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

1096bimu

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 7, 2017
437
536
I have a M2 MacBook Pro for occasional light productivity (web) work and photo editing.
Wasn't planning on this but I just thought this display is super weird and since I had no other type-C capable display, I decided to give it a try.

_DSC9058.JPG
Meet the LG28MQ780

This display is intended to be used in "portrait", where the resolution and size would be equal to 2x 2560x1440 displays stacked. I wasn't ever looking for heavy multi-tasking on my MacBook (hence I didn't get the 14") I'll just be on one app at a time so I rotated it on the side, it's still almost square but it's 9:8, so like super tall productivity display.

This is a top quality IPS panel but that's all it is, there's no MiniLED, no OLED, so despite the gimmicky HDR mode included, this is a SDR display only suitable for SDR content.

Since websites need to be optimized for both desktop and mobile, almost none of them will go the full width of a 16:9 screen anyway, if you try to full screen they just stop at ~square format, which means this display shows most websites actually full screen, without bars on the sides. Just writing this post on it is fantastic, I can see so much of the post without scrolling the text window within the webpage which is just stupid.

It's also better than you'd think for photo editing, in Lightroom on a 16:9 display, the photo viewing space is actually much wider than your standard 3:2 photo, unless you hide both the top and bottom bars, which is inconvenient because the film strip on the bottom bar. And if you're editing a portrait photo, it will be really really small. On this display in "landscape", the photo viewing area is basically square, that means both portrait and landscape photos will be the same size. Again, I think it's overall better than 16:9 or even 16:10

So ironically, this supposed super multi-task display is actually better for single tasking. Maybe if they could come out with a 32" dual 4k model then it would actually have enough space and pixels for hard core multi tasking.

There's a built-in speaker but it's horrible as expected, you'd still want a Studio Display if you want speakers in your display. There's auto-brightness but it's also terrible because it's way too bright with no way to adjust it.

I saw myths on the internet about how its supposedly incompatible with MacOS but I found them to be false.
Screen Shot 2022-10-09 at 9.07.32 PM.png
There are clearly HiDPI scaled settings, all you need is scroll down like 2 lines to see them, but some people were complaining nonsense, that text is either blurry or too small.

As for the color situation, you need a slight bit of technical knowledge but still easily solved. You just set the hardware to its P3 profile, and apply the P3 profile in system settings. The default setting appears to be designed for sRGB so it will look oversaturated, unless you set the hardware OSD also to sRGB. But you're using MacOS so you'd use P3, obviously. Also the default contrast value of 70 skews the correct gamma curve so you need to set that to 50.

Maybe it will also be great for emulating old games, let me have a try...
 

ascender

macrumors 601
Dec 8, 2005
4,961
2,852
Very nice!

I've been reading about this for a while and am tempted to get one to use alongside my main displays. I've tried a monitor in portrait orientation but didn't get on with it. This one seems like it might be good for what I need which is a Thursday display I can use with two machines at one time, or as a sort of "secondary" display for messaging and music apps away from my main work area.

Thanks for the detailed post about it.
 

xraydoc

Contributor
Oct 9, 2005
10,799
5,261
192.168.1.1
LG DualUp. Almost bought two of these for my Mac, but settled on two Studio Displays instead.
Still kind of want two of these for my work PC instead of the two portrait 4K displays that are on it (the DualUp is shorter but wider than a portrait 4K).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ascender

stuart2

macrumors newbie
Oct 16, 2022
1
0
How does it look at native resolution? Can you get HiDPI on other resolutions with BetterDisplay?

Thanks.
 

1096bimu

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 7, 2017
437
536
How does it look at native resolution? Can you get HiDPI on other resolutions with BetterDisplay?

Thanks.
it is on native resolution, who uses an LCD on non-native resolution?
there are other HiDPi resolutions without having to install anything, it's already there just scroll down.
 

ascender

macrumors 601
Dec 8, 2005
4,961
2,852
I've been trying one of these out alongside my ASD for the last few days. Unfortunately for me, its not going to be a keeper, but I thought it was worth listing the pros & cons incase they help anyone else.

Pros
  • Build quality of the clamp stand is great. It's a heavy-duty piece of kit and its design means it is very compact and so the monitor is very adjustable and takes up a very small foot-print. Cable-routing is well thought-out and has more than enough space in it to take the power cable and two input cables.
  • As with every LG, you get lots of cables, including an extension for the power-cord which goes in to the monitor.
  • Monitor is standard LG-fare, but is pretty thin, very light and looks good I thought.
  • The USP is its size & ratio. I had mine as a secondary monitor, off to the side of my main display.
  • I think it could also work very well on small/shallow desks thanks to its small footprint and aspect ratio.
  • Picture-by-picture works great and is reliable. I had a Windows laptop on the bottom half with my Mac on the top half.
  • I didn't test its speakers
  • Picture quality in the HiDPI mode is good. Like @1096bimu says, you'd really only want to use the 1440x1280 mode.
  • In other modes, you end up doing some back-and-forth on resolutions and individual zoom settings on apps to get a usable balance whilst using the available screen space.
  • Screen is nice and bright.

Cons
  • I'm afraid it comes back to my usual criticisms for non-Apple monitors. My workflow is more text-based than being concerned about colour-accuracy, so its those resolutions again.
  • Once you're used to working in 4K or 5K, with Apple displays on their laptops and monitors, anything non HiDPI is a gamble. Due to the aspect ratio and resolution of this screen, it was even more of an issue for me than normal because even with BetterDisplay, I just couldn't get a good balance between use of screen real estate and a suitably high-enough resolution.
  • This applied to whether or not I was using picture-by-picture mode or not. There's very few HiDPI modes available and those lower-resolution ones were just unusable.
  • I think like @1096bimu says, the best bet is to use the 1440x1280 one and then tailor individual apps zoom to get a setup that works for you. This might be much easier if you intend to use this screen as your primary monitor and/or if its a screen dedicated to a single app.

