Strongly considering getting one of these and putting it in portrait as that would be much better for web content alongside my 2 1080p monitors. Anyone think that would be viable?
I don't understand how 1080x2560 is better for web content, but I think your main problem would be getting this monitor in that orientation to begin with, since it doesn't look like it has any VESA mounting for an arm that can lift the screen off the table that high.
Also, web content is now being made for 1280 width in mind, so wouldn't you be better off with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor in portrait mode?
Except there's no delivery medium for 21:9 movies. Blu-Ray and streaming services put the image into a 16:9 frame anyway, so the only way you're going to fill a 21:9 frame is zoom into the 16:9 image. That's gonna look wonderful.
I wonder if you missed the first paragraph of the conclusion:
"They’re also fantastic for watching movies on that are shot in scope format."
Which I would presume means Chris actually watched a film in Cinemascope. Blu Ray supports anamorphic widescreen and can map a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1, so the only worry is Netflix.
Blu-ray does NOT support anamorphic encoding. Believe me, I would be ecstatic if that were true! 16:9 is all we get whether the content is scope (2.35/39/40), 1.78, or 4:3, wrapped up in letterbox or pillarbox black bars.
An upscale for a typical scope Blu-ray (actual content is ~1920x810) to one of these screens (2560x1080) isn't so terrible, really. That's only a 33% upscale. With a good scaler or scaler software, it should look fine... but does anyone really care about black bars so much that they would buy this screen?
I would buy this for gaming and that's about it, but only if it did 120Hz. Seriously, WhenTF are we going to get more 120Hz native displays?
I've rotated my 2560x1600 monitor a few times. It's too tall. Even with the stand at minimum the top of the screen was too high to look at without tilting my head. If you want a monitor for portrait use stick to a 20 or 22" model.
You don't need this tall a monitor to do what you want; I'm currently running a triple monitor setup: two 1080P's and one (rotated) Dell @ 1200x1920. Thanks to the "keyhole problem" (http://www.aristeia.com/TKP/), virtually *every* website works better in a vertical orientation. Just make sure the rotated display is an IPS, S-PVA, or similar panel that gives decent viewing angles. A TN panel would look horrible as you move your head side-to-side. Once you get used to this setup you'll never go back, unless you're into gaming.
For the past few years I have been using a Dell 30" 2560x1600 in landscape, sandwiched by two Dell 20" 1600x1200 displays in portrait mode. http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/shed-to-office-conver... With the two side monitors rotated, all three monitors end up being the same height and pixel density... :-) http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/ultimate-triple-monit... (sorry the post is somewhat confusing, it was quickly put together when I was planning and initially installing... I really should update it!)
I have a 27x9H which is a similar style to this one. There are NO VESA mounts and the stand mounts similar to most LCD TVs. One option is all that is available. Confirm that you can rotate it if necessary. Personally, I mounted my old gateway 22" on a monoprice desk mount and rotate it vertically when I need it.
I have the Dell U2913 in portrait mode attached to a Thinkpad W520 with another Dell 24" as the landscape 1080p panel. With the laptop LCD running Metro in the center stack the two choices make working super easy.
Road and Track for instance looks perfect in p-mode where my banking sites look better in standard l-mode
Although its nice not to be stuck in the old 1080p monitors, id like to see something with more sensible resolutions. Something between 1600p and 4k would be nice, or even 4k 60hz at decent prices....
3200 x 1800 resolution exists as it is found on some 15" notebooks. I wouldn't mind such a resolution on a 24" desktop display.
There is also 3280 x 2048 resolution displays used for medical imaging but they're prohibitory expensive. 4K displays like the Asus PQ321Q are actually cheaper.
8,000 cd/m^2 is REALLY bright - it's about half a percent (0.5%) of the brightness of the sun. Half a percent might not seem like much, but we're talking about the sun, which is REALLY bright.
Assuming your comparison is using cd/m^2 for both and are measuring the sun as seen from the Earth; at any reasonable viewing distance that monitor would have a higher total luminosity than the sun.
Hmm, would love to see a few images from FPS to see what they look like on a 21:9 - do I get useful additional info or is everything so fishbowled or out of my direct sight that it isn't a positive?
There is a gallery in my prior 21:9 display review with some gaming images comparing 16:9 to 21:9 screen area. Those can be found here: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2630
>>"The lowest black level any meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001, which would mean a peak white level of 8,000 cd/m^2."
Actually, that's not quite fully accurate. Some expensive million-dollar meters can measure light at the SINGLE photon levels (Hint: They're used to detect neutrinos). There are some lab-quality meters at the thousand-dollar level that can measure less than 0.0001cd/m2. It is only a simple matter of how much you're willing to pay for a light meter.
