Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Upgrades

Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K? 304

Posted by timothy
from the not-for-a-tray-table-it-isn't dept.
Iddo Genuth (903542) writes "Forget about 4K displays, are Ultra Widescreen 'cinematic' displays the real deal? Earlier this year LG announced its new 34UM95 – a 34-inch Ultra Widescreen monitor with a cinematic 21:9 aspect ratio and a generous 3440 x1440 resolution — a recent hands-on review suggests that this monitor might be the new productivity king, for those who simply can't stand that annoying bezel between their multiple monitors. Linus Sebastian had a chance to play with the new LG 34UM95, and although he seems to start as a skeptic (after all, how really useful can a 21:9 display be right?) he ended up his review fully converted, with no going back. We still think that pro graphic users will not rush to switch over their EIZOs and NECs for this baby, but video editors, gamers, programmers and basically anybody who loves multitasking, might be very tempted — what do you think?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is LG's New Ultra Widescreen Display Better Than "Normal" 4K?

Comments Filter:
  • So yea... I get the whole "more resolution captain!" Absolutely. Every day all day. But I use a 27" monitor that only does 1920x1200... "Only." That's plenty for work and pleasure - i'm playing the new wolfenstien at that resolution, and its beautiful.

    However, I would love some ultra widescreen for more real estate. To me, 4k is just too faddish, and thus too expensive for the poor nerds amongst us to justify purchasing.
    • by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:06PM (#47083353)

      I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".

      I use a trio of Dell 30" monitors at 2560x1600, I can most assure you that it makes a difference. I've had to, from time to time, use another computer with a pair of older Dell 27" monitors at 1920x1200 and it is horrible to go back.

      The idea that 4k is "faddish? Really? Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?

      You simply don't know what you're missing.

      • I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)
        • by mister_playboy (1474163) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:40PM (#47083527)

          High resolutions at a moderate price have been available for some time via Korean sellers... I have a Catleap Q271 Retina and I love it.

          Even better, Monoprice now offers similar gear without the overseas seller worries! http://www.monoprice.com/Categ... [monoprice.com]

          • Good post... $400 to $450 depending on what connections you want on it, much nicer panels than the cheap 27" 1080p TN panels being sold for half the price.

        • No worries if lack of money is the reason... we have all been there at one time or another...

          The issue is when someone says, "oh, that isn't needed and is "faddish", the current ones are fine.

          Yea, they are fine because they really want the good stuff, but have no money, so instead of just admitting that, they claim they don't want the new stuff to feel better about themselves. :)

          Harsh perhaps, but true...

        • by iamhassi (659463)

          I guess i'm missing the money to purchase something that I can do without! ;-)

          Kidding, right? I have three 22" 1680x1050 monitors, only $50 each on craigslist. That's 5040x1050 compared to 1920x1200. Games in eyefinity are beautiful when the screens wrap around you and all you see from the corners of your eye is more of the video game. Looking at one flat screen is annoying now, it's like I'm missing the rest of the game. I don't know why the new consoles don't have two more video outputs for two more screens.

          three 30" though.... I don't know if I would want all that, I woul

      • I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".

        I'm all for higher resolution. And I do think 4k is overkill for TV. But not for computer monitors.

        But size and resolution are two different things. 3440 x 1440 is the picture size, not the resolution. Resolution is expressed in dpi. (Or dots per whatever, it doesn't have to be inches.)

        34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics. If I wanted the same "effective resolution" at the same distance (across my deep desktop) as my 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA)

        • I should clarify: I use two monitors, not just one. And I do use all of that "real estate" in my work and then some. I could use more.

          But if it isn't big enough to see, at sufficient distance to prevent eyestrain, then it's not good for work. Even though this monitor has more dots than my two monitors, it is physically smaller than my two monitors together. Text would be too small to see comfortably and so on, unless I just made the windows bigger, which defeats the whole purpose of the higher resolution
          • Text would be too small to see comfortably

            At the default DPI scaling of Windows, you're correct. And that is an issue that Microsoft needs to fix.

            The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...

            Right now I run my web browser at 200% zoom, rather than adjust the DPI of Windows 7, because DPI scaling in Windows 7 is still broken.

