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

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?"

Comments

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Vertical Resolution

[rolfwind]

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.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[tlhIngan]

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 difference between consumer 4K and cinema 4K - the latter being 4096x2160.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[swillden]

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. 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 couple of columns. I'd like that.

Re:Vertical Resolution

[jtownatpunk.net]

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.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[FlyHelicopters]

It might be just you, but are you basing that on the "idea of 4k", or actual experience using it?

I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"

So why don't I own one now? The source material from most media isn't 4k, so what's the point? For TV use, it will be a few years. For computer use, that time would be now if a good IPS 4K display wasn't crazy priced.

But when the prices come down, it will make total sense.

"Productivity"?

[mwvdlee]

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".

Re:"Productivity"?

[bingoUV]

Fitting tabs horizontally is idiotic anyway for a large number of tabs. Tabs should be vertical.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[Austerity Empowers]

More pixels is always better if you're coding. However 21:9 does nothing for me, they should double down and go 32:9 and allow two host controllers (and selectably just one to drive both). It'll save me a bit of desk space and one power cord...

Ultra WQHD?

[BenJeremy]

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.

Lock your doors

[sjames]

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.

Re:I get it.. but I won't get it

[mister_playboy]

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...

Re:Is this an ad ?

[umdesch4]

No mod points, so I'll just reply and say "me too". On the other hand, I'd consider taking one of these displays and turning it 90 degrees so I can see more of my code at once without scrolling.

Re:Yes Really

[HornWumpus]

3 1080p monitors turned 90 degrees.

3240x1920. Cheaper then my first VGA monitor.

4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[SuperBanana]

I don't own a 4k TV, but I've watched one, when fed a proper 4k source, the difference is, "holy crap, when can I get one of those?!?"

Only if you're looking at it too closely. At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in. Up close, yeah, it's obviously going to look astounding, and most people have "too large" a screen for their viewing distance, so in a way, I guess it works out :)

The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[FlyHelicopters]

At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect a difference in.

Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...

I speak from experience...

The problem with 4k monitors is that they have slow refresh rates (30hz?), slow response time, and all the usual non-IPS problems like poor viewing angle and color. None of which matters terribly for programming (save response time which might make scrolling a bit blurry.)

More wrong information. 60hz 4k panels are out now, and they don't have poor viewing angle or color. You simply need DisplayPort to get 60hz (which anyone buying such a monitor today should have).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...

60hz, IPS viewing angels, just crazy expensive at $3,500 (actually below $3K now, give it a few years to get cheap).

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[WhiteZook]

At recommended viewing distances, 4K resolution is difficult for most of the population to detect

The obvious solution is to reduce the recommended viewing distance, as the resolution of the screen improves.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[beelsebob]

Um... just no... that is completely and totally false, I wish people would stop repeating that nonsense... Maybe YOUR eyes suck and you can't see a difference, but put them side-by-side, sitting 6 to 10 feet away, the difference is clear and obvious to most people...

No, it's nothing to do with his eyes sucking, it's to do with the angular resolution that 20/20 vision can pick up. at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen.

I speak from experience...

How sure are you you don't speak from placebo?

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[fnj]

at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen

This is easily verifiable. The standard definition of "normal" visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. At 12 inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. That means that at 10 feet, someone with 20/20 vision can resolve 0.0349 inch. 1920 (1080p width) times 0.0349 inch is equal to 67.008 inches, significantly wider than a 60" diagonal TV screen.

However, the kicker is in the definition of "normal". 20/20 is actually "the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff" (see here; original source link no longer works). From the same paragraph, "the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12". That means that it wouldn't be very unusual for young healthy eyes, definitionally better than average but by no means uncommon, to be 20/10 or even better.

At 20/10, you can clearly easily distinguish between 1080p and 2160p ("4k") on a 60 inch TV screen at 10 feet. In fact, you could at least begin to make out a difference even in the range of 20/16 to 20/12.

If grandparent wants to say 20/20 vision "sucks", that is arguably a fair characterization in relation perhaps to his own vision, and likely that of fellow enthusiasts. Even his claim that the difference is obvious to "most people" is at least somewhat supportable if you accept that the average of "healthy" eyes is 20/16 to 20/12. At worst he would need to qualify the statement by excluding those with ocular disease or fairly advanced degeneration due to simple aging.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[DanielRavenNest]

Because it's approximately true. Nominal resolution of the human eye is 1 arc-minute (1/60 of a degree), therefore a 1920 pixel wide display will subtend 32 degrees horizontally at the resolution limit. At 9 feet (108 inches), a 62 inch wide screen will subtend 32 degrees horizontally. Since screen sizes are measured on the diagonal, that equates to a 71 inch diagonal.

Human eyes are variable in resolving power, both because of their optics, density of the cones in the fovea, and brightness of the image source. Our retinas and brains also do image processing, so we can detect narrow lines, like a power line against the sky, at better resolution by interpolating eye movements (which change which cones are getting the image) and contrast enhancement.

An image with lots of narrow high contrast linear features (like text) can benefit from somewhat better pixel density, but for general colored images it does not help much.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Twinbee]

Even normal TV programmes have lots of sharp lines and outlines as well as high contrasting bits (e.g: snooker, gates/fences, fireworks, striped/chequered shirt, fireworks, decoration, sunset on the water, grass, crystals, specular reflections on curved objects, and of course lots of text, whether subtitles or as part of the programme). No more (or minimal) moire effects with 4k too.

Re:4k at viewing distance isn't that special

[Bitmanhome]

20/20 is the ability to read things made of lines 1 arc-minute thick. If the letters are smaller, you might not be able to read them, but you can tell tell it's text because the rods and cones are much more dense than that. "General colored images" usually have texture.

Another big value that's not discussed often is that the higher the resolution, the harder the pixels are to see. This is why even 480i content looks better on an HD TV -- it's a much smoother, cleaner picture. Also, through some quirk of physics, when my eyes de-focus I can see pixels.

Re:Price?

[Jmc23]

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?

Re:Gimme a curved screen

[ArcadeMan]

Yeah, but Skarjak asked for a curved monitor from the future, not from another planet.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[sabri]

You should go to CES sometime

I don't need to go to CES. I bought that monitor three weeks ago when Fry's had it for a little under $1k. It is huge, I did not really like it. Much of the monitor is in my peripheral view, and moving the mouse from far-left to far-right is a pain. I decided to use my "old" 1920x1200 again and use my 34UM95 for my flight simulator.

The idea of having a gazillion xterm's next to each other is great, but it didn't work for me.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[iamhassi]

Agreed. Needs to be at least 6 foot wide, same as three decent sized LCDs, and should be a reasonable resolution, 5760x1080 which is what three HD monitors would be. Then I would be interested, but 3440 isn't even 2x1920, so you're actually losing horizontal real estate compared to 2 cheap HD monitors.

Why buy this 34" at $1,500 when it has less space than two $200 $26" LCDs? I would have 52" total, 3840x1080 resolution and spend $400 instead of $1,500.

Re:Too Small

[Jane Q. Public]

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" monitor at 1920 x 1200, across my desk. I use more than one for more space. The thing is, if I want a finer resolution, great, but I still want the same physical size, or more, not something that is physically smaller. As I say: in order to get the same work done, regardless of other factors, this monitor would have to be 47" diagonal, even if the resolution were higher than it is.

Re:Pro users will not switch away from IPS

[Jmc23]

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.

Betteridge said it best: No.

[AnotherBlackHat]

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.

Re:Betteridge said it best: No.

[ArcadeMan]

The golden ratio is too expensive, that's why they're using the silver screen ratio.

Some drawbacks

[Cinder6]

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.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[beelsebob]

Actually, it is - if you sit 8-10 foot away from your screen you need a 60" TV to see a resolution higher than 1080p.

4k is pretty much useful for monitors only (where it's useful because you sit 2 feet away from them).

I hate odd fractions...

[mspohr]

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.

Re:Objectively Inferior in Every Way

[Immerman]

What does refresh rate have to do with the pixel-dimensions of the screen? Yes, there are bandwidth limitations with the current HDMI spec, but that's irrelevant. to what your eye can see, and if 4K catches on either HDMI will be updated, or things will move to DisplayPort, where the tentative next-gen standard can already handle 8K displays at 60Hz.

Meanwhile the AC is absolutely correct, at 3440 x1440 this new display is smaller in both dimensions than a "standard" 4K at 3840 x 2160. And for most computing applications refresh rate is largely irrelevant for modern displays that don't "pulse" the image like CRTs did - 30Hz is quite sufficient for everything but 3D games. DVDs are only encoded at 30fps (NTSC), or even 25fps (PAL). Hell, even a traditional movie theater only runs at 24fps.

Following up on the last LG story...

[barlevg]

if you reject their privacy policy, will they bump your resolution down to 800x600?

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

Yeah, and you can hear the difference between a tube amp and solid state amp, or whatever the audiophiles are claiming.

Re:Is this an ad ?

[AK Marc]

For the record, yes, you can hear the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp. The tube amp will be "warmer", meaning it will distort the audio in a manner some find pleasing. The solid state amp won't do this, and will instead require those effects to be simulated in a DSP.

Then why have every study done double-blind shown that audiophile claims aren't represented as claimed? People can't tell the difference. When you avoid edge cases (clipping/distortion), the cheap equipment matches the expensive equipment.

This display is only around 100DPI. Even using the "20/20 vision" measurement of 1 arcminute resolution, that means you're still going to see benefit all the way out to three feet.

Being able to resolve the differences doesn't mean it makes a difference to the viewing.

I don't believe that is an accurate description of human vision, anyway. I tested, and I can resolve a single pixel (stuck green on a bad LCD) at less than 1/10th the "minimum" you list, and my vision is worse than 20/20. I can see that it's lit, so it's obvious I can see it, and it'd smaller than your numbers indicate I should be able to see. I understand that's not what the tests test for, but it proves to me that the human eye can "resolve" things smaller than what's looked for in vision tests.

But there are so many limitations in source material that it doesn't matter for TV/movies. IT would matter for sitting close to a 4k computer monitor seeing text, but a moving image filmed with flawed human-made optics and motion blur will make no difference. I know people who own 1080p TVs that think my 720p TV is better. Setup and source material matter more than resolution.

Hates it! Hates it precious!

[dbIII]

A vertical resolution less than I was using before the year 2000 is a step backwards.