LG releases 29-inch ultra widescreen IPS monitor with 29:9 aspect ratio

By on November 8, 2012, 3:00 PM

I’ve been a proponent of multi-monitor setups for years. Having multiple displays at your disposal can increase productivity exponentially thanks to the added screen resolution, especially if you work behind a keyboard day in and day out. Not to mention the fact that it just looks pretty cool as well – well that is, until I saw LG’s new EA93 ultra widescreen monitor.

The unit recently sprang up on LG’s Korean website boasting some pretty impressive specifications. The 29-inch IPS panel features a cinema-inspired 21:9 aspect ratio and a resolution of 2,560 x 1,080. LG has included dual 7-watt speakers while maintaining an ultra-slim bezel.

Connectivity options include a DVI-D dual port, two HDMI ports, three USB 3.0 ports, a Display Port and audio in / headphone out jacks. One of the HDMI ports is MHL compatible meaning you can connect to supported mobile devices like smartphones and tablets.

Integrated software is capable of splitting the screen into four separate quadrants should you choose to do so. Something like that would be great for a video surveillance system although I’m not so sure how practical it would be in a real-world computing environment.

LG points out that the IPS panel is great for entertainment and multimedia as it includes 100 percent sRGB color expression. We’re also told that the monitor draws about 25 percent less power when the Super Energy Savings feature is enabled.

The LG EA92 is available now in Korea for 690,000 won, or about $633, and should be shipping to other parts of the world later this year.




User Comments: 24

Got something to say? Post a comment
Win7Dev said:

That is way too wide for my liking. It needs to be more square shaped.

Littleczr Littleczr said:

I love can't wait until I comes to the states. I to can use it for work, makes it easy not switching between windows.

treeski treeski said:

I really like the idea of extra wide monitors. I remember seeing one a few years ago that was crazy wide with a curved display. I'd love to use something like that instead of two monitors. However, if you start getting dead pixels on an extra wide monitor, it's a much better investment that's dead!

Guest said:

I waiting for 36:1 only

1 person liked this | VitalyT VitalyT said:

Not much to admire here. It would have made a great product, if it came with resolution of 2800x1200, which is also 21:9, except professional users would have loved it 10 times more then.

But with this resolution it's more like - meh!

Lionvibez said:

Not much to admire here. It would have made a great product, if it came with resolution of 2800x1200, which is also 21:9, except professional users would have loved it 10 times more then.

But with this resolution it's more like - meh!

Yep 1080p gets no love from me also.

Next!

ikesmasher said:

Imagine this in a 2x3 array...O.o

inventix1136 said:

For that price you can get two nice 1080p 24" monitors and have higher net resolution. Or you can find some 27" IPS monitors that are about $400 each with 2560 x 1440 resolution...

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

1080p still, no thanks. I'll keep my 2560 x 1600 16:10 IPS display thanks.

Lurker101 said:

Nice typo in the title.. imagine 29:1. I see the appeal of 21:9 though, have dual 16:10 monitors... a single 21:9 may be better.

A 21:9 ratio on a 29" screen though? I think I'll pass.

Guest said:

She is not that wide.

Guest said:

Link to get here said 29:1

Title says 29:9

Article says 21:9

Guest said:

Can we use it for playing games? I mean, does current games support at 2560 x 1080?

Guest said:

Can we use it for playing games? I mean, does current games support at 21:9 ?

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Most games these days will support whatever resolution your monitor config shows is available... and then there's the ability to create custom resolutions as well - so yes.

Guest said:

Thank you LNCpapa, I thought when gaming using this kind monitor, the picture would be somewhat squeezed view :)

Guest said:

I'd like to know where you're finding these $400 IPS monitors with a 2560x1440 resolution that isn't either used or something off of ebay.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Thank you LNCpapa, I thought when gaming using this kind monitor, the picture would be somewhat squeezed view

Well you do need to keep in mind that some fps games limit the FOV (field of vision) which might make some of the games look sqeezed if you reach a max that's too low.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

The non-overclocking Catleaps and the Shimian Achieva can be had for around that price point if you don't mind dealing directly with Korean companies and possibly a bit of difficulty when it comes to warranty situations.

waterytowers said:

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!!

Guest said:

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

JC713 JC713 said:

Not much to admire here. It would have made a great product, if it came with resolution of 2800x1200, which is also 21:9, except professional users would have loved it 10 times more then.

But with this resolution it's more like - meh!

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

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.