            At 200% zoom, the screen is nice and clear, the text is large and easy to read.

            Compare this to if I just cut the res

            • The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...

              While I explained the difference between size in pixels and resolution, I managed to muddy the waters myself a bit in my comments.

              The problem is that yes, while better resolution will make for fewer jaggies and so on, most modern OSes do not allow you to scale your windows (including text size, and so on) properly.

              And as I say: even if they did, it would use up some of that useful SIZE. So to get the same work done you still need a bigger monitor.

              My text and video looks just fine to me with a 24" m

              • A 24" monitor sounds like it fits your needs, if so, more power to you.

                A resolution of 1920x1200 is ok on that screen, but 2560x1600 would be nicer.

                Assuming a high-DPI aware OS of course. :)

                At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.

                It is easy to say that what you are used to is "just fine", but so was B&W TV once. :)

                Real life is much higher resolution than any curren

                • At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.

                  A higher dot pitch would be desirable. But again "4k" and so on are sizes, not resolutions. It is easy to get them mixed up because for some bizarre reason the industry has been referring to size in pixels as resolution, when it just isn't. 4k isn't a resolution, it is a size in pixels.

                  My whole point here, which you probably already understand, is: a higher resolution is more generally desirable. Sure. But my current dot pitch IS "fine". I didn't say it was ideal, but the important thing is that it is pl

                • Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that I use a 24" monitor, but I have more than one?
        • Several points...

          And I do think 4k is overkill for TV.

          Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...

          A 65" 1080p TV and a 65" 4K TV, from 10 feet away, playing a proper 4k video source from a hard drive, the difference was "smack you in the face" obvious which one was better. (hint, it was the 4k)

          The lack of current 4k content from Netflix, Bluray, Amazon Prime, etc. is the real problem.

          34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics.

          Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horr

          • Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...

            Okay. I admit that I haven't. But I'd have to see them right next to each other, showing the same picture or video, before I made up my mind.

            Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...

            Don't tell me what's "horribly wrong" with my work setup. How arrogant! I've been doing this shit for a living for many years.

            Currently I have 2 x 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200. That's 3840 x 1200. And the diagonal measure (screen only) is approx. 41".

            As I explained elsewhere: the dot pitch on these monitors, sitting across my desk, is just fine for work. I use thi

            • It was at a high end home theater store, couch was setup in front of two Sony TVs, same content on both.

              The 4k really is incredible, once you see a proper 4K source material. But it isn't ready for prime time yet due to a lack of consumer facing content. But that will change.

              ------------------

              Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.

              I'd love t

              • Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.

                I see. No, it certainly isn't "too high". More would be nicer. IF it could be scaled properly so that pictures and text aren't too big or too tiny.

                You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.

                It isn't just Windows. It is also OS X and Linux. They let you set your screen "resolution" (by which they mean size in pixels of course), but the scaling isn't adjustable for dot pitch. The closest it gets is Apple's "retina" work-around, which is better than no difference at all but it's all-or-nothing.

                In OS X (I haven't checked recent versions of Windows) y

      • Why don't we all go back to 19" monitors at 1280x1024 while we're at it?

        Hey, I'm using a 17", 1280x1024 monitor* right now, you insensitive clod!

        * ViewSonic VP171s, if you're wondering.

        • :). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...

          As it stands, I would be thrilled with a 300dpi computer monitor at the 30" size, shame no one makes one. :(

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      Speaking as someone with a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, and a 15" 2880x1800 monitor... No, 2560x1440 is not high enough resolution on 27", and 1920x1200 certainly isn't.

  • I just bought my first 16:9 display 3 months ago, wide is handy but resolution is where its at for multitaskers, but considering this thing cant decide if its a high end monitor or a gimmicky TV, resolution? whats that?

  • Vertical Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:07PM (#47083357)

    My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

    As a TV display, I'd be hesitant to buy nonstandard resolutions as current HDMI has a bandwidth problem with 4k at a decent frame rate let alone finding media for it. I've seen 4K resolution playing 4K media. It's very beautiful but it also suffers from the industry or whoever announcing 8k already, so I'm in wait mode if economical models ever come along.

    Until then, 1080p is good enough for TV and I'll find something not quite so wide for computers.

