sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
EIZO is discontinuing the 16:10 monitors? :O
- Thread starter sblantipodi
- Start date
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
the problem is that EIZO 30inch display are too expensive so they don't sell well but I really doubt the someone that works with PC will buy a 16:9.
16:9 is good for gaming and for movies only.
I hope that 16:10 will remain for 24" at least.
Problem with the CG303W is that it's TWICE the price of the PA301W-BK-SV and doesn't offer any thing above it in terms of functionality. I wouldn't worry about the other 16:10 screens for now.
Last edited:
brod
Please dont spread false information. 16:9 is standard for gaming and better for gaming. More field of view and no problems with letterbox and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
Please dont spread false information. 16:9 is standard for gaming and better for gaming. More field of view and no problems with letterbox and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
Only reason why 16:9 is better for gaming is because games nowadays use HOR+ scaling for some reason I dont quite understand. With Vert- FOV would be the same for 16:9 and 16:10, latter would just show more vertically because it has more pixels vertically, otherwise they would be exactly same.
16:10 does not have more pixels.
And secondly. As you say games are HOR+ and therefor 16:9 is better for games.
Yes they do. 16:10 screens have more pixels vertically than their 16:9 counterpart both having equal horizontal resolution. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080
But why is HOR+ dominant?
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Hey please stop. We are talking about EIZOs, go playing around 
Hey please stop. We are talking about EIZOs, go playing around
Whoops! Sorry, didnt mean to hijack.
On topic, my guess is that since Eizo is not making their own panels (IIRC it was Samsung?) their availability is simply dropping?
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Whoops! Sorry, didnt mean to hijack.
On topic, my guess is that since Eizo is not making their own panels (IIRC it was Samsung?) their availability is simply dropping?
Sure Eizo buys panels as every other manufacturers.
The only company that produces panels for PC monitors now is Samsung and LG/Philips.
Your choice of counterparts are subjective and irrelevant.
16:9 and 16:10 are aspect ratios which has nothing to do with amount of pixels. It is simply the relation between width and height.
Why? The screens become more and more wide and many people use eyfinity so Vert- is pretty much useless.
Last edited:
quantum112
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 392
169:1 - aspect ratio of monitors in 10 years.
Little smartass, arent you?
You know exactly what I was talking about. But you are correct, I should have worded it better the first time.But lets drop this. We have derailed thread enough.
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
You are not correct, and you were told that before in the aspect ratio flame war thread. The 16:10 is physically taller than 16:9 thus has to have more pixels.
And eyefinity is only used for gaming, eizo is making monitors mostly for professional segment, and although they used paired 3+ screens as well, they don't play games and they rather benefit from 16:10.
brod doesn't usually spread false anything IMHO, and he's gently pushing you into the only thread that's supposed to be about 16:9 versus 16:10 around here.
- A 16:10 screen at the equivalent diagonal will have more pixels than a 16:9 screen, and for PC monitors what is more relevant are
those extra pixels being in the vertical axis giving more text without scrolling, and more pixels at a given diagonal is better for photographers too.
- A 16:10 screen can easily be used for 16:9 for gaming with the only consequence being black bars top and bottom.
Hey please stop. We are talking about EIZOs, go playing around
That is a good point and correct.
We are talking about professional screens here generally made for photographers and web designers, not generally for gaming consoles, such as the Foris series, where the 16:9 aspect ratio is fine, though still not optimal for PC focused screens.
Eizo is just using "marketecture" to justify their foray into cheaper panels. I guess NEC is going to bear the flagship for now on.
Which is why this whole situation is mindboggling. Why would Eizo, a known brand in professional monitors, is dropping 16:10 in favor of 16:9? There is no logical explanation that I can think of other than production of 16:10 is simply being dropped at Samsung OR someonen at Eizo is having a brainfart of epic proportions.
@Acer_Sheep Gawd, 4.6 Years
You do not know what you are talking about
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with size or amount of pixels.
It is simply the relation between width and height. Thats it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio
You do not know what you are talking about
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with size or amount of pixels.
It is simply the relation between width and height. Thats it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
what you are saying is true but you both are right.
you are right in teory, acer_sheep is right in practice.
every 16:9 panels in practice has less vertical pixels than comparable 16:10 panels,
it is also true that aspect ratio refers to the relation between width and height but at the end the practice is what win every time
so please stop, you are off topic also.
I am right both in theory and practice.
You are just messing up different resolutions with their aspect ratios. Understand. Aspect ratio is one thing. Resolution another. This is the reason why all your conclusions simply are not true, neither in theory or practice.
Last edited:
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
There are threads specifically for discussion about aspect ratios, use em.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1635939
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1607149&page=4
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1635939
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1607149&page=4
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
thanks for trying to clean this thread.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
There could be a discontinuation of the 30" IPS panel. It wouldn't be shocking if it were the case. We'll see what happens to other 30" monitor providers.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
They seem to have a cosy relationship with Samsung and Samsung has dropped production of 30 inch panels for their own business reasons. They never really supported the 30 inch size anyway. It is too bad, because I believe a 30 inch PLS screen in a proper cabnit (no BLB) would command a high price from a lot of engineers/developers/stock brokers/video producers etc. I personally would be more interested in the 27 inch size of the dot pitch was not so tight.
My 2 cent
I apologize if I am being rude, but this is exactly why I called you smartass. Everybody is understanding each other perfectly well, what they MEAN with their words instead of what they are exactly saying word to word. Everybody here knows what aspect ratio is but that isnt the point of this thread. However you are still so hellbent on polishing dots and bending commas that the original point of the discussion is getting quite lost. Remember what this thread is actually about?
