Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

New square monitor (27" 1920x1920)

<< < (2/8) > >>

Renegade:
Why? :huh:
-Deozaan (November 23, 2014, 12:49 AM)
--- End quote ---

The aspect ratio has a huge impact on your ability to work in different environments, e.g. an IDE, Photoshop, Excel, etc.

16:9 simply doesn't make sense for much except movies. It's not good for reading web pages unless you read in portrait mode, and even then, most web pages are made for larger (wider) resolutions, so they're not very good at that unless you're well into the 2400+ pixel range (height), which also puts you in the stupidly expensive category.

In the end, 16:9 wastes screen real estate as much is put into peripheral vision.

4:3 is a very good aspect ratio as it is closer to the actual human field of vision/attention.

This monitor will probably find its greatest use with Excel jockeys, though I expect that it will also be popular with anyone working in multi-windowed environments, e.g. stock trading.

Here's one way to think about it...

This monitor takes advantage of wasted vertical space. How much space do you have between the top of your monitor and your ceiling, and just how much wider could your monitor be on your desk before it crowded out other things?

With 4 monitors on my desk, I have exactly zero room horizontally, but lots of room vertically, so using that vertical space would be a serious boon.

Renegade:
On comment in the article:

I quite like the look of the Full HD video editing layout but some tasks could arguably fit/work just as well on ultra-wide or multi-monitor side-by-side setups.
--- End quote ---

But, you still need to deal with the bezel, so, it's a bit of a poor solution in comparison.

tomos:
I've avoided the 16:9 format so far (well, apart from laptops where it's often a real pain).
Even 16:10 is a big improvement over 16:9 -- if you can find it these days.

I dont think that 1:1 would suit me personally, but it's great to see :up:  -
would be nice to see more variety in the market in the future.

Ath:
I saw the announcement earlier this week on Dutch site tweakers.net (chrome can do a translation for you), so I thought: lets wait and see how well that's going to get adopted.
Next would be a 'real' developers' monitor 1:1 with 2560x2560 resolution and a 27 to 30" diagonal size :tellme: When that arrives, I'll try to order 2 of those at work 8)

Renegade:
I saw the announcement earlier this week on Dutch site tweakers.net (chrome can do a translation for you), so I thought: lets wait and see how well that's going to get adopted.
Next would be a 'real' developers' monitor 1:1 with 2560x2560 resolution and a 27 to 30" diagonal size :tellme: When that arrives, I'll try to order 2 of those at work 8)
-Ath (November 23, 2014, 06:57 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think a 51" diagonal would be nice. That's 36" x 36", so 3' of screen real estate. You'd really only need 1 at that rate, and not 2 monitors.

You'd need one mean MF video card for that though... Or multiple cards & inputs on the monitor. (Speaking of... I have 1 badass card doing nothing that I need to flog off on eBay or something.)

But still, a bit of a ratio there might be nice. You can only really know these things by seeing & using them.

My current setup looks like this:



I do different things on each monitor, but a square #3 there would really be nice. (#3 is in front of me, while the other 2 are to my left. All are 1920x1080 resolution. (1080 wide isn't enough for the web at large for a perfect viewing experience, but good enough for most.)

I really do like the idea of using the additional vertical space though. It would help a lot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page