I have a 3818dw now (joined the family) and the entire house likes it very much (110 dpi or so). However we also have 32" 4K and while we scale it up a bit (125%) it provides a much nicer text readability and everyone who looked at both saw it immediately.
So I got to wondering. 29" widescreens were the extension of 24" 16:9. Then they ventured to 34" widescreens which were wide versions of 27's and they definitely hit gold on that one. So with every panel maker under the sun making a 32" 4K panel why hasn't anyone tried for the 39.5 wide version of a 32? (31.5 in reality) It "seems" like an obvious no brainer. Some folks go for dual 32's but that's a great deal of horizontal real estate to dedicate. Certainly they have these dual 27's in a single panel coming that seem to be space saving over dual 27's and give a single screen to output to. There are even gamer versions of that wide panel.
So is there something illogical about a widescreen version of a 32? I did the rough math and it would be approximately a 39.6" panel in 21:9. You'd think that it would be similar to the 5120x2160 that LG has done with the 34" model. That in itself is a wide version of the 4K 27" panels. It just seems like an easy "cut the glass larger" concept to bring a widescreen 4K in one of the most popular sizes FOR 4K (32). But maybe there is something I'm missing.
Thought I'd see what others thought.
So I got to wondering. 29" widescreens were the extension of 24" 16:9. Then they ventured to 34" widescreens which were wide versions of 27's and they definitely hit gold on that one. So with every panel maker under the sun making a 32" 4K panel why hasn't anyone tried for the 39.5 wide version of a 32? (31.5 in reality) It "seems" like an obvious no brainer. Some folks go for dual 32's but that's a great deal of horizontal real estate to dedicate. Certainly they have these dual 27's in a single panel coming that seem to be space saving over dual 27's and give a single screen to output to. There are even gamer versions of that wide panel.
So is there something illogical about a widescreen version of a 32? I did the rough math and it would be approximately a 39.6" panel in 21:9. You'd think that it would be similar to the 5120x2160 that LG has done with the 34" model. That in itself is a wide version of the 4K 27" panels. It just seems like an easy "cut the glass larger" concept to bring a widescreen 4K in one of the most popular sizes FOR 4K (32). But maybe there is something I'm missing.
Thought I'd see what others thought.