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
This is a real concern right now, but if LG actually does come out with higher resolutions than 2560 x 1440 in a 16:9 and a larger physical size then it would not matter much. It is really all about the number of pixels for those of us that do more then gaming.
This is the most possible scenario. 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 is so close that there is no reason two continue both. We will most likely see 3840x2160 monitors soon.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
I'd be fine with a QuadHD monitor if I didn't need to take out two car loans to afford one. ATM, the general difference in price between a 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 is negligible. When you're going to be paying close to $1000 (or more in Eizo's Case), $200 in either direction is nothing.
At this point though, I don't see a video standard that will bridge in between 2560x1600 and 3840x2160.
All users (apart from those who want squarish monitors) are winners here in the long run.
To continue with similar resolutions in 16:9 and 16:10 just increase production costs which increase prices.
16:10 lovers are angry with 1920x1080 but they for some reason dont wanna see that the average joe now have 1920x1080 instead of 1680x1050. Because of the 16:9 standard the average joe will soon be able to buy 2560x1440 and the more producers that discontinue 2560x1600 and 1920x1200 the sooner that will happen.
Then the 16:10 lover say "why cant 16:10 be that standard instead"?
Actually good question but the answer is that it cant because all TV:s are 16:9 so 16:9 allready is there.
I actually dont care much about 16:9 or 16:10 but to continue such similar aspect ratios is just foolish if you have consumers finances in mind.
wasserkool
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 346
Well this leaves NEC the only high end player in the 30 inch 16:10 monitor segment. Seriously NEC monitors has always provided much better bang for the buck compared to Eizo's ridiculously priced stuff. I am surprised they didn't go under in this economic climate lol...
Eizo's 30 inchers are weird too - they have an active cooling fan in it and I mean WTF lol
Eizo's 30 inchers are weird too - they have an active cooling fan in it and I mean WTF lol
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
Many larger plasma/LCD TVs have cooling fans as well. Seems what actually has to be cooled are inverter components due to high power draw and additionally the cathode lamps in LCD producing additional heat.
I'm going to explain to you in the simpliest meaning, hoping you understand.
Imagine flat building with 10 rooms(windows) per floor, that one building has 4 floors(16:9) that means it has 40 windows(pixels). The building next to it also has 10 rooms in row, but it has 5 floors and than it has 50 rooms(16:10). Although their are similar in their size, the one is taller and can hold one complete floor of additional 10 rooms and thus has more space available. Because in your understanding although the building is higher by another floor it still has only 40 rooms just like the smaller building.
Last edited:
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
No; I am talking about resolutions we have not seen yet, like 3840x2160 or whatever quad HD turns out to be. 2560x1440 is still inadequate for engineering and many other applications. You obviously do not have any experience with anything but gaming, so you do not see the need for the extra pixels. We do.
16:9 and 16:10 are aspect ratios and not total pixel amounts. It just happens that most 16:9 screen resolutions have a 16:10 screen resolution that has the same number of horizontal pixels and slightly more vertical pixels. (e.g. 1920 X 1080 vs. 1920 X1200 or 2560 X 1440 vs 2560 X 1600)
You obviously didnt read the definition.
It is just a relation between width and height.
16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9. (because 10/16 > 9/16)
4:3 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:10 (because 3/4 > 10/16)
16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10 (because 16/9 > 16/10)
16:10 is a wider aspect ratio than 4:3 (because 16/10 > 4/3)
When you claim that 16:10 has more pixels than 16:9 (because 16+10 is more than 16+9)
It is just as false as claiming that 16:9 has more pixels than 4:3 because 16+9 is more than 4+3.
16:9, 4:3 and 16:9 are just aspect ratios which doesnt give you any info on total pixel amount.
You obviosly dont understand what aspect ratio means.
Read what Bacillus says above. He gets it.
All the latest CG (coloredge) series have been LG panels. The CG245W, 303W and CG275W are all using LG IPS panels.
Out of all these sizes, 30" is the only one that Samsung does not provide PLS for, and in the Eizo Foris FS2332-BK thread, one user has confirmed the 23" panel in the monitor is PLS by Samsung, after taking apart their monitor.
Intrepid users here at [H]
I will echo Edews' statement here. This thread is about something interesting, not the aspect ratio carousel.
I'd even go one step further and encourage the use of the BANG button above certain posts to clear this thread up.
I'm inclined to agree with daveswantek and believe it is Eizo coming to the table with Samsung more than a termination of 30" panels.
Is it coincidence that Samsung is putting out their new "semi-pro" monitor around the same time as this announcement? Methinks not.
A 1.07B color panel (8-bit + A-FRC) would likely be wide gamut which means RGB-LED or W-CCFL, and this is what Eizo would be looking for in panels as well. This is what's in that new S27B970 monitor posted about recently by Pultzar, and slated to be shown at CES 2012.
Neither Dell, nor NEC have cancelled or end-of-life'd their 30" models, so I'll assume LG will continue to enjoy their 30" 16:10 panel monopoly.
It's too bad. Being the owner of a 27" PLS based screen I see potential for this IPS "version" from Samsung in a 30" panel.
Yes, Eizo is not a "gaming" company, but possibly a monitor "enthusiast" company, so this is a mind-boggling decision.
I am very interested in seeing higher PPI desktop screens too, but my belief is that Apple will lead this bandwagon.