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
GTVic - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
Because if you want the width of 2 screens without 2 screens 21:9 is not it. Not even as wide as two 4:3 monitors (24:9). So yes, the 21:9 "standard sucks", get used to that.gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
The panel itself is moderate, I wouldn't call it impressive. I think what makes this more of a premium device is the Thunderbolt, the USB hub and connectivity.mike8675309 - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
Now just get the monitor manufacturers to build reasonably priced monitors at a reasonable size with better than 1080 vertical resolution. The move to this utterly stupid 1080 vertical resolution for desktop monitors has gone on long enough. Some people actually try to do work on their computers these days. We are not all just watching movies.gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
I share your frustration. The solution to our problems seem so exceedingly simple and yet it seems like not a single company can set aside the marketing hype of wide screen.Now we get even more radical on the display... like the display is the god you worship or something. I say, the display is just one tool of many tools... and I wish the tool were good. Very very few good displays available right now. None have the most obvious necessities available. 1600 vertical res should be far more common. This honestly looks like a kickstarter campaign to me. I'd buy into a standard display port display with 2560 x 1600 at less than 30".
oranos - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
niche indeed. good for rich folk who want a unique look. thats about it. if you disagree you clearly don't understand the pc marketscottrichardson - Thursday, July 3, 2014 - link
Yeah. Not really hey. It's got nothing to do with not understanding the PC market. I'm looking at buying this screen and I can see many ways how this is going to improve my productivity and work. As a designer it's going to give me a tonne of space for my tools and palettes all while remaining in single screen mode.Larzy - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link
Err what ?Actually it gives you more width than x2 of your typical 4:3 display
1280 x 1024 is a typical resolution for 4:3.
so, 1280 x2 = 2560px wide, but this screen is 3440 px wide so its more workspace than x2 4:3 displays.
Even if your talking about 1600 x 1200 1600 x2 = 3200, yet this panel has 3440 so its still 40 pixels wider in ratio than most types of 4:3.
y.a.k - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link
What he meant is probably that 4:3 x2 is 8:3. That can be expressed as 24:9 which is more than 21:9.DarkXale - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link
1280x1024 is a 5:4 resolution.Larzy - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link
Sorry I meant 240 px wider,. so in conclusion this display can give you more horizontal space than x2 4:3 displays.