LG 31MU97 4k Display

[ScratchyMoose]

I got it for £870 from Overlockers so good value I think.

Yikes, that's a bargain! it's now £1,099!

I'm using mainly Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Dreamweaver and Strata and the menus are just too tiny to be readable at 4096. I've found the best compromise is 3008x1586

So just to confirm, are you seeing graphical elements (ie pictures etc) being shown at 4096 x 2160, but all type is shown at 3008 x 1586? (Apologies, i'm confused by this new fangled scaling )



VirtualRain posted on the boards that graphical elements weren't being displayed 1:1

Retina scaling is definitely not presenting content at 1:1 as I thought. My apologies for misleading you earlier. It seems if you want pixel perfect, you need to either edit content at native resolution or using "Best for Retina". For me, this probably means switching to native resolution or "best for retina" if I need to do any pixel-level photo work, and running a scaled resolution most of the rest of the time.

It really is messy considering Apple said about a year ago that the nMPs were 4k killers!

 

[VirtualRain]

Yikes, that's a bargain! it's now £1,099!



So just to confirm, are you seeing graphical elements (ie pictures etc) being shown at 4096 x 2160, but all type is shown at 3008 x 1586? (Apologies, i'm confused by this new fangled scaling )



VirtualRain posted on the boards that graphical elements weren't being displayed 1:1


It really is messy considering Apple said about a year ago that the nMPs were 4k killers!

What I found on my retina MacBook display is that images and content are treated somewhat differently but not rendered at 1:1.

When you work at a scaled resolution, such as 3008x1586, Apple is actually taking advantage of x2 retina artwork and rendering the desktop and UI at 6016x3172, it then downsamples this to fit the 4096x2160 native resolution.

With image content, they are NOT upscaled to x2 on the retina desktop, so a 1920x1080 pixel image will be rendered on the virtual 6016x3172 desktop at 1920x1080 (not 3840x2160). So when the final desktop is down sampled to the physical display, the image will be consuming about a third of the horizontal screen rather than half as you might expect.

 

[NKirov]

Yes I think it's that downsampling that needs work, it's good on some things and bad on others notably small black type on a white background. (fetch screen grab attached, may not work when viewed on another monitor I guess))

I presume that retina versions of software etc will increase and the problem will be less of an issue

Oh and the £877 was ex vat sorry!

 

[ScratchyMoose]

Oh and the £877 was ex vat sorry!

Thanks, that's good to know that i haven't missed a bargain!

With image content, they are NOT upscaled to x2 on the retina desktop, so a 1920x1080 pixel image will be rendered on the virtual 6016x3172 desktop at 1920x1080 (not 3840x2160). So when the final desktop is down sampled to the physical display, the image will be consuming about a third of the horizontal screen rather than half as you might expect.

Wow - that's a bit of a spanner in the works, no? It means that of your 1920x1080 pixels within the image that you refer to above, when viewing it in scaled mode, lots of the pixels are thrown away / interpolated down?

It seems if you want pixel perfect, you need to either edit content at native resolution or using "Best for Retina".

And would both of these modes make the UI tiny?

So, does that mean that either mode has a significant down side? (Scaled mode: interpolation down AND Native resolution: tiny UI and type)

 

[SaxPlayer]

I'm interested in this display and hopeful from the wording on the LG site that full 4K 60Hz support is coming under OS X, but in the meantime, if it's displaying using UHD (3840 x 2160) does that fill the dimensions of the display (i.e. in 17:9 aspect) or does it show effectively in 16:9 UHD with black bars down one or both sides?

If it fills the screen, is this distorted at all? I'm assuming that if you use one of the scaled options rather than native then the scaling would sort that out and it wouldn't be distorted but just curious.

For me personally, the full 4K support will be nice, but if the UHD resolution works but fills the full area of the screen without any distortion (using one of the scaled options) then it's enough for me to think seriously about buying one.

Hope that makes some kind of sense?!

 

[NKirov]

Well I have the custom SwitchrexX profile so selecting the 3840 resolution goes to the full width, no black bars but the screen is stretched to the full width, Based on the early posts this isn't the case if you just use it as is, you do get black bars but no distortion.

 

[VirtualRain]

Thanks, that's good to know that i haven't missed a bargain!


Wow - that's a bit of a spanner in the works, no? It means that of your 1920x1080 pixels within the image that you refer to above, when viewing it in scaled mode, lots of the pixels are thrown away / interpolated down?


And would both of these modes make the UI tiny?

So, does that mean that either mode has a significant down side? (Scaled mode: interpolation down AND Native resolution: tiny UI and type)

Sorry, I'm learning as I go here and it's very confusing the way that screen captures, Preview, and scaling work which has caused me to jump to premature conclusions. Bare with me!

