LG EB93 21:9 2560x1080

Wide is good but vertical space is important. I don't know that I'd ever buy something like that. I guess you can think of it as a single monitor alternative to NV Surround and Eyefinity setups but still. I don't think I like that. There was another company that put out something similar. But I think it was wider than that or slightly taller. I can't recall.
 
The vertical pixel resolution is 1080, which is standard.
The vertical height of the screen should be similar to 24in screen.

29in, 21:9 => 26.65x11.42in
24in, 16:9 => 20.92x11.76in

It's basically an alternative to dual screen. I don't think you are loosing much in terms of viewing real estate.
 
i'm in the market for one of these, dell's version kinda put me off abit with the blue box around the second screen in picture by picture mode

i wonder how LG implements this
 
akromatic said:
i'm in the market for one of these, dell's version kinda put me off abit with the blue box around the second screen in picture by picture mode

i wonder how LG implements this
Click to expand...

Yeah that would put me off too.
 
What has put me off entirely for both the Dell & LG ultra-wide monitors, is how they seem to have non-square pixels.

All the press releases have been calling them 21:9 (2.33:1) aspect ratio, when 2560x1080 with square pixels would normally be 64:27 (2.37:1).

The Dell even lists the viewable area as 27.30" x 12.16" (2.248:1) which would normally be 2428x1080 with square pixels, yet the pixel pitch is 0.26mm (W) x 0.09mm (H) which is 26.205" x 3.827"?

Confusing to say the least. I hope Prad or someone else knowledgeable reviews it, and sheds some light on the actual pixel structure and aspect ratio of this LG panel.
 
Dell specs list pixels as 0.09 x 0.26mm. One red, one green plus one blue pixels gets you 0.27 x 0.26mm. Given rounding errors, I'd classify that as square. Same for other specs.
 
XTF said:
Dell specs list pixels as 0.09 x 0.26mm. One red, one green plus one blue pixels gets you 0.27 x 0.26mm. Given rounding errors, I'd classify that as square. Same for other specs.
Click to expand...

Okay, that would make sense, yet 665.6mm x 291.6mm (2.28:1) still doesn't match their 694.6 x 308.9mm (2.248:1) viewable area dimensions.

For the 2560x1080 (2.37:1) pixels and a 694.6 x 308.9mm (2.248:1) viewable area, the pixel pitch should be 0.271mm (W) x 0.286mm (H).

Either way, it doesn't appear at though you would be able to display a perfect circle since the aspect ratio is 4% or 5% too narrow, which is rather significant on a ultra-wide monitor like this.
 
Cyberbeing said:
What has put me off entirely for both the Dell & LG ultra-wide monitors, is how they seem to have non-square pixels.

All the press releases have been calling them 21:9 (2.33:1) aspect ratio, when 2560x1080 with square pixels would normally be 64:27 (2.37:1).

The Dell even lists the viewable area as 27.30" x 12.16" (2.248:1) which would normally be 2428x1080 with square pixels, yet the pixel pitch is 0.26mm (W) x 0.09mm (H) which is 26.205" x 3.827"?

Confusing to say the least. I hope Prad or someone else knowledgeable reviews it, and sheds some light on the actual pixel structure and aspect ratio of this LG panel.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure the Dell screen is 27.30" x 11.4" (or very similar), not 12.16". I could be worng, but I think I read that here in one of the Dell threads.
 
I'm just going by the Dell tech specs listed here which state 694.6 x 308.9mm | 27.30" x 12.16". If indeed Dell is listing incorrect information, that would explain a lot.
 
694.6mm = 27.35"
308.9mm = 12.16"

It's probably just a specs error, I'm quite sure the pixels are square.
 
I was there and grabbed just a few photos. I never thought to take pictures of the back specifically. I don't recall anything jumping out at me though as I walked around the table, so it had to be pretty similar. After reading about all the other 21:9 monitors before this, I really was expecting the rather short height to be an issue. After playing with one and seeing them first hand, I'm no longer that concerned about it. Sure, if you are coming from a 27" or 30" then I can see where it would be bothersome. I don't think anyone that currently uses a 24" or below will have any problem. They have made my short list when I go to upgrade, assuming they are relatively lag free.

P1090053.jpg
P1090054.jpg
P1090055.jpg
P1090056.jpg
P1090057.jpg
 
XTF said:
Why would you buy this over a 2560 x 1440 display?
Click to expand...

Say you want a wide display but the pixel pitch of the 27" 2560 x 1440 monitors is just too small for you, and the 30" 2560 x 1600 costs too much.

I'd rather have at least 1200p vertically, but I'm considering this over a U2713HM simply because the small pitch is made even smaller by my powerful glasses. Could go with dual screens, but there is the annoyance of bezels and non-matching colours.
 
livefastdieyoung said:
playwares tested the ea93 and got 34ms of input lag.
Click to expand...

Arklight said:
Zoinks!

I think the Dell was 29 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's so disappointing.

Edit: After thinking about this more, the lag is still less than my Samsung 244T, and the Westinghouse LVM-37W3 I'm currently using. I know input lag is somewhat subjective, and I don't feel my gaming has suffered terribly because of it, so it would still technically be an improvement. Lol.
 
Last edited:
When is this monitor going to be available? I am considering buying this as a upgraded screen for my computer or getting a new iMac. I don't understand if they have released the consumer model of this monitor why the height adjustable stand version has not been released yet?

My old monitor was a U2711 so I will miss the resolution but it made too much of an impact on my desk. The same can be said about every business biased 27 inch monitor, they are all just big plastic and bezels. What I love about the new LG EB93 is the near 0 bezel around the screen and suitability for multitasking. It would be nice to have at least 1200 vertical pixels so less zooming in to detail in Photoshop for instance but I've got a large format plotter for full size prints to see the entire canvas clearly.

I don't think beyond 2560 pixel screens are going to be available for windows biased machines any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top