    • My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

      Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical. I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.

      That said, some programs are hideously wasteful of vertical space. I've had the curious experience of using Windows (for the fir

      • Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

        Yes really. I use multiple monitors most of the time, but I find my current second display (A cheapish HD monitor) at 1080p, is jet a bit too short. I've been looking at second monitors that offer more vertical resolution (looking strongly at 4K).

        Although extra space to either side is nice in the end vertical space is often more useful for the task at hand.

        • 3 1080p monitors turned 90 degrees.

          3240x1920. Cheaper then my first VGA monitor.

          • by HuguesT (84078)

            That doesn't work well for many people because the subpixel high-resolution is the wrong way.

          • It's not a bad idea but I don't want the fiddling (and cables) associated with that many monitors.

      • by swillden (191260)

        Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

        I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation [google.com]. Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.

        I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.

        I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.

        With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another coupl

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      My complaint is always the lack of vertical resolution. At least for a working monitor. 1440 is little better than most of the monitors outtoday but very little in proportion to its horizontal resolution.

      Or how about lack of resolution in general?

      A consumer 4K monitor is 3840x2160. This screen is 3440x1440. Neither dimension is as big as a consumer 4K screen - it's 400 pixels too skinny, and 720 pixels too short.

      So no, a regular 4K screen would get you more pixels.

      And let's not even talk about the differen

    • 1080p is "good enough" right now simply because the content isn't ready.

      When Netflix and Amazon Prime start streaming the majority of their content in 4k, it will be time...

      As it stands, there just isn't enough to watch on one, which is why they aren't selling.

      • The same "chicken and egg" dilemna faced 3D capable televisions, yet they sold. 4K is what movies and television is shot in these days, so it's really an "if you build it, they will come" problem.
        • Yes, but other than at the very start, the price difference is so small, the "why not" factor comes into it.

          Last Christmas I replaced our 60" Sharp Aquos TV with a 70" Sony 3D TV.

          Partly to get a bigger screen, but mostly to put the 60" TV upstairs and replace the small TV that was there.

          I paid about $2,200 for that new TV. Sony also makes a non-3D version of that exact same TV, for $100 less.

          For a 4% price difference? Sure, I'll get 3D. We have used it a few times, it is cool, but not something we will u

    • So rotate your monitor already. That's been an option for 20 years. Sure, only a few specialty products were available back then but now it's available with just about every video driver. I can do it on my laptops with AMD and Intel video and my desktop with Nvidia. If your monitor's stand doesn't allow rotating, get a VESA stand for $35.

    • by kesuki (321456)

      three hdmi 1080p monitors in 24" resolution for $130 per screen and a $120 gpu (ati 7770) and two display port mini to hdmi adaptors and a decent computer will do just fine for most people and be a fraction of the price because it's standard screen size. if the 7770 isn't fast enough for gaming then a r9 280x is only $300 and is 4 times faster than the 7770. i still play old games though, so there are many models for me to chose from. technically i don't do multi screen except to play back blurays to a 40"

    • by Misagon (1135)

      This monitor is pretty big. It has about the same height as a 27" 16:9 monitor or a 22" 4:3 monitor.
      Resolution is 109.7 PPI which is the norm for desktop displays.

      BTW, I think it is about time we start comparing vertical sizes instead of diagonal.

    • I want a 1:1 ratio monitor
  • Want bigger screens and more of them? Wait for the next gen oculus rift type devices.

    Too bad Microsoft and the Desktop Linux bunch have their heads too far up their butts or are too busy forcing tablet and other crappy UIs onto Desktop users to actually provide us with an environment that will take full advantage of such hardware.

    So you'll have to resort to some 3rd party software.
    • by Immerman (2627577)

      As much as I'm looking forward to VR for various applications (games, 360* movies, etc) - work isn't one of them. If I'm working I want lots of screen real estate, and I don't want to have something strapped to my head cutting me off from my work environment. Not to mention the physical discomfort of wearing it for 8 hours a day, and the fact that if I did so I almost certainly wouldn't want to come home and strap the thing to my head again for a few hours of entertainment.

  • "Productivity"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:09PM (#47083371) Homepage

    Most documents read are still portrait orientation, most sourcecode is still nicely formatted over multiple lines.
    Ultra-wide screens are only "productive" if you make cinema movies. Everybody else needs vertical space for productivity.
    Then again, the entire review shows videogames and browser windows, so I guess it's for a different definition of "productivity".

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      I am far more productive when writing code or designing electronics if I have two monitors. An ultra-wide monitor is similar to having two separate monitors side-by-side, so it should definitely be better than a normal widescreen.

      The real question is if this is better than having two widescreen monitors. On the plus side you only need one stand and because there is no bezel you can do three "pages" across without the middle one being annoying. On the other hand it isn't as wide as two widescreen monitors. Y

  • by jamesl (106902)

    Any discussion like this is pointless without knowing the price. As in, "It's nice, but not for $XXXX." Or, "Since it costs as much per square inch as the two monitors it will replace, it's very attractive."

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      Well, he did say that if you're worried about price, you can get more resolution for cheaper in a multimonitor setup including a monitor stand.

      So, not cheap. Then again, when is the first iteration of anything cheap or affordable for the masses?

  • This breathless sales pitch for a way too wide screen does not woo me at all over productivity.

    The bezel is not a problem, and if anything, is an asset. It allows me to maximize a program on the left, and maximize a program on the right and keep the two separated in my mind. Few programs need such a wide space and will just waste it when maximized. Anything where you have to try and screw with dividing the screen manually sounds like it would be a productivity eater.

    I suspect that there are a few ap
  • Ultra WQHD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BenJeremy (181303) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:26PM (#47083455)

    OK, so I now have three WQHD displays and the 1440 vertical pixels are nice... while I cannot stand the 21:9 1080p monitors, because they are only useful for watching movies, I can see 3440x1440 being somewhat useful, but realistically, nothing beats multiple monitors for development. There are times when you need to go full-screen with your application while debugging. Having a 7680x1440 (and 3440x1440 still means at least 2 monitors to match what I currently have) display won't help me at all there (which is why I don't use nvidia's "Surround"). The problem with the 2560x1080 monitors is the lack of vertical real estate for "everything else" outside of games and movies. We took a minor step backward with 1080p to synch up with our home theater TVs, and as a developer, it was truly miserable to develop in. Even if I went with two of these monitors, it means I don't have a center monitor - I either have a primary and a secondary off to the side, or I'm staring at a bezel in the center. Maybe a developer on a budget could get one of these, and a WQHD monitor as a secondary... all I know is that I'm no longer miserable debugging full screen and mobile apps with my current setup.

    While I'm ranting...

    For home theater, ultra-wide is fine. Curved, on the other hand, is a crappy gimmick unless you are the sole viewer in your lazyboy at the focal point. In this usage, I can also see curved ultra-wides as a possible ideal gaming monitor.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Don't forget that this is two 5:4 screens side-by-side. Slashdotters often bemoan the lack of non-widescreen monitors, and now you can have two.

  • Lock your doors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @01:29PM (#47083475) Homepage

    If you get one, lock your doors or they'll come in and saw half of it off while you sleep. LG doesn't understand that they can't take things away after the sale.

  • Pro users want 8 bit (or better) color and wide viewing angles (this is important because contrast/gamma/color balance doesn't shift with slight viewing angle shifts.)

    Gamers won't switch because of 30hz refresh rates and poor response time.

    At this size, featureset seems to be jumping back a couple of years at least, which isn't surprising. If you're a programmer or spend all day looking at text, yes, by all means, switch! Ditto for CAD. But if you do graphics/photo work, like to watch a lot of video/animati

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      So, you missed the part where it's IPS and has wide viewing angles?

      Or where you can drive it @50hz (hdmi) or @60hz(display port)?

      The best feature it seems to have is you only need 1 graphics card.

  • I didn't know they used to be Goldstar, or I wouldn't have bought their monitor in the first place.

    I fell asleep with Dragonball Z paused one night, and Goku's hairline got permanently burned in; along with the still legible "Kaenneth has won a cultural victory!" from play 'one more turn' on Civ 4 a bit too much.

  • by AnotherBlackHat (265897) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @02:40PM (#47083823) Homepage

    First of all, 3440x1440 isn't better than 3840x2160.
    If you really truly believe that a 21.5 aspect ratio is better than a 16:9, you could put a piece of tape over the bottom 500 lines of a "standard" 4k display and still end up with a higher res.

    How about building a display panel that doesn't have edges?
    Give me a dozen megapixel panels and a let me arrange them however I like.
    Make them modular, interchangeable, cheap, and the whole display becomes expandable.
    Or improve the power efficiency, or the cabling, or the weight, or the color depth, or... any of a dozen other things I care about more than the aspect ratio of a single panel.

    If you absolutely must claim that one aspect ratio is superior to another, then why not go with the golden ratio?
    At least that way you can put two together and still have the same ratio.

  • by Cinder6 (894572) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @02:50PM (#47083885)

    No bezels is nice. However, I have three 24" ASUS monitors with probably around 1.5" of bezel between them, and it's honestly something you get used to. When gaming, you aren't really supposed to look directly at the other monitors anyway (there tends to be a lot of distortion to the sides), so the bezels aren't as big a deal as you might think. I would prefer to keep 5760x1080 over 3840x1440, but that might just me. The extra vertical space is nice, but not at the cost of almost 2000px in horizontal resolution.

    Beyond that, the "ultra-wide" LG monitor isn't as good for a lot of productivity tasks. With three separate monitors, you have the advantage of the window manager allowing you to maximize or snap to multiple points instead of one giant one. So you can have three maximized windows with the click of a couple buttons, whereas on the LG monitor, you have to manually position them to achieve the same effect. If you use the "snap to side" feature found in Windows and at least some Linux WMs, you can quickly have six windows side-by-side filling three monitors. Finally, if you're watching a video in one monitor, maximizing it only fills that single monitor, leaving you two others to use in the meantime.

  • by mspohr (589790) on Saturday May 24, 2014 @03:05PM (#47083967)

    How about we just use decimals so we can understand this more easily?
    5:4 = 1.25:1
    Made common with 1280×1024 displays
    4:3 = 1.33:1
    Old computer monitor standard
    16:10 = 1.6:1
    Made common with 1280×800, 1680×1050 and 1920x1200 displays
    16:9 = 1.78:1
    (HD video standard)
    Became most common aspect ratio for computer displays in 2012
      A4 paper size = 1.41:1
    Movies usually are in 2.39:1, 16:9 or 1.85:1
    256:135 = 1.9:1
    Since 2011, several monitors complying with the Digital Cinema Initiatives 4K standard have been produced. The standard specifies a resolution of 4096×2160 and an aspect ratio of almost 1.9:1.

  • Of course 3440 x1440 is better than 4K, having only 56% of the pixels of a true 4K display (4096x2160) LG can make a lot more money on it. A true 4K screen cropped to 21:9 is still going to give you more pixels to work with. BTW: 4K cinema is 4096x2160, but when then want to show 21:9 they use the appropriate lens to change the aspect ratio without throwing out pixels.
    • The DCI page on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] suggests that matting is used.

      2048×1080 (2K) at 24 frame/s or 48 frame/s, or 4096×2160 (4K) at 24 frame/s
      In 2K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 2048×858 pixels of the image is used
      In 2K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998×1080 pixels of the image is used
      In 4K, for Scope (2.39:1) presentation 4096×1716 pixels of the image is used
      In 4K, for Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996×2160 pixels of the image is used

      If anamorphic lenses were perfect, this would be an obvious failing, but I'm not so sure that an anamorphic projection of a unmatted 4k image would be that superior.

  • I use two monitors, however one of them is a Dell U3014 which is a 2560 x 1600 IPS display. The other is a bog cheap generic 27" 16x9.

    I used to have two 27" 16x9 side by side. The problem with that arrangement is the 1080 vertical resolution wasn't satisfactory for programming.

    Now this with a 1440 is definite improvement. Still though I think I'm sticking with the 2560 x 1600 - it's even deeper. IPS is also pretty sweet when doing graphics work.

  • by dbIII (701233) on Sunday May 25, 2014 @03:45AM (#47086235)
    A vertical resolution less than I was using before the year 2000 is a step backwards.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...