EIZO Announces Monitor with 1920x1920 Resolution

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8740/eizo-announces-the-ips-265-flexscan-ev2730q-monitor-with-1920x1920-resolution

by ingve • 12 years ago

181 132 12 years ago

sciurus• 12 years ago

I'm curious which resolution people would rather have: 1920x1920 or 2560x1440?

rootbear• 12 years ago

For modern wide monitors, I prefer 16:10, or 2560x1600. On my linux system at home I have two 1600x1200 monitors and I like that arrangement for coding. Having lots of vertical space for tall editor windows is a Good Thing. This square monitor would be interesting to try out.

KhalPanda• 12 years ago

2560x1440.

My eyes are positioned horizontally in my head, giving a "wide" field of view. So a widescreen monitor always feels more comfortable. Unless anyone has a single, perfectly round eye in the middle of their face, I don't know why you'd want a square monitor. :) That's my opinion, anyway!

themodelplumber• 12 years ago

Great, now I'm going to reflect on my physiology every time I see an Instagram photo. (Good point though)

baddox2• 12 years ago

Since we're comparing two monitors with the same number of pixels, I'd probably pick 1440p, mainly because it's more ideal for watching fullscreen 16:9 videos, and because I'm more used to scanning left and right than up and down (which is probably an evolutionary result).

I've heard that the "aspect ratio" of humans' field of view is approximately 4:3, so if that's the goal, you'd want...2217x1662. 1:1 is actually closer to 4:3 than 16:9. My guess is that the tendency to scan left and right rather than up and down is the stronger argument for wider aspect ratios than the human field of view argument.

cpr• 12 years ago

Agreed, which is I enjoy my new 3440 x 1440 LG. I don't always use the whole width of the monitor, but I really enjoy spreading windows over more than the usual 2560 width.

Any reference materials can be on the very edges with a very slight turn of the head or a big eye swivel.

adamnemecek• 12 years ago

I agree but if you got two 1920x1920 that would be (I'm guessing) a lot better than two 2560x1440.

saeguaiga• 12 years ago

Docker for your eyeballs lets you virtualize most of the marquee or crawl (and a level view from a facing camera) for great ergonomic progress. Marking this as the day 3D sine-scrolling stylesheet aggregation (which you can wipe down or replay every show iteration) took over.

shurcooL2• 12 years ago

That makes sense only if you're trying to look at your entire monitor at once, rather than just a portion of it at a time and moving your eyes to context switch.

nodata• 12 years ago

+1 My eyes are also configured in this way.

aranjedeath• 12 years ago

1920x1920, hands down. (higher numbers also accepted, as long as 1:1)

rodgerd• 12 years ago

Depends. Gaming, photo editing, anything simulating the eyes' field of view? 2560x1440. Writing, coding, reading, where I want narrow, high columns of information? The square screen.

JoshTriplett• 12 years ago

1920x1920 for work, 2560x1440 for play.

Gravityloss2• 12 years ago

Not so much of a stretch. We use Dells with a rotatable screen at our work place and about half of the people keep one vertical and one horizontal monitor.

Reading logs or browsing code is quite nice with the vertical screen, as is reading some vertical oriented pdf materials. Cat videos are usually watched on the horizontal screen. :)

crististm• 12 years ago

How many of your coworkers noticed the difference in image quality in portrait mode? The monitors are optimized for "landscape" and when you put them in "portrait" you get a very different color hue on each eye.

I found it so disturbing that I never used the monitors in portrait mode.

astrodust• 12 years ago

It depends entirely on your panel and how well your operating system handles sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Some panels shift dramatically, and some operating systems do a terrible job and you'll notice all kinds of fringing.

Luc• 12 years ago

Not all panels have this problem. Of my monitors, only the one with the cheap TN panel has it (and it's so obvious it would drive me mad if I had to use it vertically). My screen with a PVA panel is fine.

