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
Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Why don't you ask LG (or Dell) for a detailed technical explanation for this input lag? I tried but failed. :(
If the input resolution is right the scaler should be bypassed and if the resolution isn't right scaling still shouldn't take more than 5 ms.
cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
I did talk to LG in depth about it and the concerns that came up during testing. They seemed receptive to the idea in the future that a mode to bypass all of the processing for displaying the information faster for games about be useful. I have no idea if anything will come of it, but at least they understand the issue from gamers and what they want.From all the displays tested, the lag seems to be a combination of multiple inputs, screen adjustments (such as the CMS here), and then scaling the image. The scaler itself might play little to no role in it, and it can all be the inputs and the image adjustments that cause the issue, but without being able to test the individual panel with different components, it would be hard to determine.
Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
The HP has multiple inputs too and doesn't suffer from input lag.Color adjustments should be possible without latency. I guess LG couldn't come up with a technical explanation for the lag?
rwei - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Was kind of confusing for a few secondsaranyagag - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
recently (3 months) bought an asus PA246Q, wide gamut(Adobe RGB), 16:10 screen, for professional use and at the same time got an Lg 32" as a present. the ergonomics of the asus screen have to be experienced, as have the colours( in colour aware apps-- even Firefox). Even videos are be good to go through as the media player control do not hide the material.I think you should consider reviewing it, as it offers tremendous VALUE FOR MONEY.
The only thing is that I have no idea how it will work for use as a home cinema use-- because that is NOT what I got it for.
aranyagag - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Sorryhttp://www.anandtech.com/show/6032/asus-pa246q-24-...
Kevin G - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
From the article:"Of course there aren’t any 21:9 CRT displays around that I’m aware of so once again this is tested at 1920x1080 resolution using SMTT and the 1:1 mapping selected in the menu."
Is there any way to test it at its native 2560 x 1080 resolution? I can imagine the scaler for this displaying being a bit unique considering its aspect ration and relatively high resolution. The scaler isn't altering the image resolution but it does have to add the black bars on the side of the image. It is at the very least doing something and running the display at the native resolution would be able to by pass it resulting in lower lag. The lack of 21:9 CRT's would be a problem but couldn't the display be tested against itself? IE two side by side. Getting a solid number would be difficult but observing a significantly lower input lag should be possible.
I'd also like to see a review of the Dell U2913wm display. it should use the same panel and will likely get similar results (which aren't bad). The main difference appears to be that the Dell supports DisplayPort chaining so there would be a case for testing more than one. :)
cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
The testing was done at 1920x1080 and the LG doesn't scale that image, it is centered in the display which in theory should introduce no lag. The only analog displays that I'm aware of that can do 2560x1080 at 60Hz are high end CRT projectors with 9" CRT guns. While still available used, they're still thousands of dollars and a couple hundred pounds to install, so I wouldn't count on seeing one soon for testing a display like this.nathanddrews - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - link
FWIW, my FW900 can push 2560x1600@60Hz with some driver patching and custom resolution tweaks. I've heard of people getting up to 70Hz, but that requires exceeding some boundaries I'm not comfortable with. I rarely go above 1920x1200 with my daily work and gaming, but that's only because those super high resolutions have such low refresh rates and they are too difficult to resolve - making it rather moot.I'll see if I can match the native resolution of this LG.
malkion - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
I tend to dislike seeing tech reviewers get personal feelings involved, or how their opinions of any technology regarding future outlooks are, however, I will never mind it, the review itself being more important.The bottom line for me is always to keep new technology affordable, or I will have to wait a few years until it does.
For any particular monitor that's not a big screen, I'll only pay around $300 tops for it. You can easily guess this fits me into the current sweet spot to buy 27" LCD monitors at the moment, right? For desktop, the is very nice.
As far as the 21:9, 16:10, 16:9 debate, I actually want them all. More variety for end users. And the popular opinion vs unpopular opinion state-side isn't all that bad either (not that I actually lean towards the 'in the box' mindset)
I never did like the VCR vs Beta debate, nor do I like industry standards too much over competing tech such as Blu-Ray vs HDDVD or HDMI vs Display Port. I can live with dual players instead. Haha. Or Monitors that sport both types of connectors. It doesn't cost that much for either one to be printed on disc or to include both kinds of connectors. Ok, signing off.