Friday, October 28th 2016

LG Announces the UltraFine 5K and UltraFine 4K Monitors

LG Electronics (LG) is introducing two new displays designed specifically to integrate seamlessly with the newest MacBook and MacBook Pro models. The new UltraFine 27-inch 5K display and its 21.5-inch 4K display from LG are ideal for creating an expanded work space in the home or office and the perfect complement for MacBook and MacBook Pro users who desire expansive, high-quality resolution at all times.

Designed and optimized for the new MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt 3 running macOS 10.12 and later, the stunning 27-inch UltraFine 5K display appeals to a range of creatives, including video and photography professionals. With a breathtaking resolution of 5120 x 2880 and 218 pixels per inch (ppi), the color reproduction capabilities of the UltraFine 5K display allow it to cover 99 percent of the P3 color space. What's more, the monitor's advanced IPS display technology minimizes color shift and color loss from any viewing angle, ensuring that users see the original content as it was meant to be seen.
As the world's first 5K display with Thunderbolt 3, LG's UltraFine 5K display has the capability to receive and transfer 5K video, audio and data from the new MacBook Pro while simultaneously charging it through a single Thunderbolt 3 cable. The UltraFine 5K display features three downstream USB Type-C ports for additional connectivity and power with compatible accessories. Seamless macOS integration enables brightness and volume control like built-in display without the need for physical buttons on the display.

The front-facing camera and microphone works with FaceTime and high fidelity integrated speakers enhanced by LG's Rich Bass feature completes the multimedia experience while a height and tilt-adjustable stand maximizes user comfort.

21.5-Inch UltraFine 4K Monitor
With a density of 219ppi that gives this display the ability to present sharp 4K resolution (4096 x 2304) image quality, the UltraFine 4K display is the perfect companion for the MacBook while also supporting the new MacBook Pro. The 21.5-inch model covers 99 percent of the P3 spectrum, boasting vibrant brightness levels and an IPS panel capable of providing more uniform color expression. Featuring USB Type-C connectivity for video, data and power over a single cable and macOS integration for display control, the LG UltraFine 4K display offers three downstream USB Type-C slots, a high-quality Rich Bass Speaker and an adjustable stand for enhanced ergonomics.

"We are excited to be introducing two highly advanced displays capable of meeting the needs of even the most demanding Mac users," said Brian Kwon, president of LG Home Entertainment Company "Not only do these UltraFine displays offer stunning picture quality, they will usher in a new age of connectivity, helping creative users achieve optimal efficiency in their homes, studios or offices."

The LG 21.5-inch UltraFine 4K display will be available starting in November while the LG 27-inch UltraFine 5K model will be available in early December starting in the United States.
Add your own comment

40 Comments on LG Announces the UltraFine 5K and UltraFine 4K Monitors

#1
Octavean
Looks great!!!

Although I am only really interested in monitors that are 32" or larger these days.
Posted on Reply
#2
hellrazor
btarunr
21.5-inch 4K
I'll take one. Or three.
Posted on Reply
#4
blobster21
No thanks, I'll stay with 40" @ 1920x1080
Posted on Reply
#5
bug
Octavean
Looks great!!!

Although I am only really interested in monitors that are 32" or larger these days.
Yup, they look pretty tiny for those resolutions. They have everything else, but has anyone notice how no one talks prices?
Posted on Reply
#6
Octavean
bug
Yup, they look pretty tiny for those resolutions. They have everything else, but has anyone notice how no one talks prices?
The 27" is ~$1300 and the 21" is ~$700 USD. I'm not too shocked by those prices but I am not enthused by them either. I already have a couple of 4K displays but like I said I wouldn't consider anything smaller then 32". I also have to admit that the LG 38" 21:9 3840x1600 38UC99-W while not technically a 4K display is one that I find quite interesting. If it were 2160p or greater it would have been sweet.
Posted on Reply
#7
swirl09
These are so ugly, the spec and price dont even matter. Ugly.
Posted on Reply
#8
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
The name is bonkers. Looks fine tho.
Posted on Reply
#9
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
You know what it means when prices aren't included on press releases like this. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#10
$ReaPeR$
21.5 inches for 4k??!!!!!! ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
#11
Maxx_Power
bug
Yup, they look pretty tiny for those resolutions. They have everything else, but has anyone notice how no one talks prices?
These are targeted toward Mac users. OS X has excellent DPI scaling, making these monitors essentially Retina-class monitors. Now that Apple is leaving the standalone monitor business, it makes sense for other manufacturers to cater to them.
Posted on Reply
#12
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Maxx_Power
These are targeted toward Mac users. OS X has excellent DPI scaling, making these monitors essentially Retina-class monitors. Now that Apple is leaving the standalone monitor business, it makes sense for other manufacturers to cater to them.
I'll second that. OS X does a great job at DPI scaling. I have a 15" MBP for work and I find it to be an excellent laptop, even with just the Iris Pro, I plug two external monitors into it and have no issue with performance for what I do at work (server-side development.)
Posted on Reply
#13
$ReaPeR$
Maxx_Power
These are targeted toward Mac users. OS X has excellent DPI scaling, making these monitors essentially Retina-class monitors. Now that Apple is leaving the standalone monitor business, it makes sense for other manufacturers to cater to them.
even under those circumstances i find these resolutions for these dimensions to be a bit pointless.
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
$ReaPeR$
even under those circumstances i find these resolutions for these dimensions to be a bit pointless.
Small text is easier to read with high DPI displays and it enables you to dedicate more horizontal or vertical space towards something else. At 1080p, I simply can't deal with splitting a browser window and a terminal on the same screen which is why, more often than not, I have a single window maximized on each screen on my machine at home or when I use the displays with my laptop at home or at work.
Posted on Reply
#15
Basard
Octavean
Looks great!!!

