I think if more people were actually using these UHD or 4K displays for actual video or photo editing they would realize that there really isn't much practical difference between them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LG 31MU97 4k Display
- Thread starter Zorn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think if more people were actually using these UHD or 4K displays for actual video or photo editing they would realize that there really isn't much practical difference between them.
I think if more people were actually using these UHD or 4K displays for actual video or photo editing they would realize that there really isn't much practical difference between them.
A lot of people are indeed using them for their intended purpose. Both LG and Eizo make it very clear on their webpages that the DCI 4K monitors are for professional use, specifically, working with DCI 4K content. It's that simple. What isn't simple is driver and app support since it's such a niche market. UHD is a quadrupling of HD ("Full HD" as the marketers coined it) at 16:9, which is now easily the most popular aspect ratio in terms of market segment. Other than having GPU horsepower and the bandwidth limitations, it's a relatively easy transition compared to 4K, which is a different animal altogether in terms of intended use, aspect, and I suspect the max 24 Hz. refresh rate at 4K of just about every GPU out there isn't pure coincidence either.
Whether 4K or UHD, Apple really dropped the ball with new Mac Pro. They must mention 4K a dozen times on the product page, but look at all the problems getting the nMP to play nice with many UHD/4K monitors, especially getting 60 Hz. SST. Sure, the drivers are getting better, but there are still lots of issues and I don't recall nearly as many when I went all in with HD over ten years ago. I'm now going UHD with the new Dell IPS for a starter. It's better supported (but NOT by Dell on an Apple product...they seem very proud of that on their forums), there are almost no 4K televisions out there, and plenty pf people still absolutely HATE "black bars." So, I'm shooting, rendering and delivering 3840x2160 for the simple reason that my clients still expect their screen to be filled and would rather forgoe any advantages a wider aspect might offer on certain projects than see letter/pillar boxing.
Skylake/TB3 - 16:9(4096x2304)@60Hz.
Well, if you insist on 4k/16:9 - then Intel/Skylake will oblige, at a max rez of [4096x2304]. Thou that is still about six months (or more) away. However, our user applications cover charting & modelling (not motion-picture editing) - and the 17:9 ratio works very well for us.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/2014060901_Some_features_of_Skylake_graphics_architecture.html
"Skylake microprocessors will come with DisplayPort, embedded DisplayPort, DVI and HDMI interfaces. The maximum display resolution of DP and eDP ports is 4096 x 2304 at 60 Hz using 24 bits per pixel, and 4096 x 2160 at 24 or 60 Hz, at 24 bpp for the HDMI interface."
Also, the LG-31MU97 monitor was first presented @CES-2014. So it will be curious to see what comes out of CES-2015 (next month) in Vegas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_69ngSboU#t=18
Well, if you insist on 4k/16:9 - then Intel/Skylake will oblige, at a max rez of [4096x2304]. Thou that is still about six months (or more) away. However, our user applications cover charting & modelling (not motion-picture editing) - and the 17:9 ratio works very well for us.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/2014060901_Some_features_of_Skylake_graphics_architecture.html
"Skylake microprocessors will come with DisplayPort, embedded DisplayPort, DVI and HDMI interfaces. The maximum display resolution of DP and eDP ports is 4096 x 2304 at 60 Hz using 24 bits per pixel, and 4096 x 2160 at 24 or 60 Hz, at 24 bpp for the HDMI interface."
Also, the LG-31MU97 monitor was first presented @CES-2014. So it will be curious to see what comes out of CES-2015 (next month) in Vegas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_69ngSboU#t=18
I'm not insisting on anything. I'm just stating facts I researched on reputable sites before posting. The top selling, and by far, most commonly made, aspect today is 16:9. However, when you go into data that tracks the most common rez still in use, at least from a limited number of websites, as I recall, it was some obsolete rez like 1280x960! I kid you not. Regardless, GPU, app, and OS developers are going to focus on what's common and hot at the moment, and for the immediate future. The fact remains, DCI 4K rez is a cinema acquisition format...period. Well, not period. Nothing gets projected/displayed at that rez. It's cropped. It's in post where it comes in handy, for example, if you strayed from your final aspect safe lines and need to reframe a scene a little (e.g., top of subject's head cut off if you're final is 2.39). If it's 1.85, you're out of luck because all 2160 is used but you have some leeway on the sides. With scope, it's the opposite. Lots of vertical wiggle room and none on the sides.
And again, both manufacturers of 4K monitors clearly state that's what the monitor is made for. If it suits you for other purposes, then great. But, don't expect full support and zero headaches until/unless it becomes more common. Personally, for video, which I do a good bit of, and all other uses I need, 16:9 works fine for me. In every respect it's far better than 4:3, which we were all stuck with for twenty years or so. As for CES, who knows? I do know though that over half will be complete horse hockey that targets your wallet and offers no real gain to the consumer.
After realising that (a) I didn't want to work on my laptop screen/keyboard, and that my (up until now great) Dell 24" IPS 1920x1200 monitor just didn't give me enough room for app dev, I decided to jump in and get this screen.
It arrived today from OverClockers UK.
And oh my. What a lovely screen it is. Plugged it into my Late 2013 rMBP (15" with discrete graphics), and it works with no setup required at full res. I assume it 50Hz, not 60Hz, but not sure how I check.
No stuttering, or tearing as I move windows. I'm just waiting for 6Gb of 4K demo videos to copy locally before trying full screen video.
Very pleased so far.
It arrived today from OverClockers UK.
And oh my. What a lovely screen it is. Plugged it into my Late 2013 rMBP (15" with discrete graphics), and it works with no setup required at full res. I assume it 50Hz, not 60Hz, but not sure how I check.
No stuttering, or tearing as I move windows. I'm just waiting for 6Gb of 4K demo videos to copy locally before trying full screen video.
Very pleased so far.
Last edited:
What machine are you running, and what OS version? Was that resolution enabled by default or did you have to use something like SetResX?
I'm on a Hackintosh here (thus the GTX 970).
All resolutions work wonderfully with the NVIDIA web drivers
Just posting to point out that the neither the monitor, nor the use of specific DisplayPort cables are the issue (I've tested about 8 different lengths and brands I have laying around).
It's got to be a driver issue on Apple's end. Most all of the recent Mac's should be able to power this monitor at full rez @ 60hz.
That's great to know. My local Fry's finally has these in stock, and I was thinking about picking one up. The display unit looked AMAZING, but I was worried about the 50Hz.
Just be advised that if you want to run perfectly retina scaled (2x perfectly), you'll be using an effective desktop of 1080
I personally use this for day to day doing stuff and browsing around (nice and easy on my eyes) and bump to scaled modes for more desktop "area" when I need to (Final Cut or Lightroom or Web Dev stuff)
The perfect monitor to me would be a 5k 31/32" someday, but that doesn't exist right now.
These kind of arguments drive me nuts. (Sorry, pet peeve. People I know use this argument to claim that Apple is "lying" about Retina).
Even if you run at an effective horizontal resolution of ~1440, you'd still have considerably more text clarity than a native 1440 monitor. I wish we'd get away from talking about resolutions, and just focus on pixel density and screen size.
Umm, ok - Sorry to drive you "nuts".
I just wanted to mention it because the scaled resolutions (on this monitor at least) aren't as sharp as the perfect 2x Retina resolution of 2048x1080 and looks just a bit "off" to the eye when compared to the 1080 resolution.
This gentlemen wanted accurate feedback about this exact monitor and that's what I'm giving.
thanks again turbineseaplane!
I read all the thread's posts and yes I know about the 1080 being somehow similar to retina ppi also I agree with your argument about imac retina 5k - first pages of this thread.
I won't be using this monitor to achieve the maximum ppi, just enough to be crispier than the ATD. I use sublime text, some photoshop, pixelmator and rarely some Premiere and AE editing.
@jdhiro i don't understand why all the fuss.
I read all the thread's posts
and yes I know about the 1080 being somehow similar to retina ppi also I agree with your argument about imac retina 5k - first pages of this thread.I won't be using this monitor to achieve the maximum ppi, just enough to be crispier than the ATD. I use sublime text, some photoshop, pixelmator and rarely some Premiere and AE editing.
@jdhiro i don't understand why all the fuss.
My apologies, I didn't intend that as a personal attack. Your feedback is absolutely valid.
Thing is, there's also the "screen real estate" issue, which is important but very slippery to quantify. System fonts, icons, window furniture and the content of any application that doesn't allow the user to tweak the 'zoom' factor may be beautifully retina-sharp, but it will be the same physical size as on a 1080p monitor: and on a 27" + screen that's just too darned big.
How that impacts your "screen real-estate" depends very much on what mix of apps you are using. One full-screened app with full zoom function, fine, but multiple windows, mixed apps, some non-zoomable is going to feel like a real-estate downgrade.
"Scaled mode"is a possible solution - and is in a different league to past experiences of non-native display resolution on LCD screens - but the reason it is so much better is that, AFAIK, it is rendering to a 5k virtual screen and then downsampling to 4k, which is going to put a considerable load on your system... Would you 'upgrade' your 1440p display to UHD if you knew it meant continually running in scaled mode?
I think the time has come for Apple to start pushing for full resolution-indepenence in the OS and apps. Windows theoretically has it in the OS, but using a non-standard PPI setting breaks a lot of applications. Apple are less dependent on legacy apps than MS, and can & do pressure developers via app store rules, so they ought to be in a better position to do this than MS.
Hey guys, I have read over the entire thread and am hoping like everyone else this starts working at 60 in order to pair it with a mid 2014 15" MBP. I am a user working with Adobe mostly (creative suite) and want a good screen to work as my main workspace on my desk.
Alternatively, has anyone any information on how the LG would compare to the Dell P2715Q?
I am new to monitors and all that goes into driving them so please excuse any naivety.
Also, if anyone is aware of another monitor that runs SST 60 and is 4k or close to please let me know. I am also quite content on it being IPS.
Thankyou
Alternatively, has anyone any information on how the LG would compare to the Dell P2715Q?
I am new to monitors and all that goes into driving them so please excuse any naivety.
Also, if anyone is aware of another monitor that runs SST 60 and is 4k or close to please let me know. I am also quite content on it being IPS.
Thankyou
Last edited:
Dell P2715Q Monitor /thread #101428.
There's also quite extensive thread on the (mixed) Dell P2715Q experience here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1816805/
There's also quite extensive thread on the (mixed) Dell P2715Q experience here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1816805/
Interestingly I would have agreed with you on this in the past, but it's amazing how much I love using it now for day to day kicking around computer stuff.
(as mentioned, I pop up to a scaled resolution when I need it, but it's very little nowadays)
I love how easy it is on my eyes.
I was concerned about scaling being a resource hog too, so I checked it out. Whatever OS X is doing in terms of scaling, it appears to vary with the chosen rez. It may be noteworthy, maybe not. I have SystemPal on one of my MP's, and I don't see any processes associated with the display end of things taking up even a fraction of one percent of the CPU. However, in the link below, you'll see that this guy thinks it puts a load on the GPU, which varied from 14% down to almost nothing in his choice of benchmarks running on the 5K iMac and MBP's. Ref Apple's treatment of rez and user choice, I agree.
http://alex4d.com/notes/item/fcpx-on-imacr5k
----------
It seems like all 4K/UHD monitors have their own quirks, but after months of research, I waited on the IPS Dell P2415Q, the P2715Q's little brother, because I use UHD (3840x2160) almost exclusively now, and have no need for DCI 4K's slightly wider aspect ratio. If I shot native 4K though at 4096x2160, I'd be all over the LG until the EIZO comes out. Most people over in the P27/2415Q thread are happy overall with these new Dells. 60 Hz. SST no problem at all for me in OS X or Windows, on an old and a new MP.