ASUS Introduces PB298Q Ultrawide 21:9 Panoramic Monitor

[Brusfantomet]

16:10 (regardless of resolution) is actually an even more restricted FOV than 16:9, just as 4:3 is even more restricted than that.

16:10 1920x1200
http://i.imgur.com/5f4hwfu.jpg

16:10 2560x1600
http://i.imgur.com/N6Itm2g.jpg

16:9 1920x1080
http://i.imgur.com/QxiApmW.jpg

16:9 2560x1440
http://i.imgur.com/1Xg7OBw.jpg

21:9 2560x1080
http://i.imgur.com/VPTRXJc.jpg


As for games being hor+ or vert-, the vast majority are hor+, only a very rare few are vert- any more.



Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.

or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Ye gods people STILL say that?

I don't get what you mean

 

[Octavean]

Why not think of 2560x1440 heightened 2560x1080, that you can still run games in a window at 2560x1080 and have more space for other things.

My point is that if there's no cost incentive to buy this size panel, I will happily make do with the extra pixels.

From the rampant complaining about 27" monitors at 1920x1080 with very clear cost incentives over 27" 2560x1440 monitors (some 1920x1080 units starting to come in at under ~$200 USD) is pretty clear such things won't make a lot of people happy no matter what.

The thing about an in between product is it can be difficult to price. If there is still a market for 21:9 monitors over time one would expect to see prices drop to something a little lower then typical 2560x1440 monitors but then again its still a niche market.

Products with limited mass appeal simply don't have the numbers with respect to demand in order to increase production that leads to lower cost.

 

[MadMan007]

or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.

Exactly. Fewer pixels is fewer pixels, period. A 2560x1440 monitor is inherently better than a 2560x1080 because it can *always* display the same exact image AND has more pixels to display more when possible as well...people just need to understand how to set their scaling between game, OS, and video drivers.

There is absolutely no advantage to having the same horizontal resolution with lower vertical resolution unless one is an irrational black bar hater, but they probably don't understand why more pixels is better anyway.

 

[SaltyFish]

Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.

Technically, this "21:9" thing is really 64:27... but marketing wanted associations with 16:9 because people are dumb. "21:9" also happens to be less of a mouthful.

4¹:3¹ = 4:3
4²:3² = 16:9
4³:3³ = 64:27

...notice a pattern?

 

[RejZoR]

I'm still using 5:4 monitor and i'm perfectly fine with it. Plus i don't have any performance issues with anything, even if it's a just released triple A super duper title. It will run smoothly with max posssible settings. Unless it's bugged to hell in which case it doesn't matter what monitor you have.

Only reason why i'd want a 1080p monitor is to record videos and upload them in FullHD to Youtube. Recording them in 1280x1024 makes them squashed down into 720p which is dumb...

 

[Hayder_Master]

 

[Phobia9651]

I can see this monitor having its use, and zinfinion has some fair points.
Important to note is that 21:9 is the native cinema aspect ratio, and I think a lot of blu-ray movies nowadays support that aspect ratio. So for diehard movie fanatics this screen makes perfect sense. Also like zinfinion said having a better horizontal FOV in games is also a major plus.
Though personally I prefer a multimonitor setup compared to an ultrawide monitor, simply for the fact that I like to have the ability to have a browser/chatwindow/PDF/spreadsheet/hardwaremonitor/whatever open on my second screen when gaming.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

This is a good aspect ratio. But it needs more pixels. Maybe 4096 × 1714 (cinema scope 4K). With a little curvature, it'll give more than 68 degrees of horizontal FOV. 1920 x 1080 gives only 32 degrees.

 

[zAAm]

As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset...

 

[micropage7]

As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset...

yeah, it just like triple monitors blend into 1 monitor, but if triple monitor can placed surrounded it just flat from left to right

 

[Frick]

I don't get what you mean

Because that ship has sailed man. It was a valid complaint in like 2007, but now it's sort of too late.

 

[buggalugs]

I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation.

Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline.

The resolution is not so huge that your average graphics card could run gaming without crippling the framerates. I personally don't like multi-monitor gaming, mainly bezels and the space it takes but this ratio is a good compromise.

If they make a 120hz model I would be very interested. New things are always a little more expensive when they are first released. When the price stabilizes they should be not much more than a 1920:1080 monitor. I think they would appeal to the masses who just buy one 1080p screen and don't want to go high res 27" 1440p.

 

[micropage7]

I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation.

Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline.

The resolution is not so huge that your average graphics card could run gaming without crippling the framerates. I personally don't like multi-monitor gaming, mainly bezels and the space it takes but this ratio is a good compromise.

If they make a 120hz model I would be very interested. New things are always a little more expensive when they are first released. When the price stabilizes they should be not much more than a 1920:1080 monitor. I think they would appeal to the masses who just buy one 1080p screen and don't want to go high res 27" 1440p.

yeah the most nice is when you do video editing, image editing or work that need wide space
i still think its triple monitor with one wide display

 

[ypsylon]

21:9 equally useful as 'Snooze' button on smoke alarm...

 

[CounterZeus]

or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.

not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating

 

[PLAfiller]

not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating

That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.

 

[Frick]

That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.

In D2 it made (makes) tons of sense. SC2 largely looks the same no matter the resolution iirc.

 

[Prima.Vera]

or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.

Not a viable option, unless you like unrealistic stretched thin world.

 

[erixx]

I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars

 

[MadMan007]

I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars

You don't have to use 100% of your display space, I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. You can run 2560x1080 on a 2560x1440 display, get the wider aspect FOV advantages if there are any, and have more pixels when you can use them. The only advantage these monitors might have is if they introduce a new price point between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 monitors (and no, black bars is not a disadvantage, anyone who says so is just wrong.)

 

[Duke456]

That bezel dimension seems a bit suspect at 0.8mm. Surely it's 0.8cm or 8mm.

 

[Octavean]

I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars

Thanks for the input.

Generally speaking I tend to prefer experimentation. I suspect that I would favor such a 21:9 monitor but ideally I would have to actually try it myself to say for sure. User testimonial is the next best thing other then reviews IMO.

Someone simply shooting it down having never tried it is of no use to me.

Like I said I have two 27" 2560x1440 monitors as well as three 27" 1920x1080 monitors in a triple monitor setup. I personally would probably buy a 4K monitor as my next upgrade but again I would very much at least like to try one of these 2560x1080 monitors and no I don't think simply running one of my 2560x1440 monitors at 2560x1080 would be analogous and yield the same experance other then in theory not necessarily in actual practice.

If I'm accessing a computer using a tablet with a higher resolution then the PC that experance isn't the same as actually using the PC either,....even if the tablet scales down to the same resolution.

There is also the issue of personal preference.

 

[newtekie1]

Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.

The :9 makes no difference. It is just describing the aspect ratio, not the resolution. You hate 1080 monitors, not :9 monitors. If you want a 1200 high resolution then 21:9 would be 2800x1200, that is still a xx:9 aspect ratio, but with a 1200 high resolution.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Those conversations will never stop.

I remember 20 years ago, when SVGA modes were as rare as today's 1440p. Actually I think the first OS ever to provide support for SVGA mode (or a resolution bigger than 800x600), was Windows 3.1. Back then monitors with 14" and 15" were as popular and spread as today's 24" and 27". I remember that 800x600 was the 1080p of today, while higher resolution and bigger monitors were as expensive as today's 1440p ones. And yes, most of the games were running in DOS with 320x240 resolution, while only some new and rare games were using 640x480.

Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///