Cinema Scope

Solidstate8921:9 needs to fucking die a swift death.

Why is that?
It's cinema scope, you do realize pretty much every movie is shot in that aspect right? Which is the point of these new panels from LG.

I wish dell would just make an affordable 2560×1600 [16:10] monitor.

1080p is for TVs NOT monitors...

If I wanted to play on 1080p I would play on a Xbox... ;)

I was not happy with 16:9 finding its way into the computer technology industry because we were comfortable with 16:10.

I will be fine with 16:9 just to make everything uniform, makes things easier.

I am sure this ratio is specific to certain kinds of tasks though.

MicrobuntuWhy is that?
It's cinema scope, you do realize pretty much every movie is shot in that aspect right? Which is the point of these new panels from LG.

Interesting note: 16:9 is compatible with cinemascope.
Cinemascope is not compatible with 16:9.

I noticed the other day while watching a 1080p widescreen movie on my 1080p television that there were still black bars on the top & bottom of the feed.

Wider just makes you lose vertical space in comparison. Widescreen skyrim = can never see dragons in the air for example, when in reality you can see the sky and ground with your eyes all at once.

They should make 1980x1440 instead, then I could finally replace my last 1600x1200 crt.

Awsome, Gives you so much more room to do multitasking and gaming :)

Give me 1:1 a consumer available 2048x2048

They monitors are the *best* ... used in aviation and military. 21". LOVELY

Until you see the sticker price :(

Hell, I'd rather they make them taller than wide so I can run two or three side-by-side.

That's how you multitask.

Do want!

1c3d0gI don't get why you people are moaning about 120 less pixels...back in them days, we used to do just fine with 640 x 480. That's right bitches, 480 motherfucking pixels to work with, and NONE of us whined like you pussies do.

Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. So we should stop caring about the inevitable progress of increasing resolution because we had low resolution monitors back in the day? Come the fuck on.

I've got a 10+ year old T221 monitor. 22" diagonally, with a 3840x2400 resolution. Now you're gonna tell me that 2560x1080 is just fine and dandy? Yeah, let's just keep going backwards - who cares about vertical resolution! Just keep making shit wider and wider, we'll only ever need 1080 vertical pixels. :banghead:

MicrobuntuWhy is that?
It's cinema scope, you do realize pretty much every movie is shot in that aspect right? Which is the point of these new panels from LG.

You do realize watching movies is the least of the things that I do on my computer? Finding a nice, quality 16:10 monitor with that every precious amount of glorious vertical real-estate is harder and harder to come by these days. Running Inventor or Unigraphics with multiple toolbars enabled is almost unbearable on anything less than a 1920x1200 monitor.

I see potential for a dual monitor setup with a vertical monitor stand since the height of the monitor should be less then 21.5" 16:9 monitor something like this. Before anyone claims to tall people use 3x 30" in portrait mode. See link

cedrac18i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/cedrac18/double.jpg
I see potential for a dual monitor setup with a vertical monitor stand since the height of the monitor should be less then 21.5" 16:9 monitor something like this. Before anyone claims to tall people use 3x 30" in portrait mode. See link

More or less what I was thinking!

cedrac18i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/cedrac18/double.jpg
I see potential for a dual monitor setup with a vertical monitor stand since the height of the monitor should be less then 21.5" 16:9 monitor something like this. Before anyone claims to tall people use 3x 30" in portrait mode. See link

I'm still not a fan of having a line in the center. I prefer my monitors a bit away from each other, one directly in front of me and the others on the side of that.

Solidstate89Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. So we should stop caring about the inevitable progress of increasing resolution because we had low resolution monitors back in the day? Come the fuck on.

I've got a 10+ year old T221 monitor. 22" diagonally, with a 3840x2400 resolution. Now you're gonna tell me that 2560x1080 is just fine and dandy? Yeah, let's just keep going backwards - who cares about vertical resolution! Just keep making shit wider and wider, we'll only ever need 1080 vertical pixels. :banghead:

Sigh. :shadedshu No, what I'm trying to convey is a lot of people here sound like a bunch of spoiled brats, just because they can't get their favorite resolution. Well guess what, you gotta pay for it. You want > 1080p, pay for it. You want 4K, there's a prototype floating around. PAY for it and stop whining.

Hell, I'm all for progress, but it appears some are bent on pissing on every potential new monitor model that's released. Don't even get me started on 120Hz and beyond (no, I'm not talking about 3D, that's a useless gimmick), now that's some progress you can actually notice pretty much all the time.

