LG 34UM95 Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on June 18, 2014 7:00 AM ESTOn prior 21:9 monitors I always felt they had a niche where they worked well, but they weren't a product for everyone. Perhaps it is just using too many 27' monitors at this point, but only having 1080 vertical pixels with such a wide screen feels very limiting. With menu bars and everything else that occupies program windows, you are left with very little vertical space and a plethora of horizontal space. For gaming and movies it works very well, but for a regular monitor it leaves me wanting.
With 1440 vertical pixels, the LG 34UM95 frees me of that problem. Using the 34UM95 as my only monitor for two weeks I never feel cramped or that I am lacking the space for work. On the contrary, it does a very good job of providing space for two programs side-by-side and allows me to actually be productive in both of them. While editing this article I almost have the space to run three programs at once since they need very little horizontal space but the vertical space is far more important.
When I started using dual monitors ages ago, like most I started with a pair of 17" or 19" CRTs. Having those two screens opened up productivity but dominated space on the desk. The LG 34UM95 is a very similar design to having two of those old 4:3 or 5:4 CRTs on your desk again. The resolution is higher, and the depth is much slimmer, but the overall experience is similar. Make no mistake: 34 inches is a lot of display for a desk, but if you're used to dual monitors already that shouldn't be a problem.
The little gaming that I do on the LG 34UM95 is also very enjoyable. I have covered this more in my prior 21:9 reviews, but the extra field of view makes for a more immersive environment than 16:9. The larger screen size of the 34UM95 compared to prior 21:9 monitors only increases that. It also has a very low input lag, making it a useful choice for those that are competitive at FPS and other games.
A direct competitor here is the Apple Thunderbolt Display. It is the only other Thunderbolt display on the market but it's a few years old now. It is lower resolution and lacks the HDMI and DisplayPort inputs, USB 3.0 support, and cannot use a VESA mount without an adapter. The Apple display includes a (now outdated) MagSafe adapter, webcam, Firewire 800, and Gigabit Ethernet Ports. Given the choice of the two, I would pick the extra resolution of the LG. The contrast ratio of the LG, and the uncalibrated numbers, are superior as well.
At $1,000 you have a number of display choices. The 24" Dell UP2414Q is a 4K panel available for the same price right now that offers even higher resolution. It has the 4K limitations involving DisplayPort 1.2 and MST that I mentioned in my other 4K reviews, so it won't work quite as easily. You will also need DPI scaling on it which can lead to some OS or Application appearance issues, but those should work out over time. The main thing is you're still in the 16:9 aspect ratio, so running two apps side-by-side isn't as easy as it is with the 21:9 ratio. Dual 27" monitors will provide more space for even less money than the LG 34UM95, but they also take up far more of your desk.
If I sound like I've come away liking the LG 34UM95 a lot, I really have. It has surprised me at what a difference the extra vertical resolution makes with 21:9. It does a wonderful job as a single monitor while not impacting my ability to multitask at all. Even though I don't play many games that would utilize the extra field-of-view I would still strongly consider the LG 34UM95 as my only monitor. It performs very well on the bench, it looks very good in use, and most importantly it helps me get things done. If you've previously discarded 21:9 as a niche, obscure format, you should try out the 34UM95. It has managed to convince me that 21:9 isn't so much of a niche anymore.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
So is every other corporate grade monitor. My 24" Dreamcolor Display cost $2000 a few years ago.marcosears - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link
I agree. Most people will want to get one of the top monitors at a more reasonable price range. /Marco from http://www.consumertop.com/best-monitor-guide/evilspoons - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I don't understand the attraction some people have to 4:3 monitors. Human vision is naturally "widescreen" and looking up and down is much less comfortable than looking left and right. Natural selection 'trained' us to look along the horizon, not up and down. Our retina may be 4:3, but it's not like a single monitor encompasses our entire field of view... now, talk about selecting an LCD panel for a VR display like the Oculus Rift and 4:3 will have my complete support...DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
For anything text related, wider lines are harder to read; so making the screen wider doesn't bring a benefit; but wider screens tend to be shorter meaning that fewer lines of text can be shown at a time.bigboxes - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I have a 16:10 monitor, but I don't run MS Word or my browser at full screen. I size the windows ~4:3. I have room to move things around and watch video in widescreen. I think that 21:9 @1440 is great. Two full size windows on one screen instead of two 20" monitors with a bezel between them. It's niche, but not for enthusiasts.TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
"Human vision is naturally "widescreen" "That widescreen propaganda is wrong, human vision is close to 4:3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_vi...
Short screens are ridiculous waste of pixels on the sides.
TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Here is verbatim quote: "The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward"Let's do arithmetic, shall we? (95+95)/(75+60)=1.4Let me put it this way. Humans have 2 (two) eyes. Each eyeball is round. Even if both eyes vision didn't overlap, the maximally wide FOV covered by two eyes would be two adjacent squares. Which makes the aspect ratio to 2:1 max. However, non-overlapping view this is extreme scenario, more applicable to lower species (such as fish).
To summarize, 2.35:1 is ridiculous invention from previous century. The framing of most scenes in movies is awkward, with actors top of the forehead chopped off. Hollywood should kill it once and for all.
Sabresiberian - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
No, human vision is not "naturally widescreen". It isn't just the retina alone that determines field of view, and normal field of view is 4:3. Also, I don't know why you would have more trouble looking up and down than side to side - I certainly don't.Your comment about "natural selection" - you are just making that up. Personally, I'm a big fan of watching where I put my feet, that doesn't involve looking at the horizon. I think that's pretty much normal, but maybe I'm wrong.
You are confusing societal conditioning with the fundamental man. If you lived in a different kind of society, one that hunted animals in trees, for example, your conditioning would be entirely different, and you wouldn't think "wide-screen" was so "natural" because it would be "natural" for you to look above you as much as to the side. Movies are made wide-screen because of the limitations of seating arrangements for audiences more than anything else. There are scenes in which that view works well - like looking at a horizon with an unobstructed view, say from the deck of a ship or a mountain top, but there are areas where the wide screen utterly fails, as in the experience of walking down a city street between tall buildings.
Movies largely turn us into floating entities without feet living in a sky-less world. It isn't natural, we are just conditioned to it.
Ktracho - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I may be betraying my age, but on my 30" 2560x1600 display + 24" 1920x1200 display set up, it is much easier for me to look at the bottom half of the display than the top half, and in fact, I prefer moving my head sideways a greater distance (towards the 24" display) than tilting it up. If it's just for a few seconds then it's not a big deal, but for longer periods of time, my body definitely has a preference.Also, I'm not sure field of view is the relevant thing to measure. Even if I were to only use a 24" or a 20" display, I am not trying to see the entire display as a whole, but a specific area at a time, so length:width ratio of the display is not significant. Length:width ratio of the window I am focusing on is far more significant, especially in terms of readability of text. Watching videos full screen or playing games would be a different matter, of course.
I suspect for my scenario/working habits, a wider display (which allows moving less frequently-used windows off to the side) would be preferable to a taller but narrower display, requiring me to tilt my head more often (or waste real estate), as well as to having a dual-display set up as in my current one.
MrSpadge - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
I seconds this, although with "just" one 16:9 or 16:10 monitor. I tend to put things I focus on at about the same height, independnet of how much space is left above and below it.