Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

LG Teases 31-inch 4K monitor for CES in January

By - Source: LG | B 27 comments

LG is gearing up for CES and is teasing us with a host of new monitors.

LG today unveiled its first 4K monitor ahead of CES 2014 this coming January. Dubbed the 31MU95, the monitor is a 31-inch panel with a 4,096 x 2,160 resolution at a 16:9 aspect ratio. It also boasts sport for Thunderbolt 2.

The 31MU95 is joined by the 27MB85, LG's 27-inch Color Prime Model, as well as the UltraWide UM95 (available in 34- and 29-inch models) and the UltraWide UM65 (25-, 29-, and 34-inch models).

"LG IPS 21:9 UltraWide series was originally developed as user-centric PC monitors to enhance the computing experience, for both work and play," said Hyoung-sei Park, head of LG's IT Business Division. "Our 21:9 aspect ratio monitors has proven to be a critical and commercial success and we forecast this market will continue to grow."

The UM95 supports Thunderbolt 2.0, and True Color Finder calibration software, while the UM65 is a 'leaner' lower cost option. Both will be on display alongside the 31MU95 at CES in just a couple of weeks. Stay tuned for hands on photos!

Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Display 27 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 5 Hide
    Nolonar , December 17, 2013 3:32 PM
    Looking forward to the day 20 inch 8k screens become standard.
    Maybe then we'll be able to enjoy alias-free games (assuming they run at native resolution) without having to use AA?
  • 8 Hide
    maxiim , December 17, 2013 3:38 PM
    Call me when these are ~500$
  • 7 Hide
    Nolonar , December 17, 2013 4:06 PM
    Quote:
    Call me when these are ~500$
    Well, when I said "become standard", I was thinking about ~200$.
    Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?
  • 1 Hide
    maxiim , December 17, 2013 4:25 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Call me when these are ~500$
    Well, when I said "become standard", I was thinking about ~200$.
    Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?


    Mainstream? No, certainly not, but I just picked up a PB287Q for 500$ and its well worth it imo, when 4k is available for those prices I'll look into it, till then its not even worthy of time unless its for people who need the screen real(business) estate or those with more money than sense
  • 2 Hide
    knowom , December 17, 2013 4:51 PM
    I release this is newer tech, but seriously 1080p has been standard for the last what 5-10 years they had plenty of time to increase resolution size in that time period.

    These monitors should all ready be priced in the $200 range frankly especially considering the price fixing the LCD monitor makers were found guilty of consumers got scroogled and trust me many of us haven't forgotten these can't be that much more expensive and difficult to manufacturer.
  • 1 Hide
    SonSon1 , December 17, 2013 4:54 PM
    I'll buy it right away, if it comes with the girl, and she is a high tech cyborg.
  • 0 Hide
    eklipz330 , December 17, 2013 5:12 PM
    big dreamers we have here on TH
  • 4 Hide
    sublime2k , December 17, 2013 5:13 PM
    4096x2160 is not 16:9, it's 1.9:1. To get 1.78:1 (16:9) you would need narrower resolution, 3840x2160.
  • 0 Hide
    CaptainTom , December 17, 2013 5:28 PM
    If that screen was $500 I would seriously consider getting it...
  • 0 Hide
    vaughn2k , December 17, 2013 5:42 PM
    Will wait for the time it will go mass production, then it will be cheaper than U$500... ;) 
  • 0 Hide
    vmem , December 17, 2013 5:54 PM
    I assume these will be LG's own panels? if so that'll be exciting
  • 0 Hide
    Simon Anderson , December 17, 2013 5:56 PM
    sublime: true lol. Nearest whole number ratio I can find is 256:135 hehe. Now THAT'S marketable...
  • 0 Hide
    sublime2k , December 17, 2013 6:00 PM
    Quote:
    sublime: true lol. Nearest whole number ratio I can find is 256:135 hehe. Now THAT'S marketable...

    Yeah, I tried to look up what's the aspect ratio of 4096x2160, but 256:135 sounded too... Long?
  • 0 Hide
    10tacle , December 17, 2013 10:10 PM
    A co-worker has a 21:9 monitor, mostly for SAP and Excel spreadsheets that require dozens of columns of data. It works for that, but the vertical depth is lacking compared to my 30" 2560x1600 16:10. It's a tradeoff. I can see where this would come in handy for gaming, watching movies (made in that format), and whatnot, but it depends on how you use your monitor at work in a "professional" environment. I prefer to have more vertical space for reading documents (and emails), programming windows that are open for coding, etc.
  • 1 Hide
    somebodyspecial , December 17, 2013 11:08 PM
    Call me when you get back to 16:10 :)  Wider is only better if it's on my car. :)  While you're at it make it illegal to show a black bar on my TV anywhere for any reason. Also (LOL, yeah got more wishes), if you want my money for any TV season etc in the future, put a SEASON on bluray instead of 5-7 dvd's with crap 480p. Why does netflix show me 720 or 1080p but amazon etc sells the same show ONLY in dvd on tons of discs?

    How hard is it to sell me the HD version or at least put 5 dvd's on a bluray saving me craploads of space from discs. If you force customers to do this themselves you shouldn't be surprised when they sell the 5-7 dvd season a second after they merge them to bluray. They now have two copies of the same show, and all they wanted was FEWER discs or HD. If you merge the dvd's to a bluray, just leave them untouched (no need to squish SD vids, when 5 fit on one disc easily).

    I have no need for anything but 16:10 monitors unless NONE are available when I buy next year. I understand how this works on an IT helpdesk (we have wide needs with spreadsheets etc of lots of data) etc, but on the web WIDE just sucks. Most pages are made for 1024x768 (you can zoom it, but that often doesn't produce good results even in full page zoom). We need more height on the web. If I full zoom a 1024x768 page on my 1920x1200 monitor I end up with a very short page top to bottom already, never mind the HUGE complaints I'd have on an even WIDER screen. No thanks pal.

    Only at work. At home TALLER is better ;) 
  • 1 Hide
    chicofehr , December 18, 2013 1:55 AM
    Just checked and the 30" 2560x1600 monitors are still in the $900-1500 price range from the big name brands. They need to come down in price before 4k will :( 
  • 2 Hide
    cats_Paw , December 18, 2013 1:57 AM
    Considering prices and depreciation, im guessing ill buy one of those in 5 years from now.
    Took me 5 years to get a 300 EURO 32 inch flat TV, so...

    Funny thing is, some tablets with higher than FULL HD resolution are cheaper than Monitors over FULL HD resolution.
  • 0 Hide
    magicandy , December 18, 2013 4:00 AM
    Anyone hoping for these to ever be at average monitor prices need to get a reality check. The 30" monitor market (that's monitor, not TV) has always and probably will always be reserved for the high end $1000+ enthusiast and enterprise market. When they start showing off 20" 4k monitors, than you can start getting your hopes up for normalcy.

    1080p took nearly 7 years from its introduction to high end consumers to finally break through into the low cost monitor market. Hate to burst your bubble but it's going to be a long wait since 4k is currently where 1080p was at in 2004.
  • 1 Hide
    RooD , December 18, 2013 7:37 AM
    A 27" 4k? Now I am listening
  • 0 Hide
    zambutu , December 18, 2013 7:42 AM
    Unless that girl is a miniature, that 21:9 screen does look to have some decent vertical. If its at least as tall and a regular 27" screen then this will more than make up for the last 29" version that looked so squashed
Display more comments