A more scientifically accurate way to say this is "The lowest black level any _consumer_ meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001"
I'm only referring to meters that would be used for measuring displays, like this. At the high end there is the Konica Minolta CS-2000 for $26,000 that can measure down to 0.003 cd/m2 and the Klein K10-A for $5,500 that measures down to 0.00006 cd/m2. Regardless, any contrast number out there that is past 100,000:1 and it's an OLED is playing games most likely.
In your spec listing you mention 1 Year warranty, However in the EU the minimum warranty for all electronic devices is 2 years.
And incidentally, because most people are not aware of that, many shops and manufacturers pretend they are doing you a special favor by giving you 2 years warranty., but hey that's commercialism. And some are quite incredibly rude and don't mention that fact when they try to sell you additional extended warranties, including big companies like apple I hear.
Quite outrageous to not have VESA mounting holes on a monitor in my view, but I guess they sell anyway so it's not going to end any time soon that manufacturers do that.
On the input lag, it isn't split up like the other screens are shown, the first segment showing input lag and the second segement showing pixel response times, but on this display is it 10ms pixel response and no input lag at all ?
No, this has been discussed as using SMTT allowed for breaking it up into two separate measurements. Since SMTT is no longer available and the license has expired, I can't use it to test anymore. Now I just have a single lag number that encompasses both of them. It's unfortunate but the way it is.
It would be VERY useful if somebody would actually test a 21:9 monitor for gaming, and not just speculate on "how cool it would be for games". Because the only thing that's stopping me from buying such a monitor is the fear it wouldn't be compatible enough with major gaming titles...
You can read the prior 21:9 monitor review from LG to see more details on how I found it with gaming. I found most titles worked fine, though Diablo III didn't when I tried to test it with that.
This is getting so ridiculous. Movie makers need to just all agree to use 16:9 in their films, and if they need more in the shot width wise they can just zoom out. 2.41:1 ratio, yeah, I've seen that. One of my largest monster peeves. Since it's not a pet peeve because I'm right any anyone who thinks you need something wider than 16:9 is OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!
This post is a good example of speaking from ignorance. You clearly know nothing about film, movies, aspect ratios, monitors, etc. I don't think you're even aware of what you're suggesting.
Most already-released movies are wider than 16:9, cropping them is obviously unacceptable.
Our eyes are situated side by side, not top and bottom. We have a ~180 degree horizontal FOV.
There just isn't very much to look at on the ground and in the sky.
16:9 is bad for web content. Portrait is better, because we scroll up and down to read, not left and right. It's also inferior to 16:10 because you simply lose the vertical pixels.
I don't mind using 16:9 myself, but it's VERY far from ideal.
Hello - my apologies if this is a dumb question, but in other's experience with 2560x1080 monitors (I have the Dell variant), do games actually render the full 2560x1080? Or do they render 1920x1080 and then stretch it? Given that it is a non standard resolution? Any insight appreciated!
Does anybody know if an Overscan-Mode is availible, so PS3, XBOX 360 games could be played in "full-screen" and not only in 1980x1080 which black edge? Thanks guys.
Any issue running a macbook air with this monitor. I have a gaming machine on the side, but use the Air for work. Won't need all the bells and whistles, just want to make sure the integrated crud 4000 will actually make the display work. Thanks
Format: It all depends where you use it for but I use it daily for trading - I love it above the others. (also had a 24" 16:10 and have a 27" 16:9). Only issue I have with mine, a Lenovo U2913WM is that it does not sit exactly horizontal because one side is slightly heavier than the other... (hence me investigating others)
It is also very handy to compare two documents next to each other or for very wide spreadsheets.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
Back to Article
dylan522p - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Strongly considering getting one of these and putting it in portrait as that would be much better for web content alongside my 2 1080p monitors. Anyone think that would be viable?meacupla - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I don't understand how 1080x2560 is better for web content, but I think your main problem would be getting this monitor in that orientation to begin with, since it doesn't look like it has any VESA mounting for an arm that can lift the screen off the table that high.Also, web content is now being made for 1280 width in mind, so wouldn't you be better off with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor in portrait mode?
peterfares - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
You would. These 2560x1080 monitors are basically ONLY good for movies and some games.OscarGoldman - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Except there's no delivery medium for 21:9 movies. Blu-Ray and streaming services put the image into a 16:9 frame anyway, so the only way you're going to fill a 21:9 frame is zoom into the 16:9 image. That's gonna look wonderful.michaelheath - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I wonder if you missed the first paragraph of the conclusion:"They’re also fantastic for watching movies on that are shot in scope format."
Which I would presume means Chris actually watched a film in Cinemascope. Blu Ray supports anamorphic widescreen and can map a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1, so the only worry is Netflix.
nathanddrews - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Blu-ray does NOT support anamorphic encoding. Believe me, I would be ecstatic if that were true! 16:9 is all we get whether the content is scope (2.35/39/40), 1.78, or 4:3, wrapped up in letterbox or pillarbox black bars.An upscale for a typical scope Blu-ray (actual content is ~1920x810) to one of these screens (2560x1080) isn't so terrible, really. That's only a 33% upscale. With a good scaler or scaler software, it should look fine... but does anyone really care about black bars so much that they would buy this screen?
I would buy this for gaming and that's about it, but only if it did 120Hz. Seriously, WhenTF are we going to get more 120Hz native displays?
RocketChild - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Asus's other 29" model like this one has VESA mounts. Model PB298QJlHADJOE - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
longcat. 'nuff said.DanNeely - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I've rotated my 2560x1600 monitor a few times. It's too tall. Even with the stand at minimum the top of the screen was too high to look at without tilting my head. If you want a monitor for portrait use stick to a 20 or 22" model.spacecadet34 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
You don't need this tall a monitor to do what you want; I'm currently running a triple monitor setup: two 1080P's and one (rotated) Dell @ 1200x1920. Thanks to the "keyhole problem" (http://www.aristeia.com/TKP/), virtually *every* website works better in a vertical orientation. Just make sure the rotated display is an IPS, S-PVA, or similar panel that gives decent viewing angles. A TN panel would look horrible as you move your head side-to-side. Once you get used to this setup you'll never go back, unless you're into gaming.coolhardware - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
For the past few years I have been using a Dell 30" 2560x1600 in landscape, sandwiched by two Dell 20" 1600x1200 displays in portrait mode.http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/shed-to-office-conver...
With the two side monitors rotated, all three monitors end up being the same height and pixel density... :-)
http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/ultimate-triple-monit...
(sorry the post is somewhat confusing, it was quickly put together when I was planning and initially installing... I really should update it!)
compcons - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I have a 27x9H which is a similar style to this one. There are NO VESA mounts and the stand mounts similar to most LCD TVs. One option is all that is available. Confirm that you can rotate it if necessary. Personally, I mounted my old gateway 22" on a monoprice desk mount and rotate it vertically when I need it.Nagorak - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Sounds to me like you're just going to end up with a crick in your neck.sjpxk992013 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I have the Dell U2913 in portrait mode attached to a Thinkpad W520 with another Dell 24" as the landscape 1080p panel. With the laptop LCD running Metro in the center stack the two choices make working super easy.Road and Track for instance looks perfect in p-mode where my banking sites look better in standard l-mode
ComputerGuy2006 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Although its nice not to be stuck in the old 1080p monitors, id like to see something with more sensible resolutions. Something between 1600p and 4k would be nice, or even 4k 60hz at decent prices....Kevin G - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
3200 x 1800 resolution exists as it is found on some 15" notebooks. I wouldn't mind such a resolution on a 24" desktop display.There is also 3280 x 2048 resolution displays used for medical imaging but they're prohibitory expensive. 4K displays like the Asus PQ321Q are actually cheaper.
blanarahul - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Really, really awesome review. I especially loved the "Contrast Uniformity" chart. I hope others would do it too.althaz - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
8,000 cd/m^2 is REALLY bright - it's about half a percent (0.5%) of the brightness of the sun. Half a percent might not seem like much, but we're talking about the sun, which is REALLY bright.DanNeely - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Assuming your comparison is using cd/m^2 for both and are measuring the sun as seen from the Earth; at any reasonable viewing distance that monitor would have a higher total luminosity than the sun.Geek tanning both anyone?
piroroadkill - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Wow, a monitor that wide is incredibly ugly.Icehawk - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Hmm, would love to see a few images from FPS to see what they look like on a 21:9 - do I get useful additional info or is everything so fishbowled or out of my direct sight that it isn't a positive?cheinonen - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
There is a gallery in my prior 21:9 display review with some gaming images comparing 16:9 to 21:9 screen area. Those can be found here: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2630mdrejhon - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
>>"The lowest black level any meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001, which would mean a peak white level of 8,000 cd/m^2."Actually, that's not quite fully accurate. Some expensive million-dollar meters can measure light at the SINGLE photon levels (Hint: They're used to detect neutrinos). There are some lab-quality meters at the thousand-dollar level that can measure less than 0.0001cd/m2. It is only a simple matter of how much you're willing to pay for a light meter.
A more scientifically accurate way to say this is "The lowest black level any _consumer_ meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001"
cheinonen - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I'm only referring to meters that would be used for measuring displays, like this. At the high end there is the Konica Minolta CS-2000 for $26,000 that can measure down to 0.003 cd/m2 and the Klein K10-A for $5,500 that measures down to 0.00006 cd/m2. Regardless, any contrast number out there that is past 100,000:1 and it's an OLED is playing games most likely.Wwhat - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
In your spec listing you mention 1 Year warranty, However in the EU the minimum warranty for all electronic devices is 2 years.And incidentally, because most people are not aware of that, many shops and manufacturers pretend they are doing you a special favor by giving you 2 years warranty., but hey that's commercialism.
And some are quite incredibly rude and don't mention that fact when they try to sell you additional extended warranties, including big companies like apple I hear.
Wwhat - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Quite outrageous to not have VESA mounting holes on a monitor in my view, but I guess they sell anyway so it's not going to end any time soon that manufacturers do that.cbrownx88 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I'd have already purchased one if this panel had VESA mounts or 120hz/lightstrobe.Larzy - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
On the input lag, it isn't split up like the other screens are shown, the first segment showing input lag and the second segement showing pixel response times, but on this display is it 10ms pixel response and no input lag at all ?Larzy - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
If that's true, then 9ms (rather) it's certainly one of the best 21:9 for gaming.cheinonen - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
No, this has been discussed as using SMTT allowed for breaking it up into two separate measurements. Since SMTT is no longer available and the license has expired, I can't use it to test anymore. Now I just have a single lag number that encompasses both of them. It's unfortunate but the way it is.JJ_Judge - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It would be VERY useful if somebody would actually test a 21:9 monitor for gaming, and not just speculate on "how cool it would be for games". Because the only thing that's stopping me from buying such a monitor is the fear it wouldn't be compatible enough with major gaming titles...cheinonen - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
You can read the prior 21:9 monitor review from LG to see more details on how I found it with gaming. I found most titles worked fine, though Diablo III didn't when I tried to test it with that.flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Saw one in Canada Computers. Loaded a 1080p youtube video of BF3 being played at 2560*1080. Seemed very cool.Hrel - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
This is getting so ridiculous. Movie makers need to just all agree to use 16:9 in their films, and if they need more in the shot width wise they can just zoom out. 2.41:1 ratio, yeah, I've seen that. One of my largest monster peeves. Since it's not a pet peeve because I'm right any anyone who thinks you need something wider than 16:9 is OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
This post is a good example of speaking from ignorance. You clearly know nothing about film, movies, aspect ratios, monitors, etc. I don't think you're even aware of what you're suggesting.Most already-released movies are wider than 16:9, cropping them is obviously unacceptable.
Our eyes are situated side by side, not top and bottom. We have a ~180 degree horizontal FOV.
There just isn't very much to look at on the ground and in the sky.
16:9 is bad for web content. Portrait is better, because we scroll up and down to read, not left and right. It's also inferior to 16:10 because you simply lose the vertical pixels.
I don't mind using 16:9 myself, but it's VERY far from ideal.
peckiro - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
There obviously is a lack of major antipsychotic medication in a poster here.xaml - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
What aspect ratio and resolution does this poster have?VN_Tran - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
It so amazing !!!johnnyboy101 - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Hello - my apologies if this is a dumb question, but in other's experience with 2560x1080 monitors (I have the Dell variant), do games actually render the full 2560x1080? Or do they render 1920x1080 and then stretch it? Given that it is a non standard resolution? Any insight appreciated!gatygun - Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - link
render in fullidiot consumer - Monday, November 4, 2013 - link
Seems to be best so far. in $ termsMaariN - Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - link
Does anybody know if an Overscan-Mode is availible, so PS3, XBOX 360 games could be played in "full-screen" and not only in 1980x1080 which black edge? Thanks guys.cm5cm5 - Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - link
Any issue running a macbook air with this monitor. I have a gaming machine on the side, but use the Air for work. Won't need all the bells and whistles, just want to make sure the integrated crud 4000 will actually make the display work. ThanksAmadeusMozart - Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - link
Format: It all depends where you use it for but I use it daily for trading - I love it above the others. (also had a 24" 16:10 and have a 27" 16:9). Only issue I have with mine, a Lenovo U2913WM is that it does not sit exactly horizontal because one side is slightly heavier than the other... (hence me investigating others)It is also very handy to compare two documents next to each other or for very wide spreadsheets.