Conclusions: 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.

LG 29EA93 - Input Lag and Power Use
Comments Locked

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • Rick83 - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    Yes, if you come from 2 19" screens, you actually gain vertical pixels, instead of losing them, compared to a 27" screen.

    Also, who uses their 27" screen in portrait orientation? That line kind of struck me as a bit out-there. Even pivoting a 24 inch screen is laborious.
  • Blibbax - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    It's common to have a landscape main monitor and a portrait secondary monitor. But yeah, I never actually pivot a monitor while using it.
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    I have a 27" monitor on an arm and I'll pivot it depending on what I'm working on. It's not common, but if I have a really tall spreadsheet or a document I'm working on, I like to have the ability, but I admit it's rare.
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    I have three 24" displays in portrait mode for Eyefinity. Works relatively well as the 3240 x 1920 is very close to a 16:9 aspect ratio. Bezel compensation alters this a bit so it is nearly a perfect 16:9 ratio.

    Using three of these 29" displays in portrait for Eyefinity would be roughly equivalent to a 4:3 aspect ratio from the days of old. Both old and new games support 4:3 aspect ratios so there would be some use.

    The monitor itself is mainly the hassle for portrait mode. Not all of them have good stands that easily allow for portrait orientation, if at all.
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    Check out this kickass PLP setup and you'll understand.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AEAhExuaaM
  • ypsylon - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    They should stop wasting doing monitors like that and create panoramic, concave 180 degree models to replace Eyefinity setups. I would much more prefer buying one big screen than wasting time (& cash) with buying 3 LCD and watching screen with borders of each LCD. I don't get it how people can live with stuff like that. Just brrr....

    Stop fooling around, bring bendy OLEDs now!
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    NEC did this just a couple years ago. AFAIK, it was a total flop (or just never made it to market).

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633263-REG/N...
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    What's that basically two rear projection screen systems put into a single cabinet? I recall hear that that display as just physically big. Also the resolution wasn't as high as the typical Eyefinity setup.

    Neat concept though.
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    I'm pretty sure it came out before Eyefinity was announced, but I also know that it kept showing up at CES for a couple years before finally being available to the public. I believe it was two DLP projection units in one cabinet, but I think it was seen by the PC as one monitor. All I know is that people that saw it IRL said it was a thing of beauty.

    2880x900 @ 120Hz for $7,000. Not bad. LOL

    I wonder if I could track one down used???

    http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/ostendo-multipl...
  • Sabresiberian - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    Why would they expect a significant number of people to pay that much money for that screen? 900 vertical pixels, are they kidding me?

    The monitor in this review is too wide for desktop use, in my opinion, because it doesn't wrap around. I'd rather have 3 monitors for surround.

    As far as the 16:9 comment in the article being bad for productivity - it's bad for gaming, too. For example, most MMOGs put most of their UI at the bottom of the screen, so I want more vertical space; so, 16:10 is better for gaming. I get around this in WoW by using an addon to make a custom UI and put it on the side of the screen of my 2560x1440 monitor, but that's not always practical, and when I play on my computer with a 16: 10 screen the UI is still on the side, and not optimum there.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now