LG 34UM95 Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on June 18, 2014 7:00 AM ESTThe On-Screen Display of the LG 34UM95 is controlled using a push-button joystick on the bottom of the display. The OSD itself takes up the full right-third of the display and cannot be moved. This likely isn’t an issue for most people, but if you prefer it to be on a different side or to be semi-transparent you cannot adjust it.
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
_thumb.jpg)
WIth the larger size of the 34UM95 you can better take advantage of the Split-Screen feature. The 1720x1440 resolution will hold 90% of a 1080p image on half of the display (with black borders on the top and bottom). For those who want to watch TV or a movie or play video games on half the display while using the rest for work (or other information), it is very possible to do so. However, in practice this isn’t as flexible as it could be. Video cards do not detect a proper 1720x1440 mode to use for split screen use. Even if you select something close to a 6:5 ratio, like the 4:3 1600x1200 resolution, it only uses up a small section of the screen. So while the feature works, it likely works best using both HDMI inputs, not with an HDMI input and the DisplayPort input.
The included stand with the 34UM95 is clean and sleek but lacks adjustments. You have tilt adjustments available but no height, pivot, or swivel. There are integrated mounting screws for a 100mm VESA mount if you need more flexibility. This is an improvement over the smaller LG 21:9 monitor that lacked mounting holes for a more flexible stand.
As I mentioned in the Thunderbolt discussion there are USB ports on the rear of the 34UM95. There are two USB 2.0 ports and a single USB 3.0 port with a USB 3.0 Type B connector. Why they are not all USB 3.0 I am unsure, but most people don’t have a current need for multiple USB 3.0 connections. That is certain to change in the future so only having one might be a drawback. There is a headphone jack on the rear as well.
During multiple weeks of use, the 34UM95 and it’s wider aspect ratio grew on me. While I have liked the 21:9 monitors in the past for gaming, I usually felt a single 27” display wound up being better for a general purpose display. The extra vertical resolution is far more important than the extra bit of width that those displays offer. With the 34UM95 it now offers that same vertical resolution, but with far more horizontal space for running two applications side-by-side.
As someone that is used to dual display configurations, I find myself working just fine with the single 34UM95. Keeping a web browser up on one side while I work on the other side of the display works well. On a 27” display you often run into the issue where running an application full screen is too wide to be useful, and half the screen can be too narrow. The 34UM95 does a good job of splitting the difference. Running on half the screen with a web browser, word processor, or other application is a very good size. Very few things feel crowded when shrunk down to fit. And if you need to use the full screen, say with a very large spreadsheet, then you easily can.
Having a single monitor that can function as a dual display replacement is useful. If desk space is low, or you have a laptop with a single video output, running dual 27” monitors may not be an option. In this case the LG 34UM95 proves to be very useful. I have been using as a single display and have not felt the need to hook another one up. The largest downside has been games that don’t support 21:9 aspect ratios and have pillarboxing on the sides.
Of course, it also would be good if the display can out-perform a pair of 27” monitors on the bench test. The smaller 21:9 displays have done well so far, but things might change once the vertical size is the same as a 27” display.
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.