Samsung S34E790C

The 34″ 3440 x 1440 curved ‘UltraWide’ experience

In this article we explore in quite some detail what the 3440 x 1440 resolution brings to the table on 34” UltraWide monitors. The amount of physical space and ‘pixel real-estate’ is pleasing for desktop work whilst the immersion it brings in movies and games is outstanding. This monitor has something extra to bring to the party – a subtle curve. And we stress, this really is quite a subtle curve. Many people have it in their minds that the curve of the screen will make everything look weird, distorted and just completely different to look at. But quite simply – it doesn’t.

After using the monitor for a matter of hours we soon forgot the curve was even there. But the fact that you don’t really actively notice it is perhaps one of its strengths. The manufacturers suggest that the more uniform focal distance (edges being brought closer to your eyes) creates a more comfortable and more natural-looking experience and reduces eye movement. We can’t really back that up with any sound scientific testing, but we can say that the curve was something we found comfortable. It also seemed to add just a little bit of extra depth to the gaming and movie watching experience, helping draw you into this wonderfully wide screen just a little bit more. Whilst we don’t think it revolutionises the experience, it is a nice addition and not something to worry about.

The curve could be considered an issue for certain productivity tasks. As we tested the monitor, we didn’t find things looked distorted or unusual, even where straight lines were involved (Excel spreadsheets and the like). But we can appreciate that some users see things a little differently and could find a flat screen better for their work (designers and suchlike). To round off this section we’ll leave you with a collection of images of the monitor in action. This is a very poor representation of what you’d actually see when using the monitor, but we know people like to fire up their imaginations with this sort of thing.

Interpolation and upscaling

This monitor operates at a native resolution of 3440 x 1440. The pixels are a set size – and whether active or not there are always 3440 of them horizontally and 1440 vertically. There are two different modes which you will find under ‘Screen – Image Size’ in the OSD. First up there is ‘Auto’, which maintains the aspect ratio of your chosen resolution. For aspect ratios which differ from the native 21:9 aspect ratio of the monitor (such as 16:9 and 16:10), you get thick black borders either side of the screen. An interpolation process is used to ‘stretch’ the image vertically so that it fills the entire height of the screen. This makes resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 and 1920 x 1200 look rather soft, but not geometrically distorted. The 2560 x 1440 resolution is essentially displayed 1:1 in this mode as the vertical component of the resolution (1440) matches that of the monitor so that no interpolation is required. The image basically appears as it would on a 27” 2560 x 1440 display, with large black borders for the unused horizontal screen space.

The second option is ‘Wide’, which uses an interpolation process so that whatever resolution you select fills the screen. Regardless of which resolution you select, if it’s anything but the native resolution it looks softer than it should. Geometric distortion (a horizontally stretched look) also applies if it is not a 21:9 resolution. Both of these options as they apply to the 1920 x 1080 are demonstrated in the OSD video, with the relevant section shown below for your viewing convenience.

If you’re connected to a PC you can also use the scaling options available in the graphics driver, for example ‘1:1’ which will ensure only the pixels contained in your selected resolution will light up on the monitor. This may give not just vertical black bars either side of the image but also horizontal black bars at the top and bottom, but will ensure no geometric distortion. If you view content that is a lower resolution than 3440 x 1440 (Full HD Blu-rays and other movies, for example) on a PC and keep the monitor at its native resolution, then upscaling is handled automatically by the software and GPU. This does not give the same sort of softening as running the monitor in a non-native resolution and maintains the original look of the content much better.

Responsiveness

Input lag

We recorded input lag using SMTT 2.0, a small testing tool specifically designed for this purpose, and a sensitive camera. The S34E790C was compared to a number of monitors where the latency is known, with over 30 repeat readings taken. We measured 7.1ms (under half a frame) of input lag using this method. This value takes into account an element of pixel responsive (the element you see) and signal delay (the element you feel). Usually when gamers consider ‘input lag’ they’re really interested in the signal delay – and our testing suggests a pleasingly low signal delay on this monitor. Game mode had no effect on this value.

Pixel responsiveness

We used the UFO Motion Test for ghosting alongside a highly sensitive camera to assess the pixel responsiveness of the screen. This test was set to run at ‘3840 Pixels Per Sec’, meaning that the UFO travelled rapidly across the screen (in a little under 1 second). Following image shows the snapshots taken by the camera using the three ‘Response Time’ settings; ‘Standard, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’. There are three rows in the test, each with an increasingly light background colour. This ensures that different pixel transitions (between different grey levels) are assessed and has been included in the image below. As with input lag, ‘Game Mode’ had no recordable effect on the pixel response behaviour of the monitor.

