Hands-On With LG's Massive 5K 49-Inch $1,500 Display

[doctor-don]

My son-in-law didn't like the 27" monitor for gaming and went back to a 23". I doubt he would think this was very good for gaming. The refresh rate is probably too low.
This display would be too wide for my desk, too.
This might be good for watching TV and movies.
For now, I'll stick with my 2008 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.

 

[Sabelonada]

Then why not just get the 5k iMac?

It doesn't work in targeted display mode. It would be great if modern iMacs did.
[doublepost=1561558691][/doublepost]

If the problems are the same as with other 32:9 monitors you can find a bit more about what people are discovering works, and what doesn't:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ltrawide-display.2166555/page-5#post-27489117

TLDR: So people don't have to read that entire previous thread: Most users seem to be seeing the the problem crops whenever USB-C is thrown into the mix. I tested the 32:9 Philips (same 5120x1440 resolution) and it worked absolutely perfectly over DisplayPort on an ancient 2009 MacPro 4,1 with only a basic video card upgrade - the relatively budget Radeon rx560. It too was a no-go over USB-C however, with the same limited-resolution issue on a brand new Retina MacBook Air - even though it is well within Apple's spec for video over USB-C on that model.



There is a class of monitors (LG makes a nice curved one) that run at 3840x1600 - so it's a 21:9 ratio but you still get a fair amount of vertical. It's a size I really like; plenty wide enough for 2 or even three projects side by side, plus a bit extra vertical. The 32:9 monitor (Philips) I worked with was actually too wide unless you had a roller chair and wanted to roll sideways. (Also, the 3840x1600 monitor worked over USB-C with no issues, a bonus if you need something like this right away). I guess that won't work if you have a truly narrow workspace, but if what you are looking for is a modern monitor with a decent vertical resolution these seem like the way to go.

But, "who would want any port other than Thunderbolt?"
[doublepost=1561558988][/doublepost]

Never thought I'd see Apple sell a $47,000 display for $7,000 and people complain about the price, and yet here we are.
[doublepost=1561549632][/doublepost]

Hmm...How many cats do you have?
[doublepost=1561549763][/doublepost]

Wow. Apple sells a $47,000 professional reference monitor for $7,000 and people complain about the price.
[doublepost=1561549916][/doublepost]

My boss prints out Excel spreadsheets on two landscape 11 x 17 sheets of paper and tapes them together. This is her dream display! :lol:

Is it really a $47000 display?

For spreadsheets, this is a great option. I, like many, need a less horizontally biased display ratio.

As bad as monitors are, it's worse in laptops. I can only find two manufacturers who offer something other than 16x9 laptops, Microsoft and Apple. I admittedly don't consider Chromebooks as an option.

 

[cult hero]

I’d really like to see some other legit 5K options, not these 5K2K things—which are really just a pair of 1440p screens fused together.

 

[EightyTwenty]

This ain’t a 5K monitor. It’s basically 2 1440 monitors stuck together.

That is all.

 

[lordofthereef]

Multi box WoW here I come!

 

[macduke]

Never thought I'd see Apple sell a $47,000 display for $7,000 and people complain about the price, and yet here we are.

The Joke
You

Also, it's important to note that this is the only display they make. Regular people don't even have options any more if they want a nice looking display to go with their Mac.

Wow. Apple sells a $47,000 professional reference monitor for $7,000 and people complain about the price.

That person never said anything about 6K. They just want the 5K display from the iMac made into a standalone display. A lot of people here have been asking for that. No reason they couldn't do that for $1499. Obviously Apple can do it for a reasonable price since the 5K iMac starts at $1799. If they still supported target display mode, you could just buy one for $1799 and use it that way and maybe use the internals as a server or something. But instead they sell LG displays that look like trash by comparison and were plagued with issues.

 

[Frenchcriss]

This display runs at full resolution (5120 x 1440) on my MacBook Pro 2016 with Mac OS Sierra 10.12.6.

 

[CoolCatGee]

https://twitter.com/CoolCatGee/status/1136016640565366784
I've had mine for a Month, and I'm finding myself checking out the Samsung CRG90, I'm only using USB-C for the HUB, and Display port for AV since I can't find a good 10ft USB-C Cable

 

[blacktape242]

that i want.

 

[panjandrum]

This ain’t a 5K monitor. It’s basically 2 1440 monitors stuck together.

That is all.

I think the problem here is that most of these terms are pretty much advertising jargon (they lack critical information): 5K, 4K, 2K - these do not relay any information about whether or not it is an ultra-high-density display, often called "UHD" except by Apple which calls it "Retina".

Look at this for some very basic info, but pay close attention to the "Official Cinema Resolution" info: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/what-is-uhd,5769.html

That's right, the digital projectors you go and watch in actual movie theaters are only 2K or 4K, that's why if you are sensitive at all to sharpness you are going to know right away if you have walked into a 2K theater - the picture will never look sharp because the ppi is too low - you don't have enough pixels for the size of the display. Apparently most people don't notice this, but of course other people will.

So if what you are looking for is a UHD display, you need to know the ppi, not just the total number of pixels. Here is an article explaining it better than I could: https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/pixel_density_4k/

One problem, in the Mac world, is that modern versions of Mac OS have either hidden, or completely removed, the advanced features that let users understand and control their displays. This is just one of those things that's easier to do in Windows.

 

[kdekorte]

This display runs at full resolution (5120 x 1440) on my MacBook Pro 2016 with Mac OS Sierra 10.12.6.

Is this a 13" or a 15" MBP?

 

[seadragon]

I wish Apple could have a stand alone 5k display at the same price point. I love the 6K display but that price is painful to say the least.

