Monitor Question LG Digital Cinema 31MU97

[KBS756]

Does anyone know for sure if a 4,1 Mac Pro with a 6GB EVGA Titan Video Card can drive one of these Monitors Over Displayport? (At 60Hz)

LG Digital Cinema 31MU97

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-led-monitor

Thanks in Advance!

 

[Zorn]

The Titan can definitely run a 4K display. I think IIRC anything starting with a 680 can do it.

 

[teeck2000]

I just picked up this monitor from Fry's, it was on display. Looks absolutely amazing...Unfortunately I cannot run it at full res in OS X. I am on a 5,1 with GTX 680 and I can run it at 3840x2160 @ 60hz in 10.8.5 even with the nvidia web driver. I tried Yosemite and I can only get it to 4096x2160 @ 50z so I am not sure how the Titan will handle it, seems to be an apple issue. Also, it has weird issues where I get random flashes and artifacts and it goes black for a sec and then back, could be my GTX 680, but didn't have the issue with my HPZR30w.

 

[rdav]

Also, it has weird issues where I get random flashes and artifacts and it goes black for a sec and then back, could be my GTX 680, but didn't have the issue with my HPZR30w.

Have you tried HiRez cables?
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1811376/
#266.

 

[xav8tor]

There’s an entire thread about it on the peripherals forum:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1811376/

But as I said over there, be prepared for problems: early UHD/4K adoption, C4K not being a computer resolution per se, Apple lagging behind, despite all the 4K ready hoopla, and so on.

I looked at this monitor, but 4096x2160 isn't a standard resolution for any current application except as described below. The confusion (of end users AND manufacturers), and/or the marketing tactic of saying it is a "true 4K" monitor, stems from DCI 4K standards being a "Hollywood" acquisition resolution, so that a final cut can be delivered scoped at 4096x1716 (2.39:1 aspect) or 3996x2160 (1.85:1 aspect). Note that either the full horizontal or vertical resolution is used, depending upon the desired aspect ratio to be displayed when shown. Therefore, there are cameras that generate 4096x2160 video, which is intended to be CROPPED when projected, but I have not yet found another use for 4096 rez (as opposed to 3840) except for the TINY amount of real estate you gain on either side of the monitor. It’s good for visualizing DCI 4K footage and not much more as of today. It's a niche resolution and I wouldn't expect a lot of support in prosumer or below applications.

 

[rdav]

4096/3840 (x3) ~ +20%.

But i have not yet found another use for 4096 rez (as opposed to 3840) except for the tiny amount of real estate you gain on either side of the monitor. It’s good for visualizing dci 4k footage and not much more as of today.

Well it's about 7% wider, which makes a significant difference for financial modelling & charting applications (for example). Over the three monitors (via nMP), that adds 20% to the total width. Which is not so tiny, Imho.

 

[xav8tor]

Well it's about 7% wider, which makes a significant difference for financial modelling & charting applications (for example). Over the three monitors (via nMP), that adds 20% to the total width. Which is not so tiny, Imho.

Be that as it may, such apps as you describe are not the target market for C4K monitors. The same thing could be achieved with any number of (ultra)wide monitors that may be better supported and suited for financial models and charts, spreadsheets, etc., a far cry from a 4K shot from cine cameras. People just aren't getting the fact that this monitor is made for a small segment that actually might NEED 4096 x 2160 rez for pixel accurate work. Even LG markets the monitor for this purpose. Problem is, they have also said it was Mac compatible from day one, and there have been many headaches getting this thing to work properly. And to repeat 4096 x 2160 is a camera acquisition size, not a display resolution. That image gets cropped down vertically or horizontally for display, depending on the aspect ratio. And yes, manufacturers are going to take advantage of the confusion regarding the nomenclature. I can't wait to hear people start complaining about "black bars" on the sides or top/bottom when using this monitor for unintended purposes.

 

[rdav]

Charting: 3x(LG-31MU97) or 6x(LG-34UC87) /?

The same thing could be achieved with any number of (ultra)wide monitors that may be better supported and suited for financial models and charts, spreadsheets, etc.

From one nMP - Instead of the three LG-31MU97 models, you could run six of the curved (ultra-wide) LG-34UC87 screens (3440x1440). Which are true TB2 monitors, and have Vesa brackets. But the DPI is not as high, and so the array is considerably larger. Plus, it adds up to about twice the price (including mounts). Thou the pixel count totals are similar.

For most financial charting, the space needs to be wider, and not taller. So the 3x(4096)wide & 2x(1080)high option wins. And a 8½' x 2½' video wall is not really conducive or practical, even if curved. Plus, there are more HiDPI options on the C4k screens for other apps & uses.

Sample image from a recent LG marketing video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCd8oC_38I&spfreload=10