Gravityloss2• 12 years ago

Those panels from different lots have somewhat different colors anyway, even in the same orientation, and you can't tune them to be equal very easily, at least I gave up. They have pretty good viewing angles too. So it doesn't make it better or worse to turn either one 90 degrees.

baddox2• 12 years ago

For productivity, ignoring the aesthetics of letterboxing for videos or games, aspect ratio comparisons really just come down to more resolution/desktop space is better. A 1920x1920 monitor is "squarer" than a 1920x1080 monitor, sure, but you can also just think of it as a 1920x1080 monitor with more space in the vertical axis. For productivity, making either axis longer or higher resolution is just better (obviously until you approach extremes which are physically unwieldy).

razster• 12 years ago

Linked is a photo of my current workspace. I use one in landscape and the other in portrait. http://i.imgur.com/CWYv6ZG.jpg

The setup is perfect for Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects - I can set all my menu/preview windows on the portrait, landscape for primary.

Could I use a monitor like that? Not really, I thought about it for a while but it just wouldn't help me anymore than what I use now.

rsync• 12 years ago

This isn't that groundbreaking - there are plenty of 1:1 ratio screens that are made and sold for the air traffic control industry:

http://www.barco.com/en/Products-Solutions/Displays-monitors...

However, what would be interesting is if this was priced at normal monitor prices ... the ATC monitors are incredibly expensive.

cma• 12 years ago

Read the article:

"But after a few minutes, I realized that non-standard monitor sizes are most likely abundant in various industries, such as medical, when they are designed for a specific purpose and quality. So while a 1:1 monitor is something interesting to see in the consumer space, perhaps it might not be so new when considering industrial use scenarios."

marcosscriven• 12 years ago

I immediately thought of the medical usage, but then for scan results I thought they required a far higher res?

RachelF• 12 years ago

Square is good. EIZO monitors are normally eye-wateringly expensive, at 5-10x the price of a budget panel as they are targeted at the medical industry.

noinsight• 12 years ago

Standard Eizo monitors aren't that expensive, but more expensive than cheapo brands.

They're all made in Japan though so they're not the usual fare.

zokier• 12 years ago

I suppose it is highly use-case dependent if this is better than dual vertical 1920x1080 monitors. You essentially are choosing between having a bezel in the middle or losing 240 horizontal pixels. For having two things side-by-side the dual monitor setup is obvious win, so for coding etc I'd lean towards that

friism• 12 years ago

Perfect for Instagram.

devindotcom6• 12 years ago

More weird panels, please! I still want a bare-bones monochrome laptop.

PhantomGremlin2• 12 years ago

I still want a bare-bones monochrome laptop.

That's not a bad idea, from both a cost and power standpoint. I wonder why nobody has done it?

Same thing with digital cameras. There is a good use case for a grey scale image sensor. Higher sensitivity, fewer artifacts, lower power. But, sadly, nobody has built an affordable one yet. Sure it's not a large market, but there are hundreds of cameras that are almost identical, why doesn't somebody dare to do something different?

copperx• 12 years ago

I have always longed for an affordable BW digital camera. No Bayer filters!

aeturnum• 12 years ago

There are various after-market places that will modify your camera to take black and white photos[0]. Considering how well loved black and white film is, and how many people running the industry have their roots in film, I am sure this idea has been looked at. However, the economics of camera making are really harsh. If you look at the numbers in the 'mirrorless' camera segment (a change from the SLR form-factor with wider appeal than a B&W-only camera), you can see how dangerous R&D spending can be.[1]

[0] https://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm [1] http://www.43rumors.com/january-shipment-report-dslr-crash-m...

devindotcom6• 12 years ago

Leica makes the M Monochrom:

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-Monoc...

There are a few good use cases, I think:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/31/256-shades-of-grey/

wtracy2• 12 years ago

Heh, the B&W RED camera costs more than the color version, and people still buy it.

