Hands-On With LG's $1,500 34WK95U UltraWide 5K Display

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. ikir macrumors 65816

    ikir

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #51
    Very nice display, UltraWide is a mus for me. I think I would prefer 2560 x 1080 retina because it would be super sharp
     
  2. JesperA macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    #52
    I really doubt you would, at 2560x1080 everything is physically enormous, the "Reply" button on posts here are as big as my thumb. 1080 isn't much of a vertical resolution either, compare the screenshots:

    2560x1080: https://i.imgur.com/7aPsqvD.jpg

    5K2K: https://i.imgur.com/oPUkEPv.jpg

    It would be such a waste of money buying this and use it at 2560x1080, i cant see much of a difference in sharpness between 2560x1080 and 3840x1620. Luckily full resolution works for me at 1 arm-length distance.
     
  3. DryHeave macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    #53
    Because it *is* a 5k display. It's 5120 pixels wide, which is >5k (5000) pixels.
    4K resolution is not a measure of total pixels on the screen; it's a measure of width.
    This 5k display in 2.37:1 aspect ratio has 11.06 megapixels. A 5k display in 16:9 aspect ratio has 14.75 megapixels. Both are 5k displays.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 6, 2018 ---
    It is not basically a standard 4K screen. 4K and 5K are measures of width, not total pixels. This is absolutely a 5K screen. Even a 5120x10 pixel screen would be a 5K screen.
     
  4. lec0rsaire macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    #54
    My C8 has support for 4K @120Hz or HRR but just not over HDMI 2.0b. It must be through the USB ports. HDMI 2.1 will have the bandwidth for 120Hz but sadly my C8 will never have that capability.

    However if you keep waiting for tech to arrive there will be something else just around the corner like 55-65” 8K HDR displays and then 12-bit panels. Time marches on and tech waits for no one!
    --- Post Merged, Dec 6, 2018 ---
    Exactly. While true Cinema 4K has a horizontal resolution of 4096 in contrast to 3840, it is still 4K since the vertical resolution is the same and the difference in extra pixels isn’t a huge difference.

    1080p can also be called 2K even though true 2K is 2048 horizontal.

    True 8K is 8192x4320 but home 8K is 7680x4320.
     
  5. EightyTwenty, Dec 6, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018

    EightyTwenty macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    #55
    I think you forgot to add another 9.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 6, 2018 ---
    “4K” and “5K” are stupid marketing terms. We’ve never used horizontal resolution before, but we do so now only because “4K” sounded better than “2160p”, which was the next logical step from “1080p”. Just as “5K” sounded better than “2880p”.

    The bottom line is that this screen cannot display native 2880p content. Period. It will downsample to what is commonly called “4K” (2160p). This monitor has a maximum vertical resolution of 2160p... which is... wait for it... the same maximum vertical resolution of “4K” Blu-Ray.

    For all intents and purposes, it’s a “4K” monitor. Which is why LG does not market this as a “5K” monitor. They are very careful to list it as “5K2K”, not simply “5K”.
     
  6. jimothyGator macrumors regular

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #56
    That’s probably why they call it a 5K monitor and not a 2880p monitor. Because, see, it’s a 5K monitor. No matter how strongly you feel otherwise, a 5K monitor is one with approximately 5,000 horizontal pixels. It has zero to do with the vertical pixels.

    What’s the big deal anyway? If 5K is just a dumb marketing term, why do you object to a 5K monitor being called a 5K monitor?
     
  7. EightyTwenty, Dec 7, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018

    EightyTwenty macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    #57
    “They” (being LG), ya know, the actual company that makes the monitor, do not call it a “5K monitor”. Because, see, it’s not a “5K monitor”. LG knows it. Most of the people in this thread know it. But, for whatever reason, you refuse to grasp that fairly simple concept.

    LG are careful to use the term “5K2K Ultrawide”, because, ummm, let’s see here, again, it’s not a “5K monitor”. The actual website for this monitor clearly defines “4K” as 3840 x 2160 (OMG... LG specifies vertical resolution while defining the term “4K”!!!). The site also clearly demonstrates that this monitor is simply an ultrawide version of a typical 16:9 “4K”.

    The terms HD, FHD, 4K and 5K have generally understood meanings in the tech marketplace. This isn’t rocket science, guy. Yelling at the clouds won’t change that. A monitor with 1080 vertical resolution will never be advertised as simply a “5K monitor”, no matter how wide it is or how many horizontal pixels it has. They will have to come up with a new term for such a monitor, like “5K1K”, similar to what LG has done here. That’s just reality. Accept it or don’t.

    Mostly because it’s not a “5K” monitor, is not being marketed as a “5K” monitor, and cannot play anything beyond 4K content, as LG demonstrates on the actual website for the monitor. Almost everyone in this thread can understand these simple realities except you.

    There’s a reason LG is very careful to market this monitor as “5K2K” while it markets the LG Ultrafine as simply a “5K monitor”. It’s not complicated. LG sells a 5K monitor. But this one ain’t it.

    Funny enough, LG sells a monitor with a 3840 x 1600 resolution. According to you, this is a true “4K monitor”. After all, it has the same horizontal resolution as several other monitors LG advertises as “4K“. So why does LG does not advertise it as such? They use the term “WQHD+”. Why? Well, they know better than you not to mislead their customers by misusing generally understood and accepted terms.
     
  8. davegoody macrumors 6502

    davegoody

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire, England
    #58
    You would *NOT* be running it at a non-native resolution at all, not sure where you got that assumption from, it would be a SCALED resolution, which is absolutely NOT the same thing. The Mac supplying the image would be outputting at the NATIVE resolution, but with MacOS scaling screen attributes such as text and buttons at a larger scale.

    Totally different things.
     
  9. jimothyGator macrumors regular

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #59
    You’re still wrong, but I appreciate your enthusiasm.
     
  10. typk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2018
    #60
    Even after 10.14.2 mine doesn't work through Thunderbolt...
     
  11. leechers, Dec 8, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2018

    leechers macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #61
    The 38-inch ultrawide monitors are ridiculously large. I don't think there are any benefits of 38 inches over 34.

    Yes, it does support HDR to some extent, though peak brightness does not reach over 1000 nits so it's not 'real' HDR.

    You don't need to set it as non-native resolution. Running it at non-native, which was demonstrated in the video, was a very silly move and negates the benefits of the greater resolution. You can run the monitor at native resolution but scale the UI to 1.5x (which provides an effective 3413x1440 resolution). This is what all MacBooks do, they run at 2560x1600 (or more for the 15 inch) and then scale the UI to useable levels. I believe this was the intention of the monitor.
     
  12. redheeler macrumors 604

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #62
    MacOS doesn't have 1.5x UI scaling, only 2x UI scaling at a non-native resolution that gets downscaled to fit on the display. This will become apparent if you ever take a screenshot, if you select "Looks like 3413 x 1440" the screenshot will actually be the full 6826x2880.

    This is the same thing Apple does with the newest 15" MacBook Pro, a 3360x2100 non-native software resolution that gets downscaled with quality loss to fit on the display. It's a silly compromise for such an expensive laptop.
     
  13. toke lahti macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #63
    If only this would be curved.
    Computer monitors are close to the eyes, so the object/pixel size will vary a great deal with this perpective.
    Just like most people with 2 2560x2160 screens would keep them at angle, so both screens’ normal would point to their nose.
     
  14. toke lahti macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #64
    Can you point me a monitor that is over 30" in size and is 2880p?
     
  15. EightyTwenty macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    #65
    What does this have to do with what is being discussed here? There are true 5K monitors available for purchase from companies like LG and Dell. This is not one of them, as LG themselves admit.
     
  16. toke lahti macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #66
    Well, I'm now gonna buy a 5k monitor, that's bigger than 30" and if you're saying this is a bad choice, since it's only 2160p, then can you tell me which is better?
     
  17. EightyTwenty, Dec 10, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018

    EightyTwenty macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    #67
    I’m not saying it’s a bad choice. It looks like a great monitor. But you are not buying a true 5k monitor. Sorry. LG brands it as “5K2K” - in other words: a 4K monitor with extra screen space added to the sides.

    If you want a true 5K monitor, look for the ones LG brands as “5K”. The one you are buying has the exact same pixel density as a 4K monitor, because that’s really what it is.

    It’s like buying a 720p TV and claiming it’s “Full HD” to make yourself feel good. Just enjoy the TV, man. No need to inflate or exaggerate what it really is. At the end of the day, the PPI don’t lie.
     
  18. toke lahti macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #68
    Since there is no ”true 5k” as you like to call it, in >30” sizes, we’ll have to setlle for this.
    It’s a bit amazing that most mpx are offered only in imac-size of 27”, coincidently?
     
  19. macMD macrumors 6502

    macMD

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #69
    Did you end up getting the Dell U3818DW, if so how did it work for your. Setting up the resolution to work with your MBP?
     
  20. jimothyGator macrumors regular

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #70
    I’m holding off for a bit, mainly because I want to pair it with a new MBP, as well. I’ll likely take the leap in a month or two.
     
  21. jimothyGator macrumors regular

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #71
    I got the Dell a few days ago, using with a work MBP 13” and a Thinkpad running Windows. So far, I’m very pleased with it. I can display video simultaneously from both computers, each at a 1920x1600 resolution. And with just the Mac, I can easily display three windows side by side. Great for software development.

    You can connect up to three computers and share the mouse/keyboard (not simultaneously), provided one of them is connected to USB-C. When you switch the video source, it’ll also switch where the mouse and keyboard are connected to. Very handy.

    I look forward to the day when I can get a 7,680x3,200 display in the same size—effectively this monitor in a retina resolution. Until then, this is a great productivity boost. Much easier than working with two separate monitors.

    I’m pleased with the purchase so far.
     

Share This Page