LG Announces 21:9 5K Ultrawide 34-Inch Monitor

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Ahead of CES, LG is providing a sneak peek at its new ultrawide monitor, the 34WK95U. The display combines a 21:9 aspect ratio with 5K resolution (5120 x 2160 pixels), providing a hefty amount of screen real estate for users who multitask extensively.

Model 34WK95U supports Nano IPS technology, fantastic color reproduction capabilities and HDR600. In addition, model 34WK95U features a Thunderbolt 3 port, which enables the transmission of 5K resolution images at 60Hz with a single cable. The Thunderbolt 3 interface is ideal for power laptop users who desire fast video, audio, and data transfers without the need for a separate AC adapter.
 
Rahh said:
at what cost? These monitors still falling short on bang for the buck imo..
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's a decent resolution but these 21:9 monitors tend to be horribly overpriced. I'm using a couple of 4K displays that still came in cheaper than anything with even remotely close to the amount of real estate I have in front of me.
 
Has to be at least 2 grand. And they're targeting Mac users with the included Thunderbolt stuff.
 
I'm...interested. 1440p ultrawide is phenomenal for my workspace, but cramming another 40ish% pixels into the same space might be too much. I'd rather they bump it up to something like 37+" with that resolution.
 
I love the idea of these monitors but just make sure you google a few of the games you play and investigate whether these ultra-wide resolutions are being supported by the developers/engines. I used to have a triple-wide setup and the amount of time I spent looking for workarounds and custom ini files was probably more time than I spent in the actual games. Unreal Engine 3 was notoriously difficult for ultra-wide as there were always FOV issues, and tons of games used that engine. Games like GTA, Crysis, Battlefield, and anything on the Source engine were awesome, but I found that I was simply not playing a lot of the games I'd purchased because I couldn't get them to work right on my setup.

Additionally, there are developers like Blizzard going out of their way to discourage 21:9 on games like Overwatch (it fills your screen but the FOV is horribly zoomed in), so do your homework before throwing down the cash or you may be really annoyed and disappointed later.
 
I tried an ultra-wide once and found that I didn't like it. The window snapping to half the screen wound up with awkwardly sized windows compared to a 16:9 (Or better yet, 16:10) screen.

That, and games felt like this:

upload_2017-12-21_11-39-28.png


I'd rather have a 120hz 16:9 4k panel with G-Sync compatibility at about 42-44" in size.

Why won't anyone make this screen :(
 
I'm sure there are games that look great on a 21:9 screen, but outside of that, is there any advantage over 16:9 (or, God forbid, 16:10)? Seems like a big step in the wrong direction for documents or web pages.

Even in games, the interface gets pushed so far to the sides that it's cumbersome.
 
Aix. said:
Unreal Engine 3 was notoriously difficult for ultra-wide as there were always FOV issues, and tons of games used that engine.
Click to expand...
Not saying there weren't GUI issues, but changing
AspectRatioAxisConstraint=AspectRatio_MaintainXFOV
to
AspectRatioAxisConstraint=AspectRatio_MaintainYFOV
takes care of the FOV issue in any unreal 3+ engine.
 
ChoGGi said:
Not saying there weren't GUI issues, but changing
AspectRatioAxisConstraint=AspectRatio_MaintainXFOV
to
AspectRatioAxisConstraint=AspectRatio_MaintainYFOV
takes care of the FOV issue in any unreal 3+ engine.
Click to expand...

It's been a few years since I had that setup, but I recall issues where an in-game camera change (i.e. the game using first person for some things and switching to third person for others) would result in the FOV being changed back to the default even though I'd changed the ini. The result was that I needed to bind macros to reapply the FOV fix mid-game again. Stuff like that was just really annoying when you just wanted to play the game. If the above fix works flawlessly on everything then that's certainly nice.

The GUI issues though...I actually forgot about all that stuff. If I was going to do ultra-wide again (it's so fun when it works) I'd probably still do a triple monitor setup over one of these 21:9 monitors for the flexibility.

Zarathustra[H] said:
I tried an ultra-wide once and found that I didn't like it. The window snapping to half the screen wound up with awkwardly sized windows compared to a 16:9 (Or better yet, 16:10) screen.

