Sunday, January 27th 2019

LG 32UL750-W is a 32-inch 4K Monitor with DisplayHDR 600 and USB-C

LG introduced the 32UL750-W, a 32-inch (technically 31.5-inch) 4K Ultra HD monitor boasting of VESA DisplayHDR 600 certification, and support for AMD FreeSync. The monitor also offers an internal feature that attempts to convert SDR content to HDR via post-processing. Based on a VA panel, the monitor offers 178°/178° viewing angles, 4 ms (GTG) response-time, support for 1.07 billion colors (10 bpc), and up to 60 Hz refresh-rate.

Other key panel specs include 3000:1 static-contrast ratio and 400 cd/m² maximum brightness. Display inputs include two HDMI 2.0, a DisplayPort 1.4, and USB type-C (with DisplayPort wiring). If this USB connection also includes USB link-layer wiring, the monitor will use it to drive a 2-port USB 3.0 (type-A) hub. The monitor is expected to be priced around $750.
Add your own comment

45 Comments on LG 32UL750-W is a 32-inch 4K Monitor with DisplayHDR 600 and USB-C

#2
ianatikin
SEVEN...HUNDRED AND FIFTY US DOLLARS...? Are You kidding? I gave $325 for AOC U3277FWQ and while It's not a gaming monitor, It's perfect for office productivity and It does It's job just right at 1080p single player gaming I do.
I'l bet this LG is the same panel with some electronic overdrive and not really able to do real HDR.
Carry on , nothing to see here...
Posted on Reply
#3
Ravenmaster
Don't know why anybody would pay that for a 60hz monitor. Even a 4K one...
Posted on Reply
#4
Mescalamba
Hm SDR to HDR?

Yea thats totally gonna work..

Its expensive cause you need quite wide color gamut (much more than regular display) and reasonably fast response time (Black-to-Black). Extra gamut was always really expensive thing.

Ofc my little amateur photog self is kinda happy seeing all new HDR displays. :D Cause it also means that probably better color days are coming.
Posted on Reply
#5
lynx29


when this inevitably goes on sale for 500 bucks or so, im prob gonna buy it. I can't stand VA. so its either this one or LG nano-IPS
Posted on Reply
#6
ShurikN
HDR 600 and max brightness of 400...
Posted on Reply
#7
PrEzi
ShurikN, post: 3982757, member: 140585"
HDR 600 and max brightness of 400...
Exactly my thoughts... DisplayHDR 600 certification and 400 cd/m² maximum brightness. This doesn't make sense...
Plus no word on the Freesync range.
Posted on Reply
#8
notb
ianatikin, post: 3982713, member: 156342"
SEVEN...HUNDRED AND FIFTY US DOLLARS...? Are You kidding? I gave $325 for AOC U3277FWQ and while It's not a gaming monitor, It's perfect for office productivity and It does It's job just right at 1080p single player gaming I do.
Your AOC doesn't have a proper stand (no vertical adjustment nor rotation) which means it couldn't be used in an office in countries with proper work safety regulations.
It's a lot less bright than this one.
LG also has (by specification) very nice colour space, few useful features and is visually attractive.

AOC is just a panel (often a good one) with all other costs minimized. Bad stands, bad backlight, issues with colour reproduction, occasional glitches and poor port choice - some of the things usually mentioned in reviews.
Well, you get what you pay for.
Ravenmaster, post: 3982718, member: 180251"
Don't know why anybody would pay that for a 60hz monitor. Even a 4K one...
Not everyone is a gamer. And even most gamers don't care about >60Hz.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheOne
I ran into a bug? with the 27UK650-W last year, the display would sometimes restart itself when loading the Netflix and/or VUDU app on my Xbox One S and PC.
Posted on Reply
#10
PanicLake
VA panel, 60 Hz refresh-rate for 750$... hard pass!!! Oh my goodness, this HDR gimmick is getting out of hands!
Posted on Reply
#11
stimpy88
It was all going so well, until 60Hz and the joke price.

lynx29, post: 3982743, member: 153071"


when this inevitably goes on sale for 500 bucks or so, im prob gonna buy it. I can't stand VA. so its either this one or LG nano-IPS
I must admit, I think this is about the best 27" there is at the moment. It's a shame about the antique contrast ratio though. But $500 would be the sweet spot for this.

But a 4K 32" version with a VA panel with 4000:1 contrast ratio would be a dream that I would pay $750 for!
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
ShurikN, post: 3982757, member: 140585"
HDR 600 and max brightness of 400...
Actually, DisplayHDR 600 only requires 350cd/sqm. 600 is only for local, transient lighting and that doesn't show up on any monitor spec. 120 is still what's comfortable for the eye, 350 will be really tiresome. People just confuse monitor specs with phone specs. Monitors don't need to be legible under direct sunlight, they don't need to be as bright ;)
And why would anyone pay for this? Because there are still people in the world that need fidelity instead of 144Hz.
Also, this has a bigger brother for ~$950 that's IPS based. Between these and the RTX 2060, I may have my first taste of 4k this year ;)

Edit: Still, we need reviews, I expect how backlight dimming is implemented to have a make or break effect here.
Posted on Reply
#13
Vayra86
Bwahaha these prices. Are they mad. Never in a million years.
Posted on Reply
#14
lynx29
Vayra86, post: 3982893, member: 152404"
Bwahaha these prices. Are they mad. Never in a million years.
yeah you can get a samsung QLED 49" 4k tv for that price, and the QLED at costco looked better IMO than LG OLED that was sitting right next to it. and there is no way this monitor competes with either in picture quality.
Posted on Reply
#15
phill
At least it's a 32" model, see so many 27" 4k screens around it's a little boring...

