BenQ releases 3:2 aspect ratio 28 inch 4K+ monitor designed for programmers
benq.comI still don't get why there aren't enough monitor panels that are 5K so they can fit with Macintosh's retina standard. What ends up happening is the scaling is done at an incorrect multiple so the dpi causes text to be blurry and not clear.
I guess will have to stick with my LG Ultrafine for another year.
90% of desktop users use an OS which supports DPI scaling and doesn't have this problem. The remaining 10% have intentionally chosen to buy a computer where ordinary peripherals like monitors or mice don't quite work right by design, and instead have to remain within an "ecosystem" of products primarily from the same vendor.
In other words - Macintosh's "retina standard" is the issue. Use a computer which is fit for purpose.
Until recently, you had to make trade-offs between physical dimensions, pixel density, and refresh rate. Almost nobody prioritized pixel density. But now DisplayPort and HDMI have enough bandwidth that you can have 120 Hz 5k/6k displays, so maybe resolutions higher than 4k will finally become common.
I use a similar monitor to this and I don’t notice the difference between 4K+ at 28” and the Retina display on my MacBook. The difference between the 4K and a 27” QHD that I sometimes use at work is quite noticeable.
What is going on with this, is 5k not going to happen ?
if someone is looking for monitor, i can recommend the LG 28MQ780 [0], its 2x 2560x1440 stack on top of each other (2560x2880 in total), giving you 16:18 aspect ratio. i'm using one of these in portrait right and it's fantastic for coding.
[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b-dualup-monitor
I've read through this a few times and I'm still not sure what makes this specific for coders or how its different from other 4k monitors.
Can someone explain what makes this monitor better for the average coder?
In theory, the following things:
The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen.
The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen.
Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice.
It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.
3:4 is a better ratio for reading and editing text. That's what Xerox chose for their Alto workstations.
This is probably what you mean, but I wasn't sure and then did the math: and if you take two 3:4s and put them side by side (as is being contemplated with 16:9 being split into two 8:9 panels) you get 6:4 aka 3:2 (so, this monitor).
Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).
The 3:2 aspect ratio gives you more vertical space than a 16:9 ratio or similar. The good-for-coders idea is that you can see more "pages" of code without scrolling, but also without meaningfully decreasing the length of lines you can see, since it's still plenty wide.
The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.
It’s 3:2, which historically people said it’s “better” for coding because it allows more vertical space.
Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.
I have a 3/2 28” monitor - while it looks nice - the ratio really doesn’t make much of a difference.
3:2 aspect ratio
...Why is that better for programming than other ratios?
For every unit of height, there is 1.5 units of width.
A traditional monitor is 16:9: that means for every unit of height, there is 1.77 units of height.
It sounds like a small difference, but it means a ~15% increase in height.
ex. my Visual Studio Code would show 70 lines of code instead of 60.
This is an especially good tradeoff for code, because we tradtional line wrap at ~80 characters, which leaves large swaths of width available.
Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
> Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously.
I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]).
[1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...
Right on my cusp, I still remember salivating for one of those straight from the Jetsons 4:3 LCDs (1997? 9? Only 9/11, so I may have been seeing them late / out of context).
First 16:9 was probably 2006...got the first ever MacBook Pro as my graduation gift
It informed some conception I had of the iPad as a platonic ideal (first 4:3 monitor in years)
I use my Samsung SyncMaster 245B as my daily driver - it's almost old enough to drive!
> ...Why is that better for programming than other ratios?
The wideness of 16:9 means those monitors have too little vertical real-estate.
Less vertical scrolling it seems.
Vertical monitor orientation
Not sure if 3:2 aspect ratio is really optimized for programmers, but it might be something well appreciated by photographers since a lot of cameras (digital and film) use 3:2 aspect ratio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_image_resolutions_used...
I have a similar monitor at work. I find my adhd deals better with a single, wider monitor than with multiple monitors. That said, as I type, my keystrokes make the monitor shake. This is visibly irritating and I still haven't solved this issue. Looking at this monitor I'd sadly expect the same to happen.
I put little square speakers under each side of the monitor. Fixed the vibrations pretty much fully
Looks like they’re using the same panels as the Huawei Mateview. Only these ones are VESA mountable. 3:2 at such high resolution, for me is a great experience. I’ll maybe grab one for my work desk to run vertically as I can’t do the same with the Mateview
Obviously only an issue for Americans, but the Huawei Mateview isn't widely available due to the ban on Huawei products. It could be imported grey-market, but only at slightly inflated prices and without any warranty protection.
The BenQ monitor will be commercially available in the US.
A fair point, I had forgotten about that ban
Everything is VESA mountable if you try hard enough and can get 3d printed parts. Source: my Mateviews are
60hz refresh rate? That's unfortunate.
Love the 3:2 aspect ratio. But I would expect at least 100 - 120hz these days.
Have to be able to see my compiler errors come in at true speed
Vast majority of 120+ Hz displays are 1080p only. That's for gaming.
4k at 120 Hz will need DisplayPort 2.0 and a powerful GPU to provide that bandwidth (40 Gbit/sec).
Practically useless for its intended purpose (coding). Will increase the cost for no benefit. Waste of money.
4k@120hz is pretty common now. I recently got an LG UltraGear. I can drive it with a usb-c to DP cable with my MBP M1. Not that expensive. Great text clarity. Personally, I enjoy the higher refresh rate when coding.
That's a good monitor but it's relatively low DPI (way too big at 32") and 16:9. I wish they still made 24" 4k monitors.
Check out the LG 24UD58-B!
I like to be able to scroll and read at the same time. To do that comfortably you need at least 120hz.
Vast majority of $250+ monitors are 100hz or over. This is not a cheap monitor, I think expecting a better refresh rate is a reasonable expectation.
Where can you get a 4k 100 Hz monitor for $250?
Too expensive for a low refresh IPS, which is not covering full 100% DCI-P3.
I would definitely appreciate the extra vertical space but I wish it was 32 inches. I don’t know if many people can comfortably use the native resolution with 100% scaling on a 28 inch screen.
Pretty please, I'd like there to be more commercial e-ink monitors, not just the $2K Dasung Paperlike 253. And if it's not asking too much, color too.
I like the 3:2 ratio but IMO the specs are embarrassing all the way down.
Looks good but 10 kg/23 lbs? I see a Samsung IPS for <8 kg. 50" 4K Fire TV for 9.3 kg. I guess we don't really move monitors around once we start using them, esp if mounted, so perhaps a non-issue.
I personally prefer ultra wide monitors for coding, can have split windows for multiple files, web browser, terminal, etc. I don't know why people like 3:2.
All of the ultrawides I've looked at have poor text clarity. That's one of the things this monitor boasts, but there's no real measurement for text clarity. RTings.com is the only site I know of that has a measurement for it.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-neo-g...
Yeah. I usually code with a 3 column, 2 row split view on a 4k.
Perfect for component.ts, component.ng.html, component.scss, and component_test.ts all to be open at once...
15:10 vs 16:9. I think that's enough difference to notice.
2560 x 1600 resolution is a bit disappointing though.
Too bad 1:1 display isn't common.
The RD280U is 4k. The cheaper, smaller RD240Q is 2560x1600.
> Too bad 1:1 display isn't common.
Do any exist at all that are being sold right now?
Where are you seeing 2560x1600? They are advertising 4k
The 4K is 3840x2560
is this retina? too bad its not
It's like a tenth the price of an Apple monitor.