On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common.
And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (There are also minor subpixel rendering issues, along with viewing angle issues if using a TN panel but those are still more minor.)
Unfortunately, unusual screen sizes and OLED aren't as available in combination. And since I spend all day in a terminal, having the black background be off is wonderful. I would love 3:2, but I get more value from OLED.
I have 3 of these that I bought new back in 2018, that I'm considering selling in the [redacted] area.
I haven't used them in 2 years, but coincidentally, earlier today I thought about setting up a new workstation that will use all three. So this comment is to gauge if there is any interest.
I'm an Air Traffic Controller, and I discovered these monitors because we used them in a simulator. At the time, the screens we used for controlling traffic were 2048x2048 (that our tech-ops said cost 20k), but recently we switched to larger rectangular monitors (also Eizo).
If anyone in [redacted] is interested, email me at [redacted]
Oh nice, thanks for this! I was disappointed when I went to buy EIZO one, only to find it was discontinued. 1:1 and OLED would be awesome, if such a thing existed of course. Not only for writing, but also for emulation purposes - close enough to 4:3 and 3:4 (yoko/tate modes) not to have to rotate the screen, just a bit of black on the sides.
If you’re very interested and have the time/inclination, you can DIY a similar monitor using the panel and its driver from Aliexpress. Let me know if you want more info.
> The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2
That's irrelevant, though, when monitor size is much larger than our central vision.
What does matter is neck strain. The reality is that you want to keep your head level while moving it right/left. Right/left doesn't have to work against gravity, while up/down does.
This is why wider is better than taller for something monitor-sized.
I’m aware about this monitor but unfortunately it seems that production has either stopped or slowed down, while it was available to buy some months/a year ago, now it’s not.
yesss... I discovered how wrong the widescreen displays are after I had found an old IBM Thinkpad in my basement and tried it. To add to what you said, I will also point out that it's the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and such, effectively squishing your working area to an even wider ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing), the left and right edges of my screen are just slabs of emptiness. Given all that, a taller display feels more roomy for the same surface area.
The only disadvantage though is that putting two windows/panes/buffers of anything side by side would no longer be as convenient?
At least on OS X, using a free utility, I can set two apps to exactly split the screen with two key presses and one mouse click. ON a 16:9 it comes back to being an actually decent aspect ratio for reading text.
> the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and such, effectively squishing your working area to an even wider ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing), the left and right edges of my screen are just slabs of emptiness.
Absolutely agree, and it’s amazing/infuriating when people/companies don’t realise it. My mom’s old Asus could barely fit a few lines of text on its small screen after all its toolbars in chrome. You shouldn’t need to scroll multiple times to read a 3-paragraph email on a display where it fits if it were the only text! (And of course about 60% of the space on the sides was wasted.)
I don’t have a 3:2 display yet, though I do have an old 16:10 21” monitor which is alright. My ipad (10.9”) is okayish as well, but I’m planning to buy a 16” 3:2 portable monitor soon. Do you have an 3:2 screens?
No, I was only aware of the Eizo models, too expensive for me, but am at this moment looking at various recommendations people are sharing in this thread.
For laptops definitely. Screen above ~24"? I don't really think this is that relevant and if have multiple windows open side by side it's the opposite (16:9 is more ergonomic than 3:2,).
Yawn. Get on with the times. I've been using ultrawide (21:9) for years, and would definitely not want to go back to peeking through a square'ish hole.
UW is fine if you’ve got a 28” or more desktop (or maybe larger even), but I’d take a 28” 3:2 like the Huawei Mateview over a 28” UW any day of the week. The UW probably has 20 or 30% lesser screen area.
Ultrawides only start to make sense at about 34" and up, corresponding to 1440 pixels vertically. Anything less than that would be worthless for productivity (ie. not movies or first-person gaming) given today's UI trends of massive horizontal bars/ribbons sized for small touchscreens.
Likewise, a monitor in portrait usually needs to be at least 1200(w)x1920(h) (ie. a 24" 16:10) to be usable for browsing today's web without getting served up a mobile-specific layout too often. A reasonably-sized 1080p display in portrait can be great for stuff like text editors and terminal windows.
And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (There are also minor subpixel rendering issues, along with viewing angle issues if using a TN panel but those are still more minor.)