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?

Comments

Monitor Tiling!

[duck_rifted]

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.

ATC

[aquabat]

Air traffic controllers in Canada Use 2000x2000 pixel panels for the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System (CAATS); Pretty close.

Squarer is better.

[MarcAuslander]

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.

[Luckyo]

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.

Hooray!

[mccrew]

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

ObFry

[ihtoit]

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!

Re:Rotated

[Per Wigren]

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

Pivot Stand?

[marciot]

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

I'd be happy if 4:3 came back!

[BitterOak]

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:yes

[malacandrian]

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.

Re:yes

[Kjella]

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.

Re:16:9

[fnj]

Preposterous. Review the Pythagorean Theorem. The diagonal is the square root of the sum of the squares of the sides. A 24" 16x9 monitor is 20.9x11.8". A 24" 16x10 monitor is 20.3x12.7".

11.8" vs 12.7" is 0.9". How do you get "a few inches" out of that? The difference is about the size of a stamp.

Re:16:9

[ArchieBunker]

I was told there would be no math.