Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

LG 38UC99 or LG UltraFine 5K

3587

3587

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 23, 2008
753
87
I just received my 38UC99 and have it hooked up to my 2016 MacBook Pro 15"... I'm a little disappointed with the clarity of the text, etc. This especially noticeable, since I just came from an iMac 5K.

Question is this... Should I return the 38UC99 for the soon to be released LG 5K? Just seems like these 27" monitors have a lot less room, but make up for it in clarity? Thoughts?
 
38" at 3840 x 1600px - yeah text is not going to be nearly as sharp as a 4k or 5k @ 27".

a 27" is a lot less space than a 38". But a 5k will be a lot sharper. Depends on how much sharpness vs space matters to you.
 
3587 said:
I just received my 38UC99 and have it hooked up to my 2016 MacBook Pro 15"... I'm a little disappointed with the clarity of the text, etc. This especially noticeable, since I just came from an iMac 5K.

Question is this... Should I return the 38UC99 for the soon to be released LG 5K? Just seems like these 27" monitors have a lot less room, but make up for it in clarity? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I am also deciding between these two. I have a 2015 imac 5k and will get the 2016 MBP.
I was wondering: can I either the ultrafine or the 38uc99 as a secondary monitor to my imac? If yes, what kind of cables do I need? Have you hooked up the 38 to your imac?
 
tomdwan said:
I am also deciding between these two. I have a 2015 imac 5k and will get the 2016 MBP.
I was wondering: can I either the ultrafine or the 38uc99 as a secondary monitor to my imac? If yes, what kind of cables do I need? Have you hooked up the 38 to your imac?
Click to expand...

I sold my iMac 5K to get the MBP... I'm really leaning towards returning the 38"... Everything is just so pixelated. Maybe get two LG 5K's :)
[doublepost=1479423777][/doublepost]Or maybe mount two of the LG 5K's using a Bretford mount?
 
laser71 said:
38" at 3840 x 1600px - yeah text is not going to be nearly as sharp as a 4k or 5k @ 27".

a 27" is a lot less space than a 38". But a 5k will be a lot sharper. Depends on how much sharpness vs space matters to you.
Click to expand...

I sure do miss the sharpness... This 38" seems a little to blurry to me. Maybe get two 27"? That will make up for the space :)
[doublepost=1479657505][/doublepost]
tomdwan said:
I am also deciding between these two. I have a 2015 imac 5k and will get the 2016 MBP.
I was wondering: can I either the ultrafine or the 38uc99 as a secondary monitor to my imac? If yes, what kind of cables do I need? Have you hooked up the 38 to your imac?
Click to expand...

I have not hooked it up to my iMac... I would imagine that you could though...
[doublepost=1479658014][/doublepost]I took the following into consideration and will be returning my 38UC99 for the 27" UltraFine... I just can't stand how blurry the text is. 27" is much brighter as well. Hopefully it gets released in the first week of December!

LG 38UC99 Ultra-Wide:
Resolution: 3840x1600
Pixels Per Inch: 110
Brightness: 300

LG 27” UltraFine 5K:
Resolution: 5120x2880
Pixels Per Inch: 217 PPI (Same as iMac 5K)
Brightness: 500
 
3587 said:
I sure do miss the sharpness... This 38" seems a little to blurry to me. Maybe get two 27"? That will make up for the space :)
[doublepost=1479657505][/doublepost]

I have not hooked it up to my iMac... I would imagine that you could though...
[doublepost=1479658014][/doublepost]I took the following into consideration and will be returning my 38UC99 for the 27" UltraFine... I just can't stand how blurry the text is. 27" is much brighter as well. Hopefully it gets released in the first week of December!

LG 38UC99 Ultra-Wide:
Resolution: 3840x1600
Pixels Per Inch: 110
Brightness: 300

LG 27” UltraFine 5K:
Resolution: 5120x2880
Pixels Per Inch: 217 PPI (Same as iMac 5K)
Brightness: 500
Click to expand...


interesting... i am going to go 2x 4k with the LG 27 inchers... same price as the one 5k....
 
xraydoc said:
The one Apple is selling is 21". There's plenty of other 4K monitors at 27" (including one by LG that gets good reviews).
Click to expand...

Very true, just thought you were referring to the "Apple" one... I tried a 4K as well, text just wasn't that sharp... Just tough going from the Retina on the MBP to anything less... Makes it feel like I need glasses ;)
 
3587 said:
I tried a 4K as well, text just wasn't that sharp... Just tough going from the Retina on the MBP to anything less... Makes it feel like I need glasses ;)
Click to expand...
A 4K display is essentially a "retina" desktop display. Text should be perfectly sharp if it's running at the right settings (i.e., a 4K monitor running at 1920x1200 HiDPI, and not a dithered 1920x1200).
 
3587 said:
I sold my iMac 5K to get the MBP... I'm really leaning towards returning the 38"... Everything is just so pixelated. Maybe get two LG 5K's :)
Click to expand...

That is probably your best option. The reason why the 38" is so pixelated is because at 3840x1600, you're getting a DPI of 109. In contrast, the 5K iMac has a DPI of ~217, pretty much double the sharpness, or quadruple the pixels for the same area. It's like comparing an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4/5/6, or an iPad 2 to an iPad 3/4/Air/Pro etc.

A single 27" monitor at a 16:9 ratio is roughly 13.2" x 23.5".
Two of them would be 13.2" x 47", with an effective diagonal of ~48.8".

You'd be getting a much wider monitor in general, with a 32:9 ratio instead of 24:10 ratio.
 
masotime said:
That is probably your best option. The reason why the 38" is so pixelated is because at 3840x1600, you're getting a DPI of 109. In contrast, the 5K iMac has a DPI of ~217, pretty much double the sharpness, or quadruple the pixels for the same area. It's like comparing an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4/5/6, or an iPad 2 to an iPad 3/4/Air/Pro etc.

A single 27" monitor at a 16:9 ratio is roughly 13.2" x 23.5".
Two of them would be 13.2" x 47", with an effective diagonal of ~48.8".

You'd be getting a much wider monitor in general, with a 32:9 ratio instead of 24:10 ratio.
Click to expand...

I agree. 2 5K's it is. Can barely read text on this 38".
 
I tried looking, couldn't find the answer... How tall is the display on both of these? Also, how far off the desk does the 5K's display start? The 38UC99 display seems tall... Just wondering if it would be the same as the 27" 5K. Thanks.
 
masotime said:
That is probably your best option. The reason why the 38" is so pixelated is because at 3840x1600, you're getting a DPI of 109. In contrast, the 5K iMac has a DPI of ~217, pretty much double the sharpness, or quadruple the pixels for the same area. It's like comparing an iPhone 3GS to an iPhone 4/5/6, or an iPad 2 to an iPad 3/4/Air/Pro etc.

A single 27" monitor at a 16:9 ratio is roughly 13.2" x 23.5".
Two of them would be 13.2" x 47", with an effective diagonal of ~48.8".

You'd be getting a much wider monitor in general, with a 32:9 ratio instead of 24:10 ratio.
Click to expand...

How would this breakdown if you purchased the 2 4K monitors referenced here, in terms of the DPI? Would it make more sense to just get the 38" LG ultra wide or 2 4K LG monitors side by side?
 
RyanC1384 said:
How would this breakdown if you purchased the 2 4K monitors referenced here, in terms of the DPI? Would it make more sense to just get the 38" LG ultra wide or 2 4K LG monitors side by side?
Click to expand...

You can actually use this DPI calculator: https://www.sven.de/dpi/

The DPI is 163, which is somewhere between pure retina and normal 100 DPI.

It's a more reasonable compromise in terms of price, but you should set both to run "scaled" to 2560x1440. What this actually does is render a 5120x2880 @ retina class (2x) and scale it down to the 4K display. It's a bit complicated to explain, but was first outlined by Anandtech here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling
 
masotime said:
You can actually use this DPI calculator: https://www.sven.de/dpi/

The DPI is 163, which is somewhere between pure retina and normal 100 DPI.

It's a more reasonable compromise in terms of price, but you should set both to run "scaled" to 2560x1440. What this actually does is render a 5120x2880 @ retina class (2x) and scale it down to the 4K display. It's a bit complicated to explain, but was first outlined by Anandtech here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I think 163 DPI will be sufficient for me. I coming from an external monitor that's 24" and connects via DVI or VGA, so I haven't exactly been pushing the limit on screen quality.

My plan is to purchase the new 2016 13 inch Macbook Pro with touch bar as my main machine. Then connect the MBP to a 38" LG ultrawide for my desktop setup when at home and wanting to work at my desk. I also have a Dell Latitude ultrabook that I'll want to connect to the LG ultra wide when I work from home.

Do you think this will work for me? Will it be a disappointing setup or run inefficiently?
 
If you don't have problems with a non-retina display for desktop usage you should be fine. Individual preferences vary, so it really depends on how you feel with a ~100 DPI display.

~100DPI is really "normal" resolution and works for a lot of people. For example, the non-retina 27" iMac / 27" Thunderbolt displays have a ~100DPI screen as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back