I've seen zilch available in the consumer space, though.

DanBC• 12 years ago

There are greyscale monitors. These tend to be very expensive and used for medical imaging. I've never used one.

http://www.necdisplay.com/category/medical-diagnostic-displa...

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/medical-diagnostic-displays/md21...

wtracy2• 12 years ago

It's not quite what you're looking for, but the Kindle Paperwhite will apparently pair with a Bluetooth keyboard.

EDIT: Better choice: The OLPC lets you turn off the screen backlight and that gets you a grayscale display that works even under direct sunlight.

devindotcom6• 12 years ago

Yeah, I thought about those. The OLPC is just too weird and outdated TBH, and e-paper devices (as much as I love them) are not reactive enough for active use like writing and editing. There's just no real option for now.

twic• 12 years ago

I was discussing monitors with a colleague today, and we speculated that what we wanted was an e-ink monitor - not a laptop, just a monitor. Use a conventional flat panel for the main screen, but have one or two e-ink screens off to the side for documentation etc.

techknow• 12 years ago

That's pretty cool. Learn more about the Kindle Paperwhite at http://www.ereadercomparison.co/

3rd3• 12 years ago

The SOL Vision monitor [1] is currently the only affordable screen in that regard (without hacking). It's specifically built for outdoor applications and has HDMI, VGA, and RCA/AV input, but unfortunately it’s limited to 1024 by 768 pixels.

[1] http://www.solcomputer.com/sunlight-readable/sol-vision-moni...

dismal2• 12 years ago

At that size something like 2880x2880 would be more "modern"

kylec• 12 years ago

Curiously, that's exactly the same number of pixels as a "4K" 3840x2160 screen. Should be drivable by graphics cards that can drive 4K.

shurcooL2• 12 years ago

But that's only 1440x1440 if you divide it by two.

rdl2• 12 years ago

I'm pretty happy with a $250 4k 39" seiki and a dell u2410 1200x1920 (portrait) at work, but a square display would be great on a tabletop or otherwise in nonstandard positions.

Synergyse• 12 years ago

Where did you pick that up for $250?

rdl2• 12 years ago

$230 (TigerDirect with a rebate, from slickdeals).

Seems to be OOS virtually everywhere, though.

mark212• 12 years ago

FWIW -- square monitors have long been popular on financial trading floors. I think there's a preset on the Bloomberg terminal for this ratio, but it's been a while.

userbinator2• 12 years ago

As someone who mainly reads text (developer) I think widescreens are advantageous only for multimedia. As for the arguments about how human eyes are horizontal so our field of view is wide, that's true but only for peripheral vision - where everything is out-of-focus and not actually "visible" for e.g. reading something. Otherwise it's implying that humans can independently use one eye for the left side and one eye for the right, a skill that I don't know of anyone having (it's possible though, just not something that would be common.) I have a dual-monitor setup equivalent to a 5:2 aspect ratio and I still need to rotate my eyes or head horizontally to focus on the right part of the screens.

I don't know if a completely square monitor would be as well received as something at least slightly rectangular - 1920x1440 (4:3) might be a good compromise.

Scramblejams• 12 years ago

My kingdom for a victorious return of 4:3 displays!

When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.

Pulling out my T42p retro laptop, with its 4:3 screen, always gives me the warm fuzzies. Love that aspect ratio.

ptaipale• 12 years ago

I really wish that manufacturers would start making decent laptops with 4:3 screens.

They call these 16:9 displays widescreen. I call them shallowscreen: they are just don't have th evertical space for work. Why are my work tools made with screen form factors that are only suitable for watching movies?

And yes, I love my T43, which has a lovely display and keyboard even though it is almost 10 years old. Alas, it is just underpowered today.

DrStalker• 12 years ago

Rotate your monitor and work in 1200x1920.

