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
Reflex - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Seriously, that was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. Ryan Gosling can't act his way out of a wet paper bag, and the plot was nonsensically ridiculous with some truly idiotic characters.I like artsy movies but I did not get the acclaim that movie recieved.
TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Why blackbars on 16:9 screen? Just crop that ridiculous 21:9 to 16:9, which is more than enough wide already. Oh, you are afraid to loose some very important action happening on the sides?It is Hollywood, not display industry, that is desperately behind the times clinging to that ancient 2.37,2.40,2:35 (they can't even make their mind themselves for the exact figure). Lately, there is some sanity coming back, and many blockbuster movies shot in 16:9 OAR. They have to: to achieve maximum 3D effect it's better to fill in the entire field of view, and this is not possible with embrasure view. To summarize, we'll see slow and agonizing death of 21:9 in next 5 years.
cheinonen - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
The ratio for CinemaScope has changed over time, for a number of reasons, but it's not a random number:2.55:1 - Original size with magnetic stripe for audio
2.35:1 - Switch to analog optical audio track that takes up space on film
2.39:1 - Switch in 1970 to smaller gate size to hid splices in the negative
2.40:1 is what many 2.39:1 films are cropped to for home video releases (a difference of 3 pixels vertically). 2.37:1 is what 21:9 monitors wind up being as they use common sizes from other displays (1080 pixels high, 2560 wide like 27" and 30" displays).
Cinemascope ratios aren't close to dying, and will be around just as much in 10 years as they are now as they still offer something that most people can't get at home.
TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
I must give LG a credit: take some defective 30" 2560x1600 panels, cut top and bottom and resell it as "new" "innovative" product...The industry moves in bizarre ways. Take that crippled 21:9 58" Vizio. It is passive 3D, so it's half of the resolution vertically. That's right, they have 540 vertical pixels, and 5(!) times more pixels horizontally.
ReaM - Monday, January 21, 2013 - link
No movie will ever be shot in 16:9, because 16:9 is aesthetically bad. It looks bad. It does not have that "magic" movie feel, which is basically 24 frames per second and 2.39:1.I for example don't watch cropped movies. It is for aesthetical reason that they use a format that wide. The frame looks different, there is more story told in each frame and there is a lot of useless detail missing that otherwise would be there (like a lamp overhead). You can do a lot more in 2.39:1 than in 16:9.
radbeard - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
I recently started using a 29'' 21:9 display from the Dell Ultrasharp series. Some of my experience differs for this reason (minimal light bleeding and a stand that does allow the screen to move vertically), but it is largely a similar experience to this LG display.This monitor, and aspect ratio, are near-perfect for a specific set of functions and entirely wrong for most mainstream home usage.
For movie watching, you are probably better off with a cheap and large 1080p 27'' panel. Most content is this, or nearly this, aspect ratio and the screens are less expensive.
For games a true 2560x1440 monitor offers a larger display area, and is preferable.
For web browsing a 21:9 monitor gives you an enormous quantity of dead space, and the same experience as a 23'' 1080p monitor.
Where the 21:9 shines, and is quickly becoming indispensable for me is at-work productivity. As someone that is always working with 2-4 different files (pdfs, excel, email) I need to be able to see items side by side. Looking at a financial report and then updating the bits relevant, this is the perfect set of compromises.
16:9 is NOT a work-friendly format. I do not need to see all those additional rows in excel normally (although 21:9 allows for more of that vision if necessary), I also don't need the extra width on PDFs (which are scanned from typical A4 letters), or emails, which scale.
What I really need are 4:3 monitors, but a couple of then. The 21:9 format is very practically 2 of these monitors combined in one. You take different documents and give them each half a screen.
It is for this use that the review should be directed. I strongly encourage offices that use multi-screen setups, or ask their employees to work with multiple pieces of data at once to consider these as replacements.
Kevin G - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Have you been able to test the DisplayPort chaining this with that Dell? First monitor I've seen commonly available to have that feature.radbeard - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
afraid not. I have this at my desk at work.CharonPDX - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
Yes, I could do math, but I'm busy at work and too lazy to figure it out:How does this compare in vertical size to a 27" 16:9 display? Is it the same height, only wider? Or is it shorter in height?
Did you compare input lag on different interfaces? DP vs. HDMI vs. DVI? It's possible that one input is "native" and the others go through conversion internally, adding lag that wouldn't be present on a different input.
radbeard - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link
i have the dell version. its about the same height as a 23'' 16:9 display but wider.Its awesome for productivity, not media.