I will be honest, the nearest I think I have come to a square monitor is the 1024x768 panel I use as a tiny second screen on my main computer. When I first saw EIZO’s press release regarding this new 1920x1920 monitor it took me aback, imagining what it might feel like to actually use. The consumer monitor market is expanding to various screen sizes, usually following 16:9, 16:10 or 21:9 for the most part. But after a few minutes, I realized that non-standard monitor sizes are most likely abundant in various industries, such as medical, when they are designed for a specific purpose and quality. So while a 1:1 monitor is something interesting to see in the consumer space, perhaps it might not be so new when considering industrial use scenarios. That all being said, it would be interesting to see this one in the flesh.

1920x1920 means 3.7 megapixels, the same as 2560x1440. This compares to the regular desktop sizes of 1080p (2MP), 1200p (2.3MP), 3200x1800 (5.8MP) and 2160p (8.3MP), which indicates that if this monitor were to be used for gaming, performance would put it directly in the 1440p category. That being said, EIZO is not exactly targeting this monitor for gaming. The more vertical space provided is better suited to writers, coders or CAD who require many items on the screen at once, often side by side. As an editor, I often have an image on one side of my screen while writing my reviews on the other, so I can certainly see this marketing angle.

The basic specification list gives the IPS-based EV2730Q as a 16.8 million color display with 178 degree viewing angles, a 300 nit brightness, a 1000:1 contrast ratio and 5ms gray-to-gray response time. Video inputs are via DisplayPort and a dual-link DVI-D, with a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz. Two 1W speakers are built in, along with a 2-port USB 2.0 hub. 100mm VESA is supported with 344º of swivel and 35º/5º of tilt. Height is also adjustable. 

The button controls are on the front of the panel, and EIZO gives three profiles called sRGB, Movie and Paper along with two user customizable profiles. The Paper profile is designed to reduce the amount of blue in an image to prevent eyestrain while reading or coding against a white background. A feature called Auto Ecoview can detect the ambient light level and adjust the screen’s brightness to reduce eyestrain and power. This can also detect when a user leaves the desk to power down the monitor, with power on when the user returns.

We are contacting EIZO to find what markets the EV2730Q will be sold in as well as the prices. EIZO has announced that the monitor will be available from Q1 in 2015, but this will vary by country. With any luck, it will be on display at CES.

Source: EIZO via TFTCentral

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • slashbinslashbash - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    Mostly coding and web design. Of course this was in roughly 2004, so LCD prices were still pretty expensive, and the 17" 1280x1024 was about the biggest / highest res LCD screen you could get at an affordable price. "The more pixels, the better" was always true, but almost all content was then targeted at 1024x768 screens, so I could work on a 1024x768 layout in Photoshop and still have sufficient room for palettes on the edges. 1024x768 (the resolution of a 15" LCD at the time) would have killed me.

    I still refuse to buy a 16:9 screen as a computer monitor... 16:10 is so much more manageable (I have a couple of Dell 24" screens at 1920x1200, and a 2011 MBP at 1680x1050). And yes I would find a 1280x1024 monitor much more useful than 1440x900 despite there being roughly the same number of pixels in both. Vertical pixels are more useful for general work tasks.... at least up to a certain point. I'm not sure if that holds true all the way to 1:1, or only up to 1200 vertical pixels, or what.... but I would take a 1280x1024 monitor any day over 1440x900, unless my only use case was watching movies.
  • secretmanofagent - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    Thanks for following up. I myself use a 16:10 as one of my monitors, but I was wondering what advantage a square monitor would have over it.
  • magreen - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    This is right, and it's made doubly so by Microsoft Office's move to the ribbon. That sucks up a ridiculous amount of vertical pixels, which were already at a premium for any work situation.
  • valnar - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    Nice to see I'm not alone in this sentiment. It's also not the resolution of most 16:9 monitors, but the aspect ratio itself. I simply don't like a screen that wide. Looks weird. Takes up too much desk space, moves my speakers too far apart, and yes, trades precious vertical resolution for wasted horizontal resolution. Clearly 16:9 was a marketing move, not a technical one. It's stupid to have the PC industry follow the HDTV industry. The need to watch full screen movies on a computer monitor is such a small percentage compared to their primary purpose.
  • kpb321 - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    I think one of these would be interested. Currently I use a pair of Samsung 24 inch 1920x1200 monitors rotating to portrait instead of landscape at work and find it very handy. 1200 is plenty wide for most things and for looking at Java/Java Script/HTML code etc and SQL queries/results the extra height can be very handy. I hate working on cheep laptop monitors that don't have much height.
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    It works well for office applications. At work I had two 5:4 19" 1280x1024 screens and stuck with them since they where buying nothing but 1440x900 screens. When 1920x1080 screens finally started making their way in this year, I tried replacing a 5:4 with one. It was maddening how many things just didn't use the extra horizontal space. It's 2014 and websites all seem to be hardcoded for 1280x1024 or 1024x768 and desktop programs don't seem to take 16:9 into account either. Programmers either have to target old 5:4 screens like webmasters, or they assume you want two small windows side by side per monitor. In the end I just went back to the two 5:4s, since the underutilized 16:9 was just eating up desk space.
  • EzioAs - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    5:4 is quite normal. I've used it for a couple years in the past. That said, I'm really interested in seeing a 1:1 monitor in person.
  • jaydee - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    What resolutions have you seen 5:4 other than 1280x1024?
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    I don't think he was suggesting that there were others. 1280x1024 is the only 5:4 I've ever seen and it was very common in the pre-widescreen era of displays - both CRT and LCD.
  • deathwombat - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    1280x1024 was once a popular resolution, but most of the monitors in that era were physically 4:3. When displaying resolutions with different aspect ratios, the pixels weren't square.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now