LG Intros World's First 21:9 UltraWide Monitor
This monitor offers the most theater-like experience on your desktop yet.
On Thursday LG Electronics revealed the 29-inch EA93 UltraWide Monitor, reportedly the "world's first" display to sport a 21:9 aspect ratio. The company said it offers a 4-Screen Split feature and 100-percent sRGB color space expression to provide better multitasking and multimedia capabilities.
"The UltraWide Monitor’s 21:9 aspect ratio is very close to the dimensions of movie theater screens," the company said. "Its cinematic dimensions allow the monitor to display films the way they were intended. The monitor also takes advantage of IPS display technology so viewers can enjoy lifelike picture quality movies at almost any angle."
According to the specs, the EA93 offers a 2560 x 1080 resolution, a typical brightness of 300nits, a response time of 5ms GTG, and a 100-percent sRGB color gamut. Interfaces include one DVI-D dual port, two HDMI ports (1x MHL), four USB 3.0 ports (1 up, 3 down), one display port, PC audio in and headphone out.
"The UltraWide monitor can connect the monitor to two external devices via Dual Link-up, providing consistent color across the entire screen, eliminating the bezels that typically divide the view in dual-monitor set-ups," LG said. "[It] offers 100-percent of the sRGB color space and is hardware-color-calibration ready, making it perfectly adept at expressing consistent true-to-life colors that graphics professionals require."
Additional features include LG’s CINEMA SCREEN Design, Picture-In-Picture (PIP), Picture-By-Picture (PBP), Auto Ratio Control, Super Energy Saving, True Color Finder (S/W), H/W Calibration, two 7W speakers, a tilt stand, a 178(H)/178(V) viewing angle and more.
LG’s UltraWide Monitor will be introduced in Korea early this month and rolled-out globally in the weeks following.
Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
-
Thunderfox No. Such an extreme aspect ratio is not desirable. In order to get something of reasonable height, you'd have to buy a monitor a mile wide.Reply -
mynameis1 i doubt also if there is a single product out there in media to use this screen size properlyReply -
joytech22 They need a 50+" version of this.Reply
I would buy one immediately assuming that one that size was at least 4K resolution (or whatever 4K is to this ratio)
My REASON for wanting a 50+" version is for a home-made cinema (that isn't using a projector).
I could use one of these monitors for my video editing actually. I hate zooming in and out of tracks to get to the end so I can add a song in etc.. -
razor512 if it were learger, it would be useful for people who use applications such as adobe audition which generally requires dual displays to get a workflow that is not frustrating to use.Reply
I wish they would go back to 16:10, the extra vertical space was great for most applicatiosns and also anime since the subtitles cound be pushed onthe the black area so it doedes not cover any of the other visuals of the anime.
PS most websites are designed around 4:3 low res displays, eg tomshardware is formatted for 1024x768 displays, imagine using this site on that monitor, it will be just a thin stripe in the center of the screen. -
A Bad Day Eventually the monitors would need to be slightly curved if they keep getting bigger, otherwise anything on the edges of such monitors would appear warped.Reply -
Prescott_666 I hope this is a total failure. I hope they lose so much money on it that it pushes them back to 4:3 (which is the aspect ratio of the monitor that I'm using).Reply -
azathoth As much as I would love to have an Ultrawide display, I would prefer a 21:9 format with a slightly larger vertical resolution.Reply
And....The price, I expect such monitors to run me close to the price of my entire system. -
A 30 inch is a better this they are all 2560X1600 so they just droped 520 lines off. Why would want this and not a 30 inch?Reply