’s a nice setup.

    I’m curious at why people are so bothered by black bars, though. Seems more like personal preference than anything I guess?

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 3 years ago

      I tried Project CARS on a DK2. Loved the immersion, hated the low resolution, stopped using it. It’ll be a glorious day when the resolutions double (or whatever it takes so that you can see iproperly).

        • Laykun
        • 3 years ago

        It’s so much better on the CV1, it’s well worth a try.

    • Antias
    • 3 years ago

    Interesting comparing it to my 40 philips BDM monitor
    [url<]http://www.displaywars.com/49-inch-d%7B32x9%7D-vs-40-inch-16x9[/url<]

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    I’d buy an ultrawide but I just don’t trust game developers to think outside the 16:9 box

      • Laykun
      • 3 years ago

      It’s not just thinking outside of 16:9, it’s also if it’s even worth supporting a monitor aspect ratio that’s likely to be less than 1% of the market.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      Right? Overwatch took a year to support 21:9, and even then, it just crops the top and bottom instead of expanding the FOV.

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    They’re probably going to be too expensive for me but otherwise I’d give these the benefit of the doubt until I’ve seen them; on account of the 144Hz refresh rate that I’ve become addicted to.
    For usage outside games it’s the tight curvature if anything that would make me feel skeptical.

    • End User
    • 3 years ago

    49″ for a PC display is absolutely massive. Just look at how big a 38″ display is:

    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ifcX1eCtjY&t=3s[/url<]

      • Major-Failure
      • 3 years ago

      I was just gonna ask whether people really do put them on their desktop. I’ve started using a 32 incher a few weeks back and seriously can’t imagine gaming on anything bigger (disclaimer: I don’t game).

      I no longer watch YouTube let’s plays in full screen because the rapid rotations in 1st person few are a bit too much at 32” already, but 44” and 49”? That’s crazy.

        • Cuhulin
        • 3 years ago

        I use a 49, so at least some people do. But then, I don’t FPS much.

        • blindbox
        • 3 years ago

        Registered just to reply to this.

        I’m using a 43″ 4K monitor lately, with the monitor positioned at the same position from my eye, as my 27″ monitor. It’s an Acer ET430K, wall-mounted. Quick review: Amazingly priced, pixel pitch equivalent to a 27″ 1440p monitor, uses IPS. Some ghosting, but it’s not permanent, and is invisible when gaming or watching videos so I don’t mind it. VESA mount doesn’t follow standard hole size – but you can use back the screws from disconnecting the stand (the monitor’s light, so don’t be afraid of structural issues).

        Playing an FPS on this monitor is a treat, albeit headache inducing until you get used to it (which might not happen). Having all your peripheral vision to the action in front of you, and being able to see the minute details far away is just breath-taking. I enjoyed it way more than playing an FPS on a VR goggle.

        My main use for this monitor is watching animes and doing some programming rather than gaming, however. I don’t actually play FPSes/TPSes every day – just once in a while. The longest I lasted with this monitor on an FPS/TPS is about 3 hours.

      • Den2
      • 3 years ago

      It should be 0.029″ (0.75mm) taller than a 27″ 16:9 monitor. So… its two 27″ monitors. Which is a pretty normal monitor size.

        • End User
        • 3 years ago

        I’m sitting in front of dual 27″ 2560×1440 displays. I have one on a 30 degree angle from the main display. I swivel my head to view each. It is not ideal although a single display would get rid of the centre bezels which would be a big plus.

        I’m not adverse to the idea of super wide displays. I’m waiting for my LG 38UC99-W to arrive.

          • Den2
          • 3 years ago

          I think I’d prefer having multiple monitors over one wide one personally. Being able to adjust each one individuals (especially the angle) is important. I use a triple monitor set up (26″-28″/720p-4K), so without angling the monitors, it would be nearly 6 ft long. And the ability to snap windows to one screen or half of the screen is nice (sometimes you just need to have 4+ things up at once).

