Why don't people just get cheap 5:4 (or 4:3) monitors to use as secondary displays? What is the appeal of a fugly dual 16:9 setup?
>>107556941you can't get higher than 1280x1024
>>107556941Because the bezels should somewhat match. A old TFT with a thick bezel next to a ultra thin OLED looks retarded.
They’re not even close to Retina quality and having a super-tall secondary display is pretty handy sometimes
>>107556941i do althoughbeit
the theatre experience.
>>107556951You can get 3:2 4K 28" Huawei monitor. Ain't cheap tho.
For me? It's the LG Dualup or any 16:18 screen.
>>107557059I use 3x24" 16:10 and feel that 30% of side monitors is just wasted.
>>107556959I use a monitor and as a second screen my MBA or iPad while gaming.
>>107556941I don't "get" secondary displays. I upgrade my main display and then the previous main display suddenly transforms into a secondary display instead.>>107557040>oh cool, a taller "4k" screen, that looks really nice>look up specs>DisplayHDR 400>basic bitch IPS, no local dimming>60Hz>they couldn't fit a DP connector on their giant screen, gotta be miniDPfocken lmaowhat a waste of potential
>>107556941I like nice displays, but really only use one (PG32UCDM) anymore.Monitors not in storage that I could use immediately:>BenQ RD280ULeaning against a dresser.>LG DualUPLeaning against the BenQ>48" LG CXWall mounted, but rarely used (consoles mostly).
>>107557099>no local dimmingJesus man
>>107556941Could if they actually sold modern 5:4 panels.
>>107557099>no local dimmingNever heard of this
>>107557676gimmick from tv's that looks horrible on monitors
>>107556951I have a Dell 2007FP which I use for my retro setup that's native 1600x1200. Ebay used to be flooded with them, though not so much these days.
>>107557676Vastly improves contrast on LCDs, it's effectively a requirement when a display claims HDR compatibility.