Aspect Ratio itself does not distort images. Images get distorted where users stretch image and use feature like content aware re-size to force and image to a different aspect ratio.. If you were just to use fit on screen or full screen an image that has a different aspect ration then the display would be displayed with border on some or all sides of the image displayed.
Camera capture image with a specific aspect ratio common aspect ratio are 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 You can also crop away portions of image so the resulting image can any aspect ratio. So you could crop a 3:2 image to a image with a 21:9 aspect ratio. When that image is displayed fill screen it would fill your 21:9 aspect ratio display have no borders and no distortions. However the image has a different composition then the one you had to begin with.
21:9 is wide and if it is a desktop display that you sit close to. You may need to sit back from you desk to take the whole screen in.
An HDTV Video would have borders on the left and right side of the video 320x1080. 1/4 of the screen width would be borders 1/8 on both sides
New 4K displays have a 16:9 aspect ratios where the old IBM 4k display has a 16:10 aspect ratio 3840x2400 pixels.Its only 22.2" and has a higher resolution the then new corp of larger 16:9 4K displays.
4K displaye may require a newer Display Adapter then the one you have in your machine. Foe example mt Quarto 4000 max display size is 2560x1600 so I could use a 21:9 2560x1080 display one it but a 4k 3840x2160 would not be good.
It occurs to me that one reason to use an ultra-wide screen is that it approaches the real-estate of a dual monitor, but only uses one connection. So if your video card only allows two monitors to be connected, you could have a triple monitor setup, or even quad if you used two ultra-wides. In real world terms, I can't think how you could use two ultra-wides, unless it was one on top of the other, and that would surely not be conducive to a nice workflow. Noel has an interesting arrangement, but I like my system with 30 inch 1920x1200 main screen, and 24 inch 1920x1200 second screen in portrait mode. I'd like to add another 24inch 1920x1200 on the other side, but I'd need another card — my GTX570 only supports two screens — and I am concerned that Photoshop does not play nicely with two GPUs. If anyone knows different, I'd be pleased to hear about it.
A 21:9 aspect ration may be a good choice for a single display machine for Photoshop. Currently I use two displays and move most of Photoshop's pallets to the second display outside Photoshop main window. With a 21:9 display you could do something similar on a single display if you have limited desktop space. Something like this where you main PS window would be near 1920x1080
This is my Spec
CPU - i7 3770k
Mobo -Asus Maximus Formlae V
RAM -Corsair Vengenace 8gb (4X2)
GPU -Asus GTX 680 2gb Direct C II
PSU -Tagan Bz 800
Chasis- CM Storm Stryker
Storage - Seagte 2 TB and WD 1 TB
Avroneel Biswas wrote:
I am edging towards the Lg because of its sRGB which is superior than CIE 1976
Just different ways of saying the same thing. These two monitors are identical in this regard and both are sRGB-type displays.
What I always tell people on a budget is to go down in size, not quality. Panel size is the single biggest cost factor.
I know the "paradigm" here on the forum is multiple monitors and maximum screen real estate. Personally I disagree, I work on a single 1920 x 1200 and that's all I ever need. I don't feel restricted at all (and I have several unused monitors sitting around).
I realize your budget is limited, but take a look at the Eizo Foris FS2333 and see if it's a possibility. I don't know the price in India, but here in Norway it's just within the $350-equivalent limit. This is probably the best-value-for-money monitor currently on the market, it's a hidden gem.
Eizo Foris FS2333 is not available here atm and if i do order, it will cost 41.5K (indian Rupees) 680 $