Friday, August 9th 2013

ASUS Introduces PB298Q Ultrawide 21:9 Panoramic Monitor

ASUS announced the PB298Q, a 29-inch widescreen monitor with an ultra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio and 2560 x 1080 resolution. The PB298Q features an AH-IPS (Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching) display for rich, vibrant color and wide 178-degree viewing angles. It has a narrow 0.8mm bezel design which helps create the illusion of a frameless, edge-to-edge display. It also has rich connectivity options, ASUS-exclusive technologies, and an ergonomic stand with tilt, swivel, pivot, and height adjustments allow for enhanced productivity.

Increasing productivity with a panoramic 21:9 display
The 2560 x 1080 resolution of the ASUS PB298Q is 33% wider than standard Full HD display and, together with its 29-inch diagonal, is equivalent to two non-widescreen, 5:4 aspect ratio, 17-inch monitors placed side by side. The 21:9 aspect ratio gives more room for multiple windows, removing the need for a secondary desktop monitor. The ultra-wide resolution also means users can view more columns in a spreadsheet, with up to 13 more standard-sized columns than a conventional Full HD monitor.

The LED-backlit AH-IPS display gives extremely accurate color reproduction, making the PB298Q ideally suited to both professional and home use. 178-degree wide viewing angles also mean that images don't wash out when seen from either side, or above and below. Paired with a narrow 0.8mm bezel design, it helps create the illusion of a frameless monitor that delivers edge-to-edge visuals.

Extensive connectivity and exclusive technologies
The PB298Q display has an array of connectivity options for wide compatibility with a range of multimedia devices. Video inputs include DisplayPort, HDMI, and Dual-link DVI ports, while audio can be played through built-in 3W stereo speakers.

With an 80,000,000:1 ASUS Smart Contrast Ratio and a 300cd/m² brightness rating, the ASUS PB298Q display delivers life-like visuals by adjusting backlight luminance to achieve the darkest black and the brightest white shades. The exclusive ASUS MultiFrame software lets users organize multiple desktop windows, arranging them in an orderly fashion where they don't overlap.

ASUS Splendid Video Intelligence Technology also ensures vivid colors in every situation, with its six modes easily activated using a designated hotkey. The PB298Q also comes with QuickFit Virtual Scale with on-screen guidelines for an actual-size preview of images prior to printing. The PB298Q also features a sturdy stand with adjustable tilt, swivel, and height (up to 150mm), while a pivot joint allows the display to be rotated through 90 degrees for portrait use.
Add your own comment

68 Comments on ASUS Introduces PB298Q Ultrawide 21:9 Panoramic Monitor

#3
tigger
I'm the only one
Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.
Posted on Reply
#4
Octavean
Pfffff,....

I want one!

Hell, I want three!!!
Posted on Reply
#5
radrok
What's going to be up next? 3840x1080?

32:9 gogo -.-

Would love a 4:3 monitor though, like 2560x1920.
Posted on Reply
#6
zinfinion
I'm amused at the instant derision this aspect ratio receives. Playing in 16:9 now is like being a horse wearing blinders.

16:9 1920x1080


21:9 2560x1080


All that extra inherent FOV is an amazing benefit. Also, due to how the forum scales the images, it gives a rather false impression that the 21:9 shot is shorter vertically. It is not, they need to be viewed with the vertical height held constant to get the jist of the difference in aspect ratio.

Would I prefer a 21:9 with even more resolution, say a 3418x1440? Yes, absolutely. But since that is not an option, I'll take a 21:9 aspect ratio over any resolution 16:9.
Posted on Reply
#7
Brusfantomet
by: zinfinion
I'm amused at the instant derision this aspect ratio receives. Playing in 16:9 now is like being a horse wearing blinders.

16:9 1920x1080
http://i.imgur.com/UJGIVOO.jpg

21:9 2560x1080
http://i.imgur.com/DeURK0T.jpg

All that extra inherent FOV is an amazing benefit. Also, due to how the forum scales the images, it gives a rather false impression that the 21:9 shot is shorter vertically. It is not, they need to be viewed with the vertical height held constant to get the jist of the difference in aspect ratio.

Would I prefer a 21:9 with even more resolution, say a 3418x1440? Yes, absolutely. But since that is not an option, I'll take a 21:9 aspect ratio over any resolution 16:9.
16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.

Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.
Posted on Reply
#8
PopcornMachine
These are kind of interesting monitors for certain uses. But since they are general priced at $400-$500 or more, why would you get one instead of 2560x1440?

Pricing on monitors is all screwed up.
Posted on Reply
#9
zinfinion
by: Brusfantomet
16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.

Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.
16:10 (regardless of resolution) is actually an even more restricted FOV than 16:9, just as 4:3 is even more restricted than that.

16:10 1920x1200


16:10 2560x1600


16:9 1920x1080


16:9 2560x1440


21:9 2560x1080



As for games being hor+ or vert-, the vast majority are hor+, only a very rare few are vert- any more.

by: PopcornMachine
These are kind of interesting monitors for certain uses. But since they are general priced at $400-$500 or more, why would you get one instead of 2560x1440?

Pricing on monitors is all screwed up.
Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.
Posted on Reply
#10
Octavean
by: Brusfantomet
16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.

Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.
The same is true here in the USA. That is to say that a 27" 2560x1440 monitor can be found for less then the typical price of a 2560x1080 monitor. To be clear though, those 2560x1440 monitors are off brand Korean imports compared to name brands such as Asus, Dell, HP, Samsung and so on. Even an Acer 2560x1440 monitor will likely cost about ~$550 USD. 2560x1600 typically cost more and touch the ~$1000 USD range (name brand).

Comparing name brand to off brand is apples to oranges although if there is a market we are likely to see Korean imports of 21:9 2560x1080 monitors as well some time in the future.

Why someone would want a 21:9 monitor is clearly up to the individual and it does seem a bit of a niche market but I doubt its something that could be explained to someone who doesn't want one. People have a tendency to see only what they want to see.
Posted on Reply
#11
Roph
But they're the same panels. LG IPS and Samsung PLS. The "brand" you're choosing is basically what shape and logo for the monitor housing.
Posted on Reply
#12
zinfinion
by: Octavean
Why someone would want a 21:9 monitor is clearly up to the individual and it does seem a bit of a niche market but I doubt its something that could be explained to someone who doesn't want one. People have a tendency to see only what they want to see.
QFT. It is absolutely a niche market, one I don't see taking off or surviving sadly. Which is strange, as I doubt many people would want to go back to 4:3 (12:9) after having been accustomed to 16:9. 21:9 is just the next increase in wideness.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy one either, I'm just demonstrating an aspect (oh the puns) that the manufacturers really fail at since they don't seem to even be considering the gaming market, which is where these displays really shine. For business desktop work, 2560x1600 all the way. For games, the wider the better.

Also, were these displays either 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 I don't think the 2560x1440/1600 crowd would be quite as flummoxed.


by: tigger
Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.
The :9 is inherently meaningless. A 16:10 could just as easily be called a 14.4:9. I'd prefer if everyone went divisor free.

1.25 = 5:4
1.33 = 4:3
1.60 = 16:10
1.77 = 16:9
2.37 = 21:9
Posted on Reply
#13
Octavean
by: Roph
But they're the same panels. LG IPS and Samsung PLS. The "brand" you're choosing is basically what shape and logo for the monitor housing.
I have two Auria EQ276W 27" monitors I bought from Microcenter for ~$399 each. I've seen the same monitor with different names on it such as Overloard and Nixeus NX-VUE27 as well as some others that cost more or less then the model I bought. I know how good the off brands can be.

Thats besides the point though. I wouldn't just lump them all together because its convenient or helps make the point of an argument.

Just because the panel is the same or quasi doesn't mean all monitors are the same anymore then any SSD using the same controller or any DIMM using the same memory chips will be exactly the same. There is just more that goes into these products.

Also, as much as I like my Auria EQ276W 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitors I probably wouldn't have bothered with them if HP, Dell, Asus and others had comparable prices. This is probably true for most people so the off brand monitors of this type are also filling a niche. A niche that could close if the prices of these things ever go down significantly.

The Auria EQ276W has some minor quirks but I know how to work with them and rarely see them. I don't believe that companies like Dell, HP, Asus and so on would have let such minor issues stand though. I think the same is true for a lot of these off brand monitors. I think you often get a better quality product when you pay more.
Posted on Reply
#14
Octavean
by: zinfinion

Also, were these displays either 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 I don't think the 2560x1440/1600 crowd would be quite as flummoxed.
I don't know maybe,....

As I have said before those typically interested in such a monitor ratio probably wouldn't benefit much from an increase in resolution. However, lets say they made these 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 monitors. The price would likely be in the same range as 4K monitors at 3840x2160 just like 2560x1080 monitors are similarly priced to some 2560x1440 monitors.

So the question then is would those who want that 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 resolution pay ~$3500 for it in a ~30" or so package,....???

Money talks, BS walks,.....
Posted on Reply
#15
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: tigger
Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.
Ye gods people STILL say that?

by: radrok
What's going to be up next? 3840x1080?
Considering it's pretty common to have two 1920 monitors side by side... I'd say that would be pretty cool. Dual monitor gaming ... but without bezels? With a slight curvature to it, it would rock.
Posted on Reply
#16
radrok
by: Frick
Considering it's pretty common to have two 1920 monitors side by side... I'd say that would be pretty cool. Dual monitor gaming ... but without bezels? With a slight curvature to it, it would rock.
I'd rather use a 3840x2160 monitor :)
Posted on Reply
#17
burtram
I want one of these, but mostly to free up desk space, while giving me more desktop real estate. I've seen them in person, and they are short enough to not block my tv, and I can put my second monitor to use somewhere else (since I only use it for all my desktop icons anyways).
Posted on Reply
#18
PopcornMachine
by: zinfinion

Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.
Why not think of 2560x1440 heightened 2560x1080, that you can still run games in a window at 2560x1080 and have more space for other things.

My point is that if there's no cost incentive to buy this size panel, I will happily make do with the extra pixels.
Posted on Reply
#20
lemonadesoda
Posted on Reply
#21
sno.lcn
x1200, and make it much larger and I'd probably be in for one or a few for the office.
Posted on Reply
#22
Prima.Vera
by: sno.lcn
x1200, and make it much larger and I'd probably be in for one or a few for the office.
This.

I am screaming to every 21:9 monitor article to make them at least 36-38" in diagonal size, or the same vertical size as a 27 incher, and with a resolution of 2800x1200.
Those 29" are just to damn small. Seriously!
Posted on Reply
#23
1c3d0g
Thank you, zinfinion, for bringing facts and an overall sense of sanity back into these forums. Lots of people are spouting crap from their mouths when it comes to monitors these days. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#25
Brusfantomet
by: zinfinion
16:10 (regardless of resolution) is actually an even more restricted FOV than 16:9, just as 4:3 is even more restricted than that.

16:10 1920x1200
http://i.imgur.com/5f4hwfu.jpg

16:10 2560x1600
http://i.imgur.com/N6Itm2g.jpg

16:9 1920x1080
http://i.imgur.com/QxiApmW.jpg

16:9 2560x1440
http://i.imgur.com/1Xg7OBw.jpg

21:9 2560x1080
http://i.imgur.com/VPTRXJc.jpg


As for games being hor+ or vert-, the vast majority are hor+, only a very rare few are vert- any more.



Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.
or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment