Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LG Introduces Monitor With 21:9 Aspect Ratio

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the my-neck-hurts-already dept.

Displays 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."

cancel ×

311 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Waste Line (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263687)

ya get it????

Re:Waste Line (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#42263875)

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.

Re:Waste Line (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#42263897)

anandtech wasn't particularly pleased with the monitor, either. [anandtech.com]

Superwide + can't rotate 90 degrees + poor refresh rate? you bet.

Re:Waste Line (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#42264189)

anandtech wasn't particularly pleased with the monitor, either. [anandtech.com]

Superwide + can't rotate 90 degrees + poor refresh rate? you bet.

Also, the resolution is 2560x1080. My cellphone has more pixels than that (at least in the vertical direction).

Re:Waste Line (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#42264145)

Dock everything to the left side..... sounds like Unity.

WTFGA (5, Funny)

spongman (182339) | about 2 years ago | (#42263725)

great. just waiting for laptops to follow this format as they inevitably will. then we'll be able to read up to 3 lines of text at a time!

Re:WTFGA (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#42263755)

If it comes to that I'll just learn braille and get one of those readers, same thing. 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. Is the same thing happening with monitors? Are we going to keep making them wider and wider (laptop + desktop) and taller and taller (phone + tablet) until the 4:3 is a thing of the past?

Re:WTFGA (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42263943)

Are we going to keep making them wider and wider (laptop + desktop) and taller and taller (phone + tablet) until the 4:3 is a thing of the past?

I think that's already underway. Many cameras are moving in that direction, I am not sure you could still buy a 4:3 monitor any more.

That aspect ratio may have been around since the ancient Greeks, but it's quickly going away.

Re:WTFGA (1)

vyvepe (809573) | about 2 years ago | (#42264185)

I am not sure you could still buy a 4:3 monitor any more.

4:3 (1280x1024) is common for 19" LCD. Newegg has a lot of them.

Re:WTFGA (3, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#42264243)

That's 5:4 aspect ratio.

Re:WTFGA (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42264029)

What is a normal sized TV?

Assuming the cost between what you think is normal and what is widely available why bother?

Personally I am hoping those 80" 4k beasts come down in price quickly.

Re:WTFGA (1, Offtopic)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#42263901)

great. just waiting for laptops to follow this format as they inevitably will. then we'll be able to read up to 3 lines of text at a time!

And they might find it in their heart to put the number pad back on to average laptops again instead of reserving them for the hideously overpriced (and hard to justify to management) ones...

Re:WTFGA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264295)

I just acquired my first ever laptop WITH a number pad - a new Dell Precision with an 18" wide screen - and I hate it. The damn thing is so wide it doesn't fit in my lap. It's awkward using it on a couch and I couldn't imagine trying to use this thing on a train or airplane. And since the keyboard and screen are one unit, the part of the keyboard that I actually use is offset to the left side of the screen. I like my hands centered in front of the monitor.

There are USB number pads for the few people who actually need a number pad. For the rest of us, it's not ergonomic on a laptop.

Re:WTFGA (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42263903)

Won't be long before laptops look like ironing boards.

Re:WTFGA (4, Informative)

MikeyC01 (231948) | about 2 years ago | (#42264093)

great. just waiting for laptops to follow this format as they inevitably will. then we'll be able to read up to 3 lines of text at a time!

Toshiba's had one for a few weeks (at least)

http://us.toshiba.com/computers/laptops/satellite/U840W/U845W-S410/ [toshiba.com]

DISPLAY RESOLUTION
1792x768 (HD+), 21:9 aspect ratio, Supports 720p content

Re:WTFGA (2)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#42264121)

In the future, monitors will just be a thin ribbon of pixels.
Hey buddy we have a really great 70" x 5" screen, but forget about that technical mumbo jumbo, it's 70 inches wide! Perfect for the living room! :D

Re:WTFGA (0)

chad.koehler (859648) | about 2 years ago | (#42264173)

But at 70"X5", that's only a 65" screen by traditional diagonal measurements.

Re:WTFGA (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#42264281)

You realize that you can't have a diagonal less than your larger dimension, right?

(70^2+5^2)^.5=70.1 inch diameter.

Re:WTFGA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264137)

They're already here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/putting-the-wide-in-widescreen-the-toshiba-satellite-u845w-reviewed/

Re:WTFGA (1)

chispito (1870390) | about 2 years ago | (#42264209)

great. just waiting for laptops to follow this format as they inevitably will. then we'll be able to read up to 3 lines of text at a time!

Good thing three lines is also three paragraphs! Sorry coders.

Re:WTFGA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264223)

Toshiba already has one that does. A 21:9 laptop with Secure Butt and Windows 8... no hope left for humanity.

The most important question (1, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#42263739)

But does it run Linux?

Re:The most important question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263861)

Ubuntu £inux is the death of computing and the hacker culture. Mark has made it clear that he intends to keep making ubuntu more and more oriented to commercialism until eventually it is just as ad ridden and broken as Android. Ubuntu will support the TPM and secure booting so it can be pre installed on computers and the UEFI firmware will be locked so I won't even be able to install windows 8 on it. And this is progress? Disgusting.

Re:The most important question (2, Funny)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#42263893)

No, unfortunately, because they elected to use a 386 CPU.

Re:The most important question (2)

instagib (879544) | about 2 years ago | (#42263951)

Sure, just use:
xterm -geometry 200

Waste line? (0)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | about 2 years ago | (#42263751)

Waste line? Did you waistline? Or was that a rather clever pun on consumer culture?

Re:Waste line? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#42263813)

I'm voting for pun. Alternatively, one of these in portrait mode... that's a lot of lines of code.

GUI designers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263753)

But OS GUI designs need to catch up to the ever horizontally expanding waste line of our monitors.

Yeah. My hope is that Windows 9 will offer some way to divide the screen into multiple views so that more than one document/application can be shown at once. Not just little tiles that zoom up to full-screen applications. Kind of like little, virtual screens that you could open to provide access to your content, like a doorway.

They could call them "Doors."

I'm surprised that nobody has come up with this already.

Re:GUI designers (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#42264023)

window key + arrows, they'll need to add more spaces as things get wider though. hth

Re:GUI designers (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#42264039)

aero tiles?

Re:GUI designers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264261)

I think what you are looking for is called a window. You don't have to maximize it.

That being said - why do they bother making monitors wider? I need to see more lines, not more of the same number of lines. Not sure what this is good for.

Most useful for Snap (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42263759)

A 21:9 (which reduces to 7:3) monitor would be good for drawing two windows side by side at 7:6 aspect ratio, using features such as Tile Vertically (in Windows since 3.1 if not earlier), Snap (in Windows 7), or analogous tiling features of other window managers [wikipedia.org] . That'd make it easier to see your code editor and the documentation at once in an IDE, or seeing both the input and output video at once in a video processing program like VirtualDub, etc.

Re:Most useful for Snap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263845)

That'd make it easier to see your code editor and the documentation at once in an IDE, or seeing both the input and output video at once in a video processing program like VirtualDub, etc.

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

Compare to a dual monitor (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42264043)

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:Most useful for Snap (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#42264207)

Or just multiple windows. I can get 3 emacs windows side by side on mine, but I have to hide the terminals behind them with a slight gap so I can click them. If even wider I could just put a couple terminals to the side vertically.

I am a big confused about the article's comment that OS GUI designs would need to catch up to this. There is nothing the OS or GUI needs to do here.

Flip Monitor 90-Degerees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263763)

makes it a lot easier seeing a whole page of a document, and I don't need to scroll as much for websites.

Re:Flip Monitor 90-Degerees (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#42264027)

Plus, if you add a webcam, it can act as a full length mirror.

Programming (1)

cozziewozzie (344246) | about 2 years ago | (#42263771)

Just think -- how many source files you can have side-by-side on this baby :)

Many programmers already use two monitors side-by-side in a multi-head configuration, so I don't see why this would be any different.