Apple will be selling a stand... alone.

 

[jdiamond]

One thing I don’t really understand is, I’m always looking for a taller monitor to fit in my limited desk space, not wider. (16:9 is just too wide unless I’m watching videos, 16:10 is okay, but honestly 3:2 or 4:3 is even better.) I literally wouldn’t know where to put something like this.

I assume sales of these ultra-wide monitors are driven by gaming, but are there really not enough people using monitors for things other than video consumption and gaming to justify producing monitors in anything other than increasingly wide aspect ratios?

This all comes down to who we're getting the panels from. Now that televisions have high resolution, monitors tend to be a follow on industry, leveraging the equipment used to make TVs. This is why 16:10 monitors are so much more expensive than 16:9 monitors - 16:9 is a standard television panel dimension and can leverage existing production machines for televisions. (And this monitor is just 2 of them.) To get anything else is to ask for a completely custom production setup for a market that's much smaller than televisions. With any device, the cost of the materials is negligible, and instead you're paying for the cost of the factory divided by the number of sales.

 

[phpmaven]

Ok... This monitor is SICK! I may just have to get one.

Right now I'm running with 3 28 inch Samsung 4K monitors.

I'm on a PC by the way, so the resolution should be great.

 

[CoolCatGee]

I have no issue getting the full resolution on this, with quality cables. Late 2016 MBP and eGPU

 

[JimmyTW87]

"You're not going to want to use this kind of display for gaming (due to the limited 60Hz refresh rate and no support for AMD's FreeSync or Nvidia's G-Sync"

Sorry, do you know what percentage of gamers game above 60Hz and with some form of adaptive refresh? Well it's a TINY perecentage of gamers let me tell you.

Never seen such a ridiculous statement, yes there are better gaming monitors, but I don't care about 144Hz and this would be very immersive gaming experience. Spec snobbing isn't cool, dont tell people what they should and shouldn't game on, people play games on a lot of displays orders of magnitude worse than this one let me tell you!

"Oooooo you won't want to use this for gaming" how cretinous. What about Solitaire? Is that allowed?

 

[EightyTwenty]

I think the problem here is that most of these terms are pretty much advertising jargon (they lack critical information): 5K, 4K, 2K - these do not relay any information about whether or not it is an ultra-high-density display, often called "UHD" except by Apple which calls it "Retina".

Look at this for some very basic info, but pay close attention to the "Official Cinema Resolution" info: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/what-is-uhd,5769.html

That's right, the digital projectors you go and watch in actual movie theaters are only 2K or 4K, that's why if you are sensitive at all to sharpness you are going to know right away if you have walked into a 2K theater - the picture will never look sharp. Apparently most people don't notice this, but of course other people will.

So if what you are looking for is a UHD display, you need to know the ppi, not just the total number of pixels. Here is an article explaining it better than I could: https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/pixel_density_4k/

One problem, in the Mac world, is that modern versions of Mac OS have either hidden, or completely removed, the advanced features that let users understand and control their displays. This is just one of those things that's easier to do in Windows.

The main issue, far as I can tell, was the marketing switch from vertical to horizontal resolution with “4K”.

480p - vertical
720p - vertical
1080i - vertical
1080p - vertical
1440p - vertical
4K - horizontal

4K should be “2160p” or “2K”.

Calling this monitor “5K” is deliberately misleading. It’s just an ultra wide 1440p monitor.

 

[toke lahti]

Just another monitor from LG that doesn’t fully function with macs.
I have 34WK95U-W that doesn’t wake from sleep with mini2018.
Way to go Apple & LG!

 

[PastaPrimav]

I would like this, if the display resolution didn't suck.

 

[glowplug]

TFW you have to commute from one end of your screen to the other.

 

[Rockadile]

One thing I don’t really understand is, I’m always looking for a taller monitor to fit in my limited desk space, not wider. (16:9 is just too wide unless I’m watching videos, 16:10 is okay, but honestly 3:2 or 4:3 is even better.) I literally wouldn’t know where to put something like this.

I assume sales of these ultra-wide monitors are driven by gaming, but are there really not enough people using monitors for things other than video consumption and gaming to justify producing monitors in anything other than increasingly wide aspect ratios?

There is a square, 26.5" monitor from Eizo if you're really looking for non-rectangular. It cost nearly as much as this LG super wide monitor.
[doublepost=1561689894][/doublepost]

Just another monitor from LG that doesn’t fully function with macs.
I have 34WK95U-W that doesn’t wake from sleep with mini2018.
Way to go Apple & LG!

My 2011 MBP and 34UB88-P working just fine here.

 

[Frenchcriss]

Is this a 13" or a 15" MBP?

15" MBP

 

[toke lahti]

Then why not just get the 5k iMac?

C’mon, it’s 2019, who’d like to have display smaller than 30”?

 

[--R0B--]

I'm using the LG 49" UW for coding. As I'm working in three areas (library code, application code and Xcode) I find that having a wide screen means I can put stuff where I need it but I do find I turn my chair to face the bit I'm currently editing.

I find I need the horizontal space more than the vertical, more width = more editor windows. If I had move vertical resolution I would have the same content but have more lines in the editor windows. I'm always trying to keep my functions/methods relatively small so I don't notice the lack of height.

 

[joeblough]

i use 2 30" cinema displays and i like that i can have a bunch of desktops on the left and a single desktop on the right; this might be because i'm still using TotalSpaces; i don't know how a mac behaves without it since i've been using it so long.

if you have one giant wide monitor like this is it possible to make a virtual partition such that the stuff on one half is always present but on the right side you have a bunch of Spaces?