LG UltraFine 6K (32U990A) TB5 Display: Pre-Orders Open September 30

[Belifant]

I don't doubt that you get more out of a 3:2 screen with your workflow, but any workflow is a very broad statement, and if it were so universally true 3:2 monitors would be more popular and my workplace would have a lot less ultra wide monitors and a lot more vertical screens.

I personally spend more time looking at landscape-format plans and wide flowcharts than I do Word documents, and I scroll those horizontally as much as vertically; so much that I often keep a trackpad next to the keyboard entirely for use scrolling and pinch-to-zooming (my diagramming app is in fact so non-vertical that I have it set to use right-click-and-drag to pan and the scroll wheel to zoom).

Even Excel, I'm far more frequently looking at tables with a very large number of columns and am more interested in viewing as much of a row as possible than many rows of data, so I'm far more likely to have an extremely wide Excel window on my ultra wide primary monitor than to have a really tall one on my portrait secondary monitor.

And while yes, lot of people do spend most of their time in "vertical" documents, the reality for my use case (and I believe the majority of my co-workers) is that I need to have 2-3 documents on the screen at once VASTLY more often than I need to see more than one screen-height worth of content at once. This is why I use an ultra wide and many others at my workplace use side-by-side landscape-oriented 16:9 screens.

Word docs and web pages, absolutely vertical... but if that is your primary need, then you're in theory even better served by a portrait-orientation monitor, which I have to the side of my ultra wide right now, yet not many people do that--only one other person in the office despite two thirds having at least two screens.

I've noticed that in practice, I rarely bother putting documents on my portrait monitor--the extra height/less scrolling just doesn't feel necessary for most tasks, even web-page reading or document writing and editing. Same reason, I suppose, that I rarely use my iPad in portrait orientation, either.

It's rather you who has specific landscape use cases which you kindly listed, which is fine. I gave examples of very broad applications the vast majority of users do daily (Email, web surfing, working with documents), And these are just portrait in most cases. So the "any workflow" still at least partly applies to you too, unless you have a very unique way to browse the web.

Nah. You totally skipped over the fact a lot of his co-workers use ultrawide screens.

“ I don't doubt that you get more out of a 3:2 screen with your workflow, but any workflow is a very broad statement, and if it were so universally true 3:2 monitors would be more popular and my workplace would have a lot less ultra wide monitors and a lot more vertical screens.”

Ultrawide screens are extremely popular these days for power users. I’ve said previously I’d love to have a 34” ultrawide but only if was Retina or near Retina. Unfortunately, all the ultrawides are lower pixel density, partially because Windows doesn’t need Retina as much for reasonable text quality.

Basically what you’re saying is only true if you only run one single app window on the screen at a time, but it’s extremely common to want to be able to run 2 or more app windows side-by-side.

But with ultra-wide, we're not talking about 16:9 vs 3:2 anymore, that's a whole other use case, which is more like having 2 x 3:2 monitors next to each other.

I have yet to hear a technical or ergonomical reason why we started using 16:9 monitors in offices only recently, while for decades before, we used 4:3 or 3:2.

 

[EugW]

It's rather you who has specific landscape use cases which you kindly listed, which is fine. I gave examples of very broad applications the vast majority of users do daily (Email, web surfing, working with documents), And these are just portrait in most cases. So the "any workflow" still at least partly applies to you too, unless you have a very unique way to browse the web.


But with ultra-wide, we're not talking about 16:9 vs 3:2 anymore, that's a whole other use case, which is more like having 2 x 3:2 monitors next to each other.

I have yet to hear a technical or ergonomical reason why we started using 16:9 monitors in offices only recently, while for decades before, we used 4:3 or 3:2.

I already posted ergonomic reasons. You just chose to ignore them.

 

[Belifant]

I already posted ergonomic reasons. You just chose to ignore them.

I did not, I acknowledged that at some point there is a too tall (of course). I also never advocated for 32" 9:16 monitors or the likes, which would be where your reasons would come in to play. I advocate for 3:2 monitors for most daily use cases, which is still 50% wider than tall.

 

[EugW]

I did not, I acknowledged that at some point there is a too tall (of course). I also never advocated for 32" 9:16 monitors or the likes, which would be where your reasons would come in to play. I advocate for 3:2 monitors for most daily use cases, which is still 50% wider than tall.

This is a 6K 32" thread. In that context, 16:9 is great for most users. 3:2, not so much.

 

[Belifant]

This is a 6K 32" thread. In that context, 16:9 is great for most users. 3:2, not so much.

explain why?

Also, what has 6K to do with the ratio?

 

[EugW]

explain why?

Also, what has 6K to do with the ratio?