NamTaf• 12 years ago

Widescreen in the office is really good and has a huge advantage over 4:3 in one key aspect - When you halve the horizontal resolution (8:10 or 8:9, though 8:10 is better at it) you quite closely match what two normal A4/letter documents, inside word editing applications, cover. So you can place two text documents side-by-side and they fit reasonably well.

This is incredibly useful to a whole load of office employees, who want to refer to two word docs, or 1 word doc and 1 PDF, etc. This is where widescreens shine (and 16:10 is even better than 16:9) and why I think they've excelled well in the workplace.

lomnakkus• 12 years ago

When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.

This sounds really weird to me. I absolutely relish the ability to have an editor and terminal side by side without either of them feeling "squeezed up". If you're using an IDE you can also get a lot more space for actual code even with those annoying side areas that IDEs tend to have.

Chris_Newton2• 12 years ago

When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.

I’m seriously considering buying an LG 34UM95 monitor¹ for precisely this reason. It’s so wide (34" screen, 21:9 aspect ratio, 3440x1440 resolution) that I could sensibly divide the screen into 3-4 full-height columns with different source files open in each for development work.

Currently I have a decent Dell 30" as my main screen, but at 2560x1600 resolution I wind up using it with a 2x2 split for coding, which roughly halves the number of lines I can see at once in a long file.

I’m a little sceptical about trying a 1920x1920 screen at that physical size for similar work, simply because I’d worry about what prolonged use would do to my neck with that much vertical movement being needed all the time.

¹ http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-34UM95

pdabbadabba• 12 years ago

When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.

It seems to me that a 16:9 monitor is exactly what you need -- rotated vertically. Get one that pivots!

dspillett• 12 years ago

When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.

Last time I completely rebuilt my home setup I got monitors that can be rotated into portrait. I've not used the facility nearly as much as I thought I would, but then again I've not done much development since so that might be why.

Having one portrait and one landscape seems to be idea for web development: portrait for coding and landscape for output (as that is what the user's will likely have) & the things that don't fit properly in 1080 pixels wide.

You don't want to large a monitor in portrait for coding though: you'll be looking down a lot (or up+down if you sit with your head centred) which might be quite bad for posture. Beyond a certain size you are probably better off with a large monitor and some UI hack to artificially split it into columns.

acqq2• 12 years ago

I use 24" 1920x1200 for work and I would really, really enjoy x1440 (220 pixels more on Y) with the same screen width.

shmerl• 12 years ago

I also use 16:10 only. The dominance of 16:9 is really getting annoying. It's harder and harder to get 16:10 monitors these days, especially anything with higher resolution than 1920x1200.

ademarre2• 12 years ago

Dell is coming out with a 25" 2560x1440 monitor; model u2515h.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/32.htm#dell_u2515h

balabaster• 12 years ago

I flat out love my 1920:1080 resolution - however, because of the IDE I use, I'm kind of tied to having panes down the sides of my code. A 4:3 sucks in this scenario, 1:1 would suck even more - if the resolution is not high enough. I would imagine that 1920:1920 would be awesome - vertical real estate is awesome for reading... but I don't want that at the cost of code navigation. My gut says that 1920:1920 would be sufficiently dense to get the best of both worlds.

dedward• 12 years ago

With enough size and resolution, it really doesn't matter. After all, you can always use the space for something, right?

I recently upgrade to a 5k imac... and it's an absurd amount of space. I don't see the point in griping about aspect ratio when it's merely size and density that we really want.

glhaynes• 12 years ago

Agreed. On a small notebook display I tend to work with one or a small few windows at a time, usually taking up most or all of the display area. Aspect ratio is highly relevant to my experience there and actually guides the aspect ratio of my windows.

