dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1629
share rss forum feed


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

LG's first 21x9 monitor

»www.tomshardware.com/news/UltraW···003.html

Widescreens get more extreme.

It'd be nice to watch a movie on but probably not much else.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

Yeah, more pix of it here:

»www.techpowerup.com/175607/LG-EA···ope.html

I would like to try it. Something like this could replace dual or maybe even triple monitor setups as well.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to Krisnatharok

Here is a Dell U2913WM 21:9 Ultra-Widescreen video review:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7FcIgkgDY


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to Krisnatharok

Anandtech review:

LG 29EA93 Ultrawide Display - Missing its Target



AlphaOne
I see
Premium
join:2004-02-21
reply to Krisnatharok

1080 ... pffft.
Would be nice if these are 1440s or 1600s.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

1 edit

It's a 29" 2560 x 1080 monitor with an aspect ratio of 21:9 . If it were 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 it would be nothing new as such 16:9 and 16:10 displays are or have been readily available on the market.

To maintain the 21:9 ratio and still have 1440 or 1600 would be different but that would likely make the cost of the display considerably higher and would add nothing to the media enthusiasts experience which is likely the target demographic.


BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3

If I was heavy into gaming I would like one, I don't really want a full triple monitor setup, but with that as the main monitor that would be great for playing games. I'd however still have a second 1080, or larger monitor for other applications.



koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to Krisnatharok

Another joke of a monitor. One of the first Slashdot comments mimics my own opinion, but also made me LOL:

»hardware.slashdot.org/comments.p···42263725

Growing so sick/tired of this 1080 pixel nonsense.

Also, on an unrelated forum (where we were discussing CRTs and some things pertaining to the classic NES console), a user brought up LCDs -- he really should have -- and in a fit of rage I typed up quite a rant (warning: language) about the current state of LCDs:

»forums.nesdev.com/viewtopic.php?···#p104678

There are many other aspects to LCDs today that just piss me off. I'm extra ranty about it because I just spent $300 on a Dell U2412M, only to find that the IPS glow -- even when looking at it head on in a well-lit room -- destroyed my ability to read the corners of the screen (you know, where systray icons are, the clock is, etc.). Just utter nonsense that we tolerate this crap.

Now apply that problem to that LG monitor -- the likelihood of "washed out" corners due to the added viewing angle becomes, well, I would say 90% guaranteed. So not only would I be paying more money, I'd be doing so while giving up vertical pixels and guaranteeing crappy "glare" (IPS glow -- sorry, I can call it lots of things) at all times. Remarkable what consumers will tolerate these days.

I swear, because of all of that utter nonsense, if my Dell 2407WFP (rev A02) ever dies on me, I'm probably going to have to hire someone to repair whatever's broken rather than purchase a new panel. That's really sad the more you think about it.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



AlphaOne
I see
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
reply to Octavean

said by Octavean:

It's a 29" 2560 x 1080 monitor with an aspect ratio of 21:9 . If it were 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 it would be nothing new as such 16:9 and 16:10 displays are or have been readily valuable on the market.

To maintain the 21:9 ratio and still have 1440 or 1600 would be different but that would likely make the cost of the display considerably higher and would add nothing to the media enthusiasts experience which is likely the target demographic.

I really don't mind the new aspect ratio.
But they keep on making 1080 monitors ... this ain't a TV.
Now, they make 3360 x 1440, that'll be something new, and for once really usable.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

said by AlphaOne:

said by Octavean:

It's a 29" 2560 x 1080 monitor with an aspect ratio of 21:9 . If it were 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 it would be nothing new as such 16:9 and 16:10 displays are or have been readily valuable on the market.

To maintain the 21:9 ratio and still have 1440 or 1600 would be different but that would likely make the cost of the display considerably higher and would add nothing to the media enthusiasts experience which is likely the target demographic.

I really don't mind the new aspect ratio.
But they keep on making 1080 monitors ... this ain't a TV.
Now, they make 3360 x 1440, that'll be something new, and for once really usable.

Such a statement suggest that the 2560x1080 resolution of the LG 29EA93 and other 21:9 ratio monitors of this type is unusable. Unusable according to whom,....?

As stated before the target demographic will likely be consuming media where this ratio and resolution make sense such as wide screen gaming and suitably formated movies. It's a special case use and paying more for a higher resolution, in this case, doesn't enhance this niche.

The LG 29EA93 has a MSRP of $699 MSRP according to the Anandtech review. How much would such a monitor cost if it were 3360 x 1440,.....?

A 4K, 3840 x 2160 resolution monitor can cost something like $5000 USD. Not really sure since I'm unwilling to spend that kind of coin and therefore am not in the market for one. Which is probably one of the reasons 1080 is so ubiquitous, because it isn't as cost prohibitive as 1440, 1600 or higher.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

I really don't think the vertical resolution being larger has anything to do with the cost, at least not to the point of claiming its "prohibitive". Like I mentioned earlier, the Dell U2412M -- which is 24" and 1920x1200 -- goes for under US$300. There are still some 4:3 aspect monitors (1600x1200) that are available too. My point is that that's 120 more vertical pixels, yet the cost is still low.

And likewise, the Samsung S27A850D (27") is 2560x1440 and goes for US$700. Of course, you're horizontally getting 640 more pixels, and vertically 120. So I would say the price jump is based more on physical size and horizontal resolution, not vertical.

