LG 34UM95 Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on June 18, 2014 7:00 AM ESTPre-calibration I used the Warm color temperature preset and the Gamma 1 setting. This provided results closest to our targets of 200 cd/m2, sRGB color gamut, and a gamma of 2.2. The RGB balance is good overall and the largest issue is the gamma. Yellow and Green are slightly over-saturated but most of the color gamut is good overall.
| Pre-Calibration |
Post-Calibration, 200 cd/m^2 |
Post-Calibration, 80 cd/m^2 |
|
| White Level (cd/m^2) | 207.8 | 198.8 | 81.3 |
| Black Level (cd/m^2) | 0.2023 | 0.205 | 0.085 |
| Contrast Ratio | 1027:1 | 970:1 | 955:1 |
| Gamma (Average) | 1.98 | 2.20 | 2.37 |
| Color Temperature | 6791K | 6511K | 6494K |
| Grayscale dE2000 | 1.65 | 0.46 | 0.81 |
| Color Checker dE2000 | 2.08 | 1.30 | 1.34 |
| Saturations dE2000 | 2.84 | 1.15 | 1.20 |
Post-calibration the RGB Balance is nearly perfect and the gamma is ideal as well. Color errors are improved due to the more accurate gamma but the 100% yellow and green colors are still overly saturated. Our contrast ratio drops slightly but is still good. With our 80 cd/m2 target and sRGB gamma the 100% issues at Green and Yellow remain but other colors are much better.
With a white LED backlight system, the LG is limited to the sRGB gamut. Using the internal color management system you can correct the over-saturation in the yellow and green colors but I would advise against it. I did this and while 100% improved, every saturation below 100% is worse and and the color checker test is worse as well. It is nice of LG to include a CMS system, but it does not function correctly in my testing. I would much rather see a multi-point white balance, which does work correctly, to help correct for the RGB balance and gamma inside the display instead of in the video card LUT.
Post-calibration the LG 34UM95 is good but not excellent. For most people it should be just fine, but for graphics professionals the extra saturation will pose a problem. LG also provides their own calibration software but I was unable to get it to run correctly on my MacBook Pro or PC. Even when it detected the display correctly it is unable to use my i1Pro or i1DisplayPro meters to calibrate itself. Assuming this performs similar to my last experience using it, CalMAN will still provide superior results as the LG display lacks an internal LUT.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
My solution is simply not to scale anything. Every 4K monitor I've tested out so far (including the UP2414Q) has been great at 1:1. From my experience so far, either people are overhyping the scaling issue or they need glasses. I'm not saying that to be a d!ck - I've got glasses and can see everything clearly with them on.twistedgamez - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
this 100%, i can understand some people increasing the page zoom setting bit a little on chrome for example, but there is no reason the UI elements, url bar and any other stuff needs to be zoomed - i love my 2880x1800 at nativecheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
I have the 24" NEC EA244UHD here right now, and without scaling enabled it's unusable to me. Text elements are just too small to read from my regular seated distance so I have to use scaling with it. The 32" 4K monitors have been semi-usable without scaling but the 24" ones just are not IMO.fokka - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
5k is just awkward. 4k content will be upscaled and future 8k will be very much downscaled.same with this model, just with 1080p and 4k.
if you need such an awkward screen for your workflow, go ahead, but for movies it doesn't seem to be ideal.
acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I'm pretty sure 1720:1440 is more of a 7:6 ratio, not 6:5.Death666Angel - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
1720/1440 = 1.194447/6 = 1.16667
6/5 = 1.2
Pretty sure 1.19 is closer to 1.2 than to 1.17. :)
acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
1. Too early for me to post my post...no caffeine yet2. Then this isn't a 21:9 monitor, since if it were, each half of the monitor would be 21:18 (7:6)
3. This is nitpicking to the extreme
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I wonder if there's a typo on the specs and it's not really 3440 pixels wide? Technically, 21:9 with a 1440 height should be 3360 pixels wide. It's not like 1440 isn't easily divisible by 9 (it's 160), and 3440 doesn't really have any particular importance. I guess you just get a "free" 80 extra pixels in width (again, assuming it's not an error on the spec sheets).Of course, the 2560x1080 displays aren't 21:9 either. The correct resolution for 21:9 would be 2520x1080, so there customers are "gaining" 40 pixels of width. 2560 as a width at least makes sense, though, as there have been lots of 2560x1600/2560x1440 displays. There ought to be some logical reason for the choice of resolution, so perhaps there's a technical aspect to the displays that makes the slightly odd AR easier/cheaper to manufacture. However, I can't think of what that reason would be, at least not for a 3440 width.
DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I don't know why they fudged the width/aspect ratio slightly either; but Google reports a number of companies launching 3440x1440 monitors but nothing at 3360x1440. Possibly the extra width lets them reuse existing production lines, just cutting at different points, with less wastage.japtor - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I figure they're sticking with the "21:9" terminology for marketing reasons, like it's easy to compare it to the usual 16:9 screens in that sense.