08-25-2015, 12:12 PM
It depends exactly what models you are comparing. My old monitor was a 16:10 24" 1920x1200. The LG ultra-wide is 21:9 34". If you do the calculations, the LG is actually 1cm more in image height than the old monitor. Also, it has a lot more pixes in that height so density is up. It is best to look at the LG as two square-ish monitors side by side when comparing, as that is what you might be replacing.
If you compared the same diagonal, yes, ultra-wide would be stupidly short. But if you're going this route, it doesn't make sense unless you go large.
Gloss or not is a different argument
If you compared the same diagonal, yes, ultra-wide would be stupidly short. But if you're going this route, it doesn't make sense unless you go large.
Gloss or not is a different argument
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.