I already went through some of the math previously, but here we go again.

Let's assume 223.8 ppi and 31.5" 16:9 because this is an LG 6K thread. That screen resolution is 6144x3456.
With those numbers, the screen height is 15.5". Add 0.25" screen bezel and 4" space between the monitor and table, and that works out to 19.75" to the top of the screen, and 20" to the top of the monitor, when the stand is at its minimum height. (This is an estimate because we don't have that minimum height spec yet.)

Now let's assume 223.8 ppi and 31.5" 3:2. That screen resolution would be 5865x3910.
With those numbers, the screen height is 17.5". Add 0.25" screen bezel and 4" space between monitor and table, and that works out to 21.75" to the top of the screen and 22" to the top of the monitor, when the stand is at its minimum height.

Ergonomic guidelines usually recommend that the top of the screen sits at about eye height, and lower if you wear bifocals or progressive lenses. In my case, my eye height is about 18" higher than the surface of the desk. This means a 31.5" 16:9 monitor is already too tall for me, and the fact that I wear progressive lenses makes it even worse. A 31.5" 3:2 monitor would be way, way too tall for me, for a proper ergonomic setup.

What happens if you're about 4" taller than me? Then eye height might be closer to about say 20", which would make a 31.5" 16:9 monitor a more proper height, but a 31.5" 3:2 monitor still too tall.

 

[Belifant]

I already went through some of the math previously, but here we go again.

Let's assume 223.8 ppi and 31.5" 16:9 because this is an LG 6K thread. That screen resolution is 6144x3456.
With those numbers, the screen height is 15.5". Add 0.25" screen bezel and 4" space between the monitor and table, and that works out to 19.75" to the top of the screen, and 20" to the top of the monitor, when the stand is at its minimum height. (This is an estimate because we don't have that minimum height spec yet.)

Now let's assume 223.8 ppi and 31.5" 3:2. That screen resolution would be 5865x3910.
With those numbers, the screen height is 17.5". Add 0.25" screen bezel and 4" space between monitor and table, and that works out to 21.75" to the top of the screen and 22" to the top of the monitor, when the stand is at its minimum height.

Ergonomic guidelines usually recommend that the top of the screen sits at about eye height, and lower if you wear bifocals or progressive lenses. In my case, my eye height is about 18" higher than the surface of the desk. This means a 31.5" 16:9 monitor is already too tall for me, and the fact that I wear progressive lenses makes it even worse. A 31.5" 3:2 monitor would be way, way too tall for me, for a proper ergonomic setup.

What happens if you're about 4" taller than me? Then eye height might be closer to about say 20", which would make a 31.5" 16:9 monitor a more proper height, but a 31.5" 3:2 monitor still too tall.

Why does it need to be 31.5"? Personally I find that too big in either ratio. And I only ever talked about ratio, not a specific size or pixel count. At 27", there is plenty of space to add more screen vertically.

You also haven't answered my question as to why 16:9 is best for most people. You only explained why a theoritcal 31.5" 3:2 monitor would be too big for you personally.

 

[piria]

Ergonomic guidelines usually recommend that the top of the screen sits at about eye height

Bogus recommendation that has no basis in real life.

You totally skipped over the fact a lot of his co-workers use ultrawide screens.

UW is fine, it's like having two 5:4 screens side-by-side. 16:9 isn't wide enough to do any meaningful multitasking. You can put two next to each other, but most people would still be happier with a couple 3:2 screens.

 

[EugW]

Bogus recommendation that has no basis in real life.

From the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

Why should we worry about positioning the monitor?

The monitor is an integral part of a computer workstation. When placed in the wrong position it can force the operator to work in a variety of awkward positions. Working with one's chin tilted upwards, and the head and upper body bent forwards or sideways is common wherever the monitor is improperly situated. Such forced working body positions significantly contribute to the operator's discomfort, and can potentially lead to work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD). Other adverse effects of a poorly located monitor are eye irritation, blurred vision, dry burning eyes and headaches, collectively called eyestrain.

Common complaints among computer operators include discomfort, aches and pains in the neck and shoulder, and eyestrain.

Tips on monitor placement include:

Occasionally, desktop monitors are placed on top of the hard case or computer processing unit. A monitor located at a high height is a source of discomfort and, in the long run, can cause musculoskeletal problems in the neck and shoulder area. The fact that discomfort caused by a monitor which is too high (above the horizontal) is worse than one which is slightly too low (below an acceptable visual zone) should be kept in mind while arranging a monitor at any workstation.

When using a tall monitor or one that is oriented to the "portrait" position, make sure that the top of the screen is not at a level higher than the operator's eye.

