Ultrawide monitors with two mounting points

[Renate]

I've been keeping my eye on ultrawide computer monitors and trying to decide if I like them.
I see these ginormous monitors (43" or more) and they sit on some little chicken foot attached to a central VESA mount.
This strikes me as crazy. I would think that they'd be as steady as a bobble head.

There's two problems here, the single point on the desk and the single point on the monitor.
I currently run a triple monitor and while each of the 3 monitors are attached on a single VESA
the 1" square aluminum support structure is bolted through the desk at two points 22" apart.

So, do ultrawide monitors have maybe 3 VESA mounts on the back so that you had a choice of single or dual support?
Is VESA dead? Is there anything new?

Semi-related: Is LG the only folks who make a 29" 2560 x 1080?
All their monitors are 2.5" depth. I need 2.25" or less.

[tszaboo]

You dont want a 29" monitor. It is just a 23" with some tiny extension. Maybe if you like tank simulators  . Get a 34" at least. Those 49" monitors are called super ultrawide (terrible name, but whatever). I'm not sure what is the utility of those for work, they are just 2x 27" side by side. Maybe it could be useful, if you want to divide it into 3 sections, instead of 2.  I have the Acer Z35P at home, and it doestn really wobble.

[Renate]

You dont want a 29" monitor... Get a 34" at least.

34" is the same resolution, 2560x1080, just bigger pixels.

I've become attached to 96 DPI.
If you want to convince me of another format besides 29" UW it should have 96 DPI and a height of 1080 pixels.
My current setup is 2 x 17" 1280x1024 + 23" 1920x1080 = 48" 4480x1024/1080
I don't use my wing monitors enough and I thought using only one slightly wider monitor would simplify things.

[tszaboo]

You dont want a 29" monitor... Get a 34" at least.

34" is the same resolution, 2560x1080, just bigger pixels.

I've become attached to 96 DPI.
If you want to convince me of another format besides 29" UW it should have 96 DPI and a height of 1080 pixels.
My current setup is 2 x 17" 1280x1024 + 23" 1920x1080 = 48" 4480x1024/1080
I don't use my wing monitors enough and I thought using only one slightly wider monitor would simplify things.

34" is usually 3440x1440. There is also 38" which is cropped 4K. Depends on your budget. But the prices dropped 1/3 in the last 3-4 years for these monitors, they are really cheap now. Go above 1080, your eye will thank you.

mod: OK, the 38" is still expensive.

[Renate]

Well, a 34" is still taller than a 29"
I won't be able to see the ducks.

[Renate]

But to return to the original question:
You're telling me that even the biggest computer monitor today mounts on  a single 100 mm VESA mount?

[RenThraysk]

Biggest monitor, aka BFGD (Big "Format" Gaming Display"), is 65" has a 400x400 VESA mount.

VESA mounting standard allows for upto 600x400 mm mount.

[Doctorandus_P]

I find those "ultra wide" monitors quite horrible.
More pixels is better, but if they're all in a single row you're just looking ad bar codes.
If you've got the width, but not the height you're just missing half the screen.

currently I have a dual monitor setup, both 1920 x 1200 pixels. One monitor in portrait which is great for everything text based: websites, programming, viewing datasheets and such, and the other in landscape, which is better for graphical stuff such as FreeCAD for mechanical and KiCad for making schematics and PCB's.


My next monitor will very likely be a 3840 *2160 with a pitch of > 0.2 mm.
Those very small pixels of these days are a marketing gimmick popularized by manufactures and their advertisements, but not very desirable for real-wold use, although I've heard that some people who do lot's of photo editing get some benefit from it. But I'm not sure if they've compared it with a bigger monitor with the same amount of pixels.

One of the cheapest monitors that would fit my wishes is the LG 43UN700-B. I've also been looking at the HP 43Z, but it does not have many inputs. The LG seems much better in this regard.

My current monitors have a pixel pitch of 0.27mm, which is a bit on the coarse side. the LG and other 108cm monitors do have a 0.24mm pitch which is may be an improvement. Somewhere around 0.2mm the pixels just become too small to be useful.

[tszaboo]

35" is like 3xA4 paper side by side. If you code, you can divide it to 2 or 3 sections, and use it just like a dual monitor setup.
Small pixels and high resolution is definitely not a gimmick for PCB design. A 0.2mm PCB trace disappears if you zoom out on low res monitors. Altium actually recommends 2x 2560x1440 screens.

Well, a 34" is still taller than a 29"
I won't be able to see the ducks.

I dont know what to tell you, we just have different priorities.

But to return to the original question:
You're telling me that even the biggest computer monitor today mounts on  a single 100 mm VESA mount?

Nothing wrong with that. If 35" doesnt wobble, a 29" probably wont either.

[Doctorandus_P]

Looking at a 0.2mm PCB track 1:1 on a monitor would be pure madness.
I've got a stereo zoom microscope to look at real PCB's.
For watching PCB's on my monitor I'd much prefer a 108cm screen thank you very much.

I'm also not saying that 0.2mm pitch pixels are useless. It's just that when they get below around that size that the benefit you have from them decreases rapidly.

On top of that, I'm nearing 50 now, eyesight is slowly getting less, and a decent monitor should last for 10+ years, so a bigger monitor with the same amount of pixels would be more future proof for me.

[electrolust]

This strikes me as crazy. I would think that they'd be as steady as a bobble head.

In practice, it's as stable as a non-UW monitor. They aren't very heavy. Sure there is more leverage but not that much. The rigidity (vibration absorption) of the mount to table interface will be the weak point.

Also in practice, these UW monitors are only good for gaming. I've had 2 different kinds and gone back to dual 27" (4K). LG does have a flat UW monitor that might be good in the vertical orientation. Perhaps 2 of those, both vertical, would be an ultimate setup. If they aren't HiDPI tho, I'm not interested.

[Renate]

The rigidity (vibration absorption) of the mount to table interface will be the weak point.

Well, that's mostly the point I was making.
If you don't live in a concrete building on the ground floor, trucks, people going up the stairs, wind, waves and earthquakes will all affect your monitors.
Still, two mounting points on the monitor would make two mounting points on the desk easier.