            • End User
            • 3 years ago

            My gaming display has the dual 2560×1440 displays. I game on one display and view system info on the other. Apart from that I prefer to use multiple desktops on single display setups.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      Again, diagonal sizes can’t clearly denote area once multiple aspect ratios are in play.

      The area of a x:y aspect display relative to a 1:1 display of the same diagonal is 2xy/(x[super<]2[/super<]+y[super<]2[/super<]), so a 49" 32:9 display has only roughly 3/5ths the area of a 49" 16:9 display. (0.522/0.855 = 0.611) A 49" 32:9 display would have 120% the area of the 38" 21:9 (0.724 scale factor) display you linked to, which is an improvement, but nothing gargantuan and corresponding to a 42" 21:9 or a 38" 16:9 display, which are still perceptibly smaller than the 40-43" 16:9 displays that have been out for a while already.

        • End User
        • 3 years ago

        Regardless of how many many numbers you want to use, the 49″ @ 3840×1080 is utter nonsense. Its 81.41 PPI is just horrid.

    • Airmantharp
    • 3 years ago

    As a 1440p user looking forward to 4k, I find the vertical resolution… lacking.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      Turn it 90 degrees

    • zzz
    • 3 years ago

    If this literally functions as two separate displays in a single monitor then I’m interested. That doesn’t seem to be a big ‘if’ in this case; they seem to be alluding to that capability but also saying ‘it can be one big monitor’.

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t see any allusion in this article or the tftcentral one that samsung is going a MST route with these monitors. The “Double Full HD” seems to be just a moniker.

      That said, it should be fairly simple to dock a game running borderless windowed to one side, leaving 1920×1080 pixels free on the other side of the monitor.

        • zzz
        • 3 years ago

        In absence of actual information except what’s said in the sales-pitch, we have a difference of opinion. Double Full HD is not a selling point since 4k was originally pitched as ‘quadruple 1080p’. I am admittedly reaching on this one.

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    I like 21:9 displays but they do have drawbacks when viewing 16:9 content (TV, web).

    I don’t watch enough movies filmed in Cinemascope to justify getting one. And gaming is still hit-or-miss on 21:9.

    • jts888
    • 3 years ago

    Jesus. This is exactly why using diagonal size as the primary marketing descriptor of a display is horrid.

    It just makes the crawl towards infinity:1 (well, maybe infinity:9) displays inevitable as manufacturers can get away with selling less and less area under comparable size listings.

    A 32:9 display has an area 61% as big as a 16:9 one with the same diagonal, or equivalently, a 16:9 display would have 164% as much viewable area as a 32:9 display with the same diagonal.

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    Gah, and I thought that 5:4 was bad…..

    32:9 and 29:9 are going to be disappointments overall.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 3 years ago

    Eric, Eric–do we need to have the talk again about not using “reportedly” when you can use “purportedly”? TR has standards and you must uphold them.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 3 years ago

    “has options for FreeSync and G-Sync support.”

    Take note Asus/Dell/HP.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    Now I can know how Robocop sees the world!!!

    • WasabiVengeance
    • 3 years ago

    While that 3480×1080 is garbage, I think I’d actually wouldn’t mind a pair of the 3840×1200 monitors, stacked vertically. I’d still probably rather have a single 4k 22″ monitor, but I’d at least consider them.

    • kvndoom
    • 3 years ago

    I’m glad they make it easier and easier for me to just keep what I have.

    • Billstevens
    • 3 years ago

    1080 and 1200 seems awful for monitors that size compared to 3440×1440 which I know looks really good even at a smaller size… Especially given the completely odd aspect ratio is probably only useful for productivity.

    Unless I suppose the idea is you can run this like two monitors while you are gaming? Maybe if will run seamlessly like a multi monitor setup but with no gap. I guess that has its place in the world of crazy gaming displays.

    I would have to see it.

      • ChicagoDave
      • 3 years ago

      Yes, these ones are specifically designed to be dual 1920×1080 and 1920×1200 monitors.