Arrgh! Where's my 16:10 (5, Insightful)

HeyBob! (111243) | about 2 years ago | (#42263773)

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

Re:Arrgh! Where's my 16:10 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42264073)

I think you mean 8:5.

What the hell is up with aspect ratios not being properly reduced?

Re:Arrgh! Where's my 16:10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264111)

Because 16x9 is also a thing, and many people prefer to know the compare between 16x9 and 16x10 without manipulating the numbers.

Also, Macs are still largely 16:10.

Re:Arrgh! Where's my 16:10 (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#42264193)

3.2:2?

"waste line" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263775)

I see what you did there.

#whitespace https://plus.google.com/+MikeElgan/posts/GbvMqW71V2w

Some cinephile will just want a Cinemascope ratio (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42263777)

Where does it end, people?!?!?

Re:Some cinephile will just want a Cinemascope rat (1)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#42264123)

And they'd be angry that very few films are shot that way. This 21:9 monitor is a waste of time and space.

Just more dead space (1)

Hall (962) | about 2 years ago | (#42263789)

Ughhh, just more dead, white space in people's browser windows. I mean, it seems to me that 98% of computer users run ALL application windows full-screen ?

Re:Just more dead space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264135)

That is not a question.

Re:Just more dead space (1)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#42264205)

Yep. that's why my work setup is 3x 1280x1024 monitors, lots of screen space with little waste.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263795)

A new monitor is now news?

A monitor you'd never want on a computer at that?

Just slap up some 'news' that says YOUR AD HERE.

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263805)

What's next? 7:3?

OT: Splitting physical displays in Windows? (4, Interesting)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#42263807)

The concept of an ultra-wide monitor makes me think of one of the frustration I have with increasingly large displays and window arrangement.

It's all well and good to have a huge display or several of them at high resolutions, but it's super annoying to layout windows in a way that lets you see multiple application windows on the screen at the same time. I have two 1600xwhatever displays, but there are times where it would seem more beneficial to have three 1024x768 displays for application window management, even though it would be marginally lower total resolution.

It would be nice to be able to split a display, especially wide screen displays, into virtual monitors so that arranging app windows would be easier. I've found some utilities that seem able to remember window positions, but that assumes I always want the same layout (almost never) and they almost always suffer from the usual glitchyness.

Is there anything that does this?

Re: OT: Splitting physical displays in Windows? (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#42263849)

I dunno man, I just snap applications to either side of the monitor in KDE. It seems to work well.

Doesn't Windows do this? I thought that's what aero-snap was.

--
BMO

Re: OT: Splitting physical displays in Windows? (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#42263963)

Windows can do it with two screens, but not with the mouse (the mouse gesture to dock to the side of the monitor is to drag and drop the window against the edge of the desktop area, you can't dock to the edge of the monitors where they touch).

To get the docking effect with two screens, you have to use the Windows + left/right arrow key, which will dock the current window to the left or right side of whatever monitor its on. Repeatedly pressing it will cycle through the monitors, as well.

Re: OT: Splitting physical displays in Windows? (1)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 2 years ago | (#42263899)

Pre-Win7:
CTRL+Click on the tasks in taskbar, Right click, Tile horizontally/vertically

Win7:
WIN+Left/Right (and to a lesser extent: up and down)
WIN+SHIFT+Left/Right (for multimonitor cases)

Also, AMD has Hydragrid, which was pretty decent, last time I checked. But in Win7, I find it largely superfluous.

Re: OT: Splitting physical displays in Windows? (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#42264085)

Winsplit Revolution [winsplit-revolution.com] is pretty good for this and free. The default settings are ctrl-alt-numpad key moves the window to that section of the display (so 7 would move it to the top left taking up 1/6th of the screen). Hitting the same combo again gives the top left but going 2/3 of the way horizontal, again gives 1/3. The other number pad keys work similarly and the arrow keys move the current window between monitors. I think there's combos for maximizing and minimizing as well.

Better for television? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#42263817)

I realize the hell it would cause due to standards and current format output from BD/DVD. But wouldn't this make more sense as a display for watching movies rather than for a computer?

1366x768? Only if she's 11" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263833)

I like big monitors and I cannot lie
No other brother can deny
When a display walks in with an itty bitty bezel
and a 21:9 aspect ratio I get sprung

Re:1366x768? Only if she's 11" (1)

edrawr (1572199) | about 2 years ago | (#42264313)

I wish I had mod points. This made my afternoon.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263851)

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would anybody want this? All of our menu bars, status displays, ribbons, etc*, are horizontal bars on the top or bottom of their respective areas. Why would we keep making those bars wider and wider without increasing the actual amount of area for content on the screen?

Yes, I know that the real reason is so that the same factory machinery can churn out TV screens, so it's effective to have a panel that is essentially a TV in shape, but that doesn't mean I like it.

*Fuck Unity.

Rotate 90 Degrees (4, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | about 2 years ago | (#42263863)

YES! I need one of these for work to rotate 90 degrees so I can maintain these 10K+ line functions without scrolling for an hour, functions written by our offshore friends who only definition of refactoring is trying to un-FOIL a binomial a second time.

Re:Rotate 90 Degrees (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263979)

That is the best use for this. I'd get one for this purpose, or general reading and browsing.

Tallscreen > widescreen.

Fuck this wide shit (5, Interesting)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 2 years ago | (#42263867)

Wide screens? More like SHORT screens! That's how they sell you a smaller screen with the same "inches" (hypotenuse instead of area). You have to get a very large monitor if you want a decent amount of vertical space.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42263941)

Agreed. Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging. (Without turning the monitor sideways, but then it's too skinny.) It seems like everyone thinks you only use your PC to watch movies.

I don't think I've ever watched a movie on my PC. A trailer, maybe.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264061)

Fortunately, the PC consumer market is gradually being replaced by the tablet consumer market. Eventually, the only people using desktop PCs will be professionals and enthusiasts, who typically won't even consider using the 1080p crap.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42264321)

Fortunately, the PC consumer market is gradually being replaced by the tablet consumer market. Eventually, the only people using desktop PCs will be professionals and enthusiasts, who typically won't even consider using the 1080p crap.

That would be fine. And as soon as Adobe releases real versions of photoshop and lightroom for tablets, (instead of the toy apps they have now) I'll dump the PC and never look back. But until then, I'm locked in.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 2 years ago | (#42264181)

Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging.

Actually, 27" monitors at WQHD (2560x1440) seem to be catching on in South Korea, so you can find them easily on eBay for less than $400. Very tempting. But it's still as I said, you have to buy a huge monitor to get some vertical space.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42264293)

Trying to find a monitor these days that's 1280 tall or greater can be challenging.

Actually, 27" monitors at WQHD (2560x1440) seem to be catching on in South Korea, so you can find them easily on eBay for less than $400. Very tempting. But it's still as I said, you have to buy a huge monitor to get some vertical space.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, if they were color-accurate enough for serious Photoshop work. I'm certainly not against more resolution per se, but merely adding more horizontal doesn't buy much.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 2 years ago | (#42264297)

What's funny, is that it has the same 2560 pixel horizontal resolution as the Apple Cinema Display, with only 1080 pixels vertically, where the Apple has 1440. They are the same price.

Apple is selling a display with 25% more pixels for the same price, and in an aspect ratio that's good for EDITING movies, rather than watching them. Well done, LG!

Re:Fuck this wide shit (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 2 years ago | (#42264319)

Note: most MSRP on the Cinema Display is $999, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to find it for the $799 that the above post states.

Re:Fuck this wide shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264335)

And poor math skills.

21:9? Seriously? On Slashdot?

Is this a 'real' aspect ratio? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42263873)

Is this a real pixel aspect ratio, or a stupid artifact and trickery?

I've seen "widescreen" monitors that take a 4:3 aspect ratio pixel count into a widescreen monitor (*cough* Dell *cough*).

It's maybe useful for people who want to use their computer to watch movies, but as an actual computer monitor it was a complete joke. A circle drawn on screen was an oval, text was wide and flat. It was 'widescreen' only in the imaginations of marketing.

Any time I look at a widescreen monitor now, I check the specs, and a lot of them have this crap. Or they've made a slightly wide screen version of 1024x768 -- woo, you extended a resolution we had in '91. For working on a monitor, I don't see a lot of value in this format.

And, really, anything trying to introduce a new aspect ratio is like someone trying to introduce yet another TV spec or a DVD variation -- why the heck would I gamble on a new format that is new, unsupported, and not likely to last? A handful of people will buy these, and then discover it was something which didn't catch on and goes unsupported before long.

Re:Is this a 'real' aspect ratio? (1)

geekboybt (866398) | about 2 years ago | (#42263955)

Well, that's easy to calculate given the specifications listed in the article.

21/9 = 2.33
2560/1080 = 2.37

They're not perfectly square pixels, but close to it.

English, please? (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#42263881)

The word is "waistline". "Waste" is what comes out of one's ass, or the quality of text often used in Slashdot articles.

Re:English, please? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42263957)

Mod up...

699.7 X 387 X 208.5 mm? (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#42263885)

20 cm thick?

Re:699.7 X 387 X 208.5 mm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264025)

The dimentions are including the base...

Re:699.7 X 387 X 208.5 mm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264057)

Dude, the base!

Square monitors are best in a sense (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#42263909)

We don't need even more disproportionate aspect ratios. It's pointless. Even if we consider the field of vision the eye can see is closer to 2:1 rather than 1:1, consider the following:

s - b - c - d - h
e - 1 - 3 - 2 - y
g - 7 - 5 - 9 - a
o - 8 - 4 - 6 - k
r - n - z - u - w

Look at the central digit - 5, and try to determine the outer digits whilst staying focused on the "5". It gets progressively harder the further out you go.

Now consider a widescreen monitor, and apply what we've learnt to that. Detail will resolve horizontally just fine, but vertically, there's a jarring loss of relative 'resolvable detail' (square foot for square foot relative to a more square-like monitor). The mind subconsciously notices the 'missing' stuff at the top and bottom, even if the eye is looking directly in the center of the screen.

In this perspective, the perfect monitor shape is a circle, and a square monitor comes a close second.

waistline or waste line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263911)

Maybe I'm just missing the pun

Bring back 4:3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263913)

It's more useful for everyone who doesn't just buy a PC to watch videos. Thats what my TV is for, thats what my tablet is for. My PC is for getting work done, surfing the web, reading documents. Bring back 4:3!

Similar to dual 4:3 monitors (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Why an issue for GUI designers. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#42263939)

Ok I can see when they went from 4:3 to 16:9, it created some issues, as a lot of software had that aspect ratio more or less fixed in. But in an age of screens with different resolutions, and resizable Windows is the new aspect ratio that big of a deal? I don't think so. Most new design is less about pixel location from top left but from the different spots. For the most part information is left aligned, right aligned, or centered. Data elements with more data than most screens can hold are often width at a percentage of the screen, and some mechanism of scrolling is available.

But really after 640x480 most applications GUI were not as pixel perfect as before as to fit in windows of various sizes.

Reminds me of a decades old sketch. (5, Funny)

aix tom (902140) | about 2 years ago | (#42263945)

In a German comedy show (back in the 70s or early 80s) they presented an "ultra-wide-cimema-maxi-super-scope or something" format, where they presented a 100m dash run "in it's entirety" on screen from start to finish without panning or zooming. It was like about a 160:9 ratio. They apologized for the "slight black bars at the bottom and top" when presented on the 4:3 TV sets. Which was basically completely black with 2-3 scan lines lit in the middle.

Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263961)

WTF is that crap???

Unity in Ubuntu rocks!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263965)

That's a strong point to Unity in Ubuntu. Bar is at the left of the screen. :-)

Ben-Hur now watchable at home. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42263973)

Only took half a century!

Get back to me when its 21:10 (1)

h2okies (1203490) | about 2 years ago | (#42263999)

otherwise its a waste of desktop space and documents wont fit in my ever expanding VERTICAL line...

"OMG I HAS BLACK BARS!" Really? is that really such a problem?

Golden Ratio (2)

faldore (221970) | about 2 years ago | (#42264013)

Please use Golden Ratio.
This is the best ratio, it is natural and beautiful.
16:10

Re:Golden Ratio (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42264153)

This is the best ratio, it is natural and beautiful.

Because it has some intrinsic property that makes it so, or because everyone just believes that to be true?

Bloody, bloody, bloody.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264035)

death to it, with the idiot, who envisioned this aspect ratio!

that sounds awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264075)

i hope nobody buys it. companies need to stop making this garbage.

EMACS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264087)

Is there any way to get emacs to have multiple side-by-side windows (or panels) showing the same buffer and scrolling concurrently? So that I could look at three side-by-side pages of the program file concurrently and treat it as one giant emacs window? It's either that or I start turning these monitors on their side...

Rubber neck (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42264217)

That's what you'll need with this thing, unless it can slide back and forth like a typewriter carriage. It'll be a great second monitor for games and movies though.

2.39:1 (1)

Sebolains (2792751) | about 2 years ago | (#42264231)

Am I the only one who realized this monitor is 2.33:1, when most theatrical (2D, non IMAX) movies are in 2.39:1 (which the industry, for some reason, calls 2.35:1)? Why wouldn't they go all the way to make it just a tad wider?

Sounds perfect for Java programmers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264233)

...finally, I can get Eclipse to autocomplete this splendid fellow into my code: http://javadoc.bugaco.com/com/sun/java/swing/plaf/nimbus/InternalFrameInternalFrameTitlePaneInternalFrameTitlePaneMaximizeButtonPainter.html

Seriously - Is it wide screen cinema or crap Java programmers forcing us into laptops that will have a screen than needs to two laps to use?

Problem? (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#42264249)

What's the problem with a display like this? If I wanted one of these, I'd just use it the way I use my current displays. Windows are windows... I just make them the size that I want. Why should I care what size/shape the monitor that I'm using is? I use different monitor setups at my different offices, sometimes one, sometimes two, some are widescreen, and some are closer to "fullscreen", and I don't see the difference.

Widescreen is good for TVs, not for monitors (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#42264263)

But OS GUI designs need to catch up to the ever horizontally expanding waistline of our monitors.

Or, alternatively, manufacturers and retailers need to stop trying to pass off tunerless TV sets as monitors.

A wide aspect ratio is great for HDTV and feature films. But when you're trying to get work done on the desktop, 4:3 is still superior to the alternatives. Actually, for web browsing and word processing, a 16:9 monitor turned 90 degrees might work fairly well – but this is poorly supported with existing operating systems and it would break Windows ClearType, which is needed to get halfway decent looking text on today's low-DPI displays.

This LG monitor isn't that terrible – it has a resolution of 2560x1080, which means you aren't losing any more vertical space than you would with a standard 1080p monitor. But 1080 vertical lines is about the minimum that is even somewhat acceptable. What frightens me is the prospect that we're going to wind up with 1792x768 or some such abomination becoming the standard on laptops. For some reason, vendors really seem to love those short-screen 768p displays, even though they don't match HDTV resolutions or any other known standard.

Like having Dual Monitors in One! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42264339)

I know it's the cool thing for Slashdot nerds to fight for vertical space and all, but how many of you use dual or multiple monitors because that's the nerdy thing to do? Essentially, this thing is giving you the space of two monitors in one. It is not getting rid of vertical space, it's adding horizontal space; I'm not sure how this is bad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?