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

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    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.
     
  2. Rahh

    Rahh [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,608
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    at what cost? These monitors still falling short on bang for the buck imo..
     
    Twisted Kidney likes this.
  3. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,503
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    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.
     
  4. Burticus

    Burticus 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,832
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Has to be at least 2 grand. And they're targeting Mac users with the included Thunderbolt stuff.
     
  5. jbc029

    jbc029 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    449
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    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.
     
  6. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,135
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  7. Aix.

    Aix. [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    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.
     
  8. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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 :(
     
    Burticus and jfreund like this.
  9. jfreund

    jfreund Gawd

    Messages:
    951
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    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.
     
  10. ChoGGi

    ChoGGi [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,440
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    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.
     
  11. Aix.

    Aix. [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    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.

    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.
     
  12. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    17,254
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    4K ultrawide, noobs. A 5K ultrawide would be 6720x2880.
     
  13. ChoGGi

    ChoGGi [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,440
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    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 :)
     
  14. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,738
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    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".
     
  15. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,542
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  16. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    17,254
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    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.
     
  17. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,738
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I love the 21:9 ultrawide aspect ratio. Too me, it feels much more immersive.
    IMG_1660.JPG
     
  18. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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.
     
  19. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,738
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I don't agree with that. 4K Ultrawide is 3840x1600.
     
  20. jeremyshaw

    jeremyshaw [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,041
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    I think his arguement is 3840x1600 is more akin to 4K Ultrashort; Ultrawide should be based on 4K, but wider; not 4k, but shorter.
     
  21. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,542
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
    jfreund likes this.
  22. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,750
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    Burticus likes this.
  23. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,542
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  24. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Gawd

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    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: Dec 21, 2017
    3vilgenius likes this.
  25. bwanaaa

    bwanaaa [H]Lite

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Isn’t LG also introducing a 4K 21:9 HDR monitor at 240 Hz?
     
  26. umeng2002

    umeng2002 Gawd

    Messages:
    923
    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
  27. The Cobra

    The Cobra 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,603
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    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.
     
  28. bwanaaa

    bwanaaa [H]Lite

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
  29. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Gawd

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Not that I know of. Asus was releasing one but it's 3440x1440, HDR, 200Hz, Quantum Dots, G-Sync.
     
  30. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,542
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    And probably 34".
     
  31. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,738
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    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
     
    Burticus likes this.
  32. Burticus

    Burticus 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,832
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    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.
     
  33. Lamont

    Lamont 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,208
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    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.
     
  34. CrazyRob

    CrazyRob [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,274
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    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.
     
  35. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Gawd

    Messages:
    716
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Gimme this with >60Hz, and I'll be happy.
     
  36. Aix.

    Aix. [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,623
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    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.