      I’ve been running a 34″ 3440×1440 LG monitor for like 3 years now and it’s amazing for games that run it natively (majority IME). For games that don’t, you can try “Flawless Widesceen”, or just play in windowed mode with side bars. For work I use it as a dual screen in one setup and it works perfectly fine 95% of the time. Every now and then something won’t move the text or picture properly, but it’s pretty rare.

      As reference, splitting an 21:9 ultrawide in half gets you 10.5 : 9 so it’s very close to two squares (basically half way between a perfect square and 5:4) Having two 16:9 or 16:10 screens combined as 29:9 or 32:9 would certainly be interesting. However, part of me feels like it’s a bridge too far – that’s nearly a 40% increase in width compared to 21:9! I’ll definitely need to visit Microcenter to check one out in person. Most people on the ‘net are skeptical of Ultrawides and I’m always saying to give it a shot and check it out in person. Now I”m the one skeptical of this aspect ratio, so I’ll have to take my own advice 🙂

    • techguy
    • 3 years ago

    3840 x 1080?

    BARF

    What genius thought this one up? Durrrr, ultrawide monitors are selling well, let’s go MEGA WIDE!!!!!!11

      • raddude9
      • 3 years ago

      More Like:
      “There’s no profit in selling two 1080p monitors, let’s wedge two panels into a single monitor and let the $’s roll in”

      • Major-Failure
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, I don’t get it either. Massive bars on either side of the screen when watching a blu-ray. Who would want that? At least with the 1440p ultrawides you could get a slightly bigger, albeit blurrier, picture through scaling, but this?

      But hey, you know how they say everything makes a comeback eventually. Black bars in movies where big in the 90s and 00s. Now they’re coming back, just in vertical instead of horizontal.

      • demani
      • 3 years ago

      Well, those of us who set up dual monitor setups on a regular basis see the benefit in principal. The issue though isn’t with the format per se. It’s with the controls-with one monitor you get just one Taskbar. You better get used to navigating the Start menu with a keyboard.

      But for gaming, not having the pillar dead center would be really nice if the games support the resolution. But you would be pushing half the pixels of a UHD display so you should be able to power it without a mortgage inducing video card. In motion, resolution will mean less, especially since the action changes so much.

      I’m wondering though: is this the way Samsung is recouping 4k panels that have flaws?

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    I’m only interested if the aspect ratio has to be expressed using at least one irrational number… AT LEAST!

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 3 years ago

      √32 : √18 ?

      • SonicSilicon
      • 3 years ago

      (1+√5):2 would be useful for print work with A size paper. Given how close that is to the 16:10 format that is essentially extinct, I wouldn’t count on that particular irrational ratio.

    • dpaus
    • 3 years ago

    I think these are actually the displays (code-named ‘origami’) that Samsung is planning to use on the next-gen Galaxy 9 and Note 9 smartphones – you know, the ones that fold up to the size of a credit card?

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      do they burn faster when folded?

        • Wirko
        • 3 years ago

        No, they fold best when burning.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    These are just ridiculously wide.

    Is the resolution on that first one supposed to be 3840 as well? That would be 2×1920. It’s like a pair of 27″ 1080p displays. The pixels are large enough to count if you sit at a “normal” (less than 1m) distance.

    29:9 seems slightly inaccurate, and Samsung should call it 32:10, since it’s really 1920×1200 side-by-side. That one is interesting, though, if you think of it as a pair of 1920×1200 displays. It’s the same height (just shy of 12″) as a pair of 24″ 1920×1200 displays, too.

      • Grahambo
      • 3 years ago

      But 32:10 could also be 16:5 and that doesn’t sound as impressive. Better to be a little off on the relative scale and keep the numbers more bigger.

      On second thought, they could extend my argument to justify 64:19… Forget I said anything!

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        LOL I hear you.

        If Samsung and LG can sell 18:9 displays on their new phones, Samsung can certainly sell appropriately-labeled 32:10 displays.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This