Color gamut is measured using a saturation sweep that samples the six main colors (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow) at five saturation levels (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 percent), yielding a more realistic view of color accuracy.

In Custom mode, the color gamut accuracy is pretty good, except for magenta. That secondary has a noticeable hue error towards blue. All of the others come fairly close to their targets for both hue and saturation. Luminance errors are small too, except for blue, which is as much as 33 percent too bright. The overall error is an average of 2.87 Delta E.
Here’s what happens when you switch to Photo mode:

Magenta is now much closer to its target at all saturation levels. Luminance results, however, are a little higher than before. At least to my eye, Photo mode looks a little more brilliant and colorful, but it does take a small step backward in measured accuracy. The average error is 3.74 Delta E.
The best color accuracy is found after calibration using the RGB controls and the color management system.

Most of the improvement we see is a result of our grayscale calibration. The CMS allows us to tidy up the magenta secondary so it has perfect hue. There are no luminance adjustments available, and blue suffers from that omission. The 34UM95’s gamut result is worthy of a professional-level display.
Now we return to the comparison group:

We’ve only seen six other monitors score better than the 34UM95 for gamut accuracy. Even though it’s not marketed as a professional display, it certainly performs like one. Even without calibration, there are no major issues to report.
Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998 And sRGB
There are basically two categories of displays in use today: those that conform to the sRGB/Rec. 709 standard like HDTVs, and wide-gamut panels that show as much as 100 percent of the Adobe RGB 1998 spec. We use Gamutvision to calculate the gamut volume, based on an ICC profile created from our actual measurements.

With such great gamut results, it’s a pity that the 34UM95 isn’t a wide-gamut monitor. Photographers would love it, given plenty of desktop real estate and ample pixel density (this thing rocks in Photoshop). It falls a tiny bit short of 100-percent sRGB volume due to a slightly under-saturated blue primary.
- LG 34UM95 34-Inch Ultra-Wide QHD Monitor Review
- Packaging, Physical Layout, And Accessories
- OSD Setup And Calibration Of The LG 34UM95
- Measurement And Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness And Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut And Performance
- Results: Viewing Angles And Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response, Input Lag, And Usability
- LG 34UM95: Solid Performance And Real Usability
Playing on "full" hd (LD? Low definition) feels like a joke once you get to know uhd/4k
With regards to this monitor...I LOVE the looks...very elegant. I think the price tag is fitting as well - it has great resolution and there are still plenty of people who are gaming on 60hz displays that may have just enough GPU power to actually game at this thing's native resolution, albeit with slightly lower settings. GG LG!
Next
It would have been nice to include what revision this is, because LG is aware of uniformity issues, which is why the product was largely on backorder and a Rev.2 is in place (but Rev. 2 didn't fix the problem either). My first one had a glaring Uniformity problem, but LG is cool and offered an advanced exchange. The new one has some uniformity problem, but it is very 'livable' and discrete.
Overall, I am pleased with this product. I have a single 780 to push this and it works nicely. If I got a 4k monitor, I'd have performance issues as the GPU as a whole sector is behind.
seriously though, pc monitors have been lacking for some years now, falling behind in innovation and technology in general(phones have been jacking up their screen quality year after year, we've been stuck since like 2005). i bet 21:9 screens will have the biggest penetration on PCs.
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.
The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.
Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.
Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.
*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.
The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.
Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.
Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.
*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.
Don't knock it, if you haven't tried it. Seen the demos of this screen with 21:9, it's quite impressive looking, compared to the other ratios out there. At the very least, it's more compelling than given credit for.
Impressive LOOKING and impressive FUNCTIONALITY are two different things
That's what I'm thinking. It seems like the wider the screen resolution the more perceivable tearing is. G-sync would help this situation. Acer is supposed to be releasing a 4K G-sync monitor in the next 6 months or so:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-monitors-unveiled-shipping-soon-worldwide
Granted the 34" will have its uses and applications, but from the UWHD I don't think it will be the most sold. the 27" might be too small, but 29" is perfect for 2650x1080. BTW, I do game in this monitor too, and I work on it TOO