MBPro retina with LG 27UD69P display?

[fbx1989]

Just got this 27" LG monitor to run at home with 2015 retina MBPro 2.9GHz 512GB etc and I'm wondering if there are tips and tricks for getting the best image quality out of the pairing.

Also a question--which is the better connection, DisplayPort or HDMI, or are they functionally indistinguishable?

Would appreciate any ideas and opinions and experiences--

Thx

 

[Patcell]

This monitor should work great with your 2015 MacBook Pro. For your machine, the best connection is DisplayPort (via mini-DisplayPort to full-size DisplayPort cable) from one of your two Thunderbolt 2 ports, which support mini-DisplayPort natively. While the monitor supports HDMI 2.0, the HDMI out on the 2015 Pro only supports HDMI 1.4... this would limit your output resolution to 3840x2160 @ 30Hz (or 30 frames per second) - not ideal for monitor use. So, connect via DisplayPort for 3840x2160 @ 60Hz.

Nice monitor, by the way!

 

[andy9l]

I use the LG 27UD88 with my Macs (and PC, in fact) - works a charm.

As suggested above, use DP for the connection. I'd also suggest running scaling at 'looks like 2560x1440' (set in Sys. Prefs. > Displays). By default it'll run 1920x1080 @2x (i.e. retina scaling for a 4K display).

 

[fbx1989]

Thanks for both replies. Here's a follow-on question. I've read that people run this monitor at full 3840 x 2160 but run at 200% and I'm wondering if that simply means use scaling to hit 1920 x 1080, or if it means something else, some other way to "run at 200%."

Scaling to 1920 x 1080 seems WAY too large for me. I've been scaling to 2560 x 1440 as suggested, and that seems fine as to size, but is the actual resolution LOWER at that setting? I hate to be dense, but . . . well, there you go. Just not clear on how the scaling affects the actual resolution of what I'm looking at.

For example, someone commented on the font pixelation in a full screen screenshot I took at 2560 x1440. Would there be less (or no) pixelation at 1920 x 1080?

Dr. Slow

 

[andy9l]

Thanks for both replies. Here's a follow-on question. I've read that people run this monitor at full 3840 x 2160 but run at 200% and I'm wondering if that simply means use scaling to hit 1920 x 1080, or if it means something else, some other way to "run at 200%."

Scaling to 1920 x 1080 seems WAY too large for me. I've been scaling to 2560 x 1440 as suggested, and that seems fine as to size, but is the actual resolution LOWER at that setting? I hate to be dense, but . . . well, there you go. Just not clear on how the scaling affects the actual resolution of what I'm looking at.

For example, someone commented on the font pixelation in a full screen screenshot I took at 2560 x1440. Would there be less (or no) pixelation at 1920 x 1080?

Dr. Slow

I would assume they mean "@2x" which literally maps a single virtual pixel to four physical ones (i.e. x2 vertical and x2 horizontal). Apple coined this 'retina' for the very reason you've written your post - no-one will understand or care about the mathematics of it.

Yes, scaled 1080p on a 3840x2160 screen would offer the sharpest possible appearance. However, as you've seen yourself, it looks clumsy when the physical size of the screen is 27". This is why Apple run 1080p @2x on 21" 4K screens - it looks sharp without the clumsiness.

For the equivalent sharpness on scaled 1440p you need 5K - again, hence Apple's 27" 5K screens.

I personally run my LG 27UD88 scaled to 1440p on Windows and MacOS.

Any resolution you choose to *scale* to will use all 4K worth of pixels. To verify this, hold 'alt' in System Preferences > Displays when you click 'Scaled'. You can then choose 2560x1440 (low resolution). This option doesn't do any clever scaling and the screen will be horribly blurry in comparison to the 2560x1440 option you're currently using.

 

[fbx1989]

I would assume they mean "@2x" which literally maps a single virtual pixel to four physical ones (i.e. x2 vertical and x2 horizontal). Apple coined this 'retina' for the very reason you've written your post - no-one will understand or care about the mathematics of it.

Yes, scaled 1080p on a 3840x2160 screen would offer the sharpest possible appearance. However, as you've seen yourself, it looks clumsy when the physical size of the screen is 27". This is why Apple run 1080p @2x on 21" 4K screens - it looks sharp without the clumsiness.

For the equivalent sharpness on scaled 1440p you need 5K - again, hence Apple's 27" 5K screens.

I personally run my LG 27UD88 scaled to 1440p on Windows and MacOS.

Any resolution you choose to *scale* to will use all 4K worth of pixels. To verify this, hold 'alt' in System Preferences > Displays when you click 'Scaled'. You can then choose 2560x1440 (low resolution). This option doesn't do any clever scaling and the screen will be horribly blurry in comparison to the 2560x1440 option you're currently using.

[doublepost=1504043389][/doublepost]Thanks. Continuing to experiment. Appreciate your help.

 

[Patcell]

I run my Dell P2415Q (24" 3840x2160) display at the "looks like 2560x1440" and it looks fantastic to me. Maybe it's a bit sharper because it is a smaller 24" display, but the text looks perfectly sharp to my eyes. I understand in a perfect world you would want an exact 2x scaling (meaning 1920x1080 doubled), but Apple does some cool stuff with scaling resolutions. In the "looks like 2560x1440" setting, the GPU renders the desktop at 5120x2880 then downsamples to 2560x1440, so the result is a pretty smooth image.

 

[fbx1989]

Thanks for the info. I'm actually going up to the 27" LG from the Dell 2415Q which I liked a lot, but thought might be improved with a little extra space, especially in the vertical dimension. So far I like the LG 27UD69P except that the base (which seems sturdy enough, contrary to some thing I read) occasionally gets in the way of my mouse. I'm running, as you are, at 2560 x 1440.