Just not for me unfortunately. Its a cool idea though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HappyIntro

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,357
11,488
There are clearly HiDPI scaled settings, all you need is scroll down like 2 lines to see them, but some people were complaining nonsense, that text is either blurry or too small.
My hypothesis is that HiDPI modes are enabled because the height of the display is “sufficient” (at least 2160 lines). There are no higher-than-native HiDPI modes like on “4K” and higher-res monitor’s though.
 

xraydoc

Contributor
Oct 9, 2005
10,799
5,261
192.168.1.1
Thanks for the write-up.
I still kinda want two of these for my work PC at home. Aspect ratio would be better than the two portrait 4K I’m using now.
 

ascender

macrumors 601
Dec 8, 2005
4,961
2,852
Thanks for the write-up.
I still kinda want two of these for my work PC at home. Aspect ratio would be better than the two portrait 4K I’m using now.
Definitely. The extra width of these makes them so much more useable.
 

wingennis

macrumors regular
Mar 9, 2016
143
249
Northern Arizona
I have had this monitor since it was released. I think it is great in theory and bought it because I work in programs that have a great deal of vertical data so I could avoid constant scrolling. I find it uncomfortable to look at for long periods of time. I also telework on alternate days and get irritated having to resize my windows from my LG Ergo 32 at home to this display at work. Windows snap function doesn't work well here and I am not permitted to install 3rd party software (I have 3 programs open all the time with intermittent us of others). It can power my laptop which my 32" Ergo is not able to do and the Ergo arm adjustability is fantastic.
 

tatarin

macrumors member
Mar 7, 2012
38
14
Thanks for the write-up.
I still kinda want two of these for my work PC at home. Aspect ratio would be better than the two portrait 4K I’m using now.
I was also using two 24" 4K monitors (LG 24MD4KL) in portrait mode but when the LG 28MQ780-B went on sale last week at Amazon I ordered one to replace one of the 24" Ultrafines. I was worried that the 140 dpi resolution of this 2560x2880 monitor would make text seem blurry compared to the 187 dpi resolution of the 2160x3840 24" Ultrafine. I run both monitors in pixel doubled HiDPI mode. I am retired so I mostly use the monitors for viewing websites and editing translations in Microsoft Word with the Russian text on the 24" portrait monitor and the edited English translation on the 28" "square" monitor.

I have a very deep desk so I sit about 36 inches away from the monitors. At this distance, I don't notice any blurred text on either monitor. The "designcompaniesranked" website calculates that the 28MQ780-B display is "retina" at viewing distances greater than 25 inches (19 inches for the 24" 4K Ultrafines).

My ideal monitor resolution for text work would be about 187 dpi -- the 218 dpi resolution of the 27" 5K iMac makes text too small at the viewing distance I prefer.

As the original poster noted, this monitor is great for viewing websites since they are displayed full screen with no white bars on the sides. So far, I am very happy with the monitor.
 

xraydoc

Contributor
Oct 9, 2005
10,799
5,261
192.168.1.1
My two LG DualUp monitors have arrived and I've set them up on my home work PC.
They're individually much larger than I anticipated and they look great. Each (the two center monitors) are 28" diagonal. The size is quite impressive as it's unusual to see a monitor with this kind of aspect ratio.
The small left side monitor is 24" and the right side monitor is 27".
I'm using them for my home workstation to review medical imaging, and the sheer size is fantastic. And the reason I bought them is because the aspect ratio of the DualUp's 16:18 ratio is almost exactly the standard aspect ratio of a chest x-ray.
Really happy with how it all turned out.
IMG_2117.jpg
 

poorcody

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2013
1,316
1,546
Only 140 ppi -- wouldn't qualify as Retina in Apple world. I think 220+ is a very noticeable quality improvement and worth the extra $$.
 

NoBoMac

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 1, 2014
5,791
4,385
That's not a normal lung is it. Is that batwing appearance?
Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once, and combined with my internet medical degree, looks like a female patient. Jubblies, as Austin Powers likes to call them, causing some "oddity".

Not much different than this. Guessing enlarged heart is main cause of "weirdness". Patient right (viewer left) seems to be bigger than normal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: daneoni

retta283

Suspended
Jun 8, 2018
3,180
3,480
I long for a modern high-quality 4:3 display with a higher resolution like 2048x1536 or 3200x2400. I rarely find the need for more width than height, and I much prefer them for dual monitor setups. Large widescreen creates simply too wide of an aspect for me to work with comfortably.

This is a very neat idea to get two of them, but I think I would prefer something closer to the 'golden ratio' of 4:3, even 5:4 which people used to complain about is perfectly fine. If it were a bit cheaper I'd be tempted to buy two and try it out as a replacement for my aged 20" 4:3 screens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

xraydoc

Contributor
Oct 9, 2005
10,799
5,261
192.168.1.1
I long for a modern high-quality 4:3 display with a higher resolution like 2048x1536 or 3200x2400. I rarely find the need for more width than height, and I much prefer them for dual monitor setups. Large widescreen creates simply too wide of an aspect for me to work with comfortably.

This is a very neat idea to get two of them, but I think I would prefer something closer to the 'golden ratio' of 4:3, even 5:4 which people used to complain about is perfectly fine. If it were a bit cheaper I'd be tempted to buy two and try it out as a replacement for my aged 20" 4:3 screens.
For my use, I require two. But yes, two side by side conventional displays is too wide. My Mac has two ASDs — one landscape and one portrait. Otherwise, it’s too wide if they’re both in landscape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: retta283
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.