When using a wide monitor, consider how the size requires the operator to rotate the neck to view the contents of the screen. It may be necessary to move the monitor further away from the operator.

Individuals who wear corrective lenses for reading or close work (e.g., bi-focals, tri-focals, and progressive lenses) may find placing the top of the monitor slightly below eye level more comfortable. Because the lower part of the lens is used for close vision, lowering the monitor may help reduce tilting the head to see the screen.

From the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

Potential Hazard

A display screen that is too high (Figure 5) or low will cause you to work with your head, neck, shoulders, and even your back in awkward postures. When the monitor is too high, for example, you have to work with your head and neck tilted back. Working in these awkward postures for a prolonged period fatigues the muscles that support the head.

Possible Solutions

The top of the monitor should be at or slightly below eye level. The center of the computer monitor should normally be located 15 to 20 degrees below horizontal eye level (Figure 6).

The entire visual area of the display screen should be located so the downward viewing angle is never greater than 60 degrees when you are in any of the four reference postures. In the reclining posture the straight forward line of sight will not be parallel with the floor, which may increase the downward viewing angle. Using very large monitors also may increase the angle.

Remove some or all of the equipment (computer case, surge protector, etc.) on which the monitor may be placed. Generally, placing the monitor on top of the computer case will raise it too high for all but the tallest users.

Elevate your line of sight by raising your chair. Be sure that you have adequate space for your thighs under the desk and that your feet are supported.

Potential Hazard

Bifocal users typically view the monitor through the bottom portion of their lenses. This causes them to tilt the head backward to see a monitor that may otherwise be appropriately placed. As with a monitor that is too high, this can fatigue muscles that support the head.

Possible Solutions

Lower the monitor (below recommendations for non-bifocal users) so you can maintain appropriate neck postures. You may need to tilt the monitor screen up toward you.

Raise the chair height until you can view the monitor without tilting your head back. You may have to raise the keyboard and use a foot rest.

Use a pair of single-vision lenses with a focal length designed for computer work. This will eliminate the need to look through the bottom portion of the lens.

Why does it need to be 31.5"? Personally I find that too big in either ratio. And I only ever talked about ratio, not a specific size or pixel count. At 27", there is plenty of space to add more screen vertically.

You also haven't answered my question as to why 16:9 is best for most people. You only explained why a theoritcal 31.5" 3:2 monitor would be too big for you personally.

No you just keep ignoring the math, and I chose 31.5" because they are real world monitors, and the size of the monitor that this thread is about. Furthermore, as desktop monitors get bigger, they generally get wider.

The point is from an ergonomic point of view, 3:2 only really makes sense when talking about smaller monitors. We are in a 31.5" 6K thread, and 3:2 does not make sense ergonomically for most people in this monitor size.

As for 27", the whole point of my wanting to move to a bigger screen is to get something wider, for better multitasking.

 

[Belifant]

From the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

Why should we worry about positioning the monitor?

The monitor is an integral part of a computer workstation. When placed in the wrong position it can force the operator to work in a variety of awkward positions. Working with one's chin tilted upwards, and the head and upper body bent forwards or sideways is common wherever the monitor is improperly situated. Such forced working body positions significantly contribute to the operator's discomfort, and can potentially lead to work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD). Other adverse effects of a poorly located monitor are eye irritation, blurred vision, dry burning eyes and headaches, collectively called eyestrain.

Common complaints among computer operators include discomfort, aches and pains in the neck and shoulder, and eyestrain.

Tips on monitor placement include:

Occasionally, desktop monitors are placed on top of the hard case or computer processing unit. A monitor located at a high height is a source of discomfort and, in the long run, can cause musculoskeletal problems in the neck and shoulder area. The fact that discomfort caused by a monitor which is too high (above the horizontal) is worse than one which is slightly too low (below an acceptable visual zone) should be kept in mind while arranging a monitor at any workstation.

When using a tall monitor or one that is oriented to the "portrait" position, make sure that the top of the screen is not at a level higher than the operator's eye.

When using a wide monitor, consider how the size requires the operator to rotate the neck to view the contents of the screen. It may be necessary to move the monitor further away from the operator.

Individuals who wear corrective lenses for reading or close work (e.g., bi-focals, tri-focals, and progressive lenses) may find placing the top of the monitor slightly below eye level more comfortable. Because the lower part of the lens is used for close vision, lowering the monitor may help reduce tilting the head to see the screen.

From the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

Potential Hazard

A display screen that is too high (Figure 5) or low will cause you to work with your head, neck, shoulders, and even your back in awkward postures. When the monitor is too high, for example, you have to work with your head and neck tilted back. Working in these awkward postures for a prolonged period fatigues the muscles that support the head.

