Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

LG 31MU97 4k Display

Basic75 said:
It might look good, but it gives you much less screen real-estate than a 27" running the usual 2560x1440...

----------


I really don't want to spend more than 1000 on a monitor and then have to use scaled modes, not for performance and not for sharpness. 100-110 ppi seem to work fine for desktop displays, so monitors should stick to that, or double to 200-220 ppi, I really don't know what to do with something around 150 ppi.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
Maybe you'll have to see one in person.

150ppi is a huge step up.
I had an LG 34" UltraWide at around 110ppi and this simply smokes it.

Want more than 1080 in 2x? Bump it up to a scaled res which will still look better than a 27" standard 1440p monitor.

The thing people are forgetting about this is the color accuracy. This monitor is specifically targeted at those who want very high calibrated color accuracy in a true 4k resolution. This panel also has hardware calibration tie in with calibrators. Simply stellar for its target audience (which may not be everyone here on MR)

----------
Basic75 said:
If you want to buy this, or a comparable dpi, display, how will you use it on a Mac???
Click to expand...

Multiple modes is how I'll use it.

Full panel rez for working with video editing and 2x scaled for most everything else.

I personally *love* a 31" Retina 1080 as it's SUUUPER easy on my eyes for normal tasks. (big deal as I get older)
 
turbineseaplane said:
Hmm.
Maybe you'll have to see one in person.

150ppi is a huge step up.
I had an LG 34" UltraWide at around 110ppi and this simply smokes it.
Click to expand...
I think it's just different requirements regarding resolution, for me screen real estate is really important, more space boost my productivity, so while a 4K 31" will look gorgeous in 2x, it'd be a big step backwards from 2560x1440.
 
Fair enough.
We all have different needs, no question.

(I would just run it scaled in your scenario. Looks great doint it when I tried it today)
 
At the 30" + size this is a good as it will get for a good long while.

I'm noticing on forums around the web that people don't get the whole 5k problem.

Apple made a custom chip to overlock the DisplayPort spec inside the iMac (which you can do since it's an AIO computer).

Any standalone 5k monitor will be constrained by the bandwidth abilities of the cable technology connecting it to a computer. And everybody's current Mac will need to be replaced with a new model that supports future DP 1.3 in the future to do 5k on a standalone display.

So for anyone waiting on 5k (standalone, not iMac) - Be advised you're also talking about getting a new computer.

If I were in that scenario, I'd just get a new iMac 5k. But even one of those - I'd wait until rev 2 in order to have DP1.3 integrated so down the line it could be used as a Target Display device (which the one out now can not do and will never be able to do).
 
Hmm, I'm still concerned about the real estate. I can see this replacing one of my thunderbolt displays, but not both. Two monitors at 2550x1140 is pretty nice to work with...

I would think a lower priced 28" 4k ips panel would be nice too, and two of them would be doable.
 
Michaelgtrusa said:
No TB is the only thing holding it back.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm glad they didn't include it.
It's not useful in the target market for this exact model and it would simply add to the cost.

(the market for those with a nMP also has that same nMP within reach with plenty of TB ports already on it)
 
turbineseaplane said:
Personally I'm glad they didn't include it.
It's not useful in the target market for this exact model and it would simply add to the cost.

(the market for those with a nMP also has that same nMP within reach with plenty of TB ports already on it)
Click to expand...

I think the usefulness of an extra port is pretty limited anyway - 4096x2160 is pushing up pretty close (17 Gbps) to the max bandwidth of TB 2 (20 Gbps). I think there's also some overhead on top of that, so that really doesn't leave much bandwidth for anything else...
 
vmacrob said:
I think the usefulness of an extra port is pretty limited anyway - 4096x2160 is pushing up pretty close (17 Gbps) to the max bandwidth of TB 2 (20 Gbps). I think there's also some overhead on top of that, so that really doesn't leave much bandwidth for anything else...
Click to expand...

Super points
 
So, I picked up one of these at Fry's today and have it hooked up to a 2013 Mac Pro. It's everything people say *except* that Yosemite doesn't natively recognize the 4096x2160 resolution and thinks it's 3840x2160. The monitor displays this with black letterbox bars on the left and right side of the screen. I was afraid this would be the case when I saw the EDID posted in HardForum that showed the monitor defaulting to 3840x2160. Maybe something like SwitchResX can override that. It's a shame because the screen quality and build quality is amazing.
 
edanuff said:
So, I picked up one of these at Fry's today and have it hooked up to a 2013 Mac Pro. It's everything people say *except* that Yosemite doesn't natively recognize the 4096x2160 resolution and thinks it's 3840x2160. The monitor displays this with black letterbox bars on the left and right side of the screen. I was afraid this would be the case when I saw the EDID posted in HardForum that showed the monitor defaulting to 3840x2160. Maybe something like SwitchResX can override that. It's a shame because the screen quality and build quality is amazing.
Click to expand...

use quickres
 
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but I can't seem to get either QuickRes or SwitchResX to set a 4096x2160 resolution.
 
Last edited:
edanuff said:
So, I picked up one of these at Fry's today and have it hooked up to a 2013 Mac Pro. It's everything people say *except* that Yosemite doesn't natively recognize the 4096x2160 resolution and thinks it's 3840x2160. The monitor displays this with black letterbox bars on the left and right side of the screen. I was afraid this would be the case when I saw the EDID posted in HardForum that showed the monitor defaulting to 3840x2160. Maybe something like SwitchResX can override that. It's a shame because the screen quality and build quality is amazing.
Click to expand...

Are you going to return it? I hate to hear this and wondering why Apple/Sharp had offered this res in their 32" display.
 
Michaelgtrusa said:
Are you going to return it? I hate to hear this and wondering why Apple/Sharp had offered this res in their 32" display.
Click to expand...

If I can figure out how to get the resolution to work, I'll keep it but otherwise it's going back. I'm prepared to accept that all 4K monitors are going to have some glitches with the Mac at this point, but a pillarboxed display for a premium monitor is a deal breaker. It's a shame, I've tried a few different monitors and this is the best of the bunch.
 
edanuff said:
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but I can't seem to get either QuickRes or SwitchResX to set a 4096x2160 resolution.
Click to expand...

Have you tried pinging LG?
Seems really odd you're having issues since they are even advertising the great "Mac compatibility".
Looks and works like a dream at full resolution using Yosemite for me. Gotta' be a way to do it on the nMP.

You're on DisplayPort?
 
turbineseaplane said:
Seems really odd you're having issues since they are even advertising the great "Mac compatibility".
Click to expand...

Well, as someone else pointed out on this thread, the Korean site only lists 3840x2160 as supported on OSX:

31MU97_0303.jpg


That table seems to be missing on the US site though.
 
edanuff said:
Well, as someone else pointed out on this thread, the Korean site only lists 3840x2160 as supported on OSX:

Image

That table seems to be missing on the US site though.
Click to expand...

Wow.
Guess I'm even happier about having a Hackintosh if this is the case.
I'm running full rez at 60z in Yosemite no problem. It's beautiful.

There's gotta' be a way to make it happen for "real Mac's"
 
If you have the display timings that you're using, I can try to punch them into a custom resolution in SwitchResX. I assume there's some sort of advanced settings screen in whatever you're using that lists those out.
 
edanuff said:
If you have the display timings that you're using, I can try to punch them into a custom resolution in SwitchResX. I assume there's some sort of advanced settings screen in whatever you're using that lists those out.
Click to expand...

Would love to help, but I just headed out of town - Not back to the LG until Tuesday
 
Wow, this is frustrating. I've been waiting two years for a decent 4K display option. (I pretty much can't turn back after my Retina MacBook). I thought this was finally the one. Letterboxed is no bueno though :-(
 
The problem is that the monitor identifies itself to the computer as a 3840x2160 monitor. It ships with a Windows .INF file that defines the 4096x2160 resolution and that's how Windows users are able to make use of it. I've poked around a bit and it looks like there's no way for the Mac to guess that it has this additional resolution (it doesn't appear to be in the EDID information at all), so I can't blame Apple for this problem. So, for the Mac, it's going to need a custom resolution override. SwitchResX won't do it for some reason (I emailed the author to see if he had a suggestion).
 
edanuff said:
The problem is that the monitor identifies itself to the computer as a 3840x2160 monitor. It ships with a Windows .INF file that defines the 4096x2160 resolution and that's how Windows users are able to make use of it. I've poked around a bit and it looks like there's no way for the Mac to guess that it has this additional resolution (it doesn't appear to be in the EDID information at all), so I can't blame Apple for this problem. So, for the Mac, it's going to need a custom resolution override. SwitchResX won't do it for some reason (I emailed the author to see if he had a suggestion).
Click to expand...

So even the latest release of Yosemite won't support true 4K - only UHD 3840x2140?
 
xav8tor said:
So even the latest release of Yosemite won't support true 4K - only UHD 3840x2140?
Click to expand...

That's not really the problem here. When a monitor is connected to a computer, it sends the computer an "EDID" which describes it size, resolutions, and other capabilities. It seems that this monitor sends incomplete or incorrect information to the computer.

I wonder if the firmware on this monitor is flashable.
 
Last edited:
One other note -- it seems like everyone I've seen testing this is using a Mac Pro, and it seems like there is a driver component to the level of support here as well.

I wonder if the rMBP handles it any better. That's what I want to hook it up to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back