LG 27" HDR 4K Gaming monitor LG 27UK850-W

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,023
  1. This looks good but I know if I ever jump on the 4k bandwagon I would be on a constant upgrade cycle for my PC.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Looks pretty good. 450 nits seems a tad low for an HDR display though. I like that it's IPS and the design looks nice.
 
It's not real HDR, any LCD without a FALD let alone <1K nits brightness is going to have a really disappointing HDR mode that probably dims the whole screen and looks terrible.

Purely as a 4K monitor it's probably fine.
 
LG has been doing a LOT of good things in recent times. Have to keep an eye on this.
 
Comixbooks said:
  1. This looks good but I know if I ever jump on the 4k bandwagon I would be on a constant upgrade cycle for my PC.

Click to expand...


It's not 4K only UHD, 4K starts with 4096 x 2160 and UHD format has a slightly lower resolution of 3840 X 2160.
 
Last edited:
Another standard gamut standard contrast ratio monitor with pseudo-HDR.
Nothing to see here.
 
Literally all UHD monitors are called 4K by their manufacturers. It is pointless to say otherwise.
 
Sancus said:
Literally all UHD monitors are called 4K by their manufacturers. It is pointless to say otherwise.
Click to expand...
...and all "4K" content is not mastered to 4096 pixels wide but 3840 and there are virtually not true 4K monitors on the market, not TV's, no nothing...
 
Literally 6.25% more pixels on a single axis. That's not enough to trigger even a single "Well, I give a fuck" to the average person.

The aspect ratio of 4096x2160 is also not 16:9, nor is it anywhere near any aspect ratio film is mastered at. So watching movies at 4096x2160 would effectively introduce black bars to maintain the proper aspect ratio.

The only people possibly caring about those extra 256 horizontal pixels are those editing 4k content in Final Cut, Photoshop, etc. They can have their toolbar docked to either side without sacrificing the 4k canvas area. And even that's not ideal, as those editors, who probably edit this stuff for a living, aren't going to cheap out from a more spacious 5k display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this
Sancus said:
Literally all UHD monitors are called 4K by their manufacturers. It is pointless to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

The difference between 4K and UHD is

1. 4K is a professional production and cinema standard. 4,096 x [unspecified] is aspect ratio of 1.9:1

2. UHD is a consumer display and broadcast standard 3,840 x 2,160, is aspect ratio of 1.78:1

It’s not as if TV/ Monitor manufacturers aren’t aware of the differences between 4K and UHD. But presumably for marketing reasons 'BS' they use the 4K UHD name because it sells more then you call it UHD or 2160p it's true name that might confuse the consumer.

And all broadcast 4K TV is UHD 3840 x 2160 and 4K DCI films will be probably be cropped to 3840 x 2160 so buying those 4K UHD Blu-ray is not true 4K just another Marketing reasons the manufacturers like to use the fake name. so it not worth buying the UHD now. So when the 8K comes out it will again will be 8k UHD but not true 8K and so on.

I agree it would be nice to see the true 4K cinema standard film on a true 4K TV/Monitor and not the broadcast standard UHD now.
 
Last edited:
We had the argument about DCI 4K vs UHD 5 years ago. The UHD==4K people won when literally every single display and TV manufacturer and industry body outside of the DCI said "UHD==4K and we are going to market as such." I don't understand why you think it's appropriate to fight this battle over again in a random monitor thread but imo it's shitting it up with pointless semantics.
 
I was not reply to you I was just making a point to another member on what is the difference because many still think when they see the name 4K UHD means 4K it's not, just a fake name for UHD

It's called helping
 
AORUS said:
I agree it would be nice to see the true 4K cinema standard film on a true 4K TV/Monitor and not the broadcast standard UHD now.
Click to expand...
Why?
What difference would it make for you if movie was 4096 pixels wide?

To me it seems it would only force you to use ugly upscaling to display movies (when vertical resolution is not 2160) or have black bars to maintain 1:1
I would rather have 3840x2400 on my desk and not this ugly 16:9 bullshit. 'True 4K' is even worse here...

AORUS said:
so it not worth buying the UHD now.
Click to expand...
ef8.jpg
 
XoR_ said:
Why?
What difference would it make for you if movie was 4096 pixels wide?

To me it seems it would only force you to use ugly upscaling to display movies (when vertical resolution is not 2160) or have black bars to maintain 1:1
I would rather have 3840x2400 on my desk and not this ugly 16:9 bullshit. 'True 4K' is even worse here...


View attachment 60481
Click to expand...

What are you on!

Who is talk about upscaling any movies, True Cinema 4K is 4,096 x [unspecified] And because you think True 4K is even worse is because you are using the fake name 4K UHD at 3,840 x 2,160 (256 pixels narrower than True Cinema 4K).

Look up
Learn the Truth on 4k, 8k, UHD and HDR
http://www.hdtv-forum.ch/fileadmin/...The_Truth_and_Hype_on_4K__8K__HDR_and_UHD.pdf

Next you will tell me that you can see the difference between 60Hz/144Hz Monitors!
 
Last edited:
Yes, this distinction is super important... only in your head =)
Blu-Ray UHD movies are 3840 pixels wide... and mostly show the same detail quality as 1920 movie with some poor sharpening added which sucks compared to what I can do with madVR

Practically only true "UHD" content I have for my 4K monitor is games and desktop.

And 4K differs so much from UHD that no one would ever care for the distinction from GPU performance standpoint if there were actually 4K displays on the market...
 
Human Eye Can't See Beyond 60Hz?. google it;)

And if you think your monitor is 4K keep telling yourself that,:eek: because there is no true 4k monitors on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top