That, and games felt like this:

View attachment 47173

I'd rather have a 120hz 16:9 4k panel with G-Sync compatibility at about 42-44" in size.

Why won't anyone make this screen :(
Click to expand...

That generally means they've implemented the FOV incorrectly - like what Blizzard has done with Overwatch and what Epic has apparently done with Fortnite. The result is that it fills your screen but it's essentially just a zoomed-in normal FOV...meaning you're actually seeing less which defeats the whole point of having the ultra-wide resolution.
 
Aix. said:
but I recall issues where an in-game camera change (i.e. the game using first person for some things and switching to third person for others) would result in the FOV being changed back to the default even though I'd changed the ini.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you'd need to restart the engine to change the setting I'd mentioned (don't think binding it would matter). That said I do recall issues with dishonored, and having to bind some FOV keys :)
 
Armenius said:
4K ultrawide, noobs. A 5K ultrawide would be 6720x2880.
Click to expand...
The 4k and 5k are the number of horizontal pixels.
How are you coming up with 6720x2880 as 5K?

I was expecting them to come out with a 3840x1600 34".
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I tried an ultra-wide once and found that I didn't like it. The window snapping to half the screen wound up with awkwardly sized windows compared to a 16:9 (Or better yet, 16:10) screen.

That, and games felt like this:

View attachment 47173

I'd rather have a 120hz 16:9 4k panel with G-Sync compatibility at about 42-44" in size.

Why won't anyone make this screen :(
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I'm not interested in sub-40" screens. I'm really not interested in ridiculously wide aspect ratios for productivity or even gaming. It feels like looking through a mail slot. Your image paints the perfect picture of how I felt gaming on displays like that.
 
Zepher said:
The 4k and 5k are the number of horizontal pixels.
How are you coming up with 6720x2880 as 5K?
Click to expand...
4K and 5K are not just the horizontal pixels. It's a specific definition of a 16:9 resolution. So stretching out 4K from 16:9 to 21:9 would mean it's 4K ultrawide.
 
Dan_D said:
I couldn't agree more. I'm not interested in sub-40" screens. I'm really not interested in ridiculously wide aspect ratios for productivity or even gaming. It feels like looking through a mail slot. Your image paints the perfect picture of how I felt gaming on displays like that.
Click to expand...

I love the 21:9 ultrawide aspect ratio. Too me, it feels much more immersive.
IMG_1660.JPG
 
Armenius said:
4K and 5K are not just the horizontal pixels. It's a specific definition of a 16:9 resolution. So stretching out 4K from 16:9 to 21:9 would mean it's 4K ultrawide.
Click to expand...

Which is why I hate this new way of describing resolution.

Sure 4k sounds great in marketing, but tell me 3840x2160 and I know exactly what I am getting. Heck, coupled with aspect ratio, even borrowing the term that cameras use might make sense. Calling it 8.3 MP makes much more sense in understanding what is going on than using a term like 4k.
 
Armenius said:
4K and 5K are not just the horizontal pixels. It's a specific definition of a 16:9 resolution. So stretching out 4K from 16:9 to 21:9 would mean it's 4K ultrawide.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. 4K Ultrawide is 3840x1600.
 
It's doable, but not desirable for gaming in my eyes. I could live with it if the displays were larger. 34" doesn't get it done for me. Again, I'm not interested in anything less than 40" wide. However, 21:9 sucks ASS for productivity. I couldn't stand going from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440. There's no way I could go from 3840x2160 to 3440x1440. The monitor in the OP however maintains 2160 pixels for height, and I'd be fine with that but the 34" size is too much of a reduction from where I'm at now.
 
Dan_D said:
It's doable, but not desirable for gaming in my eyes. I could live with it if the displays were larger. 34" doesn't get it done for me. Again, I'm not interested in anything less than 40" wide. However, 21:9 sucks ASS for productivity. I couldn't stand going from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440. There's no way I could go from 3840x2160 to 3440x1440. The monitor in the OP however maintains 2160 pixels for height, and I'd be fine with that but the 34" size is too much of a reduction from where I'm at now.
Click to expand...


I hear you. Very sad that 16:10 seems to have gone the way of the dodo. My 30" 2560x1600 was the perfect productivity screen.

That being said, with larger screen sizes and 4k resolution, the 16:9 vs. 16:10 distinction seems to matter less. Honestly, these days I do most of my browsing and work on my old 20" 4:3 1600x1200 IPS side screens in portrait mode, keeping the large 48" center screen predominantly for entertainment purposes and photo editing.

33861708672_acd39490de_o.jpg
 
My 49" Samsung KS8500 has been a spectacular monitor for productivity and even gaming. Your right, with this many pixels and this much real estate 16:9 vs. 16:10 is less of an issue.
 
Aix. said:
I love the idea of these monitors but just make sure you google a few of the games you play and investigate whether these ultra-wide resolutions are being supported by the developers/engines. I used to have a triple-wide setup and the amount of time I spent looking for workarounds and custom ini files was probably more time than I spent in the actual games. Unreal Engine 3 was notoriously difficult for ultra-wide as there were always FOV issues, and tons of games used that engine. Games like GTA, Crysis, Battlefield, and anything on the Source engine were awesome, but I found that I was simply not playing a lot of the games I'd purchased because I couldn't get them to work right on my setup.

Additionally, there are developers like Blizzard going out of their way to discourage 21:9 on games like Overwatch (it fills your screen but the FOV is horribly zoomed in), so do your homework before throwing down the cash or you may be really annoyed and disappointed later.
Click to expand...

Umm, no idea what you are talking about. I run a ultra-wide setup, 3440x1440 and most games work with this resolution (GTA5, etc). The ones that don't, (blizzard games) run at 2560x1440 at the ratio of 16:9 and is the exact same size as a 27" monitor..
 
Last edited:
I run an Acer 3440x1440 with Freesync currently. Great monitor. My old Dell 4k32Q14 monitor was too buggy for me, always falling asleep and having to hard shutdown the computer to get the monitor to work again so I downgraded a bit. I will use this monitor for three years until I can get a 4k, 120mhz 42 inch curved freesync monitor.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
Umm, no idea what you are talking about. I run a ultra-wide setup, 3440x1440 and most games work with this resolution (GTA5, etc). The ones that don't, (blizzard games) run at 2560x1440 at the ratio of 16:9 and is the exact same size as a 27" monitor..
Click to expand...

Overwatch can do 21:9, but it's a fixed Horizontal FOV so it''s cropped at the top and bottom, basically zoomed in to fill the width. Diablo 3 does 21:9 if you run in Windowed Full Screen mode.
Not sure of the other Blizzard games as I haven't played them yet.
d3-21x9-photo.jpg
 
Hmmmm all this ultrawide talk is causing a stirring in my pants.... near the wallet region.

I have 2 x 27" 1440p right now, and I do a lot of work at home stuff on the separate monitors. I would love it to be a seamless huge widescreen display for games...Zepher's Diablo 3 screenshot above is what I'm talkin' about! I bet Civ would be awesome too.

I think a 34" 4K ultrawide would be pretty sweet but I'm not dropping major coin on one. Not when I can buy a 32" 4K LG monitors for under $400, 2 for under $1000, and I bet this LG 4K UW one costs at least a grand.
 
Burticus - I am in the same boat, whereas I have 2x 24" (16:10) Dells and a 22" Cintiq. I was thinking about doing a single UltraWide as well, but some reviews have be doubting the choice and just going with two 4k 16:10 panels. It would be nice to spend a week with a setup and see if it works for me or not.
 
Finally, the resolution I want, now ditch usb-c and give me display port with gsync, hdr, and 120hz in a 39" package and I'm in. Being an old school surroundview junkie, i prefer the ultrawide format for single display usage, but dislike having to scale down native 4k content. This resolution allows the best of both worlds.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
Umm, no idea what you are talking about. I run a ultra-wide setup, 3440x1440 and most games work with this resolution (GTA5, etc). The ones that don't, (blizzard games) run at 2560x1440 at the ratio of 16:9 and is the exact same size as a 27" monitor..
Click to expand...

While it's certainly nice that these monitors can switch to the 21:9 resolution for unsupported games, my point still stands that you should make sure you investigate whether your favorite games are supported. I'm sure there are plenty of people who play nothing but Overwatch; I'd be pissed if I bought this monitor only to find out I couldn't even use the whole thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top