NEC EA294WMi Review
by Chris Heinonen on February 10, 2014 6:00 AM ESTThe market for 21:9 aspect ratio displays has grown a lot in the past year and seems poised to grow more. CES this year saw the introduction of 21:9 displays with 1440 lines of vertical resolution as opposed to 1080, making it a more direct replacement for 27” displays. As more people look for a single display to handle a PC as well as movies, TV, and gaming the popularity of them may increase even further.
The NEC EA294WMi offers some unique features compared to other 21:9 displays. The ability to work in Portrait mode and use a VESA mount is long overdue here. Used in Portrait mode working on long documents is made much easier than when it is in Landscape. Their adjustable picture-by-picture, which adjusts the size based on source resolution, is a useful feature for using the display for two sources at once. Some of the other features, like linking multiple units together, are nice in theory but likely to be utilized little in practice. The NEC also has a large selection of inputs that makes it easy to use with any source you want to connect it to.
However, once we move from the ergonomics and features into performance, the EA294WMi suffers in comparison. The pre-calibration numbers are not anything to really marvel over. They’re okay at best though they do improve a lot after calibration. Additionally the input lag is much higher than on other 21:9 displays, which makes it worse as a gaming monitor than the other 21:9 models I have tested.
With its unique feature set, NEC seems to be focusing more on medical imaging (thanks to DICOM compatibility) and people that need a really tall portrait display. This is something that the other 21:9 displays on the market cannot do. For both of these markets the NEC presents a better option than 21:9 models from other vendors. For home use, with more gaming and general use, I don’t see as much of a benefit for the NEC. I’d pick the other models for gaming, and many of the special features on the NEC might be more useful in a professional setting.
If you want a monitor that can work as a large portrait display, the NEC does a very good job here. If you want a 21:9 display for gaming or dual use, I’d look at the options from LG or ASUS first. They offer lower lag times, better contrast ratios, and better pre-calibration numbers. The NEC EA294WMi isn’t bad; it just isn’t as good as those displays are for most people. And it costs more. Sure, the stand is a big part of that, but is it worth $250 more than the ASUS MX299Q or $200 more than the LG 29EA73-P? Probably not for most people.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
FractinJex - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Ever since moving to 1440p sometime back I wont go back 1080p...is just old now..the only trhing imo holding back 1440p from being mainstream is the fact that you need a HPU to use it as the intel igpu is crap and same witht he amd....keep hearing about 4k this and that yet most don't even understand those craphole panels only do 30hz lol people are skipping and thinking they can go straight to 1080p to 4k over the next year or two.....nope not gonna happen get yourself a good 1440p Korean pnael or even two and be set...don't wait for crappy slow manufactuare to release some overpriced non sense like Asus is doing with the 1440p AOG crapy TN panels and ripping everyone a new one lol 1080p trash
jaydee - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Almost twice the cost of the under-rated AOC Q2963OMhttp://www.amazon.com/AOC-29-inch-IPS-Q2963PM-21/d...
haikuginger - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
You mixed up the contrast ratio chart- it's 989:1 at max brightness, and 838:1 at minimum brightness, not the other way around.surt - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Where are the LESS wide-aspect displays? I want a nice 16:12 3200x2400 display.ShieTar - Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - link
16:12 is 4:3. Thats not less wide, its legacy.Hrel - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
We don't need wider displays. We need Hollywood to stop making things wider for NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL!!!!! If you can't fit the shot in a 16:9 frame back up, or stop sucking so hard at your profession.extide - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
The sad part is, if you notice, in basically anything shot wide (or super wide) the 'important stuff' is all within a 4:3 box in the center, so it can still be viewed on a 4:3 screen properly. Ever notice when you watch the news on widescreen, the news logos in the corner aren't in the far corners, they are in a bit? That is because they are at the edges of where a 4:3 screen would be! So the edge space is all basically wasted!kyuu - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
There's actually a very good reason movies are shot in widescreen resolutions. It's the same reason people generally do multi-monitor setups that extend horizontally, rather than stacking two or three monitors vertically. Think about it.A 21:9 monitor like this is a great alternative for a multi-monitor setup for those who don't want to deal with the headaches and bezels.
tim851 - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link
Amen!For years, people put two 1280x1024 monitors next to each other. Then 1080p screens show up and it becomes a fucking meme to pretend you're a "professional" who can't work with anything less than 1200p.
So 1440p becomes affordable and people still play this frickin' meme, because 16x9 is the "Devil's AR".
cheinonen - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Except 16:9 was picked as a compromise aspect ratio for everything. Academy Ratio (1.37:1) content can fit windowboxed, Scope content(2.39:1) can fit letterboxed, and flat (1.85:1) content will fit almost perfectly. 16:9 wan't created to eliminate choice in aspect ratios, but to provide a good format for all of them. I shouldn't foget 70mm (2.20:1) in here either.Also, I'd like to let artists pick how they want to present things. If they want to use Academy, or Scope, or Flat, that's their choice. The idea that they don't know what they're doing by shooting scope is just laughable as well.