All measurements are done using CalMAN 5.3 from SpectraCal and a custom workflow. An i1Pro and C6 meters are used to measure accurate colors and low light levels. For all test patterns I use APL 50% when possible to prevent backlight tricks and other things from skewing the results. Full field test patterns are used with the display uniformity testing.

With the backlight set to minimum the LG 34UM95 puts out 55 cd/m2 of light. That is a good number that is low enough to work for any dark environment, but not so low that you can’t use it. The brightness control operates in 1% steps giving you lots of room for adjustment. The maximum light level is 270 cd/m2. This is a bit lower than I would like to see, as direct sunlight will still wash things out, but it is decent. Most people likely will pick a setting in the middle of these and the brightness adjustment makes it easy to get the level you want.

White Level -  i1Pro and C6

Black levels are also very good. The minimum black level achieved is 0.0586 cd/m2 and the maximum level is 0.2724 cd/m2. The 21:9 monitors have been very good so far at getting low black levels and the 34UM95 is no exception.

Black Level - 1iPro and C6

These combine to give us a contrast ratio very close to 1,000:1. As this is now what I consider to be acceptable in a good IPS display, the LG 34UM95 does not disappoint.

Contrast Ratio -  i1Pro and C6

So far, so good for the 34UM95. Let's move on to the color accuracy.

Additional Features and Usability sRGB Test Bench
Comments Locked


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 market
  • scottrichardson - 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now