[AtlasBarfed]

I'd be curious as to the differing priorities you are thinking about.

For me, I want real estate. At this point I'm looking forward to 8k in a 50-55" TV, good DPI, and 60Hz. Not a twitch gamer, I'm a developer. I use TVs.

Gamers want response time/Hz, decent appearance. They are the prime target of "Monitors"

Then there's the professional editors and the like. They used to be high-end monitors, but I think high-end 8k TVs will serve them as well.

What else is there?

[account42]

What I am looking for is a large (at least 37.5") ultrawide OLED (or something with comparable contrast) with at least 3840x1600 pixels and a >= 120 Hz refresh rate. Basically something that is a straight upgrade from my current monitor [0] that improves the contrast without compromising on other factors (size and resolution are hard requirements, refresh rate, pixel response and color gamut are negotiable as long as they are good enough, brightness I don't care - have the current one set to 10%). Oh, it also needs to support FreeSync, but that seems to be less of a problem these days.

There are no panels that fulfil that at the moment. The nearest option woulb be getting a 4K OLED and then just not using part of the panel but that is hardly ideal.

[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38gn950-b-gaming-monitor

[NavinF]

Sure you’re not a gamer, but have you tried using a 120hz/240hz monitor for a week? I think you’ll find that it’s almost as massive an upgrade as going from 1080p to 4K.

Going back to 60hz is painful. You’ll see the cursor moving in a rotating square pattern when you’re moving your mouse in a circle. The lag is palpable.

> What else is there?

Well HDR is nice to have.

[SECProto]

I've been using a 144Hz screen for two years, I am a gamer, and I'll be honest: I don't notice much difference between consistent 60Hz and 144Hz. And I'm fairly sensitive to frame rate - when I'm watching a movie at someone else's house, I can tell in seconds they have the garbage "smoothing" or whatever features enabled.

Things that do stand out to me are input lag (again, usually only from TV-as-monitor with bad settings), bad colour space, and occasionally bad grey-to-grey time. I would take a 60Hz monitor over a 144Hz one if it meant avoiding any one of these issues. In a heartbeat.

[gryn]

one of the jarring things about using a TV as a monitor is that some TV models don't have the option of disabling the image processing that blurs the text so you end up with blurry text that gives headaches. I remember encountering this problem in the past with a specific samsung TV model where the processing was only disabled for the VGA port but not the rest of the ports (it was hard coded and couldn't be disabled).

[layer8]

Not the GP, but my current dream monitor would be a 3:2 or 16:10 OLED in the 24"-27" range with roughly 200 PPI and 120 Hz, preferably slightly curved, with hardware calibration for at least sRGB gamut. There’s nothing close to that in the market.

[jiggawatts]

sRGB is a very modest goal.

I just got an RGB OLED laptop with a gamut significantly wider than Display P3. It's just glorious. UHD content like 4K movies just pop in a way that you have to see in person. It's especially noticeable on military uniforms, where the various shades of dark green are much more distinct than on a typical monitor.

[layer8]

My priority is color accuracy, via hardware calibration (LUT) (no loss of gradations by OS-level or GPU-level mappings). I’d rather have an accurate sRGB display than a not-quite-accurate P3 (or, worse, "natural" wide gamut) display. Also, to display sRGB images (still the large majority of what’s out there) accurately on a wide-gamut system, you need 10-bit color depth at the OS/GPU level to not lose/distort gradations.

[jiggawatts]

Most wide gamut displays are 10-bit per channel, which makes them accurate enough even with software calibration.

Most also have 14-bit LUTs in hardware.

[layer8]

It's not sufficient for the display to be 10-bit, the OS and/or GPU (where the software calibration mapping takes place) must also work with 10 bits, and when graphics from different color spaces are combined on screen (UI graphics, images displayed, etc.), the OS must correctly map the source color space to the 10-bit output color space. All of that working correctly is not common-place yet.

Therefore, for dev work and dev-related UI graphics, I prefer to work in a calibrated "least common denominator" 8-bit sRGB space, because that's much easier to get right. However, in order to not lose color gradations to calibration, hardware calibration is then preferable.

[jiggawatts]

It is common-place-ish.

Windows since Vista can use 16-bit float buffers for the desktop manager. Some applications support this too for all controls and UI elements. Desktop graphics applications support 10-bit, such as Photoshop. Similarly, video playback is generally 10-bit.

In the past, this feature was reserved for the ludicrously expensive "professional" GPUs like the Quadro series, but it has been enabled in software for the mainstream AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Very recently (just months ago?) my Intel GPU gained 10-bit output capability even in SDR mode.

It definitely works, I used "test pattern" videos and test images in Photoshop, and even dark grey-to-grey gradients are silky smooth on two of my monitors. This includes a 7-year-old Dell monitor!