Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Displays Hardware

LG Introduces Monitor With 21:9 Aspect Ratio 311

skade88 writes "LG has released an ultra wide monitor. It really is wide (WxHxD: 699.7 X 387 X 208.5 mm) — take a look at the thing! It looks like it would be good for movies shot in larger aspect ratios such as 2.20 for 70mm film or 2.39 for modern cinemascope films. But OS GUI designs need to catch up to the ever horizontally expanding waistline of our monitors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Introduces Monitor With 21:9 Aspect Ratio

Comments Filter:
  • by HeyBob! ( 111243 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:10PM (#42263773)

    You can find them, but they're expensive and harder and harder to find.

  • Re:Waste Line (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:18PM (#42263875) Journal

    It's the line of space wasted by having mostly empty tool bars and docks stretching across the bottom or top of the screen.

    It's why when I get stuck with a 16:9 monitor I dock everything to the left side.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:20PM (#42263915)

    This wouldn't be so bad in a large enough screen size. A single 21:9 would be closer to the dual 4:3 monitor setup I used to have (at home and at work)... which gave me 8:3 ( 24:9 )

    I do not like the dual 16:9 setup I have at work now; it is ridiculously wide with very little vertical height. A single large 21:9 monitor would be much more useful than the 32:9 I get from dual 16:9 monitors. There is a lot of useless real estate with a dual 16:9 setup.

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:29PM (#42264043) Homepage Journal

    side by side

    ...provided you had eyes on the side of your head, like e.g. a chamaeleon, of course.

    Do only chameleons benefit from a dual monitor? The 7:3 form factor offers some of the benefits of a side-by-side dual monitor setup without the annoying pair of bezels down the middle.

  • Re:WTFGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @04:04PM (#42264515) Homepage Journal

    Back in the 90s there was a race to keep making TVs bigger and bigger (and smaller and smaller) which has led to the elimination of the normal sized TV

    You're not very old, are you? There is no such thing as a "normal sized" TV and never was. TVs have always been as big as it was economical to make them. When I was a kid in the '50s, a "normal" TV was a nineteen inch black and white. Later it was twenty five inch color. Then thirty. Then thirty five. Then forty. TVs have always been getting bigger and bigger.

    As to aspect ratio, old movies were 4:3 but went to widescreen some time when I was young. Partly it was because you couldn't make a widescreen CRT; in fact, the earliest color set I saw had a tube that was almost round (the rich neighbor's). Mostly it was because the movie industry thought TV would kill the industry, and made the aspect ratio incompatible.

    Now that CRTs are quaint things there's no reason for TVs to be 4:3 any more.

    However, cinimascope for a TV is retarded. There are so many aspect ratios in movies that no matter what your TV's aspect ratio, you're going to have black bars either at the top and bottom, or the sides. I can picture this thing in my living room, and it looks really, really stupid there.

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun