[Totally off-topic - I was poking fun at the misleading Americanism that is "I could care less" - you mean you could not care less (about the serial number).]
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 UltraFine 5K - Owners Thread
- Thread starter iBrooker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had a 702 display in February, which I returned within the 14 day window because of the wifi issue. Since I liked the display in general, I ordered another one on the last day of the rebate program and received a 703 model on Wednesday of this week.
I'm running the display with a mid 2014 15" MBP via the Thunderbolt bridge and started to experiment with an Aukey USB-C Hub (1x Ethernet + 3x USB-A) to get the display to be closer to the docking station functionality my old Thunderbolt display was.
With MacOS 10.12.4 it's working pretty well so far. The Ethernet is back after the MBP went to sleep and also the attached Blueray drive is available when the MBP comes back. I also plan to hook up a DAC or USB Sound device to the display hub, in order to hook my H&K Soundsticks rather than plug them into the headphone jack of the MBP. If anybody already tried to hook external speakers up to the display hub, I would be happy to hear about a product which works.
It's been only a couple of days, so it's too early to say, but so far everything is working fine. Although there is one issue, which might make me ask for yet another exchange. It's an issues with display brightness (occasionally after startup the brightness is set to the lowest possible value), which I'll describe in the issues thread.
I'm running the display with a mid 2014 15" MBP via the Thunderbolt bridge and started to experiment with an Aukey USB-C Hub (1x Ethernet + 3x USB-A) to get the display to be closer to the docking station functionality my old Thunderbolt display was.
With MacOS 10.12.4 it's working pretty well so far. The Ethernet is back after the MBP went to sleep and also the attached Blueray drive is available when the MBP comes back. I also plan to hook up a DAC or USB Sound device to the display hub, in order to hook my H&K Soundsticks rather than plug them into the headphone jack of the MBP. If anybody already tried to hook external speakers up to the display hub, I would be happy to hear about a product which works.
It's been only a couple of days, so it's too early to say, but so far everything is working fine. Although there is one issue, which might make me ask for yet another exchange. It's an issues with display brightness (occasionally after startup the brightness is set to the lowest possible value), which I'll describe in the issues thread.
Last edited:
If I wasn't fortunate enough to be comfortable at 24-30" distance with the current standard text sizes then I would also be looking for a larger display but I wouldn't expect everyone else to be forced to put up with a larger, non-retina display just because my eyesight isn't as sharp as theirs. I'm 44 years old so I'm sure that day will come in the next 10-15 years but in the meantime I shall enjoy it while it lasts.
Apple *are* the authority on what is standard for Apple and it seems as though they currently see 5K @ 27" and 4K @ 21.5" as the standard. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong in your eyes. Also, let's not forget that it was Apple who popularised retina displays across all devices. They deserve credit for that.
When I was running a 24" iMac on 1920x1200 I thought it was the best screen I had ever seen but that was in 2007 and my expectations have risen, mostly thanks to Apple's continuous improvement in this area.
You may be surprised to learn that it's possible to be in the majority on something while at the same time being an independent thinker. I often find myself on the opposite side from the majority but I would never be contrary just for the sake of it. I'm not suggesting you are either but my point here is that agreeing with the majority or minority should not automatically imply you are an independent thinker or not. They are linked but not causal IMO.
Well that depends how long you can hold your breath and whether you disagree with me that an 8K 32" display would be a niche product. I didn't say it would never happen but it's some time away and is likely to be prohibitively expensive for even longer than that. Also, as someone else said, 8K would probably require more than a 32" diagonal to make any sense.
5K already lets you edit 4K video at a decent size, I believe that was the entire point of the 5K display size! So, if 8K is to become the next big video standard then you'd expect 9K or 10K to be the next useful computer display resolution to allow the same 1:1 editing plus space for tools.
However, at that size you will either need a much larger display size (way beyond 32") or the pixels will be so small you won't be able to see them, even with perfect vision, in which case there is little point. I can't be bothered to do the retina maths as this is a moot point for the next few years at least.
I can't see any real point in a 6K display although that is certainly the sort of thing that a "me too" manufacturer (eg. Samsung) would come out with just to one-up on the spec war.
They might have popularised it but they certainly didn't think of the idea. I was running my own 'retina' screen years before they brought out their first retina screen. (I used a 32" Dell scaled down to 1920x1200 - one of the best screens I've ever used.)
It does not surprise me that someone who 'suffered' 24" @ 1920x1200 as their full time computer would think the 5K at the default res is ok
I'm not sure how large your desk is, but try pushing the display right to the back and setting it to 2048 x 1152 for a week. And then go back to the default and see what you think.
Personally I'm not expecting an 8K display. I think it may be a 32" display at at least 5K. But... 8K cameras are the new 'pro' kit now, so maybe that's the market they want to go for..
You are just contradicting yourself with your above point.
1:1 4K on a 5K 27" screen is s m a l l. You need to either sit really close to a small 4K image (i.e. on a small monitor or small portion of a monitor), or further away from a larger 4K display to benefit from the extra detail.
I didn't say they thought of the idea, there have been higher definition displays for many years but typical consumers didn't understand why they might want them and couldn't afford them. Apple introduced these high resolution displays in such a way that it didn't affect text and object size while still providing massive improvement in clarity. It is this 'narrative' and accessibility which I would credit Apple with, and is often the case, this is as important if not more so than the technical details.
No idea what you're talking about - the 24" iMac display was fantastic in 2007 and is still pretty decent today. No suffering of any kind took place I can assure you.It does not surprise me that someone who 'suffered' 24" @ 1920x1200 as their full time computer would think the 5K at the default res is ok
No thanks, why on earth would I want to do that? My display is already at the back of the desk and as I've said before, I sit no closer than 24" and when in a more relaxed position I'm closer to 27-28" away. I've always had a very keen interest in ergonomics and have even gone as far as to buy my own chair at my last employer and my own keyboard and pointing device when the equipment provided was unsatisfactory. I've been using computer screens for 8-16 hours a day for 35 years and have never suffered eye strain or headaches and am lucky to still enjoy uncorrected vision. Why would I want to go changing what I've been doing?
No I'm not - I don't know what you mean.
1:1 4K on a 5K 27" screen is 75% (3840) or 80% (4096) of the width of the 5K screen so it's hardly small, and you still have space to place your tools around the content.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this discussion of display size and viewing distance etc as we're never going to agree it seems. Cheers.
You said:
and then:
75% of a 27" is _not_ a decent size for desktop viewing/editing of 4K footage.
At the end of the day, if you are happy with a resolution of 2560 x 1440 on a small 27" monitor then good for you. (I wouldn't be and I look forward to when Apple (or other manufacturers) start to release bigger USB-C equipped pro models.)
I still don't get your contradiction point, makes no sense. Whatever, who cares...
The fact you state 2560x1440 makes it clear you don't understand retina 2x resolution. Oh well.
Good luck waiting for your 8K, non-retina, non-Apple display which you view from 100 feet with opera glasses.
Understanding how Apple decides on displays comes from what makes them look great and work well for users, and there are two main factors:
Whatever system requirements fall out of those two factors become design/engineering targets. Interestingly, this number of pixels at a 8-10 bits per pixel channel is more than DisplayPort can push in one stream, hence the tiling on the iMacs and 5k displays.
All of this is why I don't see them doing 8k on the desktop. Will we perceive a difference? I can barely resolve discrete pixels while staring at the current 5k display as close as I can focus my eyes. I don't know what 8k would do for this case. I would look for apple to push for more color gamut (P3), brightness, higher contrast, evenness, power use, coatings etc. before going to 3x or 4x density.
We're in a sad enough state as it is, with the panel makers outrunning the protocol/cable people and graphics card people by a large margin. Multi-stream transport is a glorified hack, and so many laptops can't push enough data out for 4k and 5k these days that compatibility is a confusing mess. The list of gotchas with hi-dpi display use is a mile long.
* This wasn't always the case. With the advent of spaces and mission control, they moved back from the 30" and multiple displays to a single large display concept. UI paradigm is taken into account here. I find this setup is what I gravitate towards even with multiple 24" displays an an option.
P.S.:The 21" option is for smaller budgets and smaller spaces, but most people will get the most done on a 27" display because our field of view and comfortable viewing distance is pretty consistent across people. Other brands focus on cost and marketing more, hence things like 28" 4k monitors with (lower data requirements, cheaper panels,) and still with 28" on the box to entice potential buyers.
- ~218 pixels/inch is the density that looks great at typical desktop viewing distances.
- Display format (WxH) is whatever provides the most utility for users. They seem to have settled on 27" (about 23.5" wide by 13.5" tall) single display*. This is the the goldilocks desktop display size for now.
Whatever system requirements fall out of those two factors become design/engineering targets. Interestingly, this number of pixels at a 8-10 bits per pixel channel is more than DisplayPort can push in one stream, hence the tiling on the iMacs and 5k displays.
All of this is why I don't see them doing 8k on the desktop. Will we perceive a difference? I can barely resolve discrete pixels while staring at the current 5k display as close as I can focus my eyes. I don't know what 8k would do for this case. I would look for apple to push for more color gamut (P3), brightness, higher contrast, evenness, power use, coatings etc. before going to 3x or 4x density.
We're in a sad enough state as it is, with the panel makers outrunning the protocol/cable people and graphics card people by a large margin. Multi-stream transport is a glorified hack, and so many laptops can't push enough data out for 4k and 5k these days that compatibility is a confusing mess. The list of gotchas with hi-dpi display use is a mile long.
* This wasn't always the case. With the advent of spaces and mission control, they moved back from the 30" and multiple displays to a single large display concept. UI paradigm is taken into account here. I find this setup is what I gravitate towards even with multiple 24" displays an an option.
P.S.:The 21" option is for smaller budgets and smaller spaces, but most people will get the most done on a 27" display because our field of view and comfortable viewing distance is pretty consistent across people. Other brands focus on cost and marketing more, hence things like 28" 4k monitors with (lower data requirements, cheaper panels,) and still with 28" on the box to entice potential buyers.
Last edited:
Tbh, it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
The default resolution on these LG monitors is set to (the equivalent of) 2560 x 1440:
Whether it is 2X retina or not is irrespective - the text size is exactly the same as if it were the native res on a 27" display: small.
The contradiction you made is you said that 8K on a 'small' 32" monitor makes little sense, then you go on to say that a 1:1 4K image shown on 75% of a 27" monitor is a decent size - it's not, 75% area of a 27" is small!
Good luck waiting for your 8K, non-retina, non-Apple display which you view from 100 feet with opera glasses.
Sigh
hahahahahahahahahahahaha - had me in stitches that one!
TBH, no one is really that interested in your thoughts on this iBrooker. So can you drop it, as it's becoming somewhat tiresome. Rather than theories on what's good/bad coming/not coming; stick to your more useful comments earlier in this thread, that helped others more, many thanks.
Last edited:
hahahahahahahahahahahaha - had me in stitches that one!
TBH, no one is really that interested in your thoughts on this iBrooker. So can you drop it, as it's becoming somewhat tiresome. Rather than theories on what's good/bad coming/not coming; stick to your more useful comments earlier in this thread, that helped others more, many thanks.
Don't tell me what to do or presume that you know everybody else's thoughts.
Getting personal like you and Craig are really just demonstrates that you are on the defensive and my points are valid and hitting a nerve. This is exactly what happened when discussing similar with people 'defending their choice' of buying 24" monitors running at the crazy 1920 x 1200 res.
Again, what makes you think everyone feels the same as you? (They don't - others have stated they also run this monitor at 2048x1152.)
You just need to look at these monitors in the wild (youtube) to see I have made a very valid point - people have placed them in the middle of their desks (just like people did with those old 24" monitors running 1920x1200). This means the text is so small that people feel they need to sit that close to it.
You just need to look at these monitors in the wild (youtube) to see I have made a very valid point - people have placed them in the middle of their desks (just like people did with those old 24" monitors running 1920x1200). This means the text is so small that people feel they need to sit that close to it.
I did the math and if I'm correct, you need a 40" @2X scaling for 8K to have the same text size as a 1440p 27" monitor.
The alternative is to run 8K @3X on a 27" monitor to have the same text size, but 3X would be overkill.
It's not up for debate, it IS 2X. This gives you a 27" 1440p retina monitor. 1440p is the most common resolution for a 27" display.
I have also experienced this brightness issue twice in the last few weeks. Did you find a way to fix it when it happens?
It's still irrespective - I don't care whether it's 2x 3x or 1:1. I am commenting solely on the default resolution of this 27" monitor. Which is (the equiv of) 2560 x1440; something I feel results in small text on a monitor of this size.
Ok. We get it. The standard resolution is too small for you.
Yes (well the opposite - res is too high but I know what you mean) - and I would argue it's not an ideal res for a monitor this size for humans full stop. (As evident by those who place the unit close to them/in the middle of their desks because the text is small (as seen on many YouTube videos/photos etc))
With this aside, it is still a fantastic monitor - particularly when run at 2048x1152 (but the downside of that is the processing overhead).
Small sample size and you don't know how far back a person is sitting.
I'd believe you if you got out a ruler and measured 1000 users.
Funny how you argue that it's your preference, yet at the same time assume that it's also what the majority of people prefer.
It's small for you, period. No point in arguing what other people prefer.
Last edited:
Yeah definitely, but it doesn't happen that often. The MacBook display not coming on was the worst one, which only happened once, but it required a hard reboot, which I always hate doing. I had one display not coming on a few times back, but that's always pretty easy to fix with power off/on or cable unplug/replug. It will be great if Apple/LG can make this more reliable. I've basically given up on my USB hubs right now, I keep trying to go back to using them in various combos, but the final straw was when the USB system, tanked during a Skype call which took out the camera, and the call itself since I had a USB hub plugged in with Ethernet. If I leave the hub plugged into the MacBook instead it's way more reliable (well basically 100% reliable).
100x this. I'm always amused when specs-obsessed people go on about "5K? There's 8K displays around already, Apple is so behind here..." or a variation thereof. We're still in an annoying transition phase with I/O, where large ultr-high res monitors are stretching the absolute limits of bandwidth. Why would anyone go 8K, let alone Apple, when DisplayPort 1.4 is nowhere near available yet en masse? I also look to the PC gaming market too, where we are only just now starting to see GPUs the can achieve 60Hz @ 4K for AAA games. We'll be in a nice spot in 5 years, where large screens will be high enough res so that we can't see pixels, GPUs will be up to the task of driving those, and I/O will (hopefully) be super high bandwidth and largely UNDERutilized. We're certainly not there yet though, but it's nice we can at least get a laptop to drive a 5K screen, and I was pleasantly surprised that Apple managed to release a MacBook Pro that can drive 2 of them.
This argument holds little weight given that you seem to be outnumbered even in the small sample size in this very forum for what people deem "ideal res". There's at least 3 of us in here who think 27inch @5K is absolutely perfect, myself included. Like the other guys have said, if you want 32 inch at 4K at a greater distance then go for it. I would never want that myself, as ever since Apple released the first 27 inch iMacs I have felt that the 1440p (or equivalent) @27inch sizing is spot on - you get just enough real-estate so that you're not needing to move your head around to see everything, and text size is comfortable. There are loads of other non-5K 1440p monitors in the marketplace at 27 inches too, so it's clear that the market for that size is there.
Ok I've posted my review in the reviews thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/lg-ultrafine-5k-your-reviews.2024059/#post-24488197
I think it's balanced and fair. Despite what many might consider my criticism in this thread, I like the monitor a lot - had I been keeping my MBP I probably would have hung on to it (and run it at 2048 x 1152). I just personally wish it was a 32" monitor instead of a 27" one.
Horses for courses.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/lg-ultrafine-5k-your-reviews.2024059/#post-24488197
I think it's balanced and fair. Despite what many might consider my criticism in this thread, I like the monitor a lot - had I been keeping my MBP I probably would have hung on to it (and run it at 2048 x 1152). I just personally wish it was a 32" monitor instead of a 27" one.
Horses for courses.
Damn, I look away for a minute and you guys get in a fight without me.
Ugh, I know how @2x works, I don't need to be told how my logical and physical resolutions differ.
The text of a green screen monitor from the 1980s is "exactly the same" size too but do we seriously think it is the same as a modern 5K Retina display?
And it's nothing to do with the monitor which resolution is default, it's macOS that decides that, and guess what, the user can change it! Can you change the resolution of your 4K display to make it display 14.7 million pixels? No, you can't. So I have the choice between quality or quantity which lesser displays don't have. I can change that balance with a few taps any time I want. Guess what else, I can change how far away from my display I sit so I don't hurt me eyes.
Do you seriously believe that Retina displays don't improve visual quality? Time for an eye test if so.
I still can't parse your contradiction issue but by this point I really don't care. I'm wrong, you're right, whatever, moving on.
Tbh, it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
The default resolution on these LG monitors is set to (the equivalent of) 2560 x 1440:
View attachment 695610
Whether it is 2X retina or not is irrespective - the text size is exactly the same as if it were the native res on a 27" display: small.
The contradiction you made is you said that 8K on a 'small' 32" monitor makes little sense, then you go on to say that a 1:1 4K image shown on 75% of a 27" monitor is a decent size - it's not, 75% area of a 27" is small!
Sigh
Ugh, I know how @2x works, I don't need to be told how my logical and physical resolutions differ.
The text of a green screen monitor from the 1980s is "exactly the same" size too but do we seriously think it is the same as a modern 5K Retina display?
And it's nothing to do with the monitor which resolution is default, it's macOS that decides that, and guess what, the user can change it! Can you change the resolution of your 4K display to make it display 14.7 million pixels? No, you can't. So I have the choice between quality or quantity which lesser displays don't have. I can change that balance with a few taps any time I want. Guess what else, I can change how far away from my display I sit so I don't hurt me eyes.
Do you seriously believe that Retina displays don't improve visual quality? Time for an eye test if so.
I still can't parse your contradiction issue but by this point I really don't care. I'm wrong, you're right, whatever, moving on.
What, again?
Look, if you're happy with the display good for you. The fact that you are so defensive(/juvenile) about this makes me think otherwise - but whatever, it's no skin off my nose.
Great, now that that's ended...
Does anyone have any recommendations on some stands for two LG 5K's displays on a desk. As I really need the desk space underneath the displays.
Needed:
- Kind: One pole, with two VESA arms (well, that type-of-thing!).
- Movement: Easy up/down movement, with the option to move two screens together or move them separately.
- Looks: Reasonably sleek.
- Colour: black (preferably).
- Price: affordable (though if there was a really good one I could see worth the money, I may splash-da-cash a bit!).
Some of the ones I see out there online are impossible to gauge how one can adjust them, and prices range dramatically. It's mind numbing (to my brain at least, lol!).
Does anyone have any recommendations on some stands for two LG 5K's displays on a desk. As I really need the desk space underneath the displays.
Needed:
- Kind: One pole, with two VESA arms (well, that type-of-thing!).
- Movement: Easy up/down movement, with the option to move two screens together or move them separately.
- Looks: Reasonably sleek.
- Colour: black (preferably).
- Price: affordable (though if there was a really good one I could see worth the money, I may splash-da-cash a bit!).
Some of the ones I see out there online are impossible to gauge how one can adjust them, and prices range dramatically. It's mind numbing (to my brain at least, lol!).
So far I happens randomly and can't be pinned to any preconditions (e.g. power off or sleep, etc.). The only way to fix it is to turn the brightness up again via the keyboard.