But on a large desktop display, I end up with lots more windows at any one time, including lots of small windows that stay around and in one place for a long time: things like notes, feeds, things to come back to, etc. And, in that large space, I can size each window as large as I want, so I much more often can use a natural-feeling aspect ratio for its content. In other words, large displays are the only ones for me in which a "desktop metaphor" GUI actually feels and functions like a desktop. So, on a large display (aside from games/movies), I don't care too much about aspect ratio, I'll fill up the edges of whatever space I've got.

eitally• 12 years ago

Agreed. I couldn't even tell you what my current wallpaper is because I'm never not working in full screen maximized windows.

My current fave monitor at home is my ca2008 Dell 2405 with all it's 1920x1200 glory. The Pixel is second, but a distant second because the screen is so small that if you actually use the full resolution you can't read a darn thing.

vacri• 12 years ago

We have a 'horizontality' to our vision, not because our eyes are side-by-side, but because that's how we interact with the world; and how we grow up doing so[1]. We have a slightly narrower arc of vision vertically due to brow and cheek, but even so, the stuff we see 'up' and 'down' is low-density information.

What's happening in the sky or on the ceiling isn't particularly useful to us, and as long as we have reasonably sure footing, the same is true of the ground or floor. We spend our days interacting with things mostly in the horizontal visual plane. Things that we approach or that approach us mostly move in this plane as well.

[1] There were a few famous experiments a few decades ago showing that what we see as we grow up affects the development of the visual system: https://computervisionblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/cats-and...

leoc• 12 years ago

Don't discount the value of screen space that's normally out in the nearer part of your peripheral vision, though. It's not as valuable as screenage that's normally in the centre of your vision, but it's still very useful (assuming it isn't too distorted by the viewing angle). You may have to move your eyes and maybe even slightly move your head to see what's out there clearly, but (I strongly assume - I'm not an expert) that kind of glancing should still be a lot more (yuck) "spatial" and less distracting than having to alt-tab or whatever to reveal the same information and then to hide it again. So in concrete terms, a 40" 16:9 4K monitor like http://www.tomshardware.com/news/philips-4k-bdm4065uc-monito... which has slightly greater vertical height than the 26.5" 1:1 1920×1920 screen as well as higher ppi ought to be preferable if price, horizontal desk space or whatever don't rule it out.

Unfortunately, OSes and other software tend to mess this up: in particular, the fact that those handy fullscreen commands actually fill the screen with the selected window or picture or video or whatever is no longer good news if some or all of the edges of your screen are far enough away from the comfortable centre area of your vision (see http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-large-display-paradox/ ). This was appropriate behaviour in the past, when both pixels and screen inches were limited and expensive and so it was safe to assume that the whole of the screen was well within the user's central viewing area—and in fact was probably covering much less of that central area than was at all ideal. Nowadays the user should be able to define a central fullscreen area that (possibly) doesn't take up the whole screen: then (by default etc.) fullscreened items should be expanded to the limits of the "fullscreen" area and no more. The rest of the screen can be filled with other information: maybe the other open windows pushed to the side in an OS X Exposé-like manner, or things like image metadata for a viewed image. The brightness of the outer area should be subdued to prevent it from distracting from the central image. (A practical use for whizzy translucency effects!). The information out in the "gutter" will be glanceable, but won't feel like it's impinging on your view of the fullscreened item (if it does, you didn't make the fullscreen area large enough).

CompuHacker• 12 years ago

I've been looking for a 1:1 monitor for years before this; they're only made custom for military HUDs and such. I was so disappointed, especially in the people who called 5:4 and 4:3 "square" in response to forum posts asking about it.

Hoping for a power of 2 square model.

myrandomcomment• 12 years ago

I have an LG 34UM95-P which is a 34" 21:9 UltraWide with a resolution of 3440x1440. Once you get used to how wide the monitor is it works quite well. This replaced 2 x 1920x1440 29". It is on a mount on a standing desk.

2muchcoffeeman• 12 years ago

I just got the small 29" version from Dell. It uses an LG panel. It's a good alternative to having 2 monitors.

Stratoscope4• 12 years ago

1920x1920 on a 26.5" panel is only 102 pixels per inch. That is a low pixel density for a modern monitor. It's the same density as a 1920x1080 21.5" panel - certainly usable, but you won't get the crisp text you'd have on a higher density display.

Of course, many monitors are worse. A 1920x1080 27" monitor is only 82 pixels per inch!

The monitor I'm buying next is probably the Dell UP2414Q. With 3840x2160 resolution on a 23.8" panel, it has 185 pixels per inch. It's expensive and you need a machine that can drive it properly, but that is a nice pixel density.

aduitsis2• 12 years ago

Are you gonna sit very close to the screen?

You probably will sit half a meter (1.64ft) from a 26.5" monitor, maybe more, right?

According to isthisretina.com the density of a 26.5" 1920x1920 becomes equivalent to retina (326ppi) at about 34 inches (86cm).

Stratoscope4• 12 years ago

I always position all of my monitors at the same distance from my eyes. That's because I'm an old guy and my eyes can't focus to different distances easily like they used to. So I have a pair of single vision computer glasses - like a reading prescription, but adjusted for the approximately 20" between my eyes and the laptop screen (almost exactly the half-meter you mentioned).

Typically I have three displays in a row: a monitor on the left and two computers on the right, a MacBook Pro Retina and a ThinkPad W520 (145 ppi). Whichever computer I'm primarily working on that day goes in the middle and is connected to the external display.

I wouldn't be able to use a display 34" from my eyes unless I used a different pair of glasses, and then I'd have to switch glasses back and forth to look at the different screens! Unless I gave up using the laptop screens at all, but I'm not about to do that.

So with all my monitors at the same distance, what feels like a "retina" density is the same on all of them.

tacoman• 12 years ago

I'm near sighted. My eyeglass prescription is about -6.5. Using either windows or linux, anything over about 105 dpi is too small and I need to get closer to the monitor than what is acceptable from an ergonomics stand point.

If I need to use something with a higher dpi for any length of time, I have crank up the font size which causes some problems in some applications.

Right now I use a 19" 1280x1024 and a 20" 1600x1200. A monitor like this would be great.

gioele2• 12 years ago

Using either windows or linux, anything over about 105 dpi is too small and I need to get closer to the monitor than what is acceptable from an ergonomics stand point.

I see this as a big failure of "modern" graphic systems. Having a 105 ppi should just mean more refined graphics, not smaller size of rendered objects.

The way a GUI appears on the screen should be a function of the screen size and the viewer distance, not a function of the screen ppi! We must get rid of all the layers of hacks that we have accumulated over the years (the reference 72 ppi, for example).

zachrose• 12 years ago

FWIW, the Soviet film director Sergei Eisenstein once gave a lecture outlining why square screens would be superior for cinema.

"Eisenstein playfully hyped the virtues of the "dynamic square," a screen that was exactly as high as it was wide. He did so in part because to him the square was modern, charged with productive machine force. This more purely cinematic screen was, according to Eisenstein, necessary for properly showcasing the energies, conflicts, and collisions germane to the moving image arts. It would also, at least in theory, be the most accommodating frame, capable of hosting images composed for planes that were either horizontal or vertical. Eisenstein proclaimed that previous industry standards (4:3), as well as contemporaneous calls for wider screens, were nostalgic, calling forth a dated viewing regime dictated by traditional art forms."

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals...

micampe• 12 years ago

IMAX movies are almost square (1.43:1) and they are indeed a better experience (let's ignore the 3D conversation, IMAX can be 2D).

krick• 12 years ago

I wouldn't call 1.43:1 "almost square", especially concerning this opinion of Eisenstein. It's closer to "half again as height", a bit more than 4:3.

