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

#1
tigger
I'm the only one
by: Frick
Ye gods people STILL say that?
I don't get what you mean :confused:
Posted on Reply
#2
Octavean
by: PopcornMachine
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.
From the rampant complaining about 27" monitors at 1920x1080 with very clear cost incentives over 27" 2560x1440 monitors (some 1920x1080 units starting to come in at under ~$200 USD) is pretty clear such things won't make a lot of people happy no matter what.

The thing about an in between product is it can be difficult to price. If there is still a market for 21:9 monitors over time one would expect to see prices drop to something a little lower then typical 2560x1440 monitors but then again its still a niche market.

Products with limited mass appeal simply don't have the numbers with respect to demand in order to increase production that leads to lower cost.
Posted on Reply
#3
MadMan007
by: Brusfantomet
or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.
Exactly. Fewer pixels is fewer pixels, period. A 2560x1440 monitor is inherently better than a 2560x1080 because it can *always* display the same exact image AND has more pixels to display more when possible as well...people just need to understand how to set their scaling between game, OS, and video drivers.

There is absolutely no advantage to having the same horizontal resolution with lower vertical resolution unless one is an irrational black bar hater, but they probably don't understand why more pixels is better anyway.
Posted on Reply
#4
SaltyFish
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.
Technically, this "21:9" thing is really 64:27... but marketing wanted associations with 16:9 because people are dumb. "21:9" also happens to be less of a mouthful.

4¹:3¹ = 4:3
4²:3² = 16:9
4³:3³ = 64:27

...notice a pattern? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#5
RejZoR
I'm still using 5:4 monitor and i'm perfectly fine with it. Plus i don't have any performance issues with anything, even if it's a just released triple A super duper title. It will run smoothly with max posssible settings. Unless it's bugged to hell in which case it doesn't matter what monitor you have.

Only reason why i'd want a 1080p monitor is to record videos and upload them in FullHD to Youtube. Recording them in 1280x1024 makes them squashed down into 720p which is dumb...
Posted on Reply
#7
urza26
I can see this monitor having its use, and zinfinion has some fair points.
Important to note is that 21:9 is the native cinema aspect ratio, and I think a lot of blu-ray movies nowadays support that aspect ratio. So for diehard movie fanatics this screen makes perfect sense. Also like zinfinion said having a better horizontal FOV in games is also a major plus.
Though personally I prefer a multimonitor setup compared to an ultrawide monitor, simply for the fact that I like to have the ability to have a browser/chatwindow/PDF/spreadsheet/hardwaremonitor/whatever open on my second screen when gaming.
Posted on Reply
#8
hardcore_gamer
This is a good aspect ratio. But it needs more pixels. Maybe 4096 × 1714 (cinema scope 4K). With a little curvature, it'll give more than 68 degrees of horizontal FOV. 1920 x 1080 gives only 32 degrees.
Posted on Reply
#9
zAAm
As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset... :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#10
micropage7
by: zAAm
As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset... :rolleyes:
yeah, it just like triple monitors blend into 1 monitor, but if triple monitor can placed surrounded it just flat from left to right
Posted on Reply
#11
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: tigger
I don't get what you mean :confused:
Because that ship has sailed man. It was a valid complaint in like 2007, but now it's sort of too late.
Posted on Reply
#12
buggalugs
I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation.

Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline.

The resolution is not so huge that your average graphics card could run gaming without crippling the framerates. I personally don't like multi-monitor gaming, mainly bezels and the space it takes but this ratio is a good compromise.

If they make a 120hz model I would be very interested. New things are always a little more expensive when they are first released. When the price stabilizes they should be not much more than a 1920:1080 monitor. I think they would appeal to the masses who just buy one 1080p screen and don't want to go high res 27" 1440p.
Posted on Reply
#13
micropage7
by: buggalugs
I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation.

Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline.

The resolution is not so huge that your average graphics card could run gaming without crippling the framerates. I personally don't like multi-monitor gaming, mainly bezels and the space it takes but this ratio is a good compromise.

If they make a 120hz model I would be very interested. New things are always a little more expensive when they are first released. When the price stabilizes they should be not much more than a 1920:1080 monitor. I think they would appeal to the masses who just buy one 1080p screen and don't want to go high res 27" 1440p.
yeah the most nice is when you do video editing, image editing or work that need wide space
i still think its triple monitor with one wide display :D
Posted on Reply
#14
ypsylon
21:9 equally useful as 'Snooze' button on smoke alarm...
Posted on Reply
#15
CounterZeus
by: Brusfantomet
or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.
not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating
Posted on Reply
#16
lZKoce
by: CounterZeus
not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating
That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.
Posted on Reply
#17
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: lZKoce
That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.
In D2 it made (makes) tons of sense. SC2 largely looks the same no matter the resolution iirc.
Posted on Reply
#18
Prima.Vera
by: Brusfantomet
or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.
Not a viable option, unless you like unrealistic stretched thin world.
Posted on Reply
#19
erixx
I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor :)

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#20
MadMan007
by: erixx
I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor :)

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars :wtf:
You don't have to use 100% of your display space, I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. You can run 2560x1080 on a 2560x1440 display, get the wider aspect FOV advantages if there are any, and have more pixels when you can use them. The only advantage these monitors might have is if they introduce a new price point between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 monitors (and no, black bars is not a disadvantage, anyone who says so is just wrong.)
Posted on Reply
#21
Duke456
That bezel dimension seems a bit suspect at 0.8mm. Surely it's 0.8cm or 8mm.
Posted on Reply
#22
Octavean
by: erixx
I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor :)

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars :wtf:
Thanks for the input.

Generally speaking I tend to prefer experimentation. I suspect that I would favor such a 21:9 monitor but ideally I would have to actually try it myself to say for sure. User testimonial is the next best thing other then reviews IMO.

Someone simply shooting it down having never tried it is of no use to me.

Like I said I have two 27" 2560x1440 monitors as well as three 27" 1920x1080 monitors in a triple monitor setup. I personally would probably buy a 4K monitor as my next upgrade but again I would very much at least like to try one of these 2560x1080 monitors and no I don't think simply running one of my 2560x1440 monitors at 2560x1080 would be analogous and yield the same experance other then in theory not necessarily in actual practice.

If I'm accessing a computer using a tablet with a higher resolution then the PC that experance isn't the same as actually using the PC either,....even if the tablet scales down to the same resolution.

There is also the issue of personal preference.
Posted on Reply
#23
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
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 makes no difference. It is just describing the aspect ratio, not the resolution. You hate 1080 monitors, not :9 monitors. If you want a 1200 high resolution then 21:9 would be 2800x1200, that is still a xx:9 aspect ratio, but with a 1200 high resolution.
Posted on Reply
#24
Prima.Vera
Those conversations will never stop.

I remember 20 years ago, when SVGA modes were as rare as today's 1440p. Actually I think the first OS ever to provide support for SVGA mode (or a resolution bigger than 800x600), was Windows 3.1. Back then monitors with 14" and 15" were as popular and spread as today's 24" and 27". I remember that 800x600 was the 1080p of today, while higher resolution and bigger monitors were as expensive as today's 1440p ones. And yes, most of the games were running in DOS with 320x240 resolution, while only some new and rare games were using 640x480.

Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///
Posted on Reply
#25
radrok
by: Prima.Vera
Those conversations will never stop.

I remember 20 years ago, when SVGA modes were as rare as today's 1440p. Actually I think the first OS ever to provide support for SVGA mode (or a resolution bigger than 800x600), was Windows 3.1. Back then monitors with 14" and 15" were as popular and spread as today's 24" and 27". I remember that 800x600 was the 1080p of today, while higher resolution and bigger monitors were as expensive as today's 1440p ones. And yes, most of the games were running in DOS with 320x240 resolution, while only some new and rare games were using 640x480.

Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///
I'd just say everyone is different and it doesn't need name calling even if it's targeted to abstract/fictitious people.

To chime in I can honestly tell you that at a normal monitor distance anything above 110-120PPI would be wasted (for many people around).

In my honest opinion and experience 2560x1440 would be the ideal resolution for let's say a 24 incher.

I would love, for example, a 39" 3840x2160 display, it basically would make a perfect 3Dstudio + Photoshop "blackboard".
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment