Do you seriously want to use built-in speakers? They are less than half decent.

Because monitor speakers are generally not good, anyone interested in sound will no doubt have headphones or speakers of their own choice.

No speakers on most types of monitors. I'd rather not pay the extra for a pair of tinny shallow speakers.

​Because people use headphones or external speakers that will sound miles better then any inbuilt speakers

What's your rank?

​Your equipment doesn't increase your skill, it might help you play somewhat better depending on what you are using now

Well I just reserved two and I didn't even need them as my two 4-year old Dell 23" screens are fine apart from not being wall mountable (which I've fancied doing for a while) . A fool and his money eh?

It kind of isn’t, actually.

Almost all captured imagery that has gone in through a lens onto film or a sensor has had to be planar corrected. The film (or sensor) is flat. The scene out there isn’t, it’s curvilinear, at a particular focal distance. If you see a landscape, far off, it appears flat to our eyes, and can be painted, on a Sunday, onto a flat canvas. We’ll see the result as not differing from the original scene (in terms of distortions).

Things take a strange twist when we use an optical system that has an angle of view with strong differences to the angle of view of our eyes (or at least, the part of our vision we pay most attention to, ignoring peripheral vision).

For example, an extreme telephoto lens system will flatten out perspective and make everything seem as though it is a set of layers stacked immediately in front of or behind the object of interest. There’s no apparent separation of distance going on, it’s all presented as closely related.

Cameras use multiple lens elements to planar-correct the natural image out there, onto a flattened image in here, and they take significant steps to ensure the film is kept flat, for the planar corrected image to fall upon. The better this is done, the more expensive it all becomes, and the more status we achieve when we pass by another photographer in the know who recognises our equipment. There’s probably other reasons this is done, too — I have several Micro-Nikkor lenses that are designed to be very accurately planar corrected. The purpose of these Micro-Nikkor lenses is not really to act as macro lenses and “blow up” a tiny scene to fill the film frame 1:1 so we can shoot insects and suchlike, it’s actually to shoot documents for uses such as microfilm, to keep the document image flat and linear (which a simpler lens system would fail at, and produce a barrel distorted Mr Blobby image of the important secret plans).

Now the eye is not like a camera. The eye has one single lens element. Instead of an area of precisely flat film, there is our retina, which is curved (highly curved). But that’s okay, so is the scene out there. It’s all curved too — arguably. At any particular focal distance, that will form a curve out there. Of course, objects before and behind that notional invisible curve are still visible, but they will be before or after the focal point. Again, sophisticated lens design can “pre-distort” the focal plane it takes of “out there” to imitate a more flat planar one, if necessary (I’d say in most cases it isn’t).

Where things get more interesting and controversial is with wide angle lenses. These afford a wider view than the eye is built for (again, ignoring our peripheral vision). If you take a picture with an extreme wide angle lens, it might appear that the image is “normal-ish” in the central area, but distorts “outward” as it approaches the edges. There are two types of wide angle lens approaches. One uses no attempt at rectilinear correction (though is still accurate), and we know these as “fish-eye” lenses. The other goes to frankly ridiculous efforts to planar correct the wide image onto a flat film plane, and this is the desired behaviour of a typical wide angle lens. However — people will notice that with an extreme wide angle, everything at the edges seems ‘stretched’ outward. Faces and people seem wider — often laughably wider — as they approach the extreme edge of the image area. What’s going on? A good fisheye would not exhibit this problem — it keeps all the measurement relationships correct (again, the scientific reason a fisheye exists is to point upward and shoot a hemisphere in the sky and keep the relationships equal). But a fisheye looks rounded and distorted to us. Which is correct? Well, we prefer the frankly nonsensically incorrect version that the rectilinear wide-angle lens provides onto flat film. That looks “normal” to us. Except at the edges.

Here’s a thing. If you view a bunch of photos you’re probably going to view them all from the same distance — e.g., handheld, or on a wall. Technically, we should vary the distance we hold the photo from our eyes, according to what lens the image was shot on. The extreme telephoto, we should back off and view from a distance, and we’d see the perspective flattening as normal. The standard lens we’d view at a normal distance. The wide angle, we really should — technically — go really close in and view a few cm from the print. That way the extreme edges will now look natural and no longer comically distorted to us. Of course, nobody does that, and at my age, I can’t even see what’s on my phone when I hold it out at arms length so holding an image up to my nose would throw it totally out of focus, but in theory it should be done that way. Nobody actually does it that way though.

Back to monitors. Well, pretty much all source material that’s ever been shot through a lens was shot through lenses designed with the assumption that the film in the film gate is held flat and linear, and therefore the lens is designed with planar corrections in mind. It also takes into account that not only is the film flat but the cinema screen will also be flat (ignoring for a moment the additional complexity of the projector’s own planar corrected lens system).

If you need a curved screen, you’re kind of “undoing” some of the designed in planar correction of the capture system, for one thing, but my biggest objection to curved screens is that they’re only going to have any effect at all if the edges of the screen are wide enough apart to be where the edges of your vision are (both edges), at the distance it is to be used at (i.e., not with your nose pressed against it). This simply isn’t ever the case. A curved screen will really only do what it claims (and there’s no need to, the capturing lens system’s planar correction already did all that) if the screen is gigantic — about the size of two walls of your room.

So there.

The real tragic thing about it is, the more PC elitists like you that whinge and moan like little children about it only being 1080p. the higher the pricing of 1440+ monitors. You're pretty much doing all the marketing work for the manufacturers of high end panels.

Then again, if you're trolling HUKD threads, then you're probably too young to be able to get a job that'd allow you to purchase such items. Stay in school, kid.

I think the idea is that the sides wont be as far away as the middle. to give an impression of natural field of view.

Curved screens are supposed to match the curvature view you get from eyes so it is more comfortable for your eyes. Kind of like when wide screen came out and it felt more comfortable to look at.

then looks up, then down, strokes chin