My opinion is that this 1080-vertical-pixel focus is completely and entirely a marketing-driven thing combined with a "we already make 1080-pixel-high panels so let's keep pushing those" mentality of executives or whoever else. The term "1080p" even generic consumers know of now, so when someone says "the monitor is {whatever} by 1080" they immediately think "oh yeah, I know what that means!" even though in reality there's no relation actual between these two. Computer monitors are not TVs, and though some TVs can be used as monitors, and some monitors can be used as TVs, that doesn't mean they should be treated the same.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

said by koitsu:

I really don't think the vertical resolution being larger has anything to do with the cost, at least not to the point of claiming its "prohibitive". Like I mentioned earlier, the Dell U2412M -- which is 24" and 1920x1200 -- goes for under US$300. There are still some 4:3 aspect monitors (1600x1200) that are available too. My point is that that's 120 more vertical pixels, yet the cost is still low.

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding here or we are talking about two different things. I was referring to 21:9 ratio monitors and its cost currently as well as maintaining that ratio while increasing the resolution.

2560x1080 / 21:9 (~2.370) = ~$700
3413x1440 / 21:9 (~2.370) = $?
3793x1600 / 21:9 (~2.370) = $?

3840 x 2160 / 4K = ~$5000 USD +/-

Its obviously more then likely that the price will increase as the resolution increases. As stated before this is a niche product where the resolution 2560x1080 is applicable for the intended niche use (not necessarily much else).

As the vertical resolution increases the horizontal resolution increases as well in order to maintain the 21:9 ratio. At 1600 the horizontal approaches that of a 4K monitor. Wider format movies wont benefit from the higher resolution either.

I was not referring to 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitors but we know the price increases going from 1920x1080 / 1200 to 2560x1440 / 1600 and some people do find the price in such an increase unpalatable (typical name brand products sold in the USA not Korean imports).

said by koitsu:


And likewise, the Samsung S27A850D (27") is 2560x1440 and goes for US$700. Of course, you're horizontally getting 640 more pixels, and vertically 120. So I would say the price jump is based more on physical size and horizontal resolution, not vertical.

My opinion is that this 1080-vertical-pixel focus is completely and entirely a marketing-driven thing combined with a "we already make 1080-pixel-high panels so let's keep pushing those" mentality of executives or whoever else. The term "1080p" even generic consumers know of now, so when someone says "the monitor is {whatever} by 1080" they immediately think "oh yeah, I know what that means!" even though in reality there's no relation actual between these two. Computer monitors are not TVs, and though some TVs can be used as monitors, and some monitors can be used as TVs, that doesn't mean they should be treated the same.

The 21:9 ratio comes from the HDTV market of which there are a number of models. This format may never take off for the PC as it is languishing in the HDTV market as it is. Some HDTV manufactures may have already dropped the format.


koitsu
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:23

I see -- thank you for taking the time to explain. I think the key piece of information that I didn't have (more specifically, didn't know!) was that the HDTV market has 21:9 aspect ratio televisions. The last aspect ratio I knew of in the "TV world" was 16:9, and I knew that the 1080 pixel vertical resolution comes purely from 1080p (e.g. HD-DVD, BluRay, or digital TV services where the provider is providing HD content).

But this does circle back a bit to one of my previous points, which is that the television (or HDTV) market should be separate (hard to explain what I mean by this) than the computer display/monitor market. Think of it this way: what exactly is the demographic for a 21:9 computer LCD? Even in enterprise environments (like my past job), 1200 vertical pixels was a requirement, not a "nicety".

I guess with the introduction of HDMI ports on these computer LCDs you end up with a device that can be used for both TV and computer use -- and honestly I'm one of those people who could benefit from that (the main reason I got my Dell 2407WFP at the time was that it had component and composite input, so that I could hook my Xbox360, PS2, and even my Apple IIGS up to the monitor and use it -- I don't like home entertainment stuff, takes up too much room, and I'm kind of a minimalist) -- but it'll be a cold day in hell before I give up my 1200 vertical pixels.

I'm not really concerned about aspect ratios per se, at least not in the computer world -- because GPUs and underlying video applications (i.e. MPC-HC, VLC, etc.) along with DirectX take care of the scaling very intelligently. I understand it's different in the TV realm, where you're stuck with whatever the TV firmware thinks is correct, and given maybe 4 or 5 options in the OSD (where it becomes very annoying to have to adjust them all the time). That's what I mean when I say the 1080 vertical pixel ordeal on computer LCDs is a marketing-driven thing -- the same people making these panels make TVs, and they seem to think that 1080 pixels is enough for computer systems (almost as if all people do with their computers is watch movies). Well, it's not.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

quote:
Philips launched the first Cinema TV in the extra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio in 2009. Since then new TVs have been introduced each year at IFA – but no more. Philips has stopped production and development of all Cinema 21:9 TVs, Philips has confirmed to FlatpanelsHD. No new TVs will be introduced at IFA 2012.


»www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?su···46136568

Sometimes one industry may have undue influence over another. However, that doesn't mean it will always be so.

I personally don't have a problem with variety in the market with respect to resolution as well as size and type.

So if I don't like TN panels, for example, I don't need to have them expunged from the market and the same goes for 1920x1080 monitors or 1080 in general. My solution to such a problem, if you can really think of or as a problem, would be to simply buy a higher resolution non-TN panel like an IPS 2560x1440 27" display.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to Krisnatharok

Just came across this:

quote:
4K FOR ALL
REDRAY® is the first 4K Cinema Player to bring ultra high-definition content to your home, business or local theater using internet file based distribution. Capable of playing HD, 3D or 4K media, REDRAY utilizes a 1TB internal drive to store all of your content. Advanced networking and low data rates let you distribute content via FTP transfer or solid-state media. REDRAY makes playback of 4K content as simple as HD – but at 4 times the image quality.

»www.red.com/products/redray

Its my guess that when there is a significant shift away from 1920x1080 media like to 4K then we will see the end of 1080 displays.