The results here are quite interesting, as they highlight just how important it is to consider different pixel transitions when considering the pixel response performance of a VA panel such as this. They also highlight some important differences between the three ‘Response Time’ settings. Using the ‘Standard’ setting, there is a reasonably faint primary trail and faint secondary trail where the dark cyan background is used. There isn’t the sort of very bold primary trail you’d traditionally see on a modern VA monitor here, but there are some slight overshoot (inverse ghosting) from fairly aggressive grey to grey acceleration. With the medium cyan background there is a faint but overshoot-free primary trail and a very faint secondary trail, again less bold than you’d usually see on a VA panel. On the light background, still using the same ‘Standard’ setting, there is only a very faint hint of a primary trail – significantly weaker than you’d usually see from this panel type.

Bumping up to the ‘Faster’ setting, which is actually the factory default, the level of overshoot increases quite significantly on the dark cyan background. There is now an inky blue towards the top of the UFO, fairly heavy overshoot as an inverse of the yellow UFO cockpit. The secondary trail remains similar. For the medium cyan background the primary trail has a sort of traced appearance, again a sign of overshoot. The secondary trail remains fairly similar. With the light cyan background, though, there is no visible trailing at all. This transition is clearly being performed very quickly indeed by the monitor here – with no negative repercussions. The ‘Fastest’ setting increased the overshoot again, making the inky trail on the dark background even more distinct and shading in that trace-like primary trail on the medium cyan background. The ‘perfect’ transition for the light background now had a faint halo (a form of inverse ghosting) which is quite faint on the image but noticeable as a bright streak when observing the motion first-hand.

It’s extremely important to note that our eyes do not perceive motion in the same way as a camera taking a static photograph. As noted in this article, the movement of our eyes as we track motion on the screen actually creates a significant amount of motion blur. This testing does show a few things fairly convincingly, however. Firstly, the ‘Standard’ provides the best balance between pixel transition speed and low levels of overshoot. If you observe a broader range of transitions, when playing games for example, this becomes even more apparent. Secondly, the pixel responsiveness is surprisingly good for a VA panel. So let’s see how this all plays out with some subjective assessment of the monitor’s motion performance in games and movies.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 4 the vast majority of blur you see is due to the movement of your eyes. Unlike what you’d usually see on even the fastest VA panels, you don’t get that unnerving feeling that your gameplay is going to be suddenly ruined by unsightly trailing or smearing as the monitor is forced to do some transitions it’s not too hot on. In most circumstances, in fact, the experience was much as you’d see on the fastest (overshoot-free) 60Hz monitors. There were some exceptions – minor ones really, but still worth noting. Where there were very dark shades (black or near-black) and certain lighter shades moving against one another, there was a little bit of ‘edge bleed’ style trailing. This distinguishes itself from conventional trailing as it doesn’t appear as a subtle blend of the background and foreground shade, but rather a different shade entirely. If you strafed past dark, shadow-covered metals from vehicles with some light brown earth in the background, you might see a slight dark red fringe around the metal. This is not at all like the ‘smeary’ trailing you’d usually see on VA models in such circumstances as it is quite short and sharp and something that wouldn’t generally slap users in the face (relatively subtle for most). There were some examples of a bit of extra trailing in places, usually involving similar combinations of very dark and somewhat lighter shades. This was not extreme by any stretch of the imagination. In the way of overshoot there was only slight hints of it here and there, again something that would escape most users notice and that even those who know what they’re looking for (such as ourselves) could happily ignore. Overall it’s fair to say this was the best performance we’ve seen from a VA panel on this title.

On Dirt 3 the experience was again rather impressive for a VA model. As on BF4, there were some instances where trailing was a little more pronounced than on some faster 60Hz models, but nothing worrisome. The overall pixel responsiveness was good enough to make you completely forget you’re using what is traditionally the slowest LCD panel type out there – because in this case, it clearly isn’t. Often on such monitors you’d find driving about at night particularly challenging due to the combination of light and dark shades intertwining, forcing the monitor to perform transitions which are usually massively slower than for transitions between similar shades. On the SE790 the slower transitions only really resulted in a whiff of extra trailing, not a smeary mess or obvious extended trails. There was again only mild overshoot here and there, nothing troubling.

We also assessed the responsiveness in a range of other titles, including those mentioned before (such as ESO and Tomb Raider). As above really, there were no significant issues with responsiveness and everything seemed unusually smooth for a 60Hz Vertical Alignment screen. In fact the Dell U3415W we had alongside it for some of the time showed weaker responsiveness in general, which was initially quite surprising. We have to commend the performance of the monitor, in particular, on Warframe which features a brutal range of high-contrast transitions. This can become quite dizzying on some monitors, particularly of this type. We found this title eminently playable without the usual smeary nasties or even any particularly extended trails at all.

The pixel responsiveness was also assessed in our Blu-ray test titles, where no issues cropped up. The low frame rate (~24fps) at which the films run limited to fluidity of the action, but the monitor’s pixel responsiveness didn’t inhibit the experience.

Conclusion

When it comes to offering something unique in a display, Samsung often chooses to let their original and sometimes fairly outlandish styling differentiate their products. The S34E790C certainly offers some ‘Samsung flair’ in its styling, but also offers something a bit different in its viewing experience. We’ve already explored the merits of the 3440 x 1440 resolution on a 34” ‘UltraWide’ screen. With these assets, the monitor is able to provide a good amount of practical working space whilst offering an engrossing movie watching and gaming experience. This model also offers a curved screen. The curve is really rather subtle and didn’t exactly revolutionise the viewing experience, but by the same token it didn’t make it seem like a completely alien experience either. It helped to add a little more depth and ensured a comfortable viewing experience, but wasn’t something you even notice all that much after a while.

There are other curved UltraWide models on the market, of course. The key differentiator here is that the SE790C is the only model currently on the market which also uses a VA (Vertical Alignment) panel. A key strength here is its contrast performance. In that respect the monitor put in the sort of experience only a panel of its type can in LCD form. Blacks and other dark shades had pleasing depth whilst lighter shades contrasted very nicely. The light matte screen surface also aided the appearance of those lighter shades, ensured they weren’t swallowed up into a grainy-looking hole. Strong contrast can of course help bring out subtle details, not just create a good atmosphere in dark scenes. In that respect the monitor was quite pleasing, as the so-called ‘black crush’ that can cause problems on some VA panels wasn’t a major issue here. Coupled with the strong uniformity we saw, this helped give dark scenes the look they crave. Although contrast wasn’t as strong as we’ve seen on some VA panels, around half as strong in fact, we felt it definitely helped distinguish this model from the competition.

Due in part to some of the aforementioned strengths, the colour reproduction was also pleasing overall. Out of the box things looked rather lacklustre, but after a bit of tweaking really started to shine. There were plenty of eye-catching vivid colours and a good look to many more muted shades, too. Things certainly looked inviting whether gaming, watching movies or browsing the internet. As is usual for a panel of this type, though, there was a fair viewing angle dependency to the gamma curve. This meant that some shades appeared a little different (generally a bit more faded) towards the flanks and bottom of the screen. As we noted this was sometimes noticeable to our keen eyes when gaming or watching movies, but didn’t generally slap you in the face. It was actually a bit less pronounced that we’d expect from a screen of this size, perhaps aided a bit by the curve. It does mean that perceived colour accuracy suffers, which makes the monitor less suitable for colour-critical work such as photography and design. That is really an area where the AH-IPS models such as the Dell U3415W have an advantage.

Last but certainly not least is the Achilles heel of your typical VA panel; responsiveness. This really surprised us on the S34E790C, in a good way. Whilst there were a few weaknesses in pixel responsiveness here and there, there was not the same level of trailing you’d usually see on a panel of this type. In fact many of the transitions were so fast as to be covered entirely by the blur from your eye movement, a major contributor to perceived motion blur. And this was just using the ‘Standard’ setting, which ironically is not the default and therefore not particularly standard. Ramping up the response time simply introduced a greater level of overshoot (inverse ghosting), which was not at all desirable. The input lag of the monitor was very pleasing, even using the ‘Standard’ setting – it shouldn’t be a hindrance to anybody’s gaming enjoyment.

Overall the S34E790C provided a solid and enjoyable experience, particularly when gaming and watching films. It certainly wasn’t perfect, and no monitor is, but on balance it provided a strong performance even in areas where the panel type would traditionally be a big problem. The 60Hz refresh rate and lack of additional extras such as ‘Adaptive-Sync’ may limit the appeal of the monitor to some gamers, but its responsiveness is otherwise rather good. Coupled with the depth and atmosphere its image performance brings to games and the benefits of its resolution, aspect ratio and subtle curve it’s certainly a worthy choice.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.