This is basically two 1440p panels attached together... so not too different if you have really thin bezels.
But what I'm curious about is if this acts as one monitor or two? None of the images show windows that overlap the middle of the screen. So is it one or two "virtual" screens?
If it is one virtual screen, I might think of it as more useful to me in the 18:16 orientation.
More flexibility when splitting stuff? With 2 screens, I often found I wanted a main thing in the middle and a small window on each side, but that's really ackward if you have a bezzle. Then again, that makes more sense for an ultra-wide than an ultra-high monitor in my opinion.
From someone that does a 3x2 setup I'll add one downside: on my split setup I run the bottom row 90 degrees from the desk while the upper ones are angled down and slightly so that both are viewed straight on when glanced at. Not having a physical split like this makes it so the top and bottom will always seem angled.
I suppose if it were curved it'd solve that problem but then it would come with assumptions about how far away you sit and create new problems like glare streaks.
Not the LG but I've ran a 1:1 EIZO for years which is very close... Just gonna talk on how I've grown to love the 1:1 aspect ratio.
1:1... it's not for everyone, but it is for me for the following purposes:
* Best LOC on-screen possible - balanced horizontal/vertical space in my IDE means I can fit WAY more readable code on screen vs. my horizontal monitors
* Vertical aspect ratio media - editing a vertical photo is outstanding (color profiles on this monitor are meh but not a huge deal for me)
* 4-corner tiling - I find I only tile to the left/right or top/bottom on normal horizontal/vertical monitors... on this one I can fit 4x windows in reasonable aspect ratios in the corners
* Full-height web browsing/document reading - not exclusive to 1:1; viewing a whole "page" of data is much more natural vs horizontal aspect ratios
---
Downsides:
* Gaming - Some games can be configured to work with it. Outside of Factorio I really don't use it _at all_ for gaming. I have 2x 16:9 1440p's on each side that I typically game on.
* Price/obscurity - This EIZO was way too expensive... the LG is way better but I'm afraid in 1-2 years you won't be able to find them at a reasonable price.
---
TLDR: I'm legit considering picking one of these LG's up for when my EIZO dies - I am so happy there's another option.
I used to run a 16:9 vertically for writing so I got one of these and love it.
The only issue is that I needed to install BetterDisplay (former BetterDummy) to get retina scaling from my macbook pro M1 . Dunno why macOS doesn't support it natively since it has the same PPI as a 32" 4k screen.
I just got one a few weeks back but haven't gotten to spend a ton of time with it yet. It's taking some adjustment but I'm liking it so far.
- had 1440p + 1080p monitors on stands side by side before. Now just this one on an arm (which is excellent), that I can adjust to keep my position from being static.
- not having to hold my neck angled while reading my side monitor is helpful.
- realistically there are a few "modes" of working on here. While coding it's pulled a bit closer, while in CAD or similar creative I might push it back a bit and get more of the monitor in view.
- I recline slightly so the monitor is tilted a bit which gives me a solid view of the bottom 60-70% of the monitor. The top is a bit out of range at close distance.
- For coding so far I have the middle-ish of the monitor as a 1440p code-only view. Below that are a few windows for manpages/reference/interactive debugging/repl/etc. On the top end which is normally slightly out of view I have compilation and long running test output which I glance at by moving my eyes.
I like not having to page between desktops while coding when possible. The bottom view is also large enough to hold a browser window or simulator window. Need to also try pushing it back a bit with slightly larger text and see if that's any better.
I don't intend to game on it, maybe windowed mode in the middle or something.
edit: well, also it has this mode where you can split it into two 1440p monitors on different inputs (which you can hook up to the same computer), so depending on the game I might do that as well.
I have a similar experience with coding! I bought this monitor precisely for that. It's nice to keep some bottom IDE panel open (test results, find results, git log, etc) while keeping the rest of my editor at a normal vertical height.
Similarly, I can keep a browser open at a normal (or even extended!) height, plus keep the developer console open at the bottom. It's made web development more pleasant, just the feeling of not being so cramped vertically.
Having had dual 5Ks for the past five years, I probably wouldn’t be excited even with it being 2x 4K. The bezels aren’t big enough to warrant the drop in resolution for something like this to me.
Having tried both setups I found 8k 55" to be problematic. At 200% scaling it's like 4 4k 27.5" displays which are already a bit under scales individually (160 dpi equivalent being displayed as normal) but much worse because you need to fit 4 within your vision on a flat plane. At 250% things are better but now you're effectively just got an extremely large 5k display with all of the troubles/inneficiencies of fractional scaling.
I found stacking 27"-32" sized displays in a 3x1 or 3x2 to be much more effective. This allows you to adjust the angles horizontally and vertically to where you sit so it's less of a flat plane and allows you to pick 1440p or 2160p panels for each (depending on size you went with and money you want to spend) giving you the option to build to the size and resolution you want instead of the size and resolution you can fit using a single tv. For less than $2k you can get 6x 1440p@165hz displays and 3 dual height monitor stands so it also gives more bang for the buck. Well getting the same peak HDR brightness might cost you more, especially if you want that on all displays.