That said, still a while away from 120Hz refresh rates with this size screen and res.... Ah one day :)
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
phill, post: 3982919, member: 96013"
At least it's a 32" model, see so many 27" 4k screens around it's a little boring...

That said, still a while away from 120Hz refresh rates with this size screen and res.... Ah one day :)
You have to realize, FALD is expensive (and prone to haloing) as it is. Making it work twice as fast is expensive. We only have a couple of monitors that can do that and they cost 4x as much as this one.
And yes, larger panels tend to be slower.
Posted on Reply
#17
phill
bug, post: 3982925, member: 157434"
You have to realize, FALD is expensive (and prone to haloing) as it is. Making it work twice as fast is expensive. We only have a couple of monitors that can do that and they cost 4x as much as this one.
And yes, larger panels tend to be slower.
I'm taking a look at FALD (never heard of that before!!) but I'm holding out for that particular res and refresh rate as I don't really wish to be spending twice :)
I miss my Dell 3008's but then I'd like to try a higher refreshing panel as I hear, that's where it's at :)
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
phill, post: 3982942, member: 96013"
I'm taking a look at FALD (never heard of that before!!) but I'm holding out for that particular res and refresh rate as I don't really wish to be spending twice :)
I miss my Dell 3008's but then I'd like to try a higher refreshing panel as I hear, that's where it's at :)
Unfortunately, these days you have to pick and choose according to your needs. A monitor that has it all is really expensive.
Posted on Reply
#19
phill
bug, post: 3982944, member: 157434"
Unfortunately, these days you have to pick and choose according to your needs. A monitor that has it all is really expensive.
Sadly that's the problem, I'm bloody picky and I don't wish to go half way house with something so I'd rather hang on and get exactly what I'm after rather than buying something that's only half what I'd like.. Just wastes money that I sadly don't have masses of :(
Posted on Reply
#20
bug
phill, post: 3982982, member: 96013"
Sadly that's the problem, I'm bloody picky and I don't wish to go half way house with something so I'd rather hang on and get exactly what I'm after rather than buying something that's only half what I'd like.. Just wastes money that I sadly don't have masses of :(
You and me together. That's why I'm still not on 4k. Luckily for me I can skip high-refresh (I don't really game anymore), so for me these monitors could be quite ok.
Posted on Reply
#21
phill
bug, post: 3982985, member: 157434"
You and me together. That's why I'm still not on 4k. Luckily for me I can skip high-refresh (I don't really game anymore), so for me these monitors could be quite ok.
I've been tempted by a decent 1440P panel, but I see very few that are with Display Port 1.4 ports on them.. I've not looked to see if there is a newer version of this standard but it's taken ages for the ports or versions of ports to hit mainstream monitors. Thing is, because I do game with the triple screens, I'd ideally like to stick with them. Spending $2000 on the new Asus screens would be nice but they are too big and their other version (27" I believe) is what I'd consider a little small for 4k... Something at least 32" could possibly be perfect.
Having never had a high re-fresh rated screen, I'd like to see what the differences are before buying but I can't see that'll happen so I'll just have to buy something on review/recommendation sadly.. (ish)
Posted on Reply
#22
bug
phill, post: 3982992, member: 96013"
I've been tempted by a decent 1440P panel, but I see very few that are with Display Port 1.4 ports on them.. I've not looked to see if there is a newer version of this standard but it's taken ages for the ports or versions of ports to hit mainstream monitors. Thing is, because I do game with the triple screens, I'd ideally like to stick with them. Spending $2000 on the new Asus screens would be nice but they are too big and their other version (27" I believe) is what I'd consider a little small for 4k... Something at least 32" could possibly be perfect.
Having never had a high re-fresh rated screen, I'd like to see what the differences are before buying but I can't see that'll happen so I'll just have to buy something on review/recommendation sadly.. (ish)
A better question would be: can you drive 3 4k monitors at high refresh?
Posted on Reply
#23
phill
That's something else to worry about down the line lol but I do have 2 1080 Ti's at the moment and one of those is running Dirt 3 ok at 120 fps at 5760 x 1080 :)

Before I was using 2 5970's and 2 5870's to do the same with 3 Dell 3008's!! :D (res was 7680 x 1600!!) Then I had a burst of no brain cells and bought 3 GTX 580 3Gb cards and it sort of stemmed from there :) I can post some pics up if you'd like but I'll do that on another thread rather than spoiling this one :)
Posted on Reply
#24
medi01
I don't get "Display HDR 600" and "400 nit" in the same sentence.

lynx29, post: 3982915, member: 153071"
yeah you can get a samsung QLED 49" 4k tv for that price, and the QLED at costco looked better IMO than LG OLED that was sitting right next to it
Dear god, that requires quite a bit of evil energy to achieve...
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
medi01, post: 3983014, member: 158537"
I don't get "Display HDR 600" and "400 nit" in the same sentence.
I explained it above. The spec is one google away, available for free.

phill, post: 3983010, member: 96013"
That's something else to worry about down the line lol but I do have 2 1080 Ti's at the moment and one of those is running Dirt 3 ok at 120 fps at 5760 x 1080 :)
That's only 75% of the number of pixels on a 4k monitor though (6MP vs 8MP).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment