1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

ASUS Introduces PB298Q Ultrawide 21:9 Panoramic Monitor

Discussion in 'News' started by Sin, Aug 9, 2013.

  1. Brusfantomet

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    163 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    32
    or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.
     
  2. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    I don't get what you mean :confused:
     
  3. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    749 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    76
    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.
     
    PopcornMachine says thanks.
  4. MadMan007

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    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.
     
  5. SaltyFish

    SaltyFish

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    330 (0.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    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:
     
  6. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,627 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    928
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    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...
     
  7. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,176 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  8. urza26

    urza26

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    207 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
  9. hardcore_gamer

    hardcore_gamer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    388 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Location:
    Fabry Perot cavity,AlGaAs-GaAs Heterojunction
    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.
     
  10. zAAm

    zAAm

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    979 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Location:
    South Africa
    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:
     
    Prima.Vera says thanks.
  11. micropage7

    micropage7

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,817 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,345
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    yeah, it just like triple monitors blend into 1 monitor, but if triple monitor can placed surrounded it just flat from left to right
     
  12. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,629 (3.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Because that ship has sailed man. It was a valid complaint in like 2007, but now it's sort of too late.
     
  13. buggalugs

    buggalugs

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    935 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    Location:
    Australia
    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.
     
  14. micropage7

    micropage7

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,817 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,345
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    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
     
  15. ypsylon

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    44 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    21:9 equally useful as 'Snooze' button on smoke alarm...
     
  16. CounterZeus

    CounterZeus

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    211 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Location:
    Belgium
    not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating
     
  17. lZKoce

    lZKoce

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    611 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    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.
     
  18. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,629 (3.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    In D2 it made (makes) tons of sense. SC2 largely looks the same no matter the resolution iirc.
     
  19. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,229 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    Not a viable option, unless you like unrealistic stretched thin world.
     
  20. erixx

    erixx

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,362 (2.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    465
    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:
     
  21. MadMan007

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    145 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    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.)
     
  22. Duke456 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    That bezel dimension seems a bit suspect at 0.8mm. Surely it's 0.8cm or 8mm.
     
  23. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    749 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    76
    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.
     
  24. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,937 (6.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,028
    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.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  25. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,229 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    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///
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page