Possible Solutions

The top of the monitor should be at or slightly below eye level. The center of the computer monitor should normally be located 15 to 20 degrees below horizontal eye level (Figure 6).

The entire visual area of the display screen should be located so the downward viewing angle is never greater than 60 degrees when you are in any of the four reference postures. In the reclining posture the straight forward line of sight will not be parallel with the floor, which may increase the downward viewing angle. Using very large monitors also may increase the angle.

Remove some or all of the equipment (computer case, surge protector, etc.) on which the monitor may be placed. Generally, placing the monitor on top of the computer case will raise it too high for all but the tallest users.

Elevate your line of sight by raising your chair. Be sure that you have adequate space for your thighs under the desk and that your feet are supported.

Potential Hazard

Bifocal users typically view the monitor through the bottom portion of their lenses. This causes them to tilt the head backward to see a monitor that may otherwise be appropriately placed. As with a monitor that is too high, this can fatigue muscles that support the head.

Possible Solutions

Lower the monitor (below recommendations for non-bifocal users) so you can maintain appropriate neck postures. You may need to tilt the monitor screen up toward you.

Raise the chair height until you can view the monitor without tilting your head back. You may have to raise the keyboard and use a foot rest.

Use a pair of single-vision lenses with a focal length designed for computer work. This will eliminate the need to look through the bottom portion of the lens.



No you just keep ignoring the math, and I chose 31.5" because they are real world monitors, and the size of the monitor that this thread is about. Furthermore, as desktop monitors get bigger, they generally get wider.

The point is from an ergonomic point of view, 3:2 only really makes sense when talking about smaller monitors. We are in a 31.5" 6K thread, and 3:2 does not make sense ergonomically for most people in this monitor size.

As for 27", the whole point of my wanting to move to a bigger screen is to get something wider, for better multitasking.

I'm not ignoring anything, but the math you are providing is only your personal math. And the discussion started around the 3:2 ratio in general, doesn't matter in what thread we are.

Unless you are saying that 3:2 absolutely makes sense for most people at a smaller than 30" size, in which case we are in total agreement.

 

[piria]

From the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

Didn't read any of that.

 

[EugW]

I'm not ignoring anything, but the math you are providing is only your personal math. And the discussion started around the 3:2 ratio in general, doesn't matter in what thread we are.

No. The discussion was about a 6K 3:2 monitor, and then you chiming in saying most people benefit more from 3:2 than 16:9.

Unless you are saying that 3:2 absolutely makes sense for most people at a smaller than 30" size, in which case we are in total agreement.

No I’m not saying that. While 3:2 can make sense for some people at less than 30”, I’d say that’s the minority, and I say that as someone who owns a 28.2” 3:2 monitor - which has the same screen width as a 27” 16:9 monitor. A 27” 3:2 monitor would be narrower than a 27” 16:9 monitor, which makes it less suitable for multitasking for most.

Didn't read any of that.

I’m not surprised.

 

[piria]

I’d say that’s the minority

You don't know that. You're not the center of the world, you know. You're not the representative for everyone.

 

[EugW]

You don't know that.

Well, you can infer part of that from the ergonomics recommendations I posted from two governmental occupational health agencies, but which you already said you didn't bother to read.

 

[Belifant]

No I’m not saying that. While 3:2 can make sense for some people at less than 30”, I’d say that’s the minority, and I say that as someone who owns a 28.2” 3:2 monitor - which has the same screen width as a 27” 16:9 monitor. A 27” 3:2 monitor would be narrower than a 27” 16:9 monitor, which makes it less suitable for multitasking for most.


I’m not surprised.

I can guarantee you most people have only one app at a time on screen, look around any office. "Most" people use email and web browsers heavily daily, both use cases scroll heavy. I could come up with plenty of further use cases, but I try to keep it as generic as possible.

 

[piria]

Well, you can infer part of that from the ergonomics recommendations I posted from two governmental occupational health agencies, but which you already said you didn't bother to read.

Recommendations are not science. Pretty sure that article has nothing to do with aspect ratios either. You're just dumping irrelevant information to obfuscate the real topic. What do say about people who use their monitors vertical?

 

[StellarVixen]

60Hz? Hard pass. Is there any monitor in this class with more than 60Hz?

If I was never spoiled by high refresh rates, then maybe. But I could never go back

 

[Belifant]

No. The discussion was about a 6K 3:2 monitor, and then you chiming in saying most people benefit more from 3:2 than 16:9.

That's not what happened. Someone asked a genuine question why 3:2 screens would be considered the best ratio and I answered.

 

[piria]

60Hz? Hard pass. Is there any monitor in this class with more than 60Hz?

No, and there won't be for another couple years, at least. 6k monitors are still very new. Heck, even 4k monitors in this category have only just started to switch to 120hz.

 

[EugW]

Recommendations are not science.

Occupational health recommendations are actually based on science. There have been several papers on the subject, and the recommendations are partially based on these, with the rest based on expert opinion.

This is how healthcare recommendations work, because nobody can do a double-blinded randomized study on 2000 patients for every little question.

That's not what happened. Someone asked a genuine question why 3:2 screens would be considered the best ratio and I answered.

Revisionist history. I will quote from this thread, what was actually said:

I wish in someday we would have 6K monitor with 3:2 ration (best ratio for a monitor), I hate that cropped 16:9!

1999 called, they have lots of monitors you'd love.

I get that everyone has different tastes and needs for screens, which is why there's a variety of them on the market, but I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of people prefer wider formats, otherwise someone would be making 3:2 screens to satisfy that part of the market. Personally I use an 32" ultrawide at work, with a vertical 24" 16:9 screen off to the side for when I want to read something l long or see a long list, and I really can't see the advantage to going back to a squarer screen.

I am, thus, curious: What is your workflow that a 3:2 screen is something you'd consider the best ratio?

And then you chimed in with this:

Any workflow profits from a 3:2 ratio. How often do you need to scroll vertically vs horizontally? Webpages scroll vertically. Word pages are in portrait orientation. Excel sheets scroll mostly vertically. Final Cut, Logic, etc., stack tracks vertically, and so on. With 16:9, we have way too much unnecessary space left and right but are very limited in height.

We only use 16:9 on office monitors because that was the trend swapping over from TV, there's no other reason for it.

So as I said before, the discussion was about 6K 32" monitors and 3:2 vs 16:9, and you said 3:2 is better.

 

[Belifant]

LOL yeah, it's exactly what I said: someone asked the question and I answered. You made it sound like I was jumping into this thread out of nowhere claiming 3:2 is the best and 16:9 is ****, which is not what happened. You just proved what I said.

And as you quoted the question yourself, but here again:
"I am, thus, curious: What is your workflow that a 3:2 screen is something you'd consider the best ratio?"

Nothing in this question indicates any specifics about 6K or 32". The question I answered was about 3:2 in general. I don't know why you keep trying to make this about only a specific, theoretical 6k 32" 3:2 monitor when the discussion has been about only 3:2 to begin with.

 

[piria]

16:9 is an outdated standard meant for media consumption, not professional work. The best ratio is of course 16:10, but 3:2 is a good ratio too.

 

[EugW]

LOL yeah, it's exactly what I said: someone asked the question and I answered. You made it sound like I was jumping into this thread out of nowhere claiming 3:2 is the best and 16:9 is ****, which is not what happened. You just proved what I said.

And as you quoted the question yourself, but here again:
"I am, thus, curious: What is your workflow that a 3:2 screen is something you'd consider the best ratio?"

Nothing in this question indicates any specifics about 6K or 32", the question I answered was about 3:2 in general. I don't know why you keep trying to make this about only a specific, theoretical 6k 32" 3:2 monitor when the discussion has been about 3:2 to begin with.

So, IOW, you interjected without bothering to try to understand the context, which was about 6K 32" monitors... And this was in a thread about 6K 32" monitors, no less.

 

[Belifant]

So, IOW, you interjected without bothering to try to understand the context, which was about 6K 32" monitors... And this was in a thread about 6K 32" monitors, no less.

I answered someone's question about 3:2 ratio, which is allowed, you are not policing what people are allowed to discuss in this thread. We are allowed to discuss generic aspects of monitors in a thread about a monitor. Even non-related specifics are allowed, or do you have a problem with all those posts asking about 120Hz too? This LG monitor doesn't support 120 Hz, so it should not be allowed to discuss?

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[EugW]

Here's hoping for another review of the 6K 32" LG soon, with a list of the source hardware and discussion of stuff like multi-input support. In my case I will be using an M4 Mac mini with DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1. I may use HDMI 2.1 in order to free up a Thunderbolt 4 port. I do not have Thunderbolt 5.

I answered someone's question about 3:2 ratio, which is allowed, you are not policing what people are allowed to discuss in this thread. We are allowed to discuss generic aspects of monitors in a thread about monitors. Even non-related specifics are allowed, or do you have a problem with all those posts asking about 120Hz too? This LG monitor doesn't support 120 Hz, so it should not be allowed to discuss?

This is getting ridiculous.

Yes. The goalpost moving is definitely getting ridiculous. Anyhow, I'll stop there.