1c3d0gSigh. :shadedshu No, what I'm trying to convey is a lot of people here sound like a bunch of spoiled brats, just because they can't get their favorite resolution. Well guess what, you gotta pay for it. You want > 1080p, pay for it. You want 4K, there's a prototype floating around. PAY for it and stop whining.

Hell, I'm all for progress, but it appears some are bent on pissing on every potential new monitor model that's released. Don't even get me started on 120Hz and beyond (no, I'm not talking about 3D, that's a useless gimmick), now that's some progress you can actually notice pretty much all the time.

I agree pretty much.

A Google search returns all of these for 1920x1200 monitors i am guessing what you feel that is missing from all those is 120hz? or they aren't sold for $130 like their 1080p counterparts?

E Aho Laula

1c3d0gSigh. :shadedshu No, what I'm trying to convey is a lot of people here sound like a bunch of spoiled brats, just because they can't get their favorite resolution. Well guess what, you gotta pay for it. You want > 1080p, pay for it. You want 4K, there's a prototype floating around. PAY for it and stop whining.

Hell, I'm all for progress, but it appears some are bent on pissing on every potential new monitor model that's released. Don't even get me started on 120Hz and beyond (no, I'm not talking about 3D, that's a useless gimmick), now that's some progress you can actually notice pretty much all the time.

What's the point of calling people names who aren't happy with the monitor market?

1900x1200 montiors were following a trend of monitors getting larger and less expensive. Now the prices of these and 2560x1600 haven't changed in 5 years or more.

When 1080p TVs came out, all the monitor makers decided that they would just sell monitors at that lesser resolution and call them "HD". And people who would buy that line would also go for the shiny bezels and screens. Ooooh, pretty!

If I wanted to call people names I could question the intelligence of those that bought into this sales pitch.

Meanwhile all us consumers have gotten screwed by a technology that has stagnated.

The cheap 1440 monitors from Korea show there is profit selling higher res monitors at a reasonable price. But the large companies won't change as long as people are in love with the "HD" monitors.

PopcornMachineMeanwhile all us consumes have gotten screwed by a technology that has stagnated.

The cheap 1440 monitors from Korea show there is profit selling higher res monitors at a reasonable price. But the large companies won't change as long as people are in love with the "HD" monitors.

That will change. With "retina" displays on Macs/iDevices they're bound to show up en masse sooner or later. I was hoping to be able to get one in 2013. ;)

I was hoping for 2004 or so... but I'm the patient type and will settle for 2013.

repman244Sorry for the language, but feck off with these idiotic aspect ratios. 16:9 is already horrible enough.
What's the point, as soon as you start a program that has toolbars on top (Solidworks, Photoshop, 3Ds, or anything similar) you are left with a very small working space.

Ever thought that this monitor is NOT for that kind of use? Is used mostly for gaming and movies, which is fine for the 90% of home users.

I personally would love to have one, but the size is to damn small. I would have prefer at least a 35 incher or even more for that format.;)

"21:9" is totally WRONG!

This is a true 2.37:1 monitor.

Will buy one for sure!

cedrac18i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/cedrac18/double.jpg
I see potential for a dual monitor setup with a vertical monitor stand since the height of the monitor should be less then 21.5" 16:9 monitor something like this. Before anyone claims to tall people use 3x 30" in portrait mode. See link

The monitor on top could be positioned upside down with the display content rotated 180 degree via OSD buttons setting. Doing this could move the protruding trim at lower edge of top monitor to the top side. This enable both screen flush where they join and a smaller screen to screen non-active area width.

Solidstate89You do realize watching movies is the least of the things that I do on my computer? Finding a nice, quality 16:10 monitor with that every precious amount of glorious vertical real-estate is harder and harder to come by these days. Running Inventor or Unigraphics with multiple toolbars enabled is almost unbearable on anything less than a 1920x1200 monitor.

Well obviously this monitor isn't for you then right?
Doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

3870x2I was not happy with 16:9 finding its way into the computer technology industry because we were comfortable with 16:10.

I will be fine with 16:9 just to make everything uniform, makes things easier.

I am sure this ratio is specific to certain kinds of tasks though.

Interesting note: 16:9 is compatible with cinemascope.
Cinemascope is not compatible with 16:9.

Tis true, Cinemascope on a 16:9 display gives you bars top and bottom. This monitor would eliminate that.