Not to mention 8k TVs try to do everything I their power to make the experience of just turning on and displaying the content directly and correctly impossible to do fully.
They're still doing the thing where if you want to wall mount it, you've got to punch a hole in your drywall for the cables to have enough room to exit straight out the back of the monitor. Or hope that some cheap 90-degree noname adapter supports the latest version of DisplayPort that you want. I stopped buying this brand of monitor because of this frustration.
Maybe, but there's a tall raised bezel around the port area so even those cables might not work if the port is close enough to the edge of the port cutout, since it'll intersect the chassis plastic. The lower DP port on this monitor looks way too close to the bezel for a 90 degree cable for example. I guess it's not hitting the wall anymore, but I still can't use it. All in all it's a baffling design decision and I wish they would just put the ports downward firing at the bottom of the monitor with straight clearance like everyone else. You could even still stack them vertically with no gap this way because the actual screen support curves away from where the ports would exit.
Meh. I never want more vertical space on my monitor. It would be really a hard aun with MacOS too unless it’s meant to be two virtual monitors, in which case, it still doesn’t impress me.
More horizontal space feels natural, but tends to be an ergonomic problem. I could see vertical working better for the spine & shoulders, as long as it isn’t unnaturally narrow.
Pretty sure that's backwards. Ergonomically you want the entire display to be at and below eye level. The neck rotates easily on the horizontal and really sucks at flexing in the vertical.
Yes, except most people wind up looking at the leftmost third of the screen the vast majority of the time (see visual heat map research) which results in chronically bad posture with very wide screens.
Yeah, not advocating for big wide screens, either. A 17x17 square display would be pretty sweet. You can achieve this by setting the right mode on a 27-inch widescreen, because they are 17 inches tall.
I use a window manager to split a 21:9 5k2k monitor into 11:13:11 panels, so the largest is in the middle. Suits me just fine, and I mostly look at the middle panel, with terminals and browsers off to the left and right respectively.
I find aspect ratio is more important on smaller screens such as on laptops. Once you get to 28" and up, 16:9 is fine, since you can easily tile two windows side by side.
There are other nice displays like Huawei's Mateview at 3000*2000 but nothing costs less than ~550-600$/€. It's a bit of a pity because you can get a decent 1080p or even 1440p monitor for much less.
Fyi I had written a comment some time back on how to make your own monitor, using Panelook but that also isn't very cheap (edit here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30422163)
That is 5:4. The 4:3 1600x1200 IPS one are quite decent but they are getting bulky by todays standards. Also require a lot more power and they are starting to die. (I think last model is from 2005).
So I'd be prepared to do some repairs / get spares if you can+want.
I do actually have a Dell 4:3 monitor with me but unfortunately the resolution as well as the physical dimensions are nothing to write home about. I can make do with "smaller" (<~24") monitors fine as long as the resolution is good enough, but as you mentioned most old monitors aren't even 1080p. (Additionally with my shortsightedness I can/end up pixel-peep on 400ppi+ displays)
I guess a decent solution in my case would be to actually get a proper job (I'm still studying) and save up for a decent display, until which I'll just do some window shopping heh ;)
Dell 2007's (1600x1200) are in high demand. Only a few weeks back I set a watch on an ebay site selling over 100 of them, I see there's only 2 left new.
The 1280x1024's are good for older eyes--that's the size with the biggest pixels. Windows does a pretty good job of scaling fonts but icons don't scale so well. I have a 27" 2560x1440 that's absolutely wonderful for stuff that actually scales well, but I don't do much else with it because of the tiny icons.
I run the EIZO you linked and love it... since I'm such a fan of this monitor I've always kept an eye out for anything more affordable.
Unfortunately, this LG is the first and only thing that I've seen that comes close with a <$1k price tag... I'm considering picking this up to have as a backup when my EIZO finally dies.
100% not for everyone, and I have to run it along side of traditional monitors (gaming etc). That being said, it's the #1 thing I value out of my setup just by personal preference.
When I'm traveling + using a traditional setup I really miss it.
If what you value is vertical space/resolution why not run a 4K monitor vertically? You can either use the full resolution or crop at whatever vertical space you prefer.
This is terrific advice. I run one monitor in the standard horizontal configuration and one horizontal. Everybody who sees it falls in love. I can get 100 lines of code on the monitor and rarely does a line wrap. PDFs and other documents look terrific.
I just switched to this setup and it’s great. Windows unfortunately doesn’t natively support “snap to left/right” on a horizontal monitor and “snap to bottom/top” on a vertical monitor at the same time.
This is where the vertically curved displays used for video slots would shine as a general purpose monitor. You'd have less vertical range to scan and refocus on.
It's a little bit better but it's still a crap aspect ratio, and turning it vertical doesn't fix all of the problem. Now it's too tall and not wide enough.
The Huawei Mateview is exceptional. I was bothered by the price but eventually got one on sale. It’s so good I’m buying another at full price. (Unless it comes on sale again!)
Not sure what you mean by bleeding - can you be more specific?
I find it an absolute joy to use. When I am at my desk I spend a lot of time in front of the screen and compared to the Samsung 4k I was using previously I find far less eye strain, much crisper image, and just generally more pleasant. I feel the investment was very worthwhile.
It’s also very beautifully designed which was definitely a consideration for me, as my office has a very cheaper defined aesthetic.
Happy to answer specific questions but understand that I’m not a monitor expert :)
Having looked out for this since you mentioned it it is not something I noticed. Meanwhile I’m really annoyed because this was on a “lightning deal” on Amazon recently for £389 and I missed picking another one up by about 40 minutes!
I have one as well and definitely can recommend it. The only thing is that if you are running macOS you really need to have SwitchResX for it to not look terrible.
I have it next to my studio display and it honestly does not even compare in terms of clarity. I’m sure it’ll run better on windows.
> I have it next to my studio display and it honestly does not even compare in terms of clarity.
Could you clarify a bit by what you mean? The studio display has a higher resolution if I'm not mistaken (4500*3000), do you mean the display is more vivid or has a better color space (DCI P3 etc) coverage? Thanks!
I’m referring to the scaling of the display. The reason that I say that macOS looks better is because it uses integer scaling on the studio display. While even after setting a custom resolution, (the defaults macOS chose for the Mateview were either really small or really large for my taste) the Mateview still has a bit of a blur to it in small fonts it is most noticeable. Whereas the studio display shows well because it was made with integer scaling in mind
Not just that, but curved monitors are useless for any design work, like CAD, or even good old graphical design, and I suspect this monitor will be popular with those people.
If this almost-square aspect would drive you crazy, Eizo has been selling actually-square displays for ages. There's some kind of U.S. government contract for air traffic controllers that keeps the square panel industry alive. I think their "wide all around" marketing is clever.
I don't much care for the aspect ratio. But I have been dying for a decent sized 1080p USB-C monitor like this that has no power brick. Is there anything similar?
I went on this quest recently. I wanted a small display to tuck _under_ my main widescreen monitor, so that I could have chat apps & video streaming in my periphery.
The category I ended up targeting is portable monitors aimed at the business laptop market. These are slim, have a kickstand for support, and can receive data & power over a single usb-c. Not sure about product marketing restrictions on HN so I won't say the brand. But it's a 14" portable monitor from a long-running business laptop brand.
If you want this for a non-laptop scenario, my advice would be to pay very close attention to the types & versions of connectors on the devices you're trying to connect. My gaming desktop didn't have the exact right usb-c port. That sent me into the world of 'weird' cables and lots of debugging to finally get it set up the way I want.
You can absolutely mention brands and even link to product pages.
If you're going to use an affiliate link, it is common courtesy to disclose that.
I'm interested in having a USB-C powered screen as a second monitor for my MacBook Pro, but would want it to more closely match the same resolution. 1080 just won't cut it.
Have either of you considered some kind of ipad + sidecar for that? I'm not familiar with the ipad product line but I think there are large-ish ones with high DPI.
I find panning my eyes left and right to other monitors more natural than up and down, and I think most ergonomics experts would agree. As such a 32:9 widescreen seems preferable to a 16:8. But if you are pressed for space, either because of small desks or because of everything else going on on your desk (people who work not only in the virtual world) this seems like a great compromise.
Are there any window managers that let you set some kind of 'snap zones' so that you can easily tile screens without fiddling? That's my main issue with large screens vs a plurality of smaller ones.
If you use a Mac, I’ve really enjoyed using Divvy. You can define snap zones with keyboard shortcuts. It’s $20, but that’s worth it for me considering how much I use it.
Hammerspoon has the benefit that in addition to managing your windows / spaces, you can also script tons of other things in the macos interface with it: have a glance at https://www.hammerspoon.org/docs/ to see the top-level modules.
Specifically, the FancyZones utility. I was just showing this to a guest I was hosting and blowing their minds. You can setup multiple patterns per monitor depending on a given workflow, snap windows with shortcuts or shift-dragging with the mouse, and even tab between windows in the same 'pane'.
Honestly the latest Windows 10 isn’t bad in this regard and Windows 11 has improved on that without making it a chore (although the other regressions in 11 make it a strong Do Not Recommend for now). The PowerToys expansion for this feature is worth trying (it’s by Microsoft and it’s free).
I'm double-extending vscode: top monitor gets the code, bottom laptop screen gets the terminal (vscode click-to-goto file/line in stdout/stderr output is just too powerful)
why can't those be put in different spaces and just switch between spaces using keyboard. Whats the advantage of putting terminal in another monitor.
This has puzzled me for a long time as to why ppl use multiple monitors at all. Is the idea that your peripheral vision is monitoring terminal window ?
I don’t know about terminals but having live reload on multiple monitors is a god send for frontend developer productivity. You’re experimenting most of the time.
I have two 32" external monitors connected to my 17" laptop, so I use 3 screens: the laptop screen is usually for browser/slack/email, first external monitor is for Vscode code editor, second monitor is for tmux (watching a bunch of ML experiments on GPU servers).
I don't want to use different spaces on the same screen, to me it's like context switching, and I don't like that. I prefer to have everything open in front of me, so I just turn my head slightly to see what I need to see. It's like having a large work table where I can fit all my tools and materials.
Arguably if vscode allowed you to detach the terminal this would be less of an issue. But you can't, and it's part of the same screen, and making the terminal have a small horizontal section of the screen is not as good; terminal character wrapping for small vertical sections is not as good etc.
If you have never had your terminal highlight something that it detects (log line, compile error, stacktrace, test report, etc.) as a reference to a file/line/column and give you a clicky to bring that file to the front and focus it... I highly recommend you try it.
I'm not monitoring the terminal window with my peripheral vision, but when I am using the terminal I don't want to have to rearrange where my code appears.
I also have a third, vertical monitor, that typically has documentation (documentation is splendid when you can see lots of rows of text). Why that has to be "in another monitor" should be a reasonable corrollary from that.
I've always stacked my monitors because I recline while I work, so the up/down eye motion feels natural for me. By contrast, I turn my head to see side-by-side monitors, which doesn't feel as nice to do all day.
I work at a desk, lean my chair back, and use a footrest. Here's the one I'm using now: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B07PWT8X6K/ My desk has a keyboard tray so I can keep my chair low, and I'd want something taller if I had to raise my chair.
For me, this totally eliminates back strain from working. I've also got a friend who uses a La-Z-Boy in his home office, with his laptop connected to the TV. He can't say enough good things about that setup.
A couple years ago I got a Secret Lab Titan, which does have high back/head support. I'm very happy with it. Before that, I've worked this way with whatever chair my job gave me. The head support is nice, but for me it isn't critical.
I got a 21:9 display for my main monitor which forced me to turn a 16:9 monitor sideways so it would fit on my desk. It's very much just meant for stuff on the side because it is not comfortable to be looking up and down like that. The best arrangement seems to be to have stuff that I'm not focusing too hard on in the top half (a YouTube video or Discord when I'm just glancing at it) and to have in the bottom half stuff that I'm more actively focusing on (general browsing or Discord when I'm doing a lot of chatting)
I'm also using a 21:9 and a 16:9 sideways. I mainly use the portrait monitor for API docs and the iOS simulator. The tall format is perfect for viewing documentation, especially browsing through long lists of classes or methods.
I've always been the opposite - not a big fan of having to turn my head much when I'm working.
At home I've got 2 x 27" 9:16 monitors, one in front and one to my right (total display width ~68 cm), then my little laptop on the left (~30 cm wide) - and that's about far left or right as I can be bothered to look.
At work I've got 1 x 27" 9:16 monitor in front, and 1 x 27" 16:9 monitor on my left. The left hand side of the desktop feels very, very far away!
Partly because I work in video games, so at work I benefit from having one landscape monitor for testing the game at a realistic resolution and/or using the tools, almost all of which are always designed for use in landscape orientation.
(I could probably work around all of that, and indeed when I work at home I just suck it up and/or have things stretch across two screens. But the other part is that the monitor stand I have at work is a bit limited, so if I have both monitors in portrait orientation and move them so they're adjacent, they end up too close to me.)
Also don't forget that our eyes are… you know… next to each other. Rather than stacked vertically. The aspect ratio for the average binocular human is almost 2:1 (vertical FOV is around 100°, while horizontal is up to 190°).
Actually good point, looking at that article again, 190° is edge-to-edge — i.e. also including single-eye areas.
True binocular FOV is 120° horizontal, which makes it close to a square actually.
It’s not like that remaining 70° is completely useless for monitor viewing, you will still peripherally notice any major display changes in that area, and should you need to turn your head, the partial view makes it easier to quickly find and lock onto the new target.
Clearly this monitor only make sense if you get two of them and run them side by side... Imagine the glorious luxury of such setup...
I used to run two 30"s vertically, but after upgrading to high-res 32" didn't get back to such setup (would be too narrow and too tall). Two of these 27"s can be great for side-by-side again.
It is rather low 110 dpi, „retina“ devices are doing > 220 dpi for nearly a decade and are much easier on the eyes.
Now unfortunately those are still not common in external monitors - probably because they require 5k resolution for todays display sizes. But even the 160 dpi of a 4K @ 27“ screen is such a massive step forward in picture quality and readability that I couldn’t ever see myself going back to 110dpi or less. This should especially apply if a display is marketed as ergonomic
You are right. I got confused by the mention of 1440p - which is not really what this screen has at 28“. Still not really in the hidpi category. I assume it would be most usable with something along 1.5-1.75 scaling, which produces inferior results to 2x.
I would prefer higher dpi too. If someone would make a hidpi square (ish) screen I would buy it in a heartbeat. The Huawei Mateview looks great but can't swivel to portrait, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t own a 4K monitor that was over 24” and I don’t use monitors that are under 25” anymore. So yes, that means the entire market for monitors I’d own is around 6 in total, which is ridiculous being that it’s 2022, but that’s the world we live in.
Excellent form factor with an unusable ppi. I lost all my faith in non-Apple companies being able to produce usable displays. I hate macOS, but I have no choice. The only alternative is Linux+UP3218K, but it requires Nvidia graphics (no-go on Linux, for me), and the build quality is spotty and poor...
At least now we have a Linux laptop with a usable display though, the soon to be released ThinkPad T14s Gen 3 will have the option of a 16:10, 2880x1800, 242ppi display, usable in Linux with 2x scaling.
Of course that laptop has other problems, but at least we have the first alternative to a MacBook in over a decade for people who care about Linux and displays.
That is excellent to hear! I really, really want a Linux workstation using Dell UP3218K. Sadly so few people have this monitor, and even fewer use Linux, that it's quite the financial gamble to know what actually works and what doesn't. I could return the monitor, of course, but then I end up with a newly bought machine without any display I could use...
I've been using a 32" 16:9 4K monitor (BenQ BL3201PH) for years. The biggest improvement I've made recently was putting it on a proper monitor arm. OMG, what a sea change being able to raise, lower, bring forward, push back the monitor throughout the day.
I have a fixed standing desk with a tall bar-stool type chair I use for resting at times. I'm 50, but even with glasses I use just for editing (they are optimized for bringing into focus things at arms distance) I have the monitor relatively close to use it at the resolution and font-sizes I like. This means if I'm working on editing something toward the bottom or top of the monitor I'll often have to adjust its height so that I'm not tilting my head too far down or up. The monitor arm just makes that so easy.
After a couple tries, I found a knock-off of the Fully Jarvis arm that works well, the WALI GSM001XL:
Anyway, this LG is neat, but my 32" is already at the height limit I'd want for a monitor. I feel like this LG dual setup I'd need to have too far way to see the full view comfortably, which would mean running everything at larger font sizes, so I'm not sure it makes sense.
I don't run it 100%. I run it at 3360 x 1890, once click down in the Mac display preference pane from native. It's apparently 114%/122ppi according to [1] (not my monitor, but it's an equivalent size/resolution).
Isn't that a bit too close? Can you see all of it at once, and is there anything but it in your field of view? I'm asking because i had a 60cm (24'' is 61cm) desk with a 24'' screen and i found that too close and too straining on my eyes.
It's as close as it needs to be for the size fonts and resolution I want to run it at, and still be able to read comfortably with my 50 year-old eyes. Yes, it's a bit on the close side so I do have to pan my head a bit. As I mentioned, I do push it back and bring it forward throughout the day, but I just measured where I'd left it at after coding yesterday and it was at 24" away.
I don't really have any issues with eye strain though.
I did need to get dedicated glasses that I use when using the monitor or when I'm on my laptop. I'm a bit near-sighted, even after Lasik a decade ago, and now I'm also dealing with presbyopia the last few years. I've worn glasses all my life, but they never bothered me at all till I started dealing with the presbyopia and needing task-specific glasses. :-(
I tried progressive glasses (modern versions of bifocals) but found them extremely annoying with their fishbowl effect and only providing enough magnification at the bottom and gave up on them after two weeks. So I now have my regular glasses that are adjusted for normal activities and I just take them off or read below them for near work. My near-sightedness here is providing me some temporary respite from the presbyopia. But at arm's length distances, it's uncomfortable to read text through them because my eyes can't focus that close with them on, yet if I take them off it's just a bit too blurry.
So I basically have my work glasses that make things from ~ 18" - 36" comfortable for viewing.
Presbyopia really sucks and it's the only thing so far about aging that's a constant irritation in my day. :-(
p.s. typing this on an iPad 12.9" that's about 16" from my face, w/o wearing my glasses. Further away and it's too blurry and I'd need my middle-distance glasses. With my regular glasses, there's no distance at which I can read it.
> I tried progressive glasses (modern versions of bifocals) but found them extremely annoying with their fishbowl effect
Lord you aren't kidding about that - I tried these after a doctor recommended, and it was so jarring and disorienting I thought something had to be wrong. Apparently that's just how they are.
This monitor would be perfect as left and right side displays. It needs a matching center display that is twice the width and the same height, yielding a three-monitor configuration with a nice large central display.
Indeed, I think 3 monitors might be my next gamble. I switched from dual 27" (one always portrait and the other sometimes portrait, sometimes landscape), to a 42.5 (!) 4k monitor, and then downgraded to 32". The 42" monitor was a little ridiculous, like I literally started clustering my windows in the middle and ignoring the edges. 32 is better. The only direction I can imagine going would be to add 24" flanking portrait monitors to my 32.
Every other example use they've picked seems designed to make it look like it has a bezel with no content crossing the middle of the screen - this single counter-example is buried.
I have one- I can confirm, no bezel. It's just a single contiguous panel as far as I can tell. I does have software support for feeding 2 inputs into the top/bottom, but by default it just hooked up as a single monitor. Looks great!
Even that image is a little confusing; the strong red/blue line in the middle made me wonder if there was a seam between two panels. The red sugar packet on the left is the only thing that unambiguously indicates it's a single continuous panel.
Maybe I'm bad at reading, but it would be nice if the page explained "this is the equivalent of two 20-inch 16:9 monitors stacked" instead of having to bust out the Pythagorean theorem.
According to what you are writing, it is much bigger than your display:
if your display had a 27'' diagonal, and was 25'' wide, it would be 10'' tall. (Which makes little sense: it would be a 5:2 proportion.) So it would have an area of 250 sqi.
Versus the ~350 sqi of the LG. (It is quite a jump: the rounded √2 jump, 5:7, Ax proportion, "do it twice to double".)
The steeper (or flatter) the proportion, the less the area per diagonal size.
But I guess the display for comparison is more likely a 24''x13'' scarce, ~300 sqi.
You brought the measurements of your 16:9 : yes, one of the points was that a 27'' diagonal with a 25'' side cannot be 16:9, and is in fact more like 5:2, as written. Going from 25'' to 23.5'' makes a lot of difference in proportions.
I was all ready to buy one of these until I realised it was the size of two 21” displays stacked, rather than two 27” as the resolution suggests.
I know I wouldn’t be losing any horizontal resolution, but I think 27” is the perfect width for a primary monitor and I wouldn’t really want to go smaller.
309 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 259 ms ] threadBut what I'm curious about is if this acts as one monitor or two? None of the images show windows that overlap the middle of the screen. So is it one or two "virtual" screens?
If it is one virtual screen, I might think of it as more useful to me in the 18:16 orientation.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzone...
https://www.lg.com/us/images/features/mnt-dualup-ergo-28mq78...
I suppose if it were curved it'd solve that problem but then it would come with assumptions about how far away you sit and create new problems like glare streaks.
1:1... it's not for everyone, but it is for me for the following purposes:
* Best LOC on-screen possible - balanced horizontal/vertical space in my IDE means I can fit WAY more readable code on screen vs. my horizontal monitors
* Vertical aspect ratio media - editing a vertical photo is outstanding (color profiles on this monitor are meh but not a huge deal for me)
* 4-corner tiling - I find I only tile to the left/right or top/bottom on normal horizontal/vertical monitors... on this one I can fit 4x windows in reasonable aspect ratios in the corners
* Full-height web browsing/document reading - not exclusive to 1:1; viewing a whole "page" of data is much more natural vs horizontal aspect ratios
---
Downsides:
* Gaming - Some games can be configured to work with it. Outside of Factorio I really don't use it _at all_ for gaming. I have 2x 16:9 1440p's on each side that I typically game on.
* Price/obscurity - This EIZO was way too expensive... the LG is way better but I'm afraid in 1-2 years you won't be able to find them at a reasonable price.
---
TLDR: I'm legit considering picking one of these LG's up for when my EIZO dies - I am so happy there's another option.
The only issue is that I needed to install BetterDisplay (former BetterDummy) to get retina scaling from my macbook pro M1 . Dunno why macOS doesn't support it natively since it has the same PPI as a 32" 4k screen.
- had 1440p + 1080p monitors on stands side by side before. Now just this one on an arm (which is excellent), that I can adjust to keep my position from being static.
- not having to hold my neck angled while reading my side monitor is helpful.
- realistically there are a few "modes" of working on here. While coding it's pulled a bit closer, while in CAD or similar creative I might push it back a bit and get more of the monitor in view.
- I recline slightly so the monitor is tilted a bit which gives me a solid view of the bottom 60-70% of the monitor. The top is a bit out of range at close distance.
- For coding so far I have the middle-ish of the monitor as a 1440p code-only view. Below that are a few windows for manpages/reference/interactive debugging/repl/etc. On the top end which is normally slightly out of view I have compilation and long running test output which I glance at by moving my eyes.
I like not having to page between desktops while coding when possible. The bottom view is also large enough to hold a browser window or simulator window. Need to also try pushing it back a bit with slightly larger text and see if that's any better.
I don't intend to game on it, maybe windowed mode in the middle or something.
edit: well, also it has this mode where you can split it into two 1440p monitors on different inputs (which you can hook up to the same computer), so depending on the game I might do that as well.
Similarly, I can keep a browser open at a normal (or even extended!) height, plus keep the developer console open at the bottom. It's made web development more pleasant, just the feeling of not being so cramped vertically.
I found stacking 27"-32" sized displays in a 3x1 or 3x2 to be much more effective. This allows you to adjust the angles horizontally and vertically to where you sit so it's less of a flat plane and allows you to pick 1440p or 2160p panels for each (depending on size you went with and money you want to spend) giving you the option to build to the size and resolution you want instead of the size and resolution you can fit using a single tv. For less than $2k you can get 6x 1440p@165hz displays and 3 dual height monitor stands so it also gives more bang for the buck. Well getting the same peak HDR brightness might cost you more, especially if you want that on all displays.
Not to mention 8k TVs try to do everything I their power to make the experience of just turning on and displaying the content directly and correctly impossible to do fully.
Like this?
HDMI: https://www.amazon.com/VCE-Supported-Degree-Female-Adapter/d...
DisplayPort: https://www.amazon.com/Displayport-Converter-BolAAzuL-Connec...
Because if you allow a gap, there are plenty of VESA-compatible mounting kits that solve the problem.
There was an 1920*1920 monitor (https://www.inputmag.com/reviews/square-monitor-eizo-flexsca...) but that's over 1k USD :(
There are other nice displays like Huawei's Mateview at 3000*2000 but nothing costs less than ~550-600$/€. It's a bit of a pity because you can get a decent 1080p or even 1440p monitor for much less.
Fyi I had written a comment some time back on how to make your own monitor, using Panelook but that also isn't very cheap (edit here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30422163)
So I'd be prepared to do some repairs / get spares if you can+want.
I guess a decent solution in my case would be to actually get a proper job (I'm still studying) and save up for a decent display, until which I'll just do some window shopping heh ;)
https://th.nec.com/en_TH/product/display/multisync/lcd2090ux...
Manufactured as late as 2010, especially the MedView series.
Unfortunately, this LG is the first and only thing that I've seen that comes close with a <$1k price tag... I'm considering picking this up to have as a backup when my EIZO finally dies.
My specs are 1:1 or as-close as I can get.
I wouldn't want it on my actual workstation ...
When I'm traveling + using a traditional setup I really miss it.
It's reasonably easy to buy it in EU, and price is not too far from usual suspects like Dell UltraSharp or cheap Eizo/Nec models.
I find it an absolute joy to use. When I am at my desk I spend a lot of time in front of the screen and compared to the Samsung 4k I was using previously I find far less eye strain, much crisper image, and just generally more pleasant. I feel the investment was very worthwhile.
It’s also very beautifully designed which was definitely a consideration for me, as my office has a very cheaper defined aesthetic.
Happy to answer specific questions but understand that I’m not a monitor expert :)
I have it next to my studio display and it honestly does not even compare in terms of clarity. I’m sure it’ll run better on windows.
Could you clarify a bit by what you mean? The studio display has a higher resolution if I'm not mistaken (4500*3000), do you mean the display is more vivid or has a better color space (DCI P3 etc) coverage? Thanks!
I’m referring to the scaling of the display. The reason that I say that macOS looks better is because it uses integer scaling on the studio display. While even after setting a custom resolution, (the defaults macOS chose for the Mateview were either really small or really large for my taste) the Mateview still has a bit of a blur to it in small fonts it is most noticeable. Whereas the studio display shows well because it was made with integer scaling in mind
https://www.eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/
The category I ended up targeting is portable monitors aimed at the business laptop market. These are slim, have a kickstand for support, and can receive data & power over a single usb-c. Not sure about product marketing restrictions on HN so I won't say the brand. But it's a 14" portable monitor from a long-running business laptop brand.
If you want this for a non-laptop scenario, my advice would be to pay very close attention to the types & versions of connectors on the devices you're trying to connect. My gaming desktop didn't have the exact right usb-c port. That sent me into the world of 'weird' cables and lots of debugging to finally get it set up the way I want.
If you're going to use an affiliate link, it is common courtesy to disclose that.
I'm interested in having a USB-C powered screen as a second monitor for my MacBook Pro, but would want it to more closely match the same resolution. 1080 just won't cut it.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/divvy-window-manager/id4138575...
My memory is hazy but I feel this is close to some now-elided window management feature in MacOS...
Thanks for the tip!
You will need to do a little configuration, but it does the snap zones thing perfectly.
Another tip: In my setup I created dummy screens to fake multiple monitors in RDP.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzone...
https://rectangleapp.com/
https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000060112/what-is-d...
This has puzzled me for a long time as to why ppl use multiple monitors at all. Is the idea that your peripheral vision is monitoring terminal window ?
I don't want to use different spaces on the same screen, to me it's like context switching, and I don't like that. I prefer to have everything open in front of me, so I just turn my head slightly to see what I need to see. It's like having a large work table where I can fit all my tools and materials.
If you have never had your terminal highlight something that it detects (log line, compile error, stacktrace, test report, etc.) as a reference to a file/line/column and give you a clicky to bring that file to the front and focus it... I highly recommend you try it.
I'm not monitoring the terminal window with my peripheral vision, but when I am using the terminal I don't want to have to rearrange where my code appears.
I also have a third, vertical monitor, that typically has documentation (documentation is splendid when you can see lots of rows of text). Why that has to be "in another monitor" should be a reasonable corrollary from that.
Can you elaborate on this? Sounds like it might be a way to limit back strain? Do you have a desk at all?
For me, this totally eliminates back strain from working. I've also got a friend who uses a La-Z-Boy in his home office, with his laptop connected to the TV. He can't say enough good things about that setup.
At home I've got 2 x 27" 9:16 monitors, one in front and one to my right (total display width ~68 cm), then my little laptop on the left (~30 cm wide) - and that's about far left or right as I can be bothered to look.
At work I've got 1 x 27" 9:16 monitor in front, and 1 x 27" 16:9 monitor on my left. The left hand side of the desktop feels very, very far away!
(I could probably work around all of that, and indeed when I work at home I just suck it up and/or have things stretch across two screens. But the other part is that the monitor stand I have at work is a bit limited, so if I have both monitors in portrait orientation and move them so they're adjacent, they end up too close to me.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view
I am not enjoying a panorama.
True binocular FOV is 120° horizontal, which makes it close to a square actually.
It’s not like that remaining 70° is completely useless for monitor viewing, you will still peripherally notice any major display changes in that area, and should you need to turn your head, the partial view makes it easier to quickly find and lock onto the new target.
I used to run two 30"s vertically, but after upgrading to high-res 32" didn't get back to such setup (would be too narrow and too tall). Two of these 27"s can be great for side-by-side again.
Now unfortunately those are still not common in external monitors - probably because they require 5k resolution for todays display sizes. But even the 160 dpi of a 4K @ 27“ screen is such a massive step forward in picture quality and readability that I couldn’t ever see myself going back to 110dpi or less. This should especially apply if a display is marketed as ergonomic
At least now we have a Linux laptop with a usable display though, the soon to be released ThinkPad T14s Gen 3 will have the option of a 16:10, 2880x1800, 242ppi display, usable in Linux with 2x scaling.
Of course that laptop has other problems, but at least we have the first alternative to a MacBook in over a decade for people who care about Linux and displays.
Care to explain? I found some articles from 2017 claiming AMD cards can display 8k60fps.
I have a fixed standing desk with a tall bar-stool type chair I use for resting at times. I'm 50, but even with glasses I use just for editing (they are optimized for bringing into focus things at arms distance) I have the monitor relatively close to use it at the resolution and font-sizes I like. This means if I'm working on editing something toward the bottom or top of the monitor I'll often have to adjust its height so that I'm not tilting my head too far down or up. The monitor arm just makes that so easy.
After a couple tries, I found a knock-off of the Fully Jarvis arm that works well, the WALI GSM001XL:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NLMLLT6/
Anyway, this LG is neat, but my 32" is already at the height limit I'd want for a monitor. I feel like this LG dual setup I'd need to have too far way to see the full view comfortably, which would mean running everything at larger font sizes, so I'm not sure it makes sense.
The front of the monitor is 24" from my nose.
1. https://www.eizoglobal.com/support/compatibility/dpi_scaling...
Isn't that a bit too close? Can you see all of it at once, and is there anything but it in your field of view? I'm asking because i had a 60cm (24'' is 61cm) desk with a 24'' screen and i found that too close and too straining on my eyes.
I don't really have any issues with eye strain though.
I did need to get dedicated glasses that I use when using the monitor or when I'm on my laptop. I'm a bit near-sighted, even after Lasik a decade ago, and now I'm also dealing with presbyopia the last few years. I've worn glasses all my life, but they never bothered me at all till I started dealing with the presbyopia and needing task-specific glasses. :-(
I tried progressive glasses (modern versions of bifocals) but found them extremely annoying with their fishbowl effect and only providing enough magnification at the bottom and gave up on them after two weeks. So I now have my regular glasses that are adjusted for normal activities and I just take them off or read below them for near work. My near-sightedness here is providing me some temporary respite from the presbyopia. But at arm's length distances, it's uncomfortable to read text through them because my eyes can't focus that close with them on, yet if I take them off it's just a bit too blurry.
So I basically have my work glasses that make things from ~ 18" - 36" comfortable for viewing.
Presbyopia really sucks and it's the only thing so far about aging that's a constant irritation in my day. :-(
p.s. typing this on an iPad 12.9" that's about 16" from my face, w/o wearing my glasses. Further away and it's too blurry and I'd need my middle-distance glasses. With my regular glasses, there's no distance at which I can read it.
Lord you aren't kidding about that - I tried these after a doctor recommended, and it was so jarring and disorienting I thought something had to be wrong. Apparently that's just how they are.
42.7" 16:9, very close to the common 42".
It should also be obvious given that it is not 2 monitors but a single 16:18 monitor...
A 2x(16:9) configuration where the monitors could be brought really close together would be neat though...
Larger avoid having to stretch your neck as much, but I have to admit this 16:18 would save a lot of desk space.
It's 16:18, nearly square. Flipping a 16:9 is 9:16, tall and skinny. Not very similar at all.
My 27" display is almost 25" wide.
I love that site for comparing displays across aspect ratios.
if your display had a 27'' diagonal, and was 25'' wide, it would be 10'' tall. (Which makes little sense: it would be a 5:2 proportion.) So it would have an area of 250 sqi.
Versus the ~350 sqi of the LG. (It is quite a jump: the rounded √2 jump, 5:7, Ax proportion, "do it twice to double".)
The steeper (or flatter) the proportion, the less the area per diagonal size.
But I guess the display for comparison is more likely a 24''x13'' scarce, ~300 sqi.
10" tall? I think your math is off.
My monitor is P2175Q. Dimension with bezel 25.2 x 16.7. LCD alone is 23.5 x 13.25".
How? Have you verified it? √(625+100) = ~26.9
You brought the measurements of your 16:9 : yes, one of the points was that a 27'' diagonal with a 25'' side cannot be 16:9, and is in fact more like 5:2, as written. Going from 25'' to 23.5'' makes a lot of difference in proportions.
I know I wouldn’t be losing any horizontal resolution, but I think 27” is the perfect width for a primary monitor and I wouldn’t really want to go smaller.