Although I am only really interested in monitors that are 32" or larger these days.
I just got one, well, it's a crappy Vizio TV, but 32 inch is really nice, and it's not that bad, really, for a TV. 32 is good for a desk. I could have gone for higher res, but it's also not that bad. I upgraded from a 22" 1680x1050. 4k though, that would be nicer of course.
Posted on Reply
#16
D007
Lmfao..... You won't even see 5k at that screen size... 2560x1440 is the way to go. You don't really benefit from 4k until you hit bigger than 50".
I'm using a 4k, 50" samsung, 3840x2160. I run 2560x1440 for this very reason.
Posted on Reply
#17
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
D007
Lmfao..... You won't even see 5k at that screen size... 2560x1440 is the way to go. You don't really benefit from 4k until you hit bigger than 50".
I'm using a 4k, 50" samsung, 3840x2160. I run 2560x1440 for this very reason.
Have you even used 4 or 5k on a 27 inch display (not a TV?) The 2880x1800 on my laptop at 15" definitely looks a lot different than 1080p at the same size and that's a smaller display than 22". Every time I've plugged into a TV, it's not nearly as sharp as being on a monitor, even as the resolution is the same. I suspect that you're saying this because your experience with 4k is limited to being on a big TV that you bought a while ago. Simply put, have you even compared the difference between a 4k monitor and a 4k TV before you jumped to such a conclusion?
Posted on Reply
#18
$ReaPeR$
Aquinus
Small text is easier to read with high DPI displays and it enables you to dedicate more horizontal or vertical space towards something else. At 1080p, I simply can't deal with splitting a browser window and a terminal on the same screen which is why, more often than not, I have a single window maximized on each screen on my machine at home or when I use the displays with my laptop at home or at work.
in the end, its a matter of personal preference. i find the fhd res to be optimal for anything up to 22inch. but i also prefer the 16:10 ratio..
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
Maxx_Power
These are targeted toward Mac users. OS X has excellent DPI scaling, making these monitors essentially Retina-class monitors. Now that Apple is leaving the standalone monitor business, it makes sense for other manufacturers to cater to them.
Yeah, people with more money than brains will usually buy anything, if you can make it shiny enough.
But here's the thing: when the first thing thing you think about when looking at a monitor is DPI scaling, it means you don't actually want the monitor running at its native resolution. You may find the odd usecase where it may make sense, but overall it just means there are too many pixels per inch.
Posted on Reply
#20
arterius2
blobster21
No thanks, I'll stay with 40" @ 1920x1080
enjoy pixels the size of your fist. bye
Posted on Reply
#21
arterius2
bug
Yeah, people with more money than brains will usually buy anything, if you can make it shiny enough.
But here's the thing: when the first thing thing you think about when looking at a monitor is DPI scaling, it means you don't actually want the monitor running at its native resolution. You may find the odd usecase where it may make sense, but overall it just means there are too many pixels per inch.
I'm a PC user myself, but Mac's scaling is actually excellent. nothing to do with more money than brains.
With that said, I find that scaling on Win10 is pretty decent. I haven't encountered any issues with DPI scaling thus far, (as long as I keep to the modern software)
Posted on Reply
#22
arterius2
swirl09
These are so ugly, the spec and price dont even matter. Ugly.
They actually look really good for me, classy, simple, understated, exactly how I want a monitor to be, and not some tacky "gamer" look.
Posted on Reply
#24
blobster21
arterius2
enjoy pixels the size of your fist. bye
I don't have this problem, you should get your eyes checked instead :slap:
40" with a screen resolution @ 1920x1080, that's 55ppi. I'm seating far enough from the screen to see no pixels / jaggies at any given time.

edit : holy $hit, maybe i'm the one who should get eyes checked, how did i miss that ?

Posted on Reply
#25
Maxx_Power
bug
Yeah, people with more money than brains will usually buy anything, if you can make it shiny enough.
But here's the thing: when the first thing thing you think about when looking at a monitor is DPI scaling, it means you don't actually want the monitor running at its native resolution. You may find the odd usecase where it may make sense, but overall it just means there are too many pixels per inch.
With PROPER DPI scaling, you can get super sharp (retina-speak) text and lines on display, because you can make use of excellent high DPI fonts and sub-pixel rendering to create text and lines that appear to feature no cusps unlike lower resolution displays. All this is done at NATIVE resolution of the display, the effective displayed content is less than suggested by the resolution of the display, but you gain enormous sharpness (such that at the reading distance your eyes are unable to discern pixels or effects of spatial quantization). This makes reading text (especially smaller fonts because they are subjected to more relative quantization) and vectorized images/art a lot more enjoyable and easier. I believe this is what a lot of people who have never experienced proper DPI-scaling have trouble visualizing. The best analogy is to think that you have enough GPU power to always use the highest setting in anti-aliasing on a 4k display, such that all lines, text and borders of any game are razor sharp and you are unable to see "jaggies".

I have only had the chance to use Windows 10 + 4K screen once earlier this year and I found that many applications (even those that came bundled with the laptop) did not scale properly. This is in stark contrast with OS X, when all bundled applications scale properly and just about all applications since late 2012 (when the first "Retina" Macbooks came out) have scaled properly with razor-sharp text and lines. Even earlier applications are handled by OS X properly (if it isn't high-DPI aware, the OS apparently renders it as if it was viewed on regular-DPI screen), you don't get the benefit of the razor sharp text and lines, but it certainly is properly sized on the screen and usable versus the super-tiny fonts of applications in Windows 10.

By the way, I did not appreciate your insult about me having more money than brains. Let's refrain from stereotypes and applying it to members here, who are trying to make a contribution to the thread.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment