Slashdot Mirror
Eizo Debuts Monitor With 1:1 Aspect Ratio
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?
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.
Air traffic controllers in Canada Use 2000x2000 pixel panels for the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System (CAATS); Pretty close.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
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.
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.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
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
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!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
its going to be very useful for watching video, being you can do something else with the other half of the screen.
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 better for our eyes than the 16:9, I'm guessing it's the price tag that scares people away as usual, but for movies...the Ultra Wide is the best option since even today....the movies at the theatre are much wider and when you get it on a DVD or Blu-Ray/streaming etc... it's still 16:9 and thus have been cropped for our viewing pleasures, which is a pity...because you lose some of the original artwork in the movies.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Some people use their monitors for doing work and 16:9 displays are awful. 16:10 is where its at.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The great big balls of Apple!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
lots of code on one page
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.
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 I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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.
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?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Run Gnome 2 / Mate on it with top and bottom panels, browser that still has a title bar. There's room to fit everything without making it feel busy, cramped. If a smaller 1440x1440 variant was made you would also have something about perfect to run a maximized browser without messing with scaling etc., which I guess is what most people do regardless of the monitor.
Round, phft. That's 2 dimensional thinking. Now a spherical monitor,...where's Tim Cook when you need him?
I'm still waiting for the cylindrical display.
It's not 4:3, it's 1:1
Yes. And he was saying "4x3". As in "put 12 display in an array. 3 row of 4 screens each."
You end up with a giant wall, with 4:3 aspect ratio (as each tile is square).
Then you buy 132 more displays, arrange them in 16 columns of 9 (16x9) and you can cover a building's facade with your very own 16:9 tiled jumbo diplay in LD ("ludicrous definition") and create an open-air cinema with your neightbours
But, as he mentionned, driving 144 display tiles in total is going to be a little bit complicated.
(5 display max per Radeon card. 4 Radeon cards per motherboard. 20 displays per PC Tower. You could probably driver 2 tiles per display port using splitters like matrox is down, so you need 1 PC tower per 40 tiles. So at least 4 bit PC towers to drive all this).
But totally worth so you and your neighbours can together brag about being the first "Ludicruous Definition" cinema of the city (256x the resolution of Ultra HD).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
Spherical, Schmerical, I'm all for one of those fandangled new 4D Hyperspheres they keep talking about.
...most (simulated) displays appearing in "2001: A Space Odyssey" were square. (I just checked pictures on IMDB for reference.)
Retro future?
I think I could get used to it.
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
A monitor with spherical back. Then they can sue anyone still using CRTs.
You might want to find out whether you can tilt them by 90.
I always thought it's odd that monitors are wider than they are tall. Isn't it far more convenient to use them, well, like we used to use paper?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Human field of vision is wider than it is tall, therefore our video recordings are landscape , therefore our video display devices are landscape . Unfortunately, when reading there is a cost in time and readability when a line of text extends beyond a certain length, hence why we use paper in portrait, and why some early displays were portrait. But there's nothing stopping you from having multiple portrait windows on a sufficiently large landscape monitor.
"it's not so useful TO watching video"
I think you mean "FOR watching video", but then, those damn two and three letter prepositions are just SO difficult for you Americans, aren't they.
You moron.
Or should I say "moran", since that seems to be have most Americans spell it, the irony being lost on their tiny brains. And let me add in 'definAtely', 'rEdiculous', and 'could care less' to that long list of words and phrases that moronic Americans can't spell or write correctly. You fucking idiots.
At least those of us who know not to say "different than" know that when things differ, they differ "from" each other, not "to" each other.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yes, it's much nicer to read portrait-mode documents on a portrait-mode or at least square display, not on landscape. It's especially the case for PDF files in multi-column formats where you otherwise have to scroll up and down and up and down to read the things.
But that's not a friendly shape for a laptop, unfortunately. I'd probably be ok with a tiltable display to get 4x3 or 16x9-10 portrait mode, though it seems manufacturers assume you're going to be using displays to watch movies on so the default position is landscape.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
With a 27"+ monitor at a reasonable ergonomic distance away and at a suitable magnification, you can easily read 2 pages next to each other on the screen, like a book.
My old 19" 4:3 monitor died a few years ago and the 27" 16:9 works a treat for my uses.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
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 department always preferred to get hardware with more color depth instead of more pixels, thinking for instance that 640x480 with 16-bit color was better than 800x600 with 8-bit color. Nope.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
How long before they slap some wooden panels onto it together with a triple price tag? ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Except emptying their wallets even more on the latest version of (the same) garbage next year!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Does it come with dual hidden blades?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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.
get a macbook
Yes, it's much nicer to read portrait-mode documents on a portrait-mode or at least square display, not on landscape. It's especially the case for PDF files in multi-column formats where you otherwise have to scroll up and down and up and down to read the things.
There's nothing inherently wrong with landscape-mode displays for reading PDFs. For instance, my 2560x1600 display is just fine ;-)
Really, what you need is 1200 high or better.
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.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
You won't see Google Play Store (lawfuly) on any square tablet. Google licenses the Google Apps only to hardware makers who agree to make all their Android devices meet the Android CDD. And the Android CDD specifies a display aspect ratio of at least 6:5.
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.
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
Don't think of it as 1920x1080. Think of it as twice 960x1080, with one nearly square window on each half of the monitor.
How can you say you are familiar with a product line that has FIVE computer models and not know that one of them is round? And it's not like you would have had to break into their secret R&D center to find out, the thing can be found in ONE CLICK on their fucking website.
You should revisit every single thing you think you are pretty familiar with.You may also want to reconsider situations where you felt people were taking weak cheap shots at something. Because fundamentally, your knowledge is weak and your ability to judge it is even weaker.
lucm, indeed.
Not just that, we use a very limited part of our vision. The actual reading we do with the super-sharp fovea (3 degrees wide) while keeping track of line to line using the semi-sharp macula (18 degrees wide). The remaining 160 degrees of horizontal vision and 120 degrees of vertical vision aren't really effective to use. What you want for immersion like games or video is totally different from the optimal width for a newspaper column. In fact, an A4 page full of typically sized text is probably too wide and an artifact of punch cards and typewriters, research suggests ~60 characters per line rather than 80 as optimal. And we got 600 years of research on this.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Dell U2412M
Within the range of older video cards, although it has to scale the Ouya.
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.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It is arguably easier to read code that can fit in 80 columns. That way I don't have to scan side-to-side as much, and I can fit multiple editor windows side-by-side simultaneously.
It sucks not having a 5k monitor eh?
He said "to be able to upgrade our 3..4 year old workstations", not replace them.
I wonder how well they stand up to mortar and grout?
Put some gorilla glass on them and sensors and Wal-Mart could pester us with ads on every step instead of just the few annoying end caps.
Isn't it far more convenient to use them, well, like we used to use paper?
When I work with paper, I usually lay out two or more sheets side by side. Same when I use a computer monitor. I have the docs in one window, my code in a second window, and the output in a third. So my monitor needs to be wide enough for three windows. A square monitor would be okay, but it needs to be a more than 1920 pixels in each direction. If it was 2560, I would buy it.
Stop whining. You can buy a Dell Ultrasharp U2311H monitor and run it in portrait mode today.
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
shut up and take my money!
I cannot understand why such a setup isn't more common. My workstation has two monitors: One of them in portrait (900x1440) and the second in landscape (1900x1080). I mostly use the portrait one to write texts and browse the Web. The landscape one is where I usually code or sysadmin from. And, of course, other stuff finds its place in different ways.
I am using 4:3 monitors currently because having less than 1200 vertical pixels sucks
There are 4k (3840x2160 pixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio) monitors out there although you will pay for them. A simple web search will find them. Now if you really want to be an elitist and have more money then sense then how about an 8k monitor.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
I always thought it's odd that monitors are wider than they are tall. Isn't it far more convenient to use them, well, like we used to use paper?
If all we did was read papers on our monitors then maybe portrait (you really can get them) monitors would be the norm however a monitor can be used to display lots of different things so it is more practical to display on a landscape monitor. In fact any monitor that has an aspect ratio of greater than one is in effect a landscape monitor.
As for why most HDTV's and modern monitors have an aspect ratio of 16:9 that is a compromise between the many competing aspect ratios that are currently available. For a better understanding read this and there are many other sites that discuss this as well.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
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 provides a good amount of vertical real estate, but plenty of horizontal to fill my field of view and allow for multiple things to be displayed at once.
For TV, heck I could go even more than 16:9 if such a thing were standard. I was always partial to 1.85:1 3 perf and 2:1 Superscope for movies myself.
I used to do this, but in the end I switched them both back to landscape. Looking up and down is surprisingly tiring, but looking side to side is not. My screens are a little too big for a dual screen layout (23" maybe?) so the total width is a little uncomfortable and one screen is now directly ahead for 80% of what I do with the second screen offset for less frequent tasks.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
At work I've got two 2560x1440 displays (27" dells). I run one horizontal, and one vertical. It works out pretty well.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
At 1:1 ratio you maximize the area for a given diagonal. 26.5" 1:1 is much bigger than 27" 16:9.
Right, but going from a 1600x1200 monitor to 1920x1080 is not.
These days, a typical monitor is likely to be 16:9 or maybe 8:5 (aka 16:10).
In terms of viewing area, for the same diagonal measure an old-style 4:3 monitor has a larger viewing area than a widescreen. Basic math. Yes, a square would be optimum, but in recent years we have been heading in the opposite direction.
Eizo have been making lots of interesting monitors including 1x1 for a long time, eg
http://www.eizoglobal.com/prod...
http://www.eizoglobal.com/prod...
There are 4k (3840x2160 pixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio) monitors out there although you will pay for them
You won't pay much. We're now buying them as our default monitor because reasonable ones are down to about £300 - if you're using the machine for work, that's a negligible cost.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The human field of vision is wider than it is tall.
AFAIK Clear type / sub pixel rendering only works properly in the native monitor view.
Great that they are making these (though it would be nice to get them in HighDPI too). I'll certainly be getting a few.
(Currrently using 3x 1600x1200 20.1" screens, which is an excellent productivity setup, though the backlights are all beginning to fade).
While we're talking wishlits, give us a monitor that can go to 1200 lumens+ for outdoor use - I'd love to work outside in the summer time, though I need a monitor that can be viewed with sunglasses on, in partial/direct sunlight.
A square monitor would be okay, but it needs to be a more than 1920 pixels in each direction. If it was 2560, I would buy it.
A 28-inch ASUS 4K is 3840x2160 resolution (at 60Hz) and is $600. I bought a bunch of them for my group at work. Also supplied each person with a 24-inch Dell 1080p monitor. Everyone likes this dual-display setup.
I can't wait until we can just plug the display output directly to our brains and set the resolution so that it fill's our brain's entire video frame buffer.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
I have a 2560x1440 with a 1440x900 in portrait mode. If I ever upgrade, I'll get a second 1440x900 on the other side. They can be used for surround view, but nobody takes advantage of that, so instead, it usually holds a game on the main and a guide or IM on the side.
Learn to love Alaska
With paper (for technical reading), I mark 5+ pages, and flip back and forth, comparing different sections with each other. Reading a book for pleasure, I want a more narrow column than my screen, because you lose track of the line reading. Also, the columns don't work well because they often seem to be competing for the smallest type that doesn't generate complaints. Larger print, two columns is better. I keep my computer screen farther away than I keep books, so I like larger type, but it's not a vision problem. Just a preference.
Learn to love Alaska
We had Xerox word processors that had screens in portrait orientation. You could see exactly what your document would look like when printed.
They used 8 inch floppies for storage.
Now, get off my lawn.
Please explain why a MacBook wouldn't be compliant while running Windows or Parallels? I'd like to explain that to my friend running Windows CAD software on his...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) for HP servers was a godsend back when I managed a reasonably-sized server farm. Being able to completely re-install a whole rack of servers remotely was extremely nice when the server room was a 15 minute drive away and someone else had the IT department car.
Eat the rich.
Or, the most common approach used by document writeres: One monitor in landscape and a second monitor in portrait, with the desktop in the landscape one and the document being displayed in the protrait monitor. Works very nicely for me.
Nowadays most desktop environments use dual screens anyway.
Nice and interesting info about why monitors are landscape. I was jsut asking myself the same ;)
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Your error was that you replaced your monitors with new ones of lesser vertical pixel count. You should have bought 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 instead. Never skimp on monitors, keyboards and mice. They will generally outlast every other PC component you buy.
Eat the rich.
I'm sure we all know that we can rotate our monitors? When I run a two monitor setup on a stand I always flip one to portrait mode for internet browsing, document work, and coding.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
The purpose of a square screen is clearly not for personal viewing, but as a "module" for creating very large, giant screens (such as one would find in baseball stadiums, etc.). With a square screen as basic building block module, one can make any dimension, large screen. Usually giant screens are rectangular portrait or landscape orientation, but it can be any shape... even a circle if the circle size is extremely big, but that would probably be an unrealistic shape for a screen.
I'm a big fan of eizo monitors and they tend to produce stuff they know there is a niche for. This seems perfect for mfd use for a lot of different applications. I'm mainly familiar with the coloredge cx and cg series but most of their range ticks all the boxes for many people. I tend to design/edit/grade on a 27" screen and use a 20" just for tool panels and common controls I use whilst wanting to see adjustments large screen. I can utilise the screen realestate on the bigger screen for just workspace/pasteboard/footage and so on and declutter but have instant access to controls at the same time this way.
Thing with this kind of setup is the bigger the primary screen the better and the other screen doesn't matter so much and I'd rather have a CX271 or CG277 and 1 or 2 smaller screens than shrink the primary display to fit slightly bigger secondary/tertiary monitors onto my desk. Side monitors in portrait orientation doesn't always work well either so this seems like a good idea and that is just for my personal needs so I'd consider it but there are probably many more uses.