Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Hardware

Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio 330

Posted by Soulskill from the hip-to-be-square dept.
jones_supa writes: Eizo has introduced an interesting new PC monitor with a square aspect ratio: the Eizo FlexScan EV2730Q is a 26.5-inch screen with 1:1 aspect ratio and an IPS panel with resolution of 1920 x 1920 pixels. "The extended vertical space is convenient for displaying large amounts of information in long windows, reducing the need for excess scrolling and providing a more efficient view of data," the firm writes. The monitor also offers flicker-free (non-PWM) backlight and reduced blue light features to avoid scorching users' eyes. Would a square display be of any benefit to you?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio More

Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio

Comments Filter:

  • Monitor Tiling! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by duck_rifted ( 3480715 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:23PM (#48441125)
    These would be great for multi-monitor displays of enormous size. You can start with 4x3 and eventually upgrade to 16x9. Well, assuming you can manage to connect that many and setup output properly.

    • Why does the monitor have to be square to do that?

    • DOUS's? I don't believe they exist.

    • Wrong product for your solution.
      Firstly with tiles you'll be unlikely to drive all the displays at this native resolution, and if you can what content will you have for it?
      Secondly if you want to tile a large area the better solution would be panels made for that purpose which have thin bezels. Companies make products [necdisplay.com] specifically for tiled displays.
       

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Yes, that linked monitor appears to be a 7k display. In dollars of course.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      I went to 16:10 monitor with 1920x1200, but when coding then both width and height is important. 16:9 is not a great upgrade from most 4:3 monitors from the aspect of coding.

      • If your program is more thana single page then it makes sense to vertically split into two 8:9 panes, making it roughly twice as good as 4:3.

  • ATC (Score:4, Informative)

    by aquabat ( 724032 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:25PM (#48441129) Journal
    Air traffic controllers in Canada Use 2000x2000 pixel panels for the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System (CAATS); Pretty close.

    • Yeah 2k2k was standard even back in the 1990s on Eurocat using CRTs. I am a bit surprised they haven't gone beyond it now though, given what can be done with LCD.

      • I am guessing finding 1x1 monitors was probably an issue.

        • The 2k2k monitors were from Sony. I don't know if finding them was an issue. The unit price was high (~$50k) and sony must have had other markets. Later LCD monitors were from NTT. Barco are in the market as well making monitors for environments with high ambient light.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Theovon ( 109752 )

            For a while there, there were some 2560x2048 monitors being marketed for ATC as well. And then there was the IBM T221, which did 3840x2400.

    • Yep, I did a quick Google search and you can find them (and more standard 5:4 displays) here.

      Edldisplays [edldisplays.com]

      Though... it looks like you'll have to call for a quote, and any time you do you know it'll be expensive.

  • Squarer is better. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by millwoodtwo ( 517215 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:25PM (#48441133) Homepage

    The move from 4x3 to 16x9 was already a big loss - more scrolling for no advantage except using the PC as a TV. Don't know about 1x1 but the old 5x4 worked just fine for me.

    • Re:Squarer is better. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @05:21PM (#48441343)

      There is some advantage for various full screen viewing implementations like gaming. Like it or not, human field of view is much wider than it is taller. As a result, taking visual input from wide screen is more natural than from square(ish) screen.

      The obvious problem is that which you mention - much if not most of PC work is related to document handling and such, which requires vertical space and wastes horizontal space, making wide screen format a bad idea.

      • I'd personally disagree that its a problem. In fact, one 16x9 still isn't wide enough. Two of them is ideal for me. The main monitor for my coding tool, and the 2nd monitor to have 2 web pages loaded side by side. In my main window, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the width is used for my actual code, and the rest used for other panel (project file list, debug panels, etc). If my 2nd monitor wasn't so wide, I either wouldn't have access to the extra panels, or I'd have to put them across the bottom (negating the advant

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          It's similar for video editing - one large, high-def monitor for the actual video, and another monitor for the various control panel windows. The second monitor can be any aspect ratio - whatever you prefer to work with - but the first one needs to be big, accurate, and has to be able to cope with at least the most common formats.

      • ...The obvious problem is that which you mention - much if not most of PC work is related to document handling and such, which requires vertical space and wastes horizontal space, making wide screen format a bad idea.

        On Windows, turn your monitor on its side and press cntr+alt+left arrow>.

        • Which is nice if you don't do it that often. But.. why not just put an accelerometer in the monitor and have it report its orientation to the OS? If we can fit one in an mp3 player, we can fit one in a monitor.

      • The bigger it is, the wider that is useful. Basically you find that you need a certain amount of vertical real estate to work effectively. So on a small screen like a laptop, a 4:3, or even more square, monitor can be of use. However when you start getting large desktop displays, wide is very nice. Personally I like 16:10 displays for the desktop, in part because I find them aesthetically pleasing (likely because they are near the golden ratio) but also because for the large sizes I like (30" currently) it

    • 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 is still an upgrade, and your window manager should let you divide it into two 960x1080 areas so that you can refer to docs while writing code or whatever.

    • Notice that widescreen monitors became popular right about the time televisions and monitors started being advertised by their diagonal dimension.

      By that measure if you have a monitor that is 1 inch tall and 50 inches wide you would have a 50-inch monitor.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unitron ( 5733 )

        Televisions have been advertised by diagonal measure pretty much starting with when they went to rectangular screens from round ones well over 60 years ago.

        Since they were all 4:3 ratio, if you were comparison shopping a 19" Zenith and a 19" RCA, it was apples to apples, and you could figure out x and y from the hypotenuse if you had to know width and height.

  • I rotate my screens vertically at work (where I don't watch videos, I work on documents and sites, and horizontal space is often a waste). A square screen is a similar trade-off, but I find the utility of choice that rotation offers probably outweighs the value of a square form-factor.

    • Re:Rotated (Score:4, Funny)

      by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:50PM (#48441225) Homepage
      Don't worry, you can probably rotate this screen also.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        Don't worry, you can probably rotate this screen also.

        Years ago I was shoot a square format film camera (Holga @ 6cm) and when a friend looked at some of my negatives they commented "Why the hell did you rotate the camera for some of your shots????".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      So why are you still adhering to narrow output when so many of your end users have switched to wide screen. Having a quick browse around, I find it unfathomable why so many tech sites stick to narrow format suited to old CRT displays when the world has moved on, must be the 'qwerty' effect, stubbornness bound to ignorance, don't worry it's not so much an individual problem but an industry delusion.

      PS don't try to make output that suits a full sized display suit a mobile phone or vice versa.

      • You're probably not old enough, but there used to be something called the 80 column mind. [foldoc.org] This was something that affected programmers who had learned how to use computers back in the days when the punched card was king, and were still writing programs that expected all input and output to fit into that medium's 80 character restrictions. I worked for JPL for a few years in the mid-80's, and even then many of their newer programs used what were called "cardimages:" computer records that were designed to m

  • Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mccrew ( 62494 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:30PM (#48441151)
    Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by unitron ( 5733 )

      Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".

      Absolutely. I mourn the dearth of tall-screen monitors. When I want to watch TV, I use a TV.

    • the apple macbooks are the best because they are still 16:10 ratio. it's an extra inch taller than the standard 16:9.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rHBa ( 976986 )
        WOW, I know big is 'in' this year in the world of Mac but I didn't realise they did 16 inch wide laptops! How do you carry it anywhere!?!

    • Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".

      It's time to retire this complaint because the fact is that screen resolutions have started to increase again

      Your old 1200 pixel tall non-16:9 display isn't anything to brag about anymore. 1440p is quite cheap nowadays and 2160p is gaining traction.

  • Yes! Vertical (portrait format) photos would get equal screen area as horizontal compositions.

    This reminds me of the old (name forgotten) rotatable displays. Or are they still around?

  • or how about a square tablet? Then you wouldn't have to rotate it all the time

  • ObFry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ihtoit ( 3393327 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:34PM (#48441181)

    Shut up and take my money!

    I do my DTP on a Pentium IV with a 4:3 screen because the simple fact is it's far more comfortable looking at a document on a 4:3 screen than it is a 16:9 or a 16:10. Pisses me off that personal computing has gone the way it has, that being steered to moving media consumption - if I wanted to watch movies 24/7 I'd've bought a fucking £60 portable DVD player not a £500 laptop! This TV comes with a keyboard so I can fucking TYPE on it! I want my squarer screen back!

    • Pisses me off that personal computing has gone the way it has, that being steered to moving media consumption

      PC displays are not so much being steered toward media consumption. Manufacturing TV panels dominates the supply chain so to take advantage of that economy of scale the PC manufacturers adopted the same aspect ratio.

      That said, I'm happy to have two 1600x1200 LCDs that are a few years old now. Two wide screen displays arranged side by side in landscape mode are IMO excessively wide. I've seen more than one person rotate one (of a pair of screens) vertical on which to view vertical oriented content (like docu

    • for me, My laptop is 16x10, And my favorite part of it is that I get a full size key and a REAL number pad. It always annoys me that you see a wide screen laptop and a freaking huge dead-space around the (3/4 key size)keyboard! the widescreen is nice for the occasional movie, and makes side by side file manager windows less squished. but I WANT FULL SIZED KEYS

    • Shut up and take my money!

      I do my DTP on a Pentium IV with a 4:3 screen because the simple fact is it's far more comfortable looking at a document on a 4:3 screen than it is a 16:9 or a 16:10.

      you don't have to keep every window maximized to the full width of the screen... you can have multiple windows, each with a 4:3 ratio. Just a suggestion. #NOOB

    • I do my DTP on a Pentium IV with a 4:3 screen

      If you do any notable amount of DTP, you should be investing in a big pivot display, anyway. I got mine used, it's 1920x1200 and it's pretty to look at all day. But I seldom pivot it, because I usually work with facing pages, and widescreen is awesome for that. But I could :p

  • I don't see the purpose of this, they way our eyes are placed - we're supposed to look around ourselves (landscape aspect), this will only put more strain on the eyes as we'll have to look up and down constantly. I suppose it will have its own place in eg. the design industry where I certainly can see it as useful, but I can pretty much promise you that screen will never become adopted by the mainstream public.

    In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Philips Ultra Wide monitors didn't catch on as they're even be

    • Some people use their monitors for doing work and 16:9 displays are awful. 16:10 is where its at.

    • In fact, I'm a bit surprised that Philips Ultra Wide monitors didn't catch on as they're even better for our eyes than the 16:9

      What makes you say that? Why should wider than 16:9 necessarily be "better" for our eyes?

      I thought that 16:9 was chosen as the widescreen standard (partially) because it was close to our "natural" viewing range.

      the movies at the theatre are much wider and when you get it on a DVD or Blu-Ray/streaming etc

      Movies are almost always released on DVD/Blu-ray at the same aspect ratio they were in at the cinema.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      There's no such thing as a "natural" aspect ratio, because sitting with your eyes glued to a monitor isn't what we evolved to do.

      Years of designing software have taught me one thing, which is that interfaces have to suit the task. When I'm writing or reading, I like a vertically oriented monitor. When I'm watching a movie, I like wide aspect ratio monitor. When I'm programming, I like a moderate aspect ratio landscape monitor, but very, very big. Bigger than I'd want to read a book on or watch a movie

  • Pivot Stand? (Score:5, Funny)

    by marciot ( 598356 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @04:55PM (#48441251)

    I hope it comes with a pivot stand for landscape and portrait mode.

  • Could really use an 8 inch 1:1 for uses as MFD's in my Simulators.

  • I'd be happy if 4:3 came back! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @05:07PM (#48441289)
    Forget square monitors, I'd be happy if 4:3 made a comeback. Yes, I know they still exist, but they're a lot harder to find than they used to be. Go to any Best Buy or Staples and all you see are 16:9. Those are great for watching movies, but I prefer to watch movies on my TV and do work on my computer. And for pretty much all work except video and movie editing, 4:3 is better. I'm currently working on an old Samsung 4:3 which is starting to give me trouble (making strange noises and going dark at random times requiring me to cycle the power on the monitor.) I hope I won't have too much trouble replacing it when it dies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by unitron ( 5733 )

      Forget square monitors, I'd be happy if 4:3 made a comeback. Yes, I know they still exist, but they're a lot harder to find than they used to be. Go to any Best Buy or Staples and all you see are 16:9. Those are great for watching movies, but I prefer to watch movies on my TV and do work on my computer. And for pretty much all work except video and movie editing, 4:3 is better. I'm currently working on an old Samsung 4:3 which is starting to give me trouble (making strange noises and going dark at random times requiring me to cycle the power on the monitor.) I hope I won't have too much trouble replacing it when it dies.

      If that old Samsung is new enough not to be a CRT, then you've probably got "capacitor plague" going on in the power supply.

      Plug the Sammy's model number in at lcdalternatives.com and see if they already offer a replacement cap kit for that model.

      If they do, that most likely means that model was produced with the "plagued" caps and lots of other people have had the same problems as you.

  • WANT. (Score:3)

    by Indigo ( 2453 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @05:10PM (#48441307)

    I am so, so tired of short, wide screens. My home monitor is 1600x1200. I've had one that size for years and years. When the last one - a CRT - died, it was a hassle to find an LCD monitor that wasn't either shorter (no thanks - not going backward) or far more expensive. For work - software development - a tall wide monitor would be an absolute joy. Most likely it'll be out of my price range, but we'll see.

    • Why don't you just rotate a 16:9 monitor into portrait orientation, or better yet a 16:10 portrait would be both tall and wide, just like you asked for.

  • i wonder how this compares to 4K monitors. It seems this 1920 resolution has a relatively low DPI. I can get a 5K iMac, the whole 1920x1920 thing comes across to me as rather outdated?

  • Yeah. I go through an INSANE amount of vertical text every day. And every day I miss my old 4:3 tube monitors (but not a hell of a lot, fracking boat anchors...)

    If the pricing on these sorts of monitors is reasonable, I'd find it a suitable alternative to jumping to a 4K monitor.

    • How about using your 16:9 or 16:10 monitor in portrait mode? You'll have more vertical workspace than a square display.

      • Because the monitors I currently have don't support portrait mode.

        The other reason is I run a few older games that handle widescreen by rendering 4:3 and then chopping the top and bottom of the screen for 16x9.

        A 1/1 monitor would restore that lost portion of a rendered scene.

    • My guess is $1000. It's where some desirable and uncommon high end stuff is priced (30" monitor, GTX Titan, Intel i7 5960X and Eizo monitors in general)

  • Square doesn't help me any. 16 high by 9 wide suits my needs reasonably well. Almost as good as the Apple monitors we had back in the 90s for publishing applications.
    Oh, God, I said something positive about Apple.

    • I did some work with the publishing industry back in the 80s, and one of the projects had some portrait-mode 200dpi monitors for editing. Absolutely wonderful things; we're only now starting to get that kind of resolution again.

      As it was, I found it annoying enough to go from 1152x900 in 1992 down to 640x400 in 1993, and didn't get as good a monitor on my main work machine until maybe 2009 or 2010. (There were laptops with 1280 or more pixels before then, but we didn't have them; our Corporate IT departme

  • How long before they slap some wooden panels onto it together with a triple price tag? ;-)

  • Eizo Auditore (Score:3)

    by MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @06:30PM (#48441659) Homepage

    Does it come with dual hidden blades?

  • I remember some old CAD displays in the 80's which were square (1024 x 1024 I think). That's a bit extreme for me; I think the sweet spot was around 16:10.

  • Would a square display be of any benefit to you?

    Most definitely yes.

    WA displays are simply too wide. And in portrait orientation, they are too narrow.

    I want my 4:3 or 5:4 back. 1:1 seems like a good compromise.

    But I doubt that I will get one. For home, I want a WA for movies/etc. For office... I have little control over what junk IT buys. I bet the monitor would cost premium, and as such ordering one would be out of the question.

  • The author writes " It's 1920 x 1920 pixel square resolution is said to offer 78 per cent more pixels than a traditional Full HD monitor." Is it so hard to calculate the number of pixels in a traditional HD monitor and divide the number of pixels in this monitor by that number to actually *confirm* the fact?

    I swear journalists get lazier every day.

  • It's a 4:3 monitor with a fantastic colour and contrast. It's also been serving me faithfully for 6 or 7 years without causing any problems.
    So needless to say, I am both a fan of Eizo monitors and lesser-than-HD aspect ratios. I am intrigued by this 1:1 aspect ratio Eizo monitor, but 26" is too big for my home. It is, however, almost ideal at work, where I do research: reading scientific articles and doing MEMS design would benefit a lot from this very monitor.

  • I've been looking for a square (or 4:3) ~27 inch display forever, for an arcade cabinet build. There are CRT SDTVs out there but they are horrible and getting rare. This may do the trick.

  • shut up and take my money!

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close