TechSpot: LG 29EA93 Ultra Wide Monitor Review

The LG 29EA93-P is the company's first entry into the still nascent category of ultra-wide consumer displays. There remain few options to compete against the 29EA93’s expansive 21:9 aspect ratio (16:9 is typical). However, LG, Dell and a few others ostensibly believe there’s a market for ultra-wides and I’ll admit -- I think they’re right.

When 4:3 displays (e.g. 1600 x 1200) gave way to 16:10 screens (e.g. 1920 x 1200), the event was schismatic in terms of consumer preference. Professionals sometimes favored the aging 4:3 standard for its potentially superior vertical real estate -- a particularly useful thing for vertically organized content like word processing and websites. Meanwhile, gamers, videophiles and most other consumers were seduced by the benefits of wider displays, as they were perfect for watching movies and monitoring your periphery in FPS games.

When 16:9 (e.g. 1920 x 1080) hit the scene though, computer-savvy consumers were left scratching their collective noggins. The initial shift to wide screens had already limited vertical real-estate, so why narrow it even more? The fast-paced adoption of high-def standards (720p and 1080p) are mostly at fault as manufacturers built their displays around HD video standards. To the chagrin of some though, 16:9 is now by far the most ubiquitous widescreen format.

That understanding brings us back to the 29EA93. With its truly ultra-wide aspect ratio of 21:9, LG delivers 2560 x 1080 pixels in a 29-inch package. It’s an impressively wide display -- but obviously not wide enough to fully replace two side-by-side 1080p (16:9) monitors. Why then, should any company settle upon a seemingly arbitrary aspect ratio of 21:9? The short answer is: movies.

Read: LG 29EA93 Review: Are Ultra Wide Monitors Next?

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft already doesn't like Google's EU antitrust concessions

Next Story

Windows 8 Bing apps get updated with new features

8 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'd prefer 21:10.

Surprised this article has some history of resolution. The 16:9 aspect ratio is complete garbage for PC use yet 16:10 has been fading away.

I've been waiting for a 120Hz 16:10 display for years now. Cannot believe one still hasn't been released.

My LG with 2560 x 1600 has more pixels. It is just as wide but tall enough so that if I want to see more vertical content I can. Only think that sucks is after three years I got this vertical line down the monitor that displays the same color. Lucky for me it is not so bad and is a neutral color but it still ****es me off.

Agreed on the vertical part. In fact, computer-wise, it is more important to have vertical display than horizontal. Web pages are designed on a 1000px base, and the rest is height, hence having to scroll less and grabbing more info on the get-go.

I'm actually waiting for the less expensive 29incher from ASUS, the MX299Q with built-in speakers developed by Bang & Olufsen.

29inch is kinda small to me. Mine is 47inch and I'm planning on going bigger pretty quick.
At least this is an LG, so thumbs up for that.

What the ? We're talking res not size. Ur 47" is still 1920x1080.

Any ways this whole thing will never work. For movie goers they need a res of 1920x800 so we can get 1:1 picke mapping in envelope mode.

I think ms showed of their 120" 21:9 recently. That's what you want really even if its double mapping.

You know this is for desktop monitor right. 47inch for the monitor is pretty nice, but I just wonder how far you sit away from the screen ...

LUTZIFER said,
29inch is kinda small to me. Mine is 47inch and I'm planning on going bigger pretty quick.
At least this is an LG, so thumbs up for that.

Looks like a solid monitor with good specs, however, at $699 one could buy a really nice pair of large 16:9 monitors and probably be ahead of the game as far as power-users go.

I guess the ultra wide cinema stuff wouldn't work on a dual monitor setup, so to each their own.