(Remember, my 13" rMBP has a 2560x1440 display that I run at a scaled resolution of 1680x1050).

In the attached screen shot, you can see I've loaded a 1920x1080 image into Aperture at 100%. Loading the full retina doubled 3360x2100 PNG screen shot into Preview and selecting the 1080p image indicates it is in fact 1920x1080. And thus it consumes a little over half the width of the screen as you would expect.

Now when I try to take an area screen shot (shift-cmd-3) of a portion of the active desktop just selecting the 1080p image portion on the screen, it shows the captured area to be 960x540 (remember the scaled desktop is 1680x1050) or half the res of a 1920x1080 image and when you get info on this screen capture, it's actually 1920x1080p. So everything such as selections and views are relative to the scaled resolution, and it's really impossible to work with anything at the physical pixel display level - the concept of physical pixels disappears when working at a scaled resolution.

TL;DR So while running a scaled retina resolution, it seems you can select content and manipulate content with pixel accurate perfection but you're not seeing/working with physical screen pixels like you would in native mode, you're working with the content pixels which don't map 1:1 to the screen's pixels. There's no longer such a things as physical screen pixels. That concept disappears. It's all very confusing.

EDIT: to respond to your concern about pixels being thrown away... that's not true... the full image content is always there, and you can manipulate it at the pixel level, it just may not map 1:1 to display pixels.

 

[SaxPlayer]

Well I have the custom SwitchrexX profile so selecting the 3840 resolution goes to the full width, no black bars but the screen is stretched to the full width, Based on the early posts this isn't the case if you just use it as is, you do get black bars but no distortion.

Thanks, NKirov, I appreciate your answer. I would've thought that for many people distortion would be a no-no but if it's possible to run the display with black bars then it's possible to avoid it. If it's not going to be possible to run the display in true 4K then it kind of defeats the object of the 17:9 aspect - may as well go for a 16:9 display IMHO.

Is very much a personal thing, I suppose.

On their web site LG do say that a 4096 resolution will be possible with the Mac Pro. Tempted to order based on that promise, but will sleep on it, I think. With the nature of the 4K monitor market at the moment I might wake up tomorrow and find it's dropped 100 quid in price.

 

[NKirov]

You might want to read the early pages on this thread, that's where this whole question began, the chap who produces SwitchResX (stmad) came up with a custom file that can be used to get the full 4096 resolution on a nMP WITHOUT any distortion or black bars. (At 50hz rather than 30)

You're right distortion would be a no good if you're using this in any kind of professional capacity and I wouldn't be able to put up with black bars so I would recommend using the profile he created and using SwitchResX. It gives you a lot more options.

Whilst the monitor does have it's faults it's much sharper than a non 4K one, not quite like looking at a retina iPad but not far off, the type I mentioned being slightly pixelated is probably in actual viewing size about 5 or 6pt and the fact that I can even read it is on screen is way ahead of my previous cinema display.

 

[rdav]

MBP-Retina & LG-C4k ~ Relative DPI.

The MacBookPro-Retina(15.4”) has a native screen resolution of 2880x1800. With an HiDPI scaling of 1.5 (via SwitchRezX) that becomes 1920x1200. DPI ~147. Maybe too small for some, but it works for my applications.

The LG-31MU97 monitor (31.5”) has a native resolution of 4096x2160 - for a matching DPI ~ 147.
http://dpi.lv

Problem may be that most punters tend to sit closer to laptops than large desk-top screens. Went to Frys recently, but they had sold out.

Also, I suspect that this will not be fixed by Apple until sometime around March 2015, when OS-X 10.10.03 and the next Mac Pro (7,1) will probably become available.
https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//#Mac_Pro

 

[NKirov]

It varies from application to application particularly with Adobe, Photoshop is ok, Indesign ridiculously tiny especially in the control menus even at normal resolutions and Illustrator somewhere in between.

Designers have been complaining for years that there is no consistency or any form of control over the size.

But like you say all depends on what you use the machine for, I initially thought I'd want the max resolution with as much on the screen as possible but in reality I just tended to blow things up anyway to the size I find comfortable so really I have the same amount of space as my previous 30in but just a lot sharper.

I also found the problem of needing to have the mouse tracking set high to avoid chasing my hand across the table but then it's not sensitive enough for detail work, that I guess is not a problem on a laptop sized screen.

 

[mintakax]

Sorry, I'm learning as I go here and it's very confusing the way that screen captures, Preview, and scaling work which has caused me to jump to premature conclusions. Bare with me!

(Remember, my 13" rMBP has a 2560x1440 display that I run at a scaled resolution of 1680x1050).

In the attached screen shot, you can see I've loaded a 1920x1080 image into Aperture at 100%. Loading the full retina doubled 3360x2100 PNG screen shot into Preview and selecting the 1080p image indicates it is in fact 1920x1080. And thus it consumes a little over half the width of the screen as you would expect.

Now when I try to take an area screen shot (shift-cmd-3) of a portion of the active desktop just selecting the 1080p image portion on the screen, it shows the captured area to be 960x540 (remember the scaled desktop is 1680x1050) or half the res of a 1920x1080 image and when you get info on this screen capture, it's actually 1920x1080p. So everything such as selections and views are relative to the scaled resolution, and it's really impossible to work with anything at the physical pixel display level - the concept of physical pixels disappears when working at a scaled resolution.

TL;DR So while running a scaled retina resolution, it seems you can select content and manipulate content with pixel accurate perfection but you're not seeing/working with physical screen pixels like you would in native mode, you're working with the content pixels which don't map 1:1 to the screen's pixels. There's no longer such a things as physical screen pixels. That concept disappears. It's all very confusing.

EDIT: to respond to your concern about pixels being thrown away... that's not true... the full image content is always there, and you can manipulate it at the pixel level, it just may not map 1:1 to display pixels.

This whole scaling thing is confusing and if VirtualRain is confused, I'm giving up !

If I run this monitor at the UHD resolution @ 60hz, will I be seeing a 1:1 mapping when I display a UHD video using, say, VLC ? How about if I used it as the second window on FCPX for a UHD editing project ?

I played around with viewing a UHD video on my wife's 5K iMac and Quicktime did not function the way I expected, but VLC did.

 

[rdav]

The Rat, a faster mouse for C4k screens?

I also found the problem of needing to have the mouse tracking set high to avoid chasing my hand across the table but then it's not sensitive enough for detail work, that I guess is not a problem on a laptop sized screen.

Dude, maybe you need a bigger/faster mouse - Such as the (red) Rat9. These gaming devices have to be very sensitive, fast and able to cover a lot of ground quickly (to avoid being hit). It even has a DPI control wheel. Plus, they look cool. (See image below).

 

[NKirov]

Excellent! Looks like RSI in a box to me.

 

[rdav]

Excellent! Looks like RSI in a box to me.

Sure, but at least the Zombies/Aliens/Ghouls are zapped.
Think that link broke from all the excitement. Here's an upload pic instead.

 

[ScratchyMoose]

this whole scaling thing is confusing and if virtualrain is confused, i'm giving up !

Best summary yet!

 

[SaxPlayer]

You might want to read the early pages on this thread, that's where this whole question began, the chap who produces SwitchResX (stmad) came up with a custom file that can be used to get the full 4096 resolution on a nMP WITHOUT any distortion or black bars. (At 50hz rather than 30)

You're right distortion would be a no good if you're using this in any kind of professional capacity and I wouldn't be able to put up with black bars so I would recommend using the profile he created and using SwitchResX. It gives you a lot more options.

Whilst the monitor does have it's faults it's much sharper than a non 4K one, not quite like looking at a retina iPad but not far off, the type I mentioned being slightly pixelated is probably in actual viewing size about 5 or 6pt and the fact that I can even read it is on screen is way ahead of my previous cinema display.

I'm hoping for it to work properly without any hacks, however it's good know that SwitchResX is there as a fall back if I take the plunge!

I'm running a 30" Apple Cinema Display at the moment and have gone through 3 mini display port adapters so far since I got my nMP in February. The ACD I bought new so was expensive but I spend all day staring at the screen so promised myself that when a good IPS 4K panel became available at around £1K I'd seriously consider buying it.

I'm seriously considering buying it

 

[NKirov]

Likewise, only downside is that black plastic doesn't look as nice as the 30in Cinema but then very little does!

I did consider a respray but may just settle for removing the nasty LG logo..

 

[VirtualRain]

This whole scaling thing is confusing and if VirtualRain is confused, I'm giving up !

Best summary yet!

LOL... I'm regularly confused... nothing new there!

Seriously it is a bit of a mind-bender when you consider you have display resolution, effective desktop resolution, and retina doubled resolution all playing a roll in what you see.

If you're really concerned about 1:1 pixel perfect, the simplest way is to run native with no scaling and on a 30"+ display, that's probably still usable for many.

I will run my 27" 4K displays at a scaled resolution as working on photos does not require pixel perfection. I'll see a helluva lot more detail on a 4K display than I ever saw on my old 24" displays... and that's what it's all about for me.

 

[SaxPlayer]

I will run my 27" 4K displays at a scaled resolution as working on photos does not require pixel perfection. I'll see a helluva lot more detail on a 4K display than I ever saw on my old 24" displays... and that's what it's all about for me.

+1 that. It scaled for me too all the way. I do coding most of the time and will definitely benefit from the improved text display. Hovered over the buy button for a 31MU97 a few times today, but I'm trying to hold out for more reviews (any reviews?!) out there on the intertubes. Also waiting to hear back from LG about the OS X update they mention on their product page.

 

[mintakax]

LOL... I'm regularly confused... nothing new there!

Seriously it is a bit of a mind-bender when you consider you have display resolution, effective desktop resolution, and retina doubled resolution all playing a roll in what you see.

If you're really concerned about 1:1 pixel perfect, the simplest way is to run native with no scaling and on a 30"+ display, that's probably still usable for many.

I will run my 27" 4K displays at a scaled resolution as working on photos does not require pixel perfection. I'll see a helluva lot more detail on a 4K display than I ever saw on my old 24" displays... and that's what it's all about for me.

I don't really need 1:1 perfection either. What I do want is a monitor that gives the most "wow factor" to 4K (UHD) video, from a non-professional perspective. I am assuming (guessing ?) that a 4K video will play smoother if the CPU/GPU does not have to do extra work to scale pixels ?

Edit: I also meant to ask if any of the points discussed above would change if the OS was Mavericks instead of Yosemite ? My nMP is my main work computer (scientific data analysis ) and I can not yet risk an upgrade to Yosemite.

 

[SaxPlayer]

Not surprised really...

I decided to contact LG support about the statement on the LG 31MU97 product page: "4096x2160 resolution will be supported in upcoming Mac OS X release"

The first problem I had was that their live chat wouldn't work as no-one was available so I was prompted to use their email option. When I did that, you have to choose the product from a popup. The LG 31MU97 isn't listed so I had to choose a different monitor and include in my text that I wasn't asking about the display I'd selected.

[Draws breath]

I asked them these 2 questions:

1. I notice from the information on your web site that (quote) "4096x2160 resolution will be supported in upcoming Mac OS X release". I wondered if you had more information on when this update is due or was it included in the recent 10.10.1 update?
2. If running in 3840x2160 for now, does this stretch to fill the display width or does it show with black bars down the sides?

They responded with this (from LG UK Support):-

Looking at the information I have available about this model I have no reference to the Mac upgrade or a date that this feature will go live.

So at this stage I would not know if this is a software upgrade on our end or if its a software update from the Mac side of things, if your Mac can support the full 4k resolution then this should work.

If you was forced to run the lower resolution this would end up full screen and slightly stretched but you can change the picture mode of the monitor to go with whatever mode is best for you.

You can access the menu for your monitor by using the joystick under the middle of the screen, you can change the aspect ratio settings in here and this will effect how the image is stretched or not.​

About as much help as an ashtray on motorbike. I shouldn't be surprised, these help systems are always the same. Operators who are told they must get through a certain number of questions in a day or they'll be shot at dawn so they answer as fully as they can, which is usually with a load of waffle because they actually have no knowledge about whatever it is you're asking about.

OK. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. This guy has tried his best and he did answer my question about the stretching (which backs up what people have been saying on this thread) but the main reason for approaching them - the main thing we need to know that only LG can tell us - was deftly sidestepped with a "I don't know" response. Well, if you don't know, mate, then who the hell does?!

 

[jkg4]

My LG 31MU97 is running fine on my Mac Pro (late 2013, D700) at its native resolution with both scaled and unscaled settings under 10.0.1. I did have to install the custom file described earlier in this thread and hold down the option (alt) key when clicking on Scaled in the Displays system preference panel...screen shots attached. The only catch is that I'm limited to 50Hz at the moment (this is using the included Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable), but I haven't spent much time trying to fix that yet.

 

[SaxPlayer]

My LG 31MU97 is running fine on my Mac Pro (late 2013, D700) at its native resolution with both scaled and unscaled settings under 10.0.1. I did have to install the custom file described earlier in this thread and hold down the option (alt) key when clicking on Scaled in the Displays system preference panel...screen shots attached. The only catch is that I'm limited to 50Hz at the moment (this is using the included Mini DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable), but I haven't spent much time trying to fix that yet.

Thanks for the info. I only have D300 cards in mine however I suspect I'd get the same results as you. It sounds promising. 60Hz would be better, of course, although previous posts have suggested that the difference dropping to 50Hz isn't that noticeable in everyday use.

Stupid question time: I assume that it's 50Hz at all resolutions including scaled ones, not just native?

 

[NKirov]

Far as I can tell it's 50 in everything yes unless you drop down to 960x540 although I do have one odd option of 3840 x 2160 NSTC at 60hz but that's stretched and the monitor doesn't seem to like it, keeps bringing up the LG error menu

(I've tried attaching a screen grab of the resolutions but I can't attach it for some reason)