LG 29EA93 Ultrawide Display - Rev. 1.09
by Chris Heinonen on December 11, 2012 1:20 AM ESTConclusions: Different, Not Necessarily Better
When the 29EA93 was announced, I was drawn to it because of the 21:9 ratio and my preference for the wider film format. I was worried about how it would work with my everyday material compared to a 27” or even 24” monitor. Would the ratio be a one-trick pony, or would it provide a better way to watch movies as well as a good environment for getting work done?
First thing, the LG 29EA93 performs incredibly well in our testing. Contrast ratios are superb, color accuracy is very good after calibration, and the screen uniformity is far better than I expected it to be when I first heard about it. On the downside, the input lag is very slow for gaming, which will rule it out for many people, and the CMS system should have been left out entirely. LG also could have provided more adjustments to the preset modes, so I could adjust the grayscale controls on the Cinema picture mode to get the best overall combination. I also would like to see them include a 2-point or 10-point grayscale control if they are going to have the full CMS, as a single point is really lacking when it comes to AV work. In the end, it puts out a fantastic image with a PC and calibration equipment, and a good but not exceptional image with AV sources.
That input lag leads to another issue, which is the use of this monitor. For someone that wants to watch movies and play games a lot, especially if used as a single desktop or laptop monitor, it seems like an ideal match. Movies take the full screen, games provide a wider FOV, and the slight loss of space for daily work might be acceptable to you. Unfortunately, with the high input lag, that seems to rule it out for serious gamers altogether, leaving it as something just for cinephiles to use, but they can get a larger 2.35:1 image on a 42” or 50” LCD or Plasma and have a remote for input control and volume adjustment. Since Blu-ray content doesn’t contain an anamorphic flag or content, you also aren’t losing any resolution by not having a full 2560x1080 resolution display with cinemascope films as you did with DVD content and 16:9 screens.
For daily use, the LG 29EA93 does fine but I’d still go back to a 2560x1440 27” display given the choice, as it allows for more of a webpage or Word document to be visible, or to fit my entire display spreadsheet on the screen instead of just part of it. I can deal with the black bars on scope films, as I’m not losing resolution, and while games might run a few FPS slower with the higher pixel count the input lag will be lower on every 27” display I’ve tested.
In the end, the 29EA93 is a novel concept and a product I want to see in the marketplace, but it feels a bit like the first attempt that it is. To really fit that niche as a gaming/movie display that also does work well, I think LG needs to make a few adjustments to it. Input lag really needs to be addressed, as that is killing off the gaming aspect of it. For a multi-function display like this, I also would like to see a remote control added, and the CMS either needs to be fixed or just removed altogether. Even just keeping the preset modes but allowing for a-2 point grayscale adjustment would provide a picture that would be accurate enough for most users on video content and possibly reduce input lag by removing the CMS. I also wish that LG, and every other vendor, would move the headphone jack to the front or side of the display where it’s much easier to access.
The LG 29EA93 looks cool on a desk, and the widescreen film lover in me still wants it, but the realist in me knows that a 27” display is likely a better fit overall. Perhaps next year LG will introduce a model with these issues ironed out that will fit a need better than the 29EA93 does, but right now the flaws on the 29EA93 unfortunately seem to rule it out for what would appear to be its target market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
markstock - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
AFAIK, analog VGA is limited to 2048x1536; hence no DB-15 connector.cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Even then most higher resolution 27" and 30" displays still include one for backup, just like they also include HDMI 1.3 ports that don't support resolutions beyond 1080p. The lack of it isn't a large negative to me, as that cuts down costs for something few people use now, but I'm sure some people would want to know.TypeS - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
This LG display seems to be very narrowly targeted at just film buffs, hence its size and panel type. This really would only be nice for films that stay in the ultra-wide cinematic aspect ratio.Elsewhere you've got TV shows that are full16:9, cheap direct-to-dvd/bluray releases that are 16:9 and films like the Dark Knight and Skyfall that have scenes in IMAX that will go 16:9. In all these cases you'll get vertical letter boxing. Just my own conclusion here, but horizontal letter boxing is less intrusive than black bars on the side.
I suppose there could be some productive benefits to this, view 3 pages side by side? Or producing network diagrams and other visuals like those.
Still seems a pretty niche target audience for this monitor. Wouldn't be a good trend to start with TVs either unless everyone dropped filming in 16:9.
radbeard - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
i think its narrowly targeted at office productivity buffs.peterfares - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link
Taller screens are better for office work.James_Edge - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Cast you mind back to the old days, what aspect did people love for work, 4:3? 16:10, no, it was 5:4 aspect, like 1280x1024, this monitor as well as being great for movies lets you take advantage of the Windows 7/8 feature to dock two Windows on the screen side by side, and on this 2560x1080 screen that is a pair of 1280x1080 windows, 5:4 dual screen is back baby and you only need a single monitor to do it! :DTegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
A book with landscape pages, what are you guys smoking?GullLars - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link
Why not use something close to Phi as the convention for aspect ratio? 16:10 (1.600) is fairly close to 1.618. 16:9 is 1.777 and is going the wrong direction with respect to what feel natural to watch and work with.Phi also works nicely as an aspect ratio if you flip a screen into portrait mode, since it maps well to A4 (1.414) with window scroll bars and utilities.
Most web pages, like AnandTech, also only uses 600-1000 pixels in the width, so wider screens as at the relevant resolutions makes no sense for browsing the web. Again, protrait mode for 1080P and 1200P works well on the web, and also many other productivity tasks.
philipma1957 - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link
.263 dot pitch means i can see the grid when reading print on a white screen. so this would work for movies only. I have funky eyesight due to implants.left eye sees 20-10 .
right eye sees 20-80.
so if dot ptich is not small enough the 20-10 eye will see the grid lay out.
so get a 27 inch 1440p screen with smaller dot pitch no go the print is too small on certain websites and scales like crap.
I have found a 21 inch or 22 inch 1080 p looks best for print.
comomolo - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link
I don't buy the reasoning about movie formats. Who watches movies sitting at their desktop? Who would use such a small display to watch movies from the sofa?The transition from 16:10 to 16:9 only makes sense because panels are cheaper when they get smaller. It has nothing to do with movies and HDTV.
This monitor makes sense only in the office, for productivity, but it's absurdly expensive for that.
Either it becomes extremely cheap or I give it no more than one year in the market. At most.
Just as a sidenote: in Europe Philips introduced some time ago LCD TVs with a 21:9 aspect ratio. Nowhere to be found today.