But I wouldn't trust Eisenstein much for that matter anyway.

carlob• 12 years ago

Funnily enough I just saw a movie that had a square format for 99% of the duration.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3612616/

frik• 12 years ago

I watched IMAX 2D & 3D films on the biggest screen (600 m2) in Europe. *

It was impossible to see the whole screen, that was especially great with 3D movies (Space Station 3D, etc.). Also the 2D movie premiere of The Matrix Revolutions in IMAX DMR film was awesome.

So I would prefer movie theatre/TV/monitor screens with almost 1:1 or 4:3 ratio over 16:10 or 16:9.

* The IMAX Vienna had a 600m2 screen, 24000 watt 6 channels surround sound, 458 seats, demolished in 2009: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#.C3.96sterreich , http://web.archive.org/web/20030422003546/http://www.imax.at...

Animats• 12 years ago

OK, a square monitor. Maybe Apple will announce a round monitor, with a round GUI to go with it. Apple fans would be camping out in front of Apple retail outlets for the thing.

Hoffmannnn• 12 years ago

Many monitors these days can be rotated on their side (check your stand mount!), and windows natively supports portrait mode.

My dual monitor setup has one landscape, one portrait, and I'm never going back. Viewing documents & code is just so much more convenient.

deciplex• 12 years ago

Why 1920? I would rather have 1440 (or 2160) as it would allow me to put it to the side of a 2K or 4K monitor and keep the same vertical resolution. Unless you're planning to put them in an over-under configuration (pretty rare in the home, at least) I don't see the point of this resolution.

pervycreeper• 12 years ago

Are the pixels themselves perfectly square? Just from looking at it (on my screen), it seems a bit taller than it is wide.

LeoPanthera• 12 years ago

This is a common optical illusion. Perfect squares usually look taller than they are wide, to human eyes.

rebootthesystem• 12 years ago

We run three 1920 x 1200 monitors on all of our engineering workstations. In some cases I could see the value of running four but three is amazing for productivity. Going to three 1920 x 1920 monitors would be even better.

asgard1024• 12 years ago

Great to see that! I am only worried this will be ultra-expensive based on the assumption that people who actually want to do some real work on a computer (and not just play games or watch movies) do it for money, so they can pay the price.

RexRollman• 12 years ago

Speaking as someone who loves my 1280x1024 monitor, this sound great.

Mchl• 12 years ago

Meh. Doesn't have pivot. Would not buy.

simonh• 12 years ago

It's an interesting idea, but I recently got a 5k iMac and now I can feel the jaggies on the 1080p displays I use at work cutting my eyeballs. The longer I use the Mac at home, the more I get used to it and the more annoying the screens at work become.

For sub-27" displays these days I think 4k is definitely the way to go. Affordable modern graphics cards are perfectly capable of driving such displays now and I think, or at least hope, that by the end of next year they will have become a pretty standard mainstream choice. A non-standard aspect ratio is all well and fine, but if it's still at standard dpi resolution it's just icing on a cake that's getting towards the end of it's shelf life.

swah• 12 years ago

I always thought widescreens "were here to stay" because its easier to move our heads to left/right than up/down... isn't this true?

murbard2• 12 years ago

There's that, and also the fact that our visual field roughly has a 3:2 aspect ratio, so more rectangular than 4:3 but less than 16:10

nodefortytwo• 12 years ago

I have 4 screens, 2 24" either side of a 27" and a 15" macbook pro below the 27. I find it much more comfortable to look left and right than i do looking down towards the macbook which is what i feel a square monitor would be like, more up and down movement as opposed to horizontal.

trillcode• 12 years ago

I think the greatest push for 1:1 resolutions becoming popular would come from how similar it is to the usage on a phone. With how popular mobile technologies are, and most consumers are usually consuming their apps in a vertical fashion.

logfromblammo• 12 years ago

I would prefer an 8.09:5 aspect ratio screen that can easily be rotated 1/4 turn.

But that's mostly because my love for (sqrt(5)+1)/2 is near-Pythagorean in its scope.

EIZO Announces Monitor with 1920x1920 Resolution

Related Stories