Last year, Samsung introduced the first 49-inch 32:9 'fished-screen' monitor, the C49HG90. This year, Philips followed with a 32:9 display. Perhaps there will be more brands soon. Into, more proportions appear...
In fact, the proportion of screens has undergone a major change since the development of displays. From the initial 4:3 to 16:10, 16:9, 21:9, and 32:9, it has become wider and wider. When we think that 16:9 is the limit, the manufacturers have come out with a 21:9 'fishing screen' and come out. When we are still talking about 'fishing screen', 32:9 is coming again! It seems that the total design of the manufacturers It is possible to subvert our imagination again and again.
Why does this happen?
The deeper aspect ratio of the display has its own internal reasons. First of all, because the human eye is wide, the widescreen is more human physiology and can present more perfect visual effects.
Second, we can see that in recent years, both TVs and monitors have been moving toward larger screens. For display screens, the larger the screen, the higher the display efficiency, but there is a fundamental difference between monitors and televisions. The reason is that the diversity of display uses means that our use of the display is close to the touch in most cases.
If the ratio is still 4:3, the larger the screen size, the higher the display. (Imagine if we were sitting in front of the monitor and looking up at the above information.) If it is a wide screen, it's not the same. We only need to browse the information left and right. The usability is very different.
We use the Pythagorean theorem to make a simple estimate. Take 49 inches as an example. The heights of the display at 32:9, 16:9, and 4:3 ratios are about 13.27 inches, 24.03 inches, and 29.4 inches, respectively, converted to centimeters (1 Inches = 2.54 cm) Let's get a feel for it: It's about 33.71 cm, 61.04 cm and 74.68 cm, and a 60-70cm high monitor.
Non-precision calculations, we can feel the difference
In addition, the appearance of the curved screen is also one of the conditions under which the aspect ratio of the display can be continuously deepened. Imagine the appearance of a non-curved 32:9 monitor. It must be very uncomfortable. Therefore, an ultra-widescreen monitor must be accompanied by a curved surface. To be able to achieve.
Finally, in order to increase work efficiency and other reasons, many users now have dual-screen or multi-screen, which is not only inconvenient to operate but also has serious black borders. In the eyes of manufacturers, since you originally wanted to set up dual screens, Then I will help you with the group. There is no black border. Why not?
All these are good ideas for deepening the aspect ratio of the monitor. However, is it really true?
This trend is not the best choice for most users
It's very simple. Everyone thinks about the needs of our daily use of monitors. It's also office+entertainment. If you're away from the office, ordinary white-collar workers can’t really get a 32:9 super. Wide-screen display, and use may not be better than the dual-screen mosaic effect, After all, we are free to set dual screen, horizontal and vertical, the angle can be arbitrary adjustment.
For entertainment, There are not many games that can be adapted, and the effect of using them is also normal. ', even finding a wallpaper is a tough problem.
The biggest advantage of the ultra-widescreen display is that it can display more content in one screen and improve the user's work efficiency. In addition, various built-in multi-screen splitting functions and split-screen solutions can improve the efficiency of the underlying platform. , This is only practical for professional workers such as digital photo processing and multimedia editing, but it is not indispensable..
The aspect ratio of the monitor is deepened from the user's beautiful vision for improving the display efficiency. However, for most users, this upgrade is obviously garish, coupled with expensive prices, and very few willing to pay.
Is it true that manufacturers do not know this? Obviously not, the reason why more and more manufacturers have begun to deepen the proportion of the screen, more not for a lot of shipments, but the factory's trademark is new and different to achieve differentiated competition.
The current display market is a product line that has matured and matured and lacks new ideas. At the present stage, it cannot be like the mobile phone or TV. It is through the full upgrade of the panel technology (OLED) to attract users to upgrade, and the innovation based on LCD technology. Difficulties, with fish screen has become a means of desperation.
We cannot completely deny the value of the monitor's aspect ratio, but manufacturers are more likely to expect '32:9' to be a gimmick to increase brand value, highlight brand strength, and make sense to consumers. Not these.
Where is the overly mature breakthrough of the display panel?
At present, the development of display panels is too mature, and the flashy innovations do not bring real value to users. It is better to focus on high refresh rate, high resolution, and high color performance...etc.
For example, how can the e-sports monitor be improved at the same time as ensuring high resolution? How can the VA panel and the IPS panel be improved in response speed? How can the display color performance be more accurate and feature-rich?
After all, a higher refresh rate allows the player to experience a more fluid and natural fit for the game; a higher resolution allows the display screen to show up vividly and delicately; and a higher color performance makes the display screen more realistic. WYSIWYG is the ultimate esoteric meaning of display devices; these breakthroughs are what we can really feel, and also related to the immediate interests of users.
As far as resolution is concerned, the debate on 4K resolution has continued, but it is undeniable that consumers are paying more attention to it. In the “Display ZDC Report for the First Quarter of 2018”, we can see that Consumers' attention on 4K has reached 38.50%, ranking first in type attention, and we can also find out from the interactions of daily users and netizens. The only reason to limit consumption is price.
So for manufacturers, On the one hand, it is necessary to study the resolution upgrade. On the other hand, it is more necessary to reduce costs and make high-resolution products popular in the consumer market. This is the part that users care about. The refresh rate upgrade is also true.
In general, consumers are more concerned with real performance upgrades. Only when they can see, feel, and enjoy the effects of this change will they pay for it. Obviously, they are increasingly exaggerating. The aspect ratio of the monitor is not able to do this, but it is better to regard it as a gimmick. If it is viewed as a major development direction of the monitor, it is certainly not a blessing for the user.
Finally, I would also like to say to the manufacturers' fathers that the aspect ratio of the monitor is almost on the line. Consumers' pain points may not be here!
