LG releases 29-inch ultra widescreen IPS monitor with 29:1 aspect ratio

Monitors with 2560 x 1440 or 2560 x 1600 beat this monitor due to the silly 1080 height. No-one seams to be listening in the monitor world to what people are wanting in a high res monitor.

Pixel height is very important!!

Waiting for IPS or OLED monitor with 29:1 aspect ratio in 5120 x 2160 resolution, or even 3840 x 1620 resolution. Thanks.

yeah this resolution is needed to compete with ultrasharp displays for the medical field. 2560x1080 aint gonna cut it. but I wont be surprised if the 2nd gen of this display is 4K

Well first Shawn, you should fix the title of the thread to reflect reality. A 29 to 1 ratio monitor would have a height of just short of an inch, and be 29 inches wide! So, I'd say it's a safe bet we're dealing with a ratio of 21:9! Expressing that as a decimal, equals 2.33 (ad infinitum), which is basically the "Cinemascope" aspect ratio, of 2.35 to 1.00.

As time progresses, monitor aspect ratio offerings become more bizarre. In some instances, film makers are getting away from "Cinemascope" productions and working to a universal standard of 16:9.

How did we get 16:9? I sort of suspect that manufacturers heard complaints about the "black bands" top and bottom, that accompany the showing of a 16:9 movie or TV show, on a good old fashioned 16:10 aspect computer monitor. However, if you buy into this junk, you'll now have the black bars on the ends of the screen, and an incredibly short vertical height in your picture.

One supposes eventually you'll need a different display for many different tasks.

For imaging tasks a monitor such as this borders on useless. One, it's too short. Two, it would be impractical, bordering on ridiculous, to rotate the monitor to vertical for a "portrait" orientation imaging task.

The 35mm photo frame aspect ratio is 1.50:1:00 (24 x 36mm), and duplicated in digital SLR sensors.

Portrait work takes on a relevance at the 11" x 14" paper size. This aspect ratio is less than 1.3 to 1.00!

Without doing the math, I suspect that in order to get a screen height of 14", the monitor would need to have a diagonal measurement of about 36" inches @ 2.35:1.00.

The salient point here is, you might just as well throw an HDMI cable over to the family TV, for viewing DVD or Blu-Ray source material.

This is the sort of issue encountered with the 16:10 (1680 X 1050) 22" panels having a greater screen height, than the ostensibly, "larger", 23" 16 x 9 displays.

From a historical standpoint,the "Cinemascope" format was created during the time when theaters were much wider than those today, and it's purpose was to fill the higher aspect ratio of those front walls. From a trivial standpoint, "Lawrence of Arabia", is shot in a "Super Cinemascope" aspect ratio of about 2.70:1:00. I suppose those more well heeled among us, will provide an outlet of opportunity for manufacturers willing to undertake a silly gamble such as that.

Adding to what was mentioned earlier about size price and resolution, you can get IPS monitors, 24" @ 1920 x 1200 resolution, for about $400.00 USD. I haven't seen more res at that price point, but I haven't looked either, at least not recently. These are 16:10, or 1.60:1:00, which is reasonably close to both 35mm film, and the Greek, "Golden Rectangle" proportions of 1.68:1.00.

The screen height of these panels is about 13", or just shy of an 11 x 14" photo, with borders.

So, LG, no thanks. I'll pass on this one.