Eizo announces 26.5" 1920x1920 IPS Monitor

I sincerely want 3 (or more) of these. Perfect productivity/gaming crossover. Reduce neck strain from working on side monitors, improve layout for coding, and you get a rad resolution for gaming.
 
I'd like to try one before claiming it's a decent gaming monitor. With most standard resolutions you'll be looking at a screen that's half blank. Might be great for text work though.
 
You'd get it if you have a specific need for that aspect ratio. I don't think there are 4K monitors that come in 1:1.
 
4ort said:
You'd get it if you have a specific need for that aspect ratio. I don't think there are 4K monitors that come in 1:1.
Click to expand...

What would an example of that be? Where you'd need your monitor to be in 1:1 ratio?
 
Zangmonkey said:
I don't understand why I would get this instead of a 4K monitor?
Click to expand...

As a standalone, you wouldn't, unless productivity called for it. This is mainly for industry applications, but 3 of these side by side would be a way better compromise in a dual purpose machine than 3 widescreen monitors.
 
I wonder how well it would match up with 1920x1200 portrait monitors. I'd be sweet to 3 monitors that all lined up.
 
If it could pivot (or be seen that way by drivers), then you could use a couple side monitors for PPP non-uniform eyefinity. That could be kinda cool.
 
I wonder if this lines up with any monitor for PLP. It really wouldn't be PLP, it would be LLL, bu the left and right monitors would already be sized correctly.

I could see an awesome PLP type setup that actually works because eyefinity/etc would support it.
 
anonuser said:
I wonder if this lines up with any monitor for PLP. It really wouldn't be PLP, it would be LLL, bu the left and right monitors would already be sized correctly.

I could see an awesome PLP type setup that actually works because eyefinity/etc would support it.
Click to expand...

sind(45)*26.5=18.738

Hmmm... I'm not sure if that compares to anything out there.

(kind of annoying, while I was calculating out these heights in google, it found search results of pages doing the exact same thing...)
24*sin(atan(9/16))=11.77
27*sin(atan(9/16))=13.24
32*sin(atan(9/16))=15.69
30*sin(atan(10/16))=15.9

Height wise, no 16:9 or 16:10 screen out there will match it.

And even in portrait mode, a 24 inch 16:9 screen is 20.91" tall. Which means nothing will match this.... except itself. It would be an interesting resolution to work with, but I'm not sure if there's any use for it.
 
Finally, a great work monitor, I would love 2 of these on a floating monitor arm.
 
Zangmonkey said:
I code every day.

A 4k monitor is slightly more vertical resolution than two of these, side by size, with no bezel.
Click to expand...

While that's true, unless using a relatively large monitor you're going to have to perform scaling of some sort, which would result in significantly less vertical in most cases. At the very least, this allows for a large amount of vertical room without the need for scaling, and it sits at a pretty comfy 102 ppi.

I'd imagine the only thing holding this back for productivity would be the price, in which case it could go head to head with the upcoming 40" 4k Phillips display; 4k at 40" results in a ppi of 110 which make scaling unnecessary, and put it on par with 27" 1440p displays.

Other purchase factors for office work will probably include clarity of matte coating and use of PWM (Side effects of PWM; the Eizo should be PWM-free like the rest of the flexscan series monitors.)
 
There are many that believe 16:9 was a regression in productivity, at any resolution. I'm one of those. I'm not sure if this is the answer, but I'm glad it's available as an option for those who need it.

I work with switches and routers in a terminal emulator most of the day, so while I don't code per se, the intended purpose of this monitor suits me much better than 16:9. I don't have or use toolbars I can move off to the side.
 
Nikyo said:
While that's true, unless using a relatively large monitor you're going to have to perform scaling of some sort, which would result in significantly less vertical in most cases. At the very least, this allows for a large amount of vertical room without the need for scaling, and it sits at a pretty comfy 102 ppi.

I'd imagine the only thing holding this back for productivity would be the price, in which case it could go head to head with the upcoming 40" 4k Phillips display; 4k at 40" results in a ppi of 110 which make scaling unnecessary, and put it on par with 27" 1440p displays.

Other purchase factors for office work will probably include clarity of matte coating and use of PWM (Side effects of PWM; the Eizo should be PWM-free like the rest of the flexscan series monitors.)
Click to expand...


This display is about 18.5" tall.
For comparison, a 39" Seiki display is about 19" tall.

That means they have practically identical pixel density, since 4k provides more vertical pixels than this.

Two of these, side by side, is almost precisely the same screen real estate at the same pixel density of a 39" 4k display... and this is often how I use my 4k monitor: two windows halving the display, one on each side.

Driving 4K for productivity is very easy and wouldn't require any different scaling than this monitor would (since the pixel density is the same).

So, like I said, I can't imagine why anybody would buy this over something like a 40"ish 4K monitor.
 
Despite having lots of vertical resolution I'm not sure it would be all that useful. Even with 1440p you have a lot of space for reading code or text. I've tried my screen in the portrait orientation (2560 vertical) and felt that it was just too much vertical space.

For multi-monitor solutions this could be pretty good though.
 
It's worth noting that the 26.5" diagonal is achieved by shrinking the horizontal dimension vs. a 24" 1920X1200 display such as the Samsung 244t, which is 20.375 inches wide across the inside of the bezel. Eizo says that this display will be 18.73 inches (475.7 mm) wide. That explains the 24.78 dot pitch, vs. 27 on the Samsung.

For me, reducing the width is a nonstarter. I need to be able to get two 8.5 x 11 Word or PDF docs side-by-side at full size (8.5 x 11 on-screen) or larger.
 
Last edited:
40in 4k is a different usage scenario than those that use 2 or more monitors. Bezels can actually be beneficial for workspace management. Coupled with winsplit revolution, three monitors can be a really elegant solution.
 
Zangmonkey said:
This display is about 18.5" tall.
For comparison, a 39" Seiki display is about 19" tall.

That means they have practically identical pixel density, since 4k provides more vertical pixels than this.

Two of these, side by side, is almost precisely the same screen real estate at the same pixel density of a 39" 4k display... and this is often how I use my 4k monitor: two windows halving the display, one on each side.

Driving 4K for productivity is very easy and wouldn't require any different scaling than this monitor would (since the pixel density is the same).

So, like I said, I can't imagine why anybody would buy this over something like a 40"ish 4K monitor.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said.

A 39" 16:9 display is going to be much wider than one these displays and is potentially too big for some workstations, keep that in mind as well.
 
anonuser said:
I wonder if this lines up with any monitor for PLP. It really wouldn't be PLP, it would be LLL, bu the left and right monitors would already be sized correctly.

I could see an awesome PLP type setup that actually works because eyefinity/etc would support it.
Click to expand...

The height of the screen is 18.74", so the two monitors that would go beside it would need to be 21.5" 1920x1080 monitors that pivot to portrait mode. There's at least some of those; a quick Google brings up monitors like the Asus VE228H, the Dell ST2220L and the Samsung S22A300, but I have no idea if there are any that are IPS that would look halfway decent next to this Eizo, or if any of them pivot.

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence; PLP means Portrait-Landscape-Portrait, and for a square monitor I guess you'd have to use a new acronym because Landscape would be a misnomer. Maybe S for Square, so PSP?

Two or three of these in a row is easy to compare to normal single displays. Two side-by-side would be 2:1 which means 16:8 (the next step wider from 16:9 and 16:10); three side-by-side would be 3:1